-	-	-	-	-
Dragon	-	-	-	Dragon 52

Almost any inexperienced DM sooner
or later makes a big mistake. He lets a
PC acquire a magick item or
gain an ability which is simply too powerful, which enables that character to
dominate The Game so that other characters become onlookers instead of participants. A newly devised character class
could result in a similar situation.

Everybody makes mistakes. But when
it comes to fixing them, many inexperienced DMs have trouble finding the
right approach. How can a mistake like
this be rectified?

The 1st possibility is to ignore the
problem and hope it will go away. But
usually by the time the DM realizes his
error, it will be evident that the problem
isn’t going to fix itself.

<cf. Don't pursue a vendetta against any particular player or players>

2nd (the alternative that inexperienced DMs usually choose), the DM can
start a vendetta against the character,
throwing obstacles in the character’s
path until he kills him or steals his magick.
I’ve often heard of this happening. I
wonder how any character can survive
for long against a determined DM, but
apparently some do. Michael Stackpole’s
article “The Bigger They Are the Harder
They FalI” (Sorcerer’s Apprentice #8)
describes how to eliminate an overpowerful character — 
if it is simply your intention to deliberately slaughter the victim. 
Let’s assume, however, that the DM
already knows how to kill someone, or
how to neutralize his magick, in a short
time.

This “vendetta method” is cruel treatment for characters when the means of
revenge has no meaning in the context
of The Game. It is easy to concoct a pursuit or a conflict which arises naturally
from the game, and not directly from the
DM’s realization of error.

e.g., if a character obtains a
powerful item, the former owner may try
to get it back. He could hire magic-users
or others to find out who has it, if he
doesn’t already know; he can contract an
assassin, or hire a magic-user to send an
invisible stalker, or make a pact with a
demon, or even use a Wish to regain his
item. These are all natural parts of a fantasy world, and are not vendettas. It’s the
DM who manufactures a vendetta when
no need for one exists who is using alternative two.

Any outright attempt at retribution or
revenge, even of a non-vendetta nature,
should be a last resort, not a 1st reaction. Such action can make the involved
player, or all the players, feel that the DM
is unfair. The DM could find his friendships with the player(s), outside the
game, suffering severely. It can led to
feuds at times when another person
serves as DM for the group, and the exDM’s characters can be ganged up on. It
can even lead to a vendetta just like the
one that started the whole dispute.
 

There are 2 better methods of fixing
a DMing mistake. The 1st one is to try to
reason with the player involved. Show
him how the ability or item he gained is
harming the campaign, however much
fun he may have lording it over everyone
and showing off. Convince him that the
game will be more fun for all, even himself, 
if he voluntarily gives up the cause
of the disruption, possibly accepting
some material compensation. Perhaps
he’ll give his magick item to the church in
return for future favors, or to the state in
return for a noble title. He might accept
some non-reusable items for one indefinitely usable item. 
The trade can be arranged in such a way as to reflect well on
the character and offer him possibilities
of gain, even in a campaign where all
other PCs have also become more powerful.

The other method is to persuade the
player to retire his character either temporarily, 
until the other characters reach
a similar level of power, or permanently,
if the imbalance is really great. 
The player can enjoy the ego boost of possessing
a powerful and well-known character,
yet he will henceforth use another character on adventures. The imbalancing
factor will be out of The Game, though it
will still be in the background of the
campaign.

By either of these solutions, the DM
can avoid incurring the enmity of the
player and avoid unfairly picking on one
person, but still eliminate the disruption
from The Game. It is always better to resort to reason than to force; if all else
fails, because of a player’s refusals of
less extreme solutions, a DM can still
resort to the vendetta, if he thinks it’s fair.
Nothing is lost by trying other methods
1st.

Example: Let’s say a character has
been allowed to find a fully charged
lightning bolt wand. Thereafter he starts
blasting every enemy in sight while other
characters look on and the DM grits his
teeth. If he is a 10th-level character in a
high-powered game, the wand won’t disrupt the game much, but if he and his
friends are fifth level something has to be
done. Those 100 charges could last a
long time. Perhaps you could offer (via a
non-player character, with the gods mediating) to trade a special ring of regeneration which would work only for the
character (fusing onto his finger) in exchange for the wand. Or you might offer
a Wish (plus some interesting scrolls?).
Think of some item or items which, while
valuable to the player, will not disrupt the
campaign the way the wand would. In
general, the offered exchange should be
defensive rather than offensive magic, or
perhaps information-gathering magic instead of either of the other types, because offensive magic tends to help everyone in a character’s party while the
other types, if carefully selected, will
help only the character to whom they are
traded.

The DM who makes up for his mistakes in a manner such as this, given a
proper and reasonable amount of agreement and cooperation by players, stands
a far smaller chance of being looked
upon as unfair or arbitrary — and his
campaign stands a far greater chance of
surviving.