"Dear JB" Mailbag #22

Dear JB:

My player "John" and I had an argument at the very beginning of our session yesterday. I DM for a party of eight and they are about half-way through my homebrew campaign. John decided that the current character he was playing, "Galahad," no longer had a reason to travel with the party because of XYZ. He has stated that he'd like to return to playing as that character at a later point in the storyline. Therefore, I made it clear to John that Galahad would be going off on his own to investigate XYZ, which he agreed to.

The party received a bunch of letters, one of which was from Galahad, describing what he has found, where he is going next, why he is going there, etc... John got very angry about this because I wasn't allowing him to choose what Galahad is doing, despite him already playing as a new character that was introduced. I tried to reason with him that since Galahad was merely going from place to place, learning new information, there wasn't really any need for player input. I also tried to justify it by saying that since he is no longer playing as Galahad, he would effectively be just an NPC. We already have characters in the world that were once PCs that I now play, and when they show up to meet the party, I allow their respective players to voice them once more.

John, dismissed everything I was saying because "it is MY character." Another player "Luke" even chipped in saying that John was in the right and that it is just common sense. And so, I exclaimed that Galahad would then just sit right there, having done nothing and not learned anything, until John would pick him back up to play as. This only angered John more and Luke then stated that since what Galahad was doing was ultimately unimportant, that I should let John just make the decisions of what to do and where to go. But how in the Hell am I supposed to let John make decisions for something so bare bones?! A+B=C kind of scenario and John expects me to let him decide Galahad's actions?

I only intended to have Galahad send letters over time to just give the world a feeling of livelihood. As a DM, I feel that I don't have to do that since the party is already busy with other things. For a year and a half, I've DM'd for this story for the party and had no complications with any of my players. Suddenly, this makes our second big argument in the same month and I'm starting to no longer enjoy DM'ing. He and I talked last week about behavior and we came to the conclusion that we were both stressed from outside sources. Yet, after our confrontation last night, I just couldn't find any enjoyment in our game and I found myself being pretty snappy with everyone, which I apologized for. Give it to me straight doc: am I in the wrong, if so, how should I handle this?

Player And I Had An Argument

Dear DM:

Your issue...much like 90% of the issues I see in the Mailbag...stems from a fundamentally warped perspective of D&D. I point you to the first paragraph of your letter:

"He has stated that he'd like to return to playing as that character at a later point in the storyline."

Emphasis added by me. 

You are NOT writing a television serial, nor are you writing a 300 page fantasy novel or fantasy novel series. You are (ostensibly) a DUNGEON MASTER. You are running a game, NOT telling a story. There is no "storyline."

Let me help put this in perspective for you:

Say that you were, in fact, a writer for a TV series. And one of the main actors in your sitcom/drama came up to you and said, "Hey, my agent just got me a movie deal and I still want to be part of the show, but I need six weeks off for filming." And let's say the actor was a solid guy/gal who was popular with the audience and you didn't just want to fire their ass. Well, then, you'd write the character's absence into the script..."Oh, X is on their honeymoon in Italy (or whatever) and we'll pursue other storylines till they get back." This would, of course, be your prerogative as the head writer, director, and producer of the show.

Now let's contrast that with a weekly poker game. If one player says, hey, I need to take a few weeks off but I'd like to buy back in later, you wouldn't say, "Great, but leave your money on the table so we can keep playing with it." You'd (instead) say, no problem, take you cash and we'll see you in a few weeks.

Do you see the difference? 

Hopefully you do because, when you can shift your perspective to viewing D&D as a game, then the issues here (as with 90% of the issues in the Mailbag) become non-issues.

John: My PC Galahad can no longer travel with the party.

DM: What do you mean? Are you leaving the group?

John: No, I still want to play, but I want to play a different character for a while. However, I'd still like to return to Galahad at a future date.

DM: Okay, what do you think Galahad will be doing while not adventuring with the group?

And then John (or whomever) will give an answer that should (hopefully) give an answer that effectively freezes the character until he's ready to be "thawed out." Examples might include: shacking up with a girl for a while, putting some of his money into a farm or business and trying a less dangerous life, or simply "wandering" in search of himself. He could also just "take a job" as a stablehand or tavern barkeep (or whatever) or something in his own field of expertise: clerics could work in a temple, magic-users acting as scribes, fighters as town militia, etc. 

Now, if you're like me (a hardass that runs 1E), you'll still keep track of the character's monthly living expenses while mothballed until his treasure counter hits zero...at which point, no further action need be taken. It's assumed the PC has found some way of supporting themself in a non-adventuring way. And when John decides to once again play Galahad as his PC, the character is no worse-for-wear (although possibly older, depending on how many campaign years have passed). Regardless, a player character that is not being played should have NO IMPACT on the campaign. Out of sight, out of mind, and of no concern to what's going on at the table.

"But-but-but, my campaign arc needs so-and-so to be a part of..." NO. Stop. Just...stop. 

YOU are the DM. You are a Builder of Worlds...you are THE "Creator God" of your campaign. Make an NPC. Make a hundred NPCs. That's your prerogative. You do not need the player's character for your designs. 

Again: D&D is a game. It has rules. There are specific circumstances that might transform a PC into an NPC under the DM's control (some examples include mind control effects or a dead PC being raised as some form of undead). But OTHERWISE a player character should belong to their player until A) they (the player) chooses to leave the campaign (or is booted), B) they (the player) decides to permanently retire the character from play, C) they (the player) chooses to pass off the character to another player (which might be the DM), or D) the character dies in one of the many permanent ways inherent in the D&D game, including failing a resurrection survival roll.

Note: I said "should." This is an assertion, not an explicit instruction found in the text. However, it makes good sense for the following reasons:

1. It avoids issues/disputes (like the one that caused you to write this letter).
2. It provides a check on abusive DMs.
3. It frees DMs from having to adjudicate the actions of a PC in a manner that players will perceive as "fair."
4. It provides players with true agency (within the parameters of the game), allowing them to operate with less fear and more engagement.
5. It places all participants on a somewhat more even playing field, i.e. the DM has absolute control over the world (within the bounds of the game systems), while the players have absolute control over their characters (within the bounds of the game systems).

For all these reasons, I've found it a best practice to act in a "hands off" approach to player characters outside the scope of actual play (that is, play away from the actual game occurring at the table). 

Remember that a PC is not a character in a story (we are playing a game not telling stories), nor is it a simple pawn on a chess board. Rather, a PC is an avatar of the player, the vehicle by which they get to experience the fantasy world in which play occurs. In a very real sense, the character IS the player...no matter how much distance they attempt to put between themselves and this fictional persona. Galahad IS John...it is John if he were an individual of a particular class, race, and alignment, living and adventuring in the imaginary world of your fantasy campaign. As such, players readily identify with...and become attached to...their characters. And this identification/attachment only grows stronger over time, with more play, as more time and effort is invested.

You start arbitrarily making up stuff their character is doing in their downtime, and you're bound to ruffle feathers. Hell, Rob Kuntz is still pissed about what happened to Robilar!

So, yeah: you made a mistake here (and the players were understandably outraged because of it). However, I'd say the mistake stems mostly from a false perspective of what D&D is, and a false understanding of your role as a Dungeon Master. D&D is not a story being told, and you are not a writer/director of the story.  And the player characters are player characters...their actions are chosen by the players, not the DM. That is why there is a distinction between player characters and non-player characters. 

As to "how to handle this:" my advice would be to apologize and say "never mind, none of that happened." And then move on to running D&D for the current batch of PCs at the table. Because that's what they (the players) are all there for: playing D&D. Just do your job as a DM: Dungeon Masters build (and run) dungeons (and worlds)...not stories. 

Sincerely,

JB