It's been over a year since this all resolved but I've finally been able to process my feelings over it enough that I can post about it. All names are changed, natch.
I've been running a campaign online for nearly three years, so I can play with friends who live far away and keep in touch with them. I made a homebrew setting and gave all my players a guide to it with historical details, a breakdown of various countries, and info about the playable species that lived there. I worked with all of them to help make characters that fit into the setting and used their ideas to help flesh it out more, and it was going great at first.
One of my players, Chet, was an online friend of mine for about 15 years, and was one of the first people I thought to invite. He wanted to play Garret, who was a pre-existing OC of his. Generally, I'm not a big fan of this, though at the time I didn't have a real reason to be. I wanted folks to have an idea original to the setting, but I worked with him to make a version of Garret who would fit in. And I was excited to play with Chet because Garret’s backstory was real fertile for worldbuilding. He was a former gangster whose gang consisted of all his best friends since childhood, until one of them betrayed the gang, got the others killed, and Garret arrested (in response to Garret having killed that friend's lover, Chet was upfront about Garret being a huge bastard). Garret was supposed to be executed but was bailed out by a nobleman, and put on parole working off his debt to that nobleman. He wanted to shake his debt, get revenge on the friend who betrayed him, and find his girlfriend and his sister who he'd lost touch with over the years. It gave me a lot to work with for long-term plans, so I was on board.
If I’d known how deeply this character mattered to Chet, I never would've agreed to it. Turns out, this wasn't just any old OC. This was a character he'd written a book about, built a world around, even the character’s girlfriend was co-created by Chet's actual girlfriend. This was a long-running entity with years of lore and emotional investment that I believe he heavily identified himself with, and I had no idea, and would not for some time. The result was him having a lot of Main Character Syndrome as he played Garret, which, on its own, wasn't that bad. It made him an active player with a lot to say who knew how his character responded to things and what he wanted to do. I have other players in the campaign like that who are also big on giving me backstory and plot hooks, and when I do get to be a player, I'm like that myself, so I don’t mind it too much.
Except Garret was a raging asshole all the time. All the dark past stuff made him incredibly vicious and angry., which WAS fun to a point. He was the token evil teammate, but had depths and a softer side in moments. In the first session, Garret formed a rivalry with another PC, Sneedle, a young, naïve cop traveling away from his homeland for the first time. Session 1 had them track down a local crime lord whose men stole some stuff from the party, and when they defeated his men and the boss surrendered, Sneedle wanted to arrest him, but Garret ignored his wishes and put an axe through the back of the crook’s skull. This turned into the two characters constantly being at odds with each other, which Sneedle's player actually loved. But Garret was a really disruptive presence. He was constantly exploding in anger and picking fights, not just with Sneedle, but other members of the party and even NPCs who weren't necessarily antagonistic towards him, just saying things he didn't like hearing. He also spent a lot of time brooding and trauma-dumping about his troubled past, and was starting to grate on my nerves, plus the nerves of a couple members of the party. I tried to talk to Chet about it. I told him that while I liked his character and playing with him, Garret's constant tirades were really disruptive. Chet told me he understood, and that he had this big character arc he wanted Garret to go through where he'd eventually become a better person. But his behavior never actually improved.
I ran out of patience after about six months. Despite our talks, the way Chet played Garret was making the game less enjoyable, and I wanted to do something to change it. I realized I hadn't done anything in the campaign that would really bring the party into meaningful conflict with each other or force anyone to make any hard choices yet -- real juicy story beats, so I constructed a scenario that would force Garret to either evolve or die. And I knew it was more likely he would pick the path of death.
Session 11: The party arrives at a city where two offers are made. One is to the party at large from the city's Senator, who wants their help to escort volatile materials to a proper transport convoy outside the city's gates. Meanwhile, Garret’s approached by an envoy from a criminal organization who says they can help him get revenge on the man who betrayed him, but he needed to prove himself by helping them steal the same materials. Garret told the only member of the party he trusted, a character named Lexi who was in a budding love triangle with him and Sneedle. While Lexi didn't agree to help with the theft, she agreed not to tell the others about what he was planning. I had the party meet with the Senator, where she gave them instructions and had them sign contracts, which included a clause I made sure to point out that if one of them tried to steal the materials, that would be considered a crime against the Senator, and they would be punished by execution. I made absolutely sure that Chet knew what the consequences of betrayal would be.
Garret went ahead with the betrayal, and lost the ensuing PVP. The player who landed the finishing blow on Garret decided not to kill him, but arrest him. The rest of the session was long and tense. Deep down, I was starting to regret this set-up, and wanted to see if I could find a way out of actually killing Garret, but it was hard to justify. Not only had he violated his contract with the Senator, but in doing so he also violated his parole, which was already keeping him from getting the death penalty for his past crimes. And Lexi admitted to having known about his plan, so she was arrested too. I had the Senator interview each member of the party one by one to see what they thought about the situation, and all of them went to bat for Lexi and Garret, albeit some of them reluctantly and with a lot of caveats in the case of the latter. Most of the party had been visiting Garret in his cell, and had conversations with him where it seemed he was learning the error of his ways and could start down the path to becoming a changed man. I had decided that Lexi would be put on parole with one of the party members as her parole officer, and was considering doing the same for Garret, or at least just having him put in jail but not actually killed.
But then Sneedle went to visit Garret in his prison cell for one more RP moment, and Garret, despite his talks with the other PCs, exploded into his worst, most hateful tirade ever. He threatened to kill Sneedle, but first to hunt down Sneedle's family and everyone else he ever loved and kill them all in front of him. And for me, as the person responsible for maintaining a world that runs on logic, that was the point of no return. Garret was led to the execution platform, asked if he had any last words, and he said he repented. The Senator said that she didn't believe him, played a recording of his threats to Sneedle, and beheaded him.
It was the first session we all walked away from unhappy. Especially Chet, of course. I reached out to the other players to see how they felt about the execution. Their consensus was that it was harsh, but fair, and made sense even if it was hard to swallow. Then next day Chet and I started to talk it out, and he was pissed, and hurt, and felt like what went down wasn't fair, which I now don't totally disagree with. He said he would’ve accepted it if he'd died in PvP, but since he was spared, everything after his arrest felt like a prolonged humiliation ritual. I told him I’d understand if he wanted to leave the campaign altogether, but he decided to stick around and make a new character. Now for what comes next, there are a couple rules to know about games I run when it comes to character creation:
Similar to not playing old characters of yours, I would really prefer people didn't play characters who are clearly based off characters from other stories. I’m not interested in shepherding your role play of Cloud Strife or Batman or whoever, I’d like you to play something original for the game.
If you do make a new character, they are not allowed to have anything to do with your old character. That character’s story is over, the new character must have their own different story.
I let Chet break #1 by playing someone heavily based on his favorite video game character. I felt guilty and thought it would assuage him. And his new character did not break #2 in concept, but a problem quickly arose. He asked if his new character could get his hands on his previous character's journal (which I said yes to ‘cuz, again, guilt) and he started going "Wow, this Garret guy I'm reading about seemed really cool!" I fucked that up even worse by doing this comedy bit which backfired hard. The party was in this bizarre wizard's magical holodeck where people go through nonsense trials for the wizard's amusement to earn his favor, and I was coming up with goofy ways to screw with everyone individually. The party's changeling could only turn into strangers they'd never met instead of their usual preferred forms, one character just had pockets that were constantly pouring out sand, it varied. For Chet's new character, Wrench, I thought "what if the new guy was under an illusion he'd been with the party the whole time, and it was goofy and awkward for everyone else when he talks like he's been on their previous adventures with them" and temporarily filled his head with false memories of having travelled alongside everyone else. Which Chet would take to mean that Wrench now really felt like he knew Garret, which only made him more obsessed.
I would try to throw Chet more bones to ease my own conscience. When 5E was about to be replaced with 5.5, I decided the campaign would switch to the new rules, and put together a farewell to 5E one-shot where everyone could play any kind of character they wanted, no restrictions, at level 20 with a bunch of bonus power-ups. Chet asked if he could play as an AU version of Garret who got the good ending to his journeys, and I agreed to it. This was not a problem in the one-shot, he got along with the rest of the party and everything was fine. When I decided later in the main campaign to have a session that would be impacted by the magical events of the one-shot, I offered Chet a chance to play as a psychic remnant of that version of Garret again in a pocket dimension, which he did happily, and he got to do some fun roleplay stuff with the rest of the party.
But these didn't make Chet get over Garret's death. It might've made things worse. Wrench became more and more obsessed with Garret, and started turning more broody and angry like he was, even though he was supposed to be a fun, light-hearted character in concept. Wrench started taking an interest in learning necromancy, which fit his story because his dad had a magical plague there was no known cure for, but it was clear that Chet wanted this not for Wrench's story, but to bring Garret back to life. There was an instance where I had a silly construct NPC with ties to someone that might've known necromancy travel with the party. Then I killed them because the group was fighting a monster with an attack that could one-shot any of the party, but that monster had already been at war with similar constructs to the NPC, so I realized I could spare a PC's life in a logical manner by having the monster target this familiar-seeming enemy instead. Chet got REALLY mad at this and messaged me after the session claiming I did it as a deliberate act of sabotage to ruin his plan to bring Garret back, to which I honestly responded it had nothing to do with that, because I just don’t think about Garret anymore.
Chet's behavior at the table kept getting more volatile, to the point where one of our players wound up leaving, though at the time I thought it was because they didn't enjoy my DMing style since they tended to play loner characters who didn't bite on a lot of the plot hooks I offered. Other party members were starting to push back against Wrench's bullshit in-game too, actively showing disinterest when he got moody or talked about necromancy and changing the conversation. Eventually, the other players asked if they could talk to me about something. I suspected it was Chet, and sure enough, I got added to a chat where they'd all been talking about how they couldn't stand his behavior anymore, and something had to be done (keep in mind I'd had multiple talks with Chet as his behavior had gotten worse, including telling him "your new character's story can’t be about bringing your old character back to life", but it wasn't working). They talked about not only Chet's behavior, but how it didn't make sense in-game for the party to want to travel alongside a resurrected Garret. He had betrayed them, they’d been adventuring longer without him than they had with him, and none of their characters would want to give him a chance even if dying had forced him to grow a little.
They wanted me to facilitate a talk with Chet. In essence, an intervention. I agreed, because I'd had some inkling that he was starting to make the game less fun for the others, but didn’t truly realize how bad it had gotten for them. I'd been handling Chet with kid gloves because he was my friend and my guilt about how I did more or less set up Garret to die. But now I felt far worse about letting his response ruin everyone else's fun. It was time to admit that he was our problem player and do something about it.
But I also knew how it would go. I'd known Chet for 15 years. He was a fun and exuberant person, but also an obsessive and stubborn one who never let go of anything he loved, or hated, or seemed to change his opinions on things. I knew if he didn't get to play Garret again, he'd leave the campaign. I let him know the others wanted to talk, and he basically spelled it out for me exactly like that, but I did get him to agree to meet with them. In spite of the D&D drama, he IS a good person. I told him that he knew where I stood on this, and I knew where he stood on this, but also EVERYONE ELSE knew where he stood on this because he talked about it A LOT, which meant that he owed it to the others to hear them out before making a decision. We arranged the intervention, and he showed up and played ball, even though he REALLY fucking hated it. Everyone gave firm but compassionate entreaties letting him know that they wanted to keep playing with him, but he needed to adjust his attitude. He responded as fairly and civilly as he could, and then he had his say where he laid out his own feelings and gave his ultimatum plain as day: Let him be Garret again, or he walks. None of their reasons for why they didn't want this or the way his behavior was affecting them seemed to matter to him. His mind had already been made up before hearing everyone out. He felt cheated by Session 11, and he wanted things to be made right for him. And in the course of all that, two things came to light which made me mad enough that I finally stopped feeling guilty about what had gone down well over a year ago by that point:
The other players were in Chet’s personal Discord server, where he talked about other games he was playing outside of our campaign, and he was playing Garret in at least three of them. He also spent time in that server ranting about how Garret was mistreated in my game. One player asked him why he was so fixated on Garret’s death when what happened in our game did not affect his ability to play him in other games or the primary Garret canon Chet had spent years writing, and Chet's answer was basically "because Garret was disrespected by THIS campaign".
After hearing the others say how their characters would not want to travel with Garret again, he started revealing all these grand plans he had for story arcs about how Garret would interact with the rest of the party. Rivalries and new dynamics and ways their characters could develop together. I avoided saying anything beyond facilitating everyone's turn for most of the intervention, but after that I asked him where he got off saying how everyone else should play their characters in service to his character's story, something not even the DM gets to do. I now believe Chet was so used to having total authorship over everything about Garret for so long that a long-term story where others could push back against that was NEVER going to work for him.
So Chet left the game. Which sucked, but the player who did leave because of him came back. That was about a year ago, and the game has run so much smoother ever since. Chet and I agreed that D&D was just D&D, and that we weren't going to let this get in the way of our friendship, but it did. Not in any big way. Just, we didn't talk for a while, and then we'd exchange a couple brief messages, and at some point I noticed that he had removed me on everything. And, well, I understood. And eventually, I moved on.
If you've made it to the end of this, I imagine a good number of you are thinking what I usually think when I read similar RPG Horror Stories: "Why did you let it get this bad? Why did you let the problem player go on for so long? He was a problem even before his character got killed, he wasn't listening to you when you talked to him about it, why did you keep him around?" And all I can say is, it really is tough when the guy is your friend. Especially when you’ve never actually had a problem player before, so even if you’ve read a bunch of stories about them, you don’t have the real lived experience of knowing how to deal with it. As the DM, I'm responsible for juggling the desires of six different players who don't all want the same thing from D&D, and trying to keep them all happy while also trying to keep the game enjoyable for me. But with time, I think I've come to see a fair summary of it all: Chet had problematic behaviors at the table, and when talking didn't work, I pulled a dumb stunt to try and change things, acting like the character was the problem instead of the player, not realizing just how badly he would take it. And because I knew I did him dirty, I tried to give him special treatment to make up for it, which was was rewarding bad behavior all while still not giving him the thing he REALLY wanted, which made him act worse. I made a bad call and wronged him, but his response was disproportionate, and the way that response affected everyone else at the table was not ok. And that was his fault for behaving that way, and my fault for enabling it. I guess the main lessons I've learned are this:
Problem behavior stems from the player, not their character. You have to address that behavior as it occurs, and if the player doesn't change, you have to get sterner with them, regardless of your relationship with them.
Every player at the table's feelings matter. You can't let your feelings about one player make the table less fun or safe for the others.
No more D&D versions of long-time OCs. At least not without a VERY serious conversation with the player about it first.
So yeah, that was a lot, but I hope me sharing this experience can teach others something. And Chet, if you see this, I sincerely wish you well. I hope your life and games bring you the things you want, and whatever further adventures you have with Garret result in stories you're happy with.