I've been playing in a Warhammer campaign for about 7 month with my friends.

I created a character that I thought would be interesting for me to play, as I planned to play him for a long time and I wanted to have some possibilities for him to develop his personality along the way. He was on the thinking side, not much of a fighter but had a really high self esteem, yet was totally unable to understand any form of sarcasm. Turned out I loved to play this character, and the campaign went on and we had a really good time.

But recently, we got into a situation where we had to infiltrate a place, and while one of my friends and I were trying to figure out a way to remain undetected, one of the others (who plays a reckless halfling and complained several times about the planning phase taking too long) went full Leeroy Jenkins and decided to jump from one roof to another, directly followed by the other friend (a fearless knight). They got us spotted, we quickly got surrounded by enemies and we got captured.

On the moment, I got angry at them, so when I realized it, I decided to keep my mouth shut. At the moment, I was really thought they were ruining my fun and that this needed to be addressed. But then I thought to myself I may be the one doing that by forcing them to plan and organize things as my character would.

So the decision I took was to make my character leave, as he had no trust left in his group. He was not fitting in there with his mindset, while the other ones were getting along just fine. I was a bit sad to have to leave this character that i loved to play but I did not see any other solution and I decided to create a character that would be a better match for the team in terms of behavior.

So here is my question : Could I have "saved" my character from leaving the party? And if yes, how?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That's more up to the other players, the only way I can think of is having the other players try and reconcile with you. \$\endgroup\$
    – Efialtes
    Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 13:31
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Sorry if I sound blunt but I don't know how to express it delicately in English. You say I thought that, then I thought something else... Have you, at any point, asked them what they thought? And if so, what was their response? \$\endgroup\$
    – Mołot
    Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 13:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mołot Yeah we talked about it and they just said I had to do as I feel is best for me to have fun. \$\endgroup\$
    – bedeau
    Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 13:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @bedeau but what about their fun? Have they c confirmed or denied, or commented on things like "I may be the one doing that by forcing them to plan and organize"? It is important distinction if it was only your feeling, or if that was what they felt too. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mołot
    Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 13:48
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I can see we do not have a warhammer-fantasy tag, but we should have one for any given edition of it. Maybe that would be more appropriate than the general tag? \$\endgroup\$
    – Szega
    Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 14:06

2 Answers 2


You could have, but definitely have no obligation to do so.

There is an odd element to TTRPGs that I've noticed, in which many people want and expect their characters to be fundamentally well-suited to the in-game environment, sometimes in every dimension. There's definitely nothing wrong with that, but it can get a bit strange in specific segments of plot. Dramatic tension doesn't really come from encountering only challenges which your character is specialized to overcome.

In a game from the Legend of Zelda series, new challenges tend to arise when you get a tool designed specifically to deal with them. You won't find yourself in a mandatory dungeon with a hookshot puzzle before getting the hookshot, and that's a form of segmenting and gating content. It would be beyond frustrating for it to be otherwise, as it would be impossible to advance.

RPG characters are a bit different. If your deliberate, plan-loving character were, due to plot elements, forced into a situation where they had no time to plan and had to act now, how would you perceive it? Would you think

This situation fundamentally betrays my character concept. My character is a planner, and any instance where they can't plan is one that they would not accept, so neither will I. This game is only valid for this character if conditions always allow them to approach challenges in their preferred way.

or might it be more like

My character is well-rounded but adventuring in unpredictable scenarios. Sometimes conditions allow them to operate in their preferred way, and sometimes things will go sideways. That unpredictability and tension is interesting, and I can still play my character faithfully under adverse circumstances.

There isn't a wrong answer, but if you lean more towards the former then you may need a character that is designed to operate with the group's preferences. If it's the latter, then your character's preferences will be expressed (at least sometimes) in ways other than having things unfold as they would prefer.

Think of it this way: Why was your character adventuring with a pair of Leeroy Jenkinses?

Was it because there was a compelling plot reason that brought these individuals together, and they sometimes had to deal with differing preferences for approaching problems, adding a new element of challenge to approaching the game for everyone? Was there some plot goal that would drive your character to continue working with people that frustrate their usual methods?

Or was this to be a cadre of like-minded people seeking adventure because they naturally work well together, and they apply that teamwork to accomplish heroic feats?

It's mainly on the GM to provide story elements like that, but if those are absent then only you can decide what reasons your character might have for sticking with these more... spontaneous individuals, and if those reasons aren't good enough for you you can ask the other players to work with you to fix that, or change your character around to better suit the party as it is.

Beware "My Guy" syndrome

I'm not suggesting that this was in play here, but it's worth bearing in mind because extending this mindset too far leads to My Guy syndrome.

In short, you are not in any way constrained by what your character "thinks" or "would do". You are a player at the table, and you exist. Your character is an application of your imagination, and does not. By all means if you are not having fun with a character, for any reason, you don't need to carry on playing with that character.

But simply asserting that your character does not trust the group and therefore would definitely leave is working from the opposite direction. In real life people do things they'd rather not all the time, and not liking the approach of the party overall doesn't mean your character must, or even can, just take off and be replaced by someone else.

The problem was that you were not having the fun you wanted. Not that your character did or did not feel a certain way.

What could you have done?

This is a fuzzy question, since so much depends on the specific circumstances of your campaign and gaming group. But working with your GM and fellow players to come up with reasons why your character was involved with the party would have been a good first step. If he needs their help to free his imprisoned family from a wizard, he might put up with just about anything they might do because walking away means all of his goals are ruined.

Post-hoc options include things like pointing out to the party that the last time you rushed in, things went terribly and so this time you should try a more deliberate approach. Perhaps you could compromise with the other players to plan less than your character might prefer, but more than their characters might prefer.

Tension between PCs isn't necessarily bad. I like using it in games that I run. But especially if players are trying to be true to their characters, the incentives for them to stay together need to be stronger than the tensions driving them apart. Your GM is responsible for a lot of that, but you can do it yourself too. If you can't think of a reason your character would be a part of this group, you can talk to the GM and other players about it to help make things fit together better.


You could have, in my opinion, decided that you snapped or something and become a little bit more chaotic, but that may be too rash.

  • \$\begingroup\$ That could indeed have saved the character, he would definitely have changed though. But this is an interesting point, the character was misfit and his mates slowly drove him crazy. \$\endgroup\$
    – bedeau
    Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 14:46
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Hey @CatArmy welcome to RPG.se! On this site we believe that answers backed up with experience or evidence are preferable. Can you add something to your answer to flesh it out more? Perhaps you've tried something similar and had it work out for you in the past? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 15:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .