Can you "replace" a player?

[sun_flotter]

So, quick recap/context; one of the players at my table got ejected by our DM and so our party lost its sorcerer (DM used his character for a little while, just to end the session smoothly since he had given her his character sheet, but it was easier to part ways). The decision was made definitive after a whole lot of talking, since the DM put the condition that she wouldn't play with him unless he apologized and we all agreed that he wasn't going to.

One of our players brought the subject of replacing him two days ago, saying that despite his ****ty IRL behavior, his character was a nice addition to our party, to which everyone agreed. We just so happen to know a guy who's friend with everyone in our group and who plays D&D, who's almost done DMing a years long campaign, so we asked him if he'd be interested in joining the party and he said that it could be really nice, and that he'd like taking a little break from DMing for once, and that if we were OK with him joining us, he'd really like that.

I'm OK with having him at the table (not OK with him taking on the sorcerer character), and everyone else is, he's adorable as a person and everything, but I'm still hesitant. The other players are waiting for my answer concerning his admission to the group, and I'd like to say yes but I can't help but feel bad for the sorcerer. I still have hope he'd apologize eventually but I don't think he will, and another player (especially one as nice as our "candidate") would be welcome to fill in the shoes of our now missing sorcerer.

I know that replacing characters isn't a rare occurence, but what about players? Hoping to get some insight on the matter

[Captain Cap]

Why don't just invite this new player? In case the other one apologizes and returns, you'd simply end up with an extra player. If it doesn't happen, you'd still have a complete party.

[Mastikator]

Adding/removing/replacing players is an unusual but not abnormal thing to do in the TTRPG world.

[False God]

I've "replaced" a player, though I think of it more as filling an empty seat, but they always play their own character.

[Segev]

It is a bit weird to expect a new player to take up an existing character, but as long as everyone's okay with it, there's no issue. Of course, "everyone" may or may not include the old player, depending on whether the fallout also involved the exiting player not being part of the friend group anymore. So whether the exiting player's opinion of whether somebody else may use his character matters to the table is up to you guys. Just be aware that there could be further hard feelings over it if permission is not obtained.

A new player stepping into an old player's PC can also cause reluctance on the part of the new player, unless he's very new or otherwise doesn't want to make a character of his own. And even then, the character is likely to change in how he's played based on the new player's personality and play style.

For these reasons, it is much more typical for a new player to make a new character. But it is entirely up to your group dynamics and all those involved therein as to whether it will work to have him simply take over the PC.

[Rynjin]

Groups replace players all the time, people have to leave campaigns for a multitude of reasons.

[Unoriginal]

I know that replacing characters isn't a rare occurence, but what about players?

It happens. Many gaming clubs do that all the time, often when session scheduling is an issue.

And when it's because one of the players is simply bad for the group, they need to be removed. If someone else is invited to join afterward depends on how the group feel, but it often happens.


I can't help but feel bad for the sorcerer.

He was verbally abusive in person, purposely disruptive to the game, harassed you and your friends online, and he is not taking the chance given to him to apologize.

You have empathy and sympathy, but setting yourself on fire to keep another person warm is never a good move for you.


Groups replace players all the time, people have to leave campaigns for a multitude of reasons.

Exactly.


Why don't just invite this new player? In case the other one apologizes and returns, you'd simply end up with an extra player. If it doesn't happen, you'd still have a complete party.

Good point.


I've "replaced" a player, though I think of it more as filling an empty seat, but they always play their own character.



For these reasons, it is much more typical for a new player to make a new character. But it is entirely up to your group dynamics and all those involved therein as to whether it will work to have him simply take over the PC.

That is true.

Players often want to play their own characters, rather than put their feet in shoes fitted for someone else, but if they like it and want to do it then there's no problem.

I must put the emphasis on "if they like it want to do it", though. If they're just "fine with it", it's generally not enough and it's more often than not an indicator they're accepting it just to not make waves against the rest of the group's expectations.

[Oramac]

Why don't just invite this new player? In case the other one apologizes and returns, you'd simply end up with an extra player. If it doesn't happen, you'd still have a complete party.

Seconded. Bring in the new player. If the other one wants to try to return on good terms, you just have an extra player. If not, you're right where you started. Win/win.

[Burley]

I, personally, wouldn't feel good if I felt like I was "replacing" a player. For the sake of the new player, just invite them as a new player, rather than a "replacement."

[Oramac]

I, personally, wouldn't feel good if I felt like I was "replacing" a player. For the sake of the new player, just invite them as a new player, rather than a "replacement."

That's a valid point. Good call.

[Sigreid]

Entire groups break apart and reform all the time for all kinds of reasons. One of the beat reasons to swap around players is that one of the players is ruining the fun for everyone else.

[JonBeowulf]

Snip
This is a very rare occurrence... we're all in agreement.

Bringing in new players should be encouraged. Having them use a pre-gen'd character is fine. Expecting/Hoping they'll take over another player's character is weird. Kinda like asking them to wear the other person's clothes.

Thematically it makes much more sense for the departed player to take the character with them and for the new player to bring a new character.

[Dr.Samurai]

Eh... let the new player make their own character. Seems like a bit much to ask to get rid of a problem player and then insist that the new player play the character because the group likes the character.

[kazaryu]

So, quick recap/context; one of the players at my table got ejected by our DM and so our party lost its sorcerer (DM used his character for a little while, just to end the session smoothly since he had given her his character sheet, but it was easier to part ways). The decision was made definitive after a whole lot of talking, since the DM put the condition that she wouldn't play with him unless he apologized and we all agreed that he wasn't going to.

One of our players brought the subject of replacing him two days ago, saying that despite his ****ty IRL behavior, his character was a nice addition to our party, to which everyone agreed. We just so happen to know a guy who's friend with everyone in our group and who plays D&D, who's almost done DMing a years long campaign, so we asked him if he'd be interested in joining the party and he said that it could be really nice, and that he'd like taking a little break from DMing for once, and that if we were OK with him joining us, he'd really like that.

I'm OK with having him at the table (not OK with him taking on the sorcerer character), and everyone else is, he's adorable as a person and everything, but I'm still hesitant. The other players are waiting for my answer concerning his admission to the group, and I'd like to say yes but I can't help but feel bad for the sorcerer. I still have hope he'd apologize eventually but I don't think he will, and another player (especially one as nice as our "candidate") would be welcome to fill in the shoes of our now missing sorcerer.

I know that replacing characters isn't a rare occurence, but what about players? Hoping to get some insight on the matter

having a new player come in and take over an existing character is...strange, at least IMO. not really something i've ever heard of anyone doing before.

however, just bringing in a new player is not a problem. for me, i'd suggest they let the new player join, but not have him take over an existing character. let that character retire.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know that replacing characters isn't a rare occurence, but what about players? Hoping to get some insight on the matter Of course you can replace a player. You can have them pick up an existing character, or have them create one of their own.
It works fine either way.

Example 1: our friend T had to bail out of our Wednesday night games where he was playing an Arcane Trickster rogue in D&D 5e. Our friend P had been unable to play for over a year due to work reasons, but he was finally available. Sometimes. We asked him to pick up the rogue since we had all slogged from level 1 to 4 and the teamwork/style had formed. He agreed to do so. We are now level 10, and he's still the Arcane Trickster Rogue.

Example: our friend J had been playing an Artificer since level 1, but his work schedule changed and he'd not be able to show up until late, if at all. Our friend K (Kurt Kurageous on GitP forums) was looking forward to playing, so we invited him to join us. He created a Thief Rogue at level 10 to match our party's level at 10. It has worked well.

Player replaced, adventure continues, and in one case same character and in the other case new character. :smallsmile:


...having a new player come in and take over an existing character is...strange, at least IMO. not really something i've ever heard of anyone doing before. Strange? Not sure why you say that. In the groups I play it this was very common. I have done it dozens of times.
We still see it here and there, but as chargen isn't that hard and a lot of folks like to craft their own character, I think "bring in a PC at the right level to join" is probably more common.

[Crucius]

As a player who replaced another, though with a character I made myself, I always felt a stranger at the table. The whole inter-party dynamic had been established, and I always felt like I was behind on the events/injokes that happened prior.

It was only after an almost-TPK and a new character that I felt like I belonged in the party (and in the world for that matter).

This doesn't have to be a critical point mind you, it might work out for your group just fine. Maybe explicitly put in some effort to make the new PC feel like a part of the party?

[Yakmala]

You could do it, but I would think a new player would be more emotionally invested in a character that comes from their own imagination.

Perhaps ask them to fill the same role in the party, such as controller, ranged DPS and/or party face, but let them go about it their own way.

[kazaryu]

Strange? Not sure why you say that In the groups I play it this was very common. because i find it strange, and if its common in your group, then i find your group strange :P

thats not an insult, im simply using 'strange' as 'beyond my area of experience'. Im not implying that its objectively strange, or wrongbad. just saying that, IMO, its a strange thing to do...

as far as why its (likely) not super common to come in and take over an existing character.
1. People tend to like to play characters they created themselves. and while they may tolerate a pregen, if they're joining a long term campaign, they'll usually want to create their own.
2. in games where RP is a strong component, 2 people will not portray a character the same way. So if you change the player for the character, the character itself is going to feel different. you can make it work, but its not preferable.


again, not saying its an objectively weird thing to do, but i find it strange, and would tend to advise against it.

[Keravath]

Yes. You can always have new players join a campaign.
Yes. It is possible for the new player to create their own character or take over playing someone else's.

However, taking over playing an existing character, isn't usually a good idea in my experience. The existing character has an established persona for interacting with the party and events which the new player will not usually be interested in or able to replicate - even with exactly the same stats, the new player is playing a different character - so they might as well create their own and feel more invested in the game than just running some existing character.

In addition, in your particular circumstances, I would strongly recommend the new player NOT take over the existing character.

There is too much drama associated with that character and its former player. The former player could still feel some "ownership" since it WAS their character - they created and played it. This leaves far too many possibilities for negative real life interactions developing if the new player takes over that specific existing character and the former player finds out (which they will). You also don't want to saddle a new player with the baggage of how that previous character interacted with the rest of the party. The new player will want to role play their character, their way which is completely normal and I'd suggest that is what you would want to do in this case.

It sounds like the new player you want to ask to the table is experienced enough that they can come up with a character that would mesh with your existing party. Let them know the characters in your party already, mention that the player who left was playing a sorcerer, then let the new player pick what they want to play and have the DM work them into the story line.

Also, adding the new player doesn't have to be difficult. Some DMs get stuck on making things seem "realistic" but adding a replacement character to the party is as simple or difficult as the DM wants to make it. For example, a diety, seeing that the old character was going to be a problem, steps in and suddenly swaps the old character for the new one. You can then role play the confusion of this new character stepping into an unexpected situation. You can also go with the more traditional "meet them in the tavern" when the party just happens to be looking for a replacement for the character who had a family emergency and had to return home leaving the party without a key member.

Either way, particularly in this case, I would have the new player create a new character to avoid entirely any history or the possible contribution to any future drama. (It also avoids the issue of the former player changing their mind and apologizing in a month or two and wanting to play again with their former character - which doesn't work if someone took it over).

[Xihirli]

Oh hey, happy to have found out what became of this (https://forums.giantitp.com/member.php?281173-sun_flotter).

I'd say recruiting someone after going down a player is pretty normal, but if your new recruit is a forever DM I'm sure they have a ton of PCs they're just itching to try out, I'd recommend your group give them a chance to.

[BRC]

It's pretty normal to replace a player if one leaves for whatever reason, and it sounds like you've found an ideal candidate. It happens all the time.

[nickl_2000]

We did in our last campaign. One person moved out to a different state and another person took over the PC. It worked out fine in our group, but we didn't have expectations that he play the PC the same way.

[KorvinStarmast]

... im simply using 'strange' as 'beyond my area of experience'. Im not implying that its objectively strange, or wrongbad. just saying that, IMO, its a strange thing to do.
RP isn't an obstacle to this. I can RP a character someone else made. Not that hard.
I do see your point on how, with a lot of people, the level of investment is greater if they created the character.

I can embrace a character that I made, or one that I play for a few sessions that someone else made. How much I invest has a lot to do with the campaign, and the other players, and the overall tone at that table.

We did in our last campaign. One person moved out to a different state and another person took over the PC. It worked out fine in our group, but we didn't have expectations that he play the PC the same way. That sounds like a healthy table. Let the character grow through play. :smallsmile:

[Sorinth]

I'm not a fan of a new player taking over an old character, I think everyone being fine with it is probably more to do with people wanting to be accommodating and not wanting to be the "bad guy" who says no. If the party wants an arcane caster to fill the need that the sorcerer leaving creates then sure ask the new player if they want to fill that role, but have them create their own character.

[Tawmis]

I know that replacing characters isn't a rare occurence, but what about players? Hoping to get some insight on the matter

I've had to do this a few times in my main game.
So in my main game, folks at work heard I DM'ed and were interested in playing. Most had never played D&D before.
So one of the players (we shall call him Tim) brought his friend (we shall call James).
And Chris brought his friend Aaron. And Mike worked with us.
So we had Tim (Wizard), James (Bard), Chris (Cleric), Aaron (Cleric), and Mike (Paladin).

Well, first, James' wife had her baby - so he dropped.
The following week, Tim ended up getting a new job. So he left the game (it was a drive to come to where we work from his other place).
So within one month, I lost two players.
But Mike knew Natalie, who would be playing remotely (she lives in another state) from World of Warcraft.
So we invited her.
She made a cleric, because by this time Chris' character perished, and he'd made a Warlock.

What's funny is a few weeks later, in a game that was Cleric heavy, there was a session where both clerics were going to miss the session.
So I invited a friend I knew to jump in and be an "NPC Cleric" to basically be there to help out.

So, replacing players is not a big deal. For each of them, I just wrote out their characters.

Now someone coming and taking OVER someone's character to me would be odd.

Because it's the player that develops that character's personality. A new player may not like the character (class, race, whatever) so they may not enjoy playing someone else's character and most likely would also play it differently.

So I'd recommend if they are invited, they make a NEW character.

[MoiMagnus]

I know that replacing characters isn't a rare occurence, but what about players? Hoping to get some insight on the matter

I've replaced a player that was removed from the table due to some IRL issues too. I missed the first semester of a 3-years-long campaign, probably more than 10 sessions.
That was not to the point of kicking him out, but he was away for a few months due to some internship and the table was happier without him so he wasn't accepted back at the table.

I took back his character, but there are two important caveats:

While during my first session I was given this character because it was more practical (it was a little improvised), I chose to keep this character rather than making a new one. It's important for the new player to get a character they're actually interested to play.
While technically "taking" this pre-existing character, I fundamentally reforged his backstory. I justified the change of behaviour with "the character was amnesic, and his old personality was a consequence of the trauma that made him amnesic, but now he is recovering memories from before the accident so his personality his changing", which as a bonus point meant that I had a lot of freedom for the "before amnesia" backstory.

[Ionathus]

New players join to replace old ones all the time! This is how D&D groups reproduce: don't draw attention to it. (https://xkcd.com/2235/) :smallcool:

Best of luck with your new player! Having read your previous trials and tribulations, I wish you only smooth sailing and fun RPG experiences from here on out.

[Kane0]

People coming and going from game groups is pretty normal.

It's generally not common for a new player to take up someone else's character (unless the players in question are a couple or siblings or something).

Frequently, if a player leaves then they decide what happens to their character, though if that exit was not on good terms this will often fall to the DM instead. From my experience it's considered poor form to continue using the character of a player that has left without their consent.

If you want to continue having a sorcerer (or mage in general) in the party, you can always contrive some other character join. DMPCs and Sidekicks are the most common means of doing this, the former carries a bit of stigma but isn't inherently a bad thing, and the latter are basically just secondary PCs from the Tasha's book.

Edit: By way of example
In my current group, midway through last year one of us moved interstate. He joined us online for a time but the timezone and new work differences made it more and more difficult for him so he left control of his character to another player so we could complete the campaign without suddenly losing him in the end stretch.

Conversely in a previous group, one of the regulars got booted from the game store we played at for his behaviour, thusly his Rogue character abruptly disappeared from the game and none of us spoke of it again. A few weeks later two fresh faces at the store asked to try some D&D with us, and we helped them make their own characters to join.

[llama-hedge]

I've seen one player take over another's character in their absence a few times, but it was always a temporary thing with the consent of the original owner. Given the bad blood involved here, giving the sorcerer character to someone else just seems like a way of inviting unnecessary drama in the event the problem player ever gets wind of it.

I've actually been the replacement player in this sort of situation, and that group's solution was to memory-hole everything relating to the problem player, including the PC.

If the group feels the party really benefits from having an arcane full caster around, why not ask the joining player to make a new one?

[Leon]

Players come and go, characters come and go, players coming and playing old characters no so much. Invite the new person and let them decide what they want to play even if you all liked the Sorcerer character.

A new player playing a old character can cause problems if the old player does meet the criteria (however small of a chance) to return, much better to put the sorcerer on ice (or have around as a NPC if its that loved) and let the new player make their own character. Any PC they make will work well to fill the gap the Sorcerer left, too much stock is put into filling specific "roles" in a group.

[animorte]

As that additional player, I would prefer to build my own character that fills a similar role to the Sorcerer. You could all openly discuss the preferences (aka please do something kind of like this). I mean, I recently started a campaign where most players were required to build a specific class of specific level, but had some freedom in some of the specifics.

If the impression you have presented of that person is correct, I don't think they would mind creating a very similar character focused on most of the same things.

[JonBeowulf]

This thread got me thinking of this and now I gotta go watch the whole film to make it leave my brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jPG5Pkc5kI

[Samayu]

You can absolutely bring in a new player at any time. You don't need to stay at a certain number of PC's. You can go higher or lower than usual. You don't need to maintain a "balanced" party, whatever that is.

As for my opinion, I wouldn't ask a veteran player to take over an existing character.

[Particle_Man]

If you think there is a chance that the old player will meaningfully apologize and be allowed to come back by the group, I don't think that the new player should take over that old player's character, because either the old player or the new player would have to make a new character anyhow, and *both* of them would have been emotionally invested in the sorcerer by then.

But having the new player make a new character seems fine. I mean, it worked for David Ogden Stiers, Mike Farrell and Henry Morgan in MASH, right? :smallcool:

[Easy e]

You are lucky to have another player waiting in the wings! Many groups do not have this luxury.

Take advantage of it.

[sun_flotter]

Oh hey, happy to have found out what became of this (https://forums.giantitp.com/member.php?281173-sun_flotter).

I'd say recruiting someone after going down a player is pretty normal, but if your new recruit is a forever DM I'm sure they have a ton of PCs they're just itching to try out, I'd recommend your group give them a chance to.

I accepted to let him join the group with the condition he wouldn't play the sorcerer, which he seemed super enthousiastic about (he proposed to play a lv 3 Simic hybrid wizard and later take a level in artificier), thx for the suggestion, this isn't something I would necessarly have thought about and he did seem really happy to be able to make a PC

One really cool fact about how he went about making his character: he knows I'm a proud furry artist and asked if I'd rather have him play an anthropomorphic race to make it easier for me if I ever wanted to draw our party (to which I said that I didn't have strong preferences because, while it's not as fun as drawing furries, I can draw humans fairly well too), which I think was really sweet of him


If you think there is a chance that the old player will meaningfully apologize and be allowed to come back by the group, I don't think that the new player should take over that old player's character, because either the old player or the new player would have to make a new character anyhow, and *both* of them would have been emotionally invested in the sorcerer by then.

I don't think there's a chance he'll apologize. I know what I said in my first post, so let me make it clear: I don't think he will, I hope he will. It's like playing the lottery. You know you're not likely to win, but you still have hope, and that's why you play.

[Particle_Man]

Yeah my mom is like that for the lottery. If you actually play the lottery and that is not merely a metaphor, my advice is to pick numbers that are meaningful to you (the day your were born, the day you met the love of your life, etc.), and always play those numbers. Might as well get the extra emotional boost if you are playing for hope anyhow.

The min-maxer in me says "don't play lotteries; save your money" but who listens to us in IRL? :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

I don't think there's a chance he'll apologize. I know what I said in my first post, so let me make it clear: I don't think he will, I hope he will. It's like playing the lottery. You know you're not likely to win, but you still have hope, and that's why you play.

I mean, with lottery you play to win for something that is at least hypothetically a benefit for you.

[sun_flotter]

I mean, with lottery you play to win for something that is at least hypothetically a benefit for you.
Here the benefit would be that he'd f*cking grow up I guess?

[Unoriginal]

Here the benefit would be that he'd f*cking grow up I guess?

But the question is: how does it benefit you and everyone else in your group?

[sun_flotter]

But the question is: how does it benefit you and everyone else in your group?
I mean, our bard has to live with him, so, he'd highly benefit from that.

I wouldn't have to think about it and could focus on trying to get the adress of a certain someone whose teeth I'd love to break and make them eat (they got one of their friends to tell my best friend to kill themselves because they (best friend) dared to say publicly that the both of them had a fight and they weren't feeling well about it so that they'd take a break from social media, lied to my best friend for years, called them schizophrenic to invalidate anything they could say about them, and I could go on and on about it, so me wanting to break this person's teeth isn't me being violent, it's just me being tired)


Our DM wouldn't feel guilty anymore.

Our paladin wouldn't have to be the one in charge of the pizza anymore (even if she suggested herself to take on the role).

And our rogue... Well, I don't know, sorry. But she liked having "the flying death-caster" in our party as she called his character (even if I don't think she ever called him by his name)

[Kane0]

But she liked having "the flying death-caster" in our party as she called his character (even if I don't think she ever called him by his name)

That is also incredibly common. Most DMs soon realize that players will typically remember maybe a handful of character names in a goven campaign, and everyone else either gets a nickname or are labelled by function or decription

[BRC]

That is also incredibly common. Most DMs soon realize that players will typically remember maybe a handful of character names in a goven campaign, and everyone else either gets a nickname or are labelled by function or decription

Funny Story, I once saw one of my fellow player forget their PC's actual name (spider-themed summoner Ariadne) since we'd exclusively referred to them by a nickname ("Legs") for so long.

[Rynjin]

A friend of mine once made a kenku character named Grass Whistle. At one point in the first session he ****ed up and called the character Grass Rustle. One thing led to another...yeah that character was stuck with the name "Rustle Crow" the entire campaign.

[Xihirli]

I accepted to let him join the group with the condition he wouldn't play the sorcerer, which he seemed super enthousiastic about (he proposed to play a lv 3 Simic hybrid wizard and later take a level in artificier), thx for the suggestion, this isn't something I would necessarly have thought about and he did seem really happy to be able to make a PC


Hey, happy ending, congratulations!

[Cheesegear]

I know that replacing characters isn't a rare occurence, but what about players? Hoping to get some insight on the matter

Replacing players happens all the time.

Question; What would you do if "life" happened, and one of your players had to walk away from the table? ...Do you just say that your group is down one player forever? Of course not. D&D is more or less balanced around 4-6 players, and now you have three. Well that sucks.

My local hobby store allows people to post LFGs to their Facebook, so that's what I do. I've never had any problems. The only scary part is:
1. Meeting someone new for the first time,
2. Allowing a stranger into your space.
But as far as I'm concerned if you can't get over those two hurdles you'll never make any new friends in your life, let alone as part of a D&D group.

[sun_flotter]

That is also incredibly common. Most DMs soon realize that players will typically remember maybe a handful of character names in a goven campaign, and everyone else either gets a nickname or are labelled by function or decription

In our group, it's especially true when it comes to NPC, but it's mostly because our characters' names are all quite simple (our paladin is amnesic and renamed himself, we have a warforged who was named "Faith" and our Tabaxi's name literally translates to "shadow" in japanese, so all in all they're all easy). The sorcerer was no exception but we all hated his name (who decided "Suss" was a good name?) so we didn't use it. But we do nickname all the NPC, despite asking the DM for their names (which we all forget, but hey, it's funnier to name NPC "fancy hat" and "fancier hat" than whatever their name was)

[Dr.Samurai]

I find it a little suss that you as a group decided not to use the sorcerer's name because you didn't like it. :smallconfused:

[Rynjin]

Just use his name but everyone make a pact to play the Amogus round start sound effect on their phones every time his name is spoken.

[KorvinStarmast]

I find it a little suss that you as a group decided not to use the sorcerer's name because you didn't like it. :smallconfused:
Maybe this group just wants to put the fun into dysfunctional.

[sun_flotter]

Just use his name but everyone make a pact to play the Amogus round start sound effect on their phones every time his name is spoken.


I find it a little suss that you as a group decided not to use the sorcerer's name because you didn't like it. :smallconfused:


Maybe this group just wants to put the fun into dysfunctional.


Maybe it's important to mention that Suss, depending on the player's mood, was either pronounced [s/ʌ/s] or [s/y/s]
How is that relevant? We're french speaker (which explain my terrible english). [s/y/s] means "suck" in french. If you decided to say his name, you'd end up sounding... Well... Sus. ("This is Suss, our sorcerer" would for instance translate as "This is. Suck our sorcerer" because french is a weird language)

It could have been fun if the "strict" pronounciation was [s/ʌ/s] tho, and again, none of us had a really unique and meaningful name (my centaur's name literally means "horse woman", our tabaxi renamed herself as what she thought to be an epic name, our paladin named himself after the first word he remembered and our warforged was named "Faith", which might just be the most meaningful name out there but still not that deep) but we were not going to say "Suck" or "Sus" to refer to him, Sus would have been somewhat fine and a fun, harmless name, but Suck is a no for me at least

[TyGuy]

I kicked a player and replaced him with someone by the next session. It was wonderful.
Can you? Yes.
Should you? Depends.
Can it be a productive move? Definitely.

[Keravath]

Yeah my mom is like that for the lottery. If you actually play the lottery and that is not merely a metaphor, my advice is to pick numbers that are meaningful to you (the day your were born, the day you met the love of your life, etc.), and always play those numbers. Might as well get the extra emotional boost if you are playing for hope anyhow.

The min-maxer in me says "don't play lotteries; save your money" but who listens to us in IRL? :smallsmile:

I have the exact opposite philosophy :)

Play lotteries if you like and can afford it. You can't win if you don't have a ticket but realize that it is just a money sink.

Never pick meaningful numbers since there will always be weeks when you forget to buy a ticket or can't really afford it. Using meaningful numbers applies extra pressure to buy a ticket even when you shouldn't in case they come up (which they won't).

In addition, if those numbers ever DO come up and you missed buying that week then the disappointment from that event will out weight any small boost you might receive from playing meaningful numbers the rest of the time. If I decide to buy a rare lottery ticket, the numbers are always randomly selected :) ... but that is just my philosophy and completely off topic :)

[Umberhulk]

Go for it. If it doesn’t work out, you can deal with that later.

[MadMusketeer]

Strictly speaking, dates are a really bad way to play the lottery, because it's really common and there are limited number of them - even if you win, you end up greatly increasing the chances of having to share the prize pool, reducing your winnings. Either way, playing the lottery is still not a good idea, but if you do, go with a random number and not a date.

[Arkhios]

I would probably invite the new player, explain the situation upfront (leaving out only the more sensitive details, such as the identity of the former player, unless he already knows about these), and offer this Sorcerer to this new player, but not force it to them. Who knows, maybe they like it? If not, give him freedom to create his own character. It's not unusual to play with pregenerated characters with well established backgrounds. Some people actually prefer it that way. A character someone else created and played with is no different than a pregenerated character.

[Kurt Kurageous]

If the goal is party balance, the answer is, "Sidekick."

If the goal is replacing a player, replace the player.

If playing Lottery is fun, play Lottery. The time between buying and losing is a magical time full of hope.

If playing Lottery for wealth, know you have better odds of dying from a flesh eating bacteria, struck by lightning or bitten by a shark. And winning the Lottery is pretty reliably a shortcut to misery.

[windgate]

"Replacing" players is one of the few good things about Adventurers League....


Bring in the new player but do not tell them any of the details about who they are replacing. It would be beneficial to tell them what the party is hoping to gain character capability wise but do not mandate they fulfill that role.

As for the previous character, if you do not want the other player to return:

The former sorcerer will be controlled by the new player until the story permits an appropriate introduction of the new players personal character (The beginning of next session at the latest). This gives everyone a chance to evaluate each other for compatibility before any commitments or major story elements are made.

Bonus points if the players commit to giving the sorcerer a glorious death right before.

[Ionathus]

Speaking as someone who joined a campaign after a problem PC left, it's not particularly fun to listen to all the bad things the person in "my" seat did. You don't have to keep it a secret, but don't make it the focus.

Personally I'd just write the sorcerer PC out. A glorious death might seem cathartic in the moment, but it also has "revenge fanfic" vibes. If it was me DMing, I wouldn't even give an explanation, I'd just accept that this represents a minor retcon. Make up a tiny thing if you have to, up to and including a freak teleport accident that shunts them off into some faraway kingdom to have other adventures.

When the new player joins, don't make them feel like a replacement. Just tell them that someone had to leave and you're happy they could join, and let them play whatever class they want (it's almost impossible to break party balance in 5e anyway).