Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5600713" data-attributes="member: 10479">I deal with such things in a similar manner (much in the way I handle PCs that turn evil) except that I inform players that I don't run two games nor solo games (and evil is for NPCs and monsters at my table, except in special circumstances).&nbsp; A PC is welcome to go off on their own and I'll run things split for the session, breaking up the time appropriately, but if by the end of the session the PC is still off on their own (or evil) then it becomes an NPC and they need a new character for the next session.&nbsp; Being clear about the potential consequences but always allowing the choice seems as fair as I can be to myself and the group as a whole.&nbsp; While it is cool to allow everyone to play a character they enjoy, I also find it uncool that a player can sometimes assume just because he enjoys a character concept the others players cannot reject it, despite that in many circumstances the actual PCs would likely not even allow a member without the group welfare at heart to join the group.I feel a GM has to provide a buffer against players being railroaded into game situations by another player.&nbsp; I had a player once who went from one character to another with each game for a number of sessions, sometimes two in one session, because he would try one and then either get bored or find it not as fun as he had hoped.&nbsp; It became problematic when I suggested he settle into one for a while and he agreed but then attempted to suicide by town guard, jeopardizes the PC party for purely metagame reasons, and seemingly to show me he would do as he pleased regardless of how it damaged the fun for everyone else.&nbsp; After his character died he began rolling up a new one and I asked him to hold off until we had a talk, post-session, which became the irreconcilable differences conversation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 5600713, member: 10479"] I deal with such things in a similar manner (much in the way I handle PCs that turn evil) except that I inform players that I don't run two games nor solo games (and evil is for NPCs and monsters at my table, except in special circumstances). A PC is welcome to go off on their own and I'll run things split for the session, breaking up the time appropriately, but if by the end of the session the PC is still off on their own (or evil) then it becomes an NPC and they need a new character for the next session. Being clear about the potential consequences but always allowing the choice seems as fair as I can be to myself and the group as a whole. While it is cool to allow everyone to play a character they enjoy, I also find it uncool that a player can sometimes assume just because he enjoys a character concept the others players cannot reject it, despite that in many circumstances the actual PCs would likely not even allow a member without the group welfare at heart to join the group. I feel a GM has to provide a buffer against players being railroaded into game situations by another player. I had a player once who went from one character to another with each game for a number of sessions, sometimes two in one session, because he would try one and then either get bored or find it not as fun as he had hoped. It became problematic when I suggested he settle into one for a while and he agreed but then attempted to suicide by town guard, jeopardizes the PC party for purely metagame reasons, and seemingly to show me he would do as he pleased regardless of how it damaged the fun for everyone else. After his character died he began rolling up a new one and I asked him to hold off until we had a talk, post-session, which became the irreconcilable differences conversation. [/QUOTE]

Verification