Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Croesus" data-source="post: 7115201" data-attributes="member: 35019">I'd suggest both are questionable because D&D is a cooperative, not competitive, activity and both decisions impose a choice on the players without their say-so. If the GM introduces a new player without seeking group input, he/she is impacting the group dynamics, and groups can be fragile. One ill-fitting player can cause an entire group to come apart. Likewise, if the group forces a player to play a particular character (historically, the cleric), that impacts the player and limits his/her choices. A single player choosing to run a different character doesn't impose a change on any other player, it just forces the group to adapt to the change in-game. The alternative is to have a group force players to run particular characters, which IMO only makes sense if the group is playing competitively, such as in a tournament with prizes. BTW, the solution I've found works best for changing characters is recruiting NPCs. The party tank leaves, the party can recruit an NPC to fill that void. The party healer leaves, recruit a healer. Except for very large groups, this should work fine and still allow players to run a character they enjoy, not one the party needs.</blockquote>