Relatives and Inheritance

[talysman]

So, someone elsewhere asked a question about the rule that relatives can inherit a missing or deceased character's property and possessions.

This is in reference to Men & Magic, p. 13:

The referee may allow players to designate one relative of his character to inherit his possessions if for any reason the participant unexpectedly disappears, with or without "death" being positively established, for a period of one game month, let us say. At this time the relative would inherit the estate of the character, paying a 10% tax on all goods and monies. The relative must start at the lowest level of the class he opts for, but he will have the advantage of the inheritance.

If the character returns, he takes possession of his estate once more (referee's option as to willingness of the relative to give it up) but must pay an additional 10% tax in order to regain his own. Optionally the relative may be allowed to stay on as a non-player character in the service of the player-character. Loyalty of the relative in such a circumstance would be at a penalty of from 0 to -6, and he would possibly intrigue to regain control.

Characters without a relative will lose all their possessions should they disappear and not return before whatever period is designated as establishing death.

Seems pretty straightforward, but the question-asker focused on the word "participant" and asked if the rule actually applied to a player who didn't show up for game sessions, with distribution of property to a relative as punishment for skipping out.

This seems pretty far-fetched, but the question-asker also claims that aldarron in an interview said that Dave Arneson killed the characters of absent players and punishing the players when they returned by forcing them to run bit-role characters instead.

So, I offered to ask people who'd know more about the actual table practices of Gygax and Arneson, as well as those who have seen draft manuscripts, about the issue. Questions are:

1. Did either Dave or Gary or both use punishment mechanics like this for players who didn't play their characters for a long time?
2. What did any of the draft manuscripts say about this rule? Did it change at all?
3. Where did the word "participant" come from, in this case? Was it Gary's language, or Dave's?
4. How often did the relative inheritance rule come into play, and were the designated relatives PCs played by the same player, or a different player?

I do see we had a previous thread on inheritance: Erac, Erac's Cousin, and "heritage". However, it did leave some questions unanswered.

[Red Baron]

You can also promote a henchmen if your character dies

[increment]

Feb 23, 2020 11:25:46 GMT -6 talysman said:

Where did the word "participant" come from, in this case? Was it Gary's language, or Dave's?

As far as I know, "participant" there is Gary's language. I might say that the bit about death being positively established suggests OD&D is talking about the disappearance of the character, rather than the player (who presumably does not require proof of life). Same for the "if the character returns."

The biggest difference in the draft text (which is reflected in BTPBD) is that it allows a participant to designate one relative to -play-, not to just to -inherit-. So basically, it is offering players the chance to generate a back-up character who waits in the wings in case something happens to their original character, and who the player can then take over his main character. The draft text is also shorter and simpler, just four sentences in GD&D.

[talysman]

Feb 24, 2020 18:44:38 GMT -6 increment said:

Feb 23, 2020 11:25:46 GMT -6 talysman said:

Where did the word "participant" come from, in this case? Was it Gary's language, or Dave's?

As far as I know, "participant" there is Gary's language. I might say that the bit about death being positively established suggests OD&D is talking about the disappearance of the character, rather than the player (who presumably does not require proof of life). Same for the "if the character returns."

That's pretty much what I argued, but I was working solely from what's published. The person asking this was pretty resistant to that argument and is convinced that Arneson's draft had some kind of player truancy language in it. I'm pretty skeptical, because rules to punish or control players seems like a very late-stage development and not at all what I'd expect as a formal game rule. Ad hoc, one-time rules to deal with a specific individuals, maybe. But not something anyone from a wargamer background would have seen as a part of the game system itself.

The biggest difference in the draft text (which is reflected in BTPBD) is that it allows a participant to designate one relative to -play-, not to just to -inherit-. So basically, it is offering players the chance to generate a back-up character who waits in the wings in case something happens to their original character, and who the player can then take over his main character. The draft text is also shorter and simpler, just four sentences in GD&D.

Thanks! Seems like the intention was exactly what everyone interpreted the text to mean.

[scottyg]

A specific example from Gary’s game: when Ernie’s character Erac died, Erac’s Cousin inherited his wealth and a few magic items he had left behind.

[talysman]

Feb 25, 2020 12:57:28 GMT -6 scottyg said:

A specific example from Gary’s game: when Ernie’s character Erac died, Erac’s Cousin inherited his wealth and a few magic items he had left behind.

Yes. That's linked above. One issue with that, though, is that the story is it was past Ernie's bedtime and he was refusing to go to bed, so Gary said Erac died of starvation. That kind of puts it in a weird position as a seeming example of the kind of "punishment" mechanic someone was imagining as the source of the rule.

But I think that the Erac example was more an exception rather than the norm, a parenting decision rather than a GM ruling.