NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9256195" data-attributes="member: 29398">Another determinant would be just how well-known this last-mage's existence is or has become.  If she just recently came into her talent and only the rest of the party (if even they!) know about it, that's far different - and far easier to deal with in play - than if it's known far and wide that Jocasta is the last known mage in the world.My point is that it doesn't matter what I write adventures about.  The adventures could ignore the last-mage piece entirely and yet most of the time it'd still be top-of-mind for all involved: "We have to protect Jocasta, she's the last mage."  "Does anyone in this town know what Jocasta is, i.e. how much care do we need to take?" , and so forth.The GM is also going to have to give some thought as to how - or if - Jocasta's abilities can increase or expand in step with the rest of the PCs.  The improvements among the other PC can be easily explained in the fiction through training, practice, and so on; but any new abilities or spells for Jocasta are probably going to have to come to her spontaneously...which, depending on system, might force the GM into using or devising mechanics she otherwise might have not.In this case it wasn't just the one player.  That, and I'm fully in the "do what the character would do" camp both as GM and player; and when what two (or more) characters would do is diametrically opposed then I've no problem with that being sorted in-character to whatever extent is required.Er...you might have missed that the PC that was forced to continue play was mine; which means it did affect me.And the bodyguard piece comes back to doing what the charcacter would do.  If I'm playing a warrior-type who's at loose ends and looking for a place in the world and you present me with this task/duty then sure, I'm your bodyguard as long as you need one.  But if I'm playing a free-thinking scout type with her own goals and ambitions and who doesn't want to be tied down being someone's protector then you can - how did that old song go? - take that job and shove it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sure it would.  In the end (and if it comes down to it; ideally, it doesn't), as a more ordinary warrior or scout (or whatever my function is) I'm far more expendable than is the only one of something that any of us will ever see again.  Your bodyguard PC is a perfect example: in that role, if things get desperate, my job as bodyguard is to take that metaphorical bullet and sacrifice myself so that the last mage can survive.Some characters work well in teams, others don't.  Most often it's a mix.  Betrayal, double-crossing, hidden agendae, or just pure chaos (benign or otherwise) - it's all fair game.I very much advocate not getting emotionally attached out-of-game to one's character(s).  Sure, share the emotions of the character while it's in play, but also realize and recognize that it's just a character; and that when (not if!) bad things happen to it you (general you) have to be detached, and take what humour and-or entertainment from it that you can.To me, perhaps the worst type of player is the one who gets hissy or pouty at the table when something bad happens to their character(s) in the fiction.  My overarching rule: what happens in character, stays in character.</blockquote>

Verification