Have you had a problem with "character dumping"

[Oryan77]

I can understand a player that ends up not liking the PC. So I don't mind if they switch up every so often if they aren't into the character. Changing PCs can waste a lot of work that I put into coming up with plots that use their backstory they gave me. Other players also get bummed since they thought of that PC as a friend and now they lose that group bond. So they do have to start 1 level behind to discourage it. If the change is for a good reason that benefits the group, then I will let this penalty slide.

I'm not ok with a player that switches PCs on a regular basis though. For these players, it has nothing to do with not liking the PC because they won't like any PC. If it gets to the point where a player causes the whole group to have to adjust to a new character all the time, it becomes 'boring for us' and that player would be asked to leave the group or suck it up and stick with the last PC.

I am pretty lenient on letting players tweak their PCs when leveling if they were unhappy with a particular feature. I think this helps keep players from being unhappy with the PC. Character dumping is not really a problem with our group.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

It got to be a problem in one of my games so th next game had a house rule that if a character died the players new character came it at average party level, if they quit the character he came in at level 1. Stopped people from just dumping characters.

 

[Imban]

If it's something like hating your character's build but not making too big of a change, enough that people could reasonably not notice (and I run gestalt 3.5e games, so people are legitimately pulling out crazy new abilities all the time), I'm generally okay with it as long as you talk with me about why you want to rebuild your character first.

If you actually do not want to play that character any more at all, well, I'd still like to be accomodating, but I'd really like to talk with you about it, especially if you were relevant to the current plot and I'm going to have to redo my ideas for the next session or something because of it. New characters, whether new players or not, come in at equal to the level of the party but with no XP towards the next level, but that's not really a major penalty.

If you're That Guy who seriously wants to play 8 different characters within 15 sessions, around the third time I'll certainly let you stop playing your character, but probably not let you make another. That's not fun for the rest of us to have to put up with, but most people are not That Guy.

 

[Lanefan]

If you're That Guy who seriously wants to play 8 different characters within 15 sessions, around the third time I'll certainly let you stop playing your character, but probably not let you make another. That's not fun for the rest of us to have to put up with, but most people are not That Guy.

A lot would depend on how That Guy pulled it off, and what the rationale behind it was. If the characters were leaving the party for valid in-character reasons, or meeting quick in-adventure deaths either heroically or amusingly, then there really isn't any problem I can see. But if That Guy is just rolling the dice trying for a power-build or uber-stats, then off with 'is 'ead, I say.

I think the worst I've ever managed was 5 characters in about 7 sessions, in a 3e game where I had - well, let's just say a rather poor run of luck, and leave it at that. (and I also *really* came to appreciate 1e char-gen speeds during that run!)

Lan-"who is That Guy anyway?"-efan

 

[Dragon Snack]

I had a That Guy who once changed PCs after one encounter.

Of course, everyone else knew his "Short Round" character concept was doomed to fail, but nobody thought it would be that bad. That's when we implemented our "Raise Dead Rule" (although we didn't call it that).

And sadly, I had more than one of That Guy's in my group. Even AFTER the lose a level rule...

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I guess it does boil down to function versus dysfunctional behavior (it would get annoying to have a player play a new PC ever session), but in general I'm supportive of "dumping" characters. People often get bored with PCs or are attracted to another option, so I say what the heck. I don't dock levels or do anything punitive (except perhaps keeping them to three magic items, when their previous character could have had more). Granted, I would like character swapping to be done during "appropriate" times (like in town or during some suitable break), but usually I'm willing to work with the player.

In my group most of the players have one to three back-up characters made. It would be a shame IMO for these PCs to never see the light of day, so I'm quite willing to let players swap characters. I even want to try a game where one encounter uses one group of PCs while another encounter uses a different group of PCs - all the PCs know each other, they're just operating in different areas and doing different things.

 

[Clavis]

One of the advantages of Old-School episodic and location-based play was that it easily accommodated a constantly changing cast of characters. The classic Old-School campaign was really about the environment that the PCs were adventuring in, rather than a story that they were participating in. The story was simply the record of the PC's actions. It was a simple matter to work new characters in, because most PCs were only motivated by a desire for gold and adventure itself. Just go to the local inn, and the party was certain to find another vagrant mercenary willing to raid old ruins rather than than get a real job. Of course, things needed to be that way simply because pre-2nd edition characters were not expected to have long lives necessarily.

 

[merelycompetent]

For campaign play, I'm pretty lenient about swapping out feats, skills, and even class levels, especially in the early part of the campaign. It's very simple - I *want* the player to be happy with his/her characters. Especially since I've probably put in more time on their character (working out plotlines, NPCs, and other campaign-effective elements) than they have.

After the first character dumping - I use the "backup set" of plotlines and so forth - campaign material that wasn't appropriate for the former character, but now is for the new one.

By the second character dumping, the player and I are going to have a chat about whether he/she and I are a good match. Because I'm not going to spend another 10-15 hours working on Bob the III to make him fit into the campaign better just so there can be a Bob the IV in a couple of months.

On the third character dumping, I recruit a replacement player.

It's not my gaming style, and it drives me nuts as a DM. Somewhat less so when I'm a player.

Now, if we're playing a one-shot, or series of one-shots (beer and pretzels), no problem. Bring in a new one after every combat, if you like. Just understand that I'm not stopping the game to help you make Bob II, III, or IV.

As for older edition characters not expected to have long lives... that was definitely not the attitude in my part of the gaming world. Heck, we regularly asked if we could keep copies of the tournament characters from conventions so that we could continue playing them again in our games!

 

[kitsune9]

I just finished reading the most recent article from RoleplayingTips.com (it's not online yet). The theme is introducing new characters to a campaign.

I noticed one running theme in the early tips deal with "punishing" players for switching characters. Essentially the GM wants to make sure that people don't drop a character just because they are bored with them.

Has this been a big issue in your games? Even when I had players who tended to be like this (one would easily go through 5-6 characters before the game started in 3.5), it wasn't too much of a problem. Even when it started to disrupt the game, I never really needed to use mechanical methods to discourage it.

Has it been a problem in your games?

I had a couple of players back in the days of 2e that would want to do that and one player that did that in 3.x. Overall, I would allow them to switch characters just once, but that would be it. My group built their parties to complement each other so changing characters would be problematic. At the start of every campaign, the players would get together and decide which class they want to play so that all the types are covered and have a rounded party.

 

[haakon1]

Has this been a big issue in your games? Even when I had players who tended to be like this (one would easily go through 5-6 characters before the game started in 3.5), it wasn't too much of a problem. Even when it started to disrupt the game, I never really needed to use mechanical methods to discourage it.

Has it been a problem in your games?

Not a big problem. People rarely switch characters in my campaigns (I can think of 3 instances across 16 player * campaign combos), but that's probably because of a mechanical rule I do have: nobody gets any levels "for free".

You can either start the new character from first level, start at first level from an approved race with level equivalency that brings it up to average for the party (but you have to earn off all the XP for that equivalent level to advance to Level 2), bring in an approved PC from another campaign, or take over an NPC/retired character.

The 3 changes were:
- started a new character at 1st level (not overly onerous in AD&D, with an average party level of about 3 at the time)
- took over an NPC
- brought in a PC developed in another campaign (which I also DM'd)

Also, I allow only the core rules (PHB+DMG), plus Netbook of Feats, in my 3.5e game (and ran just core rules in AD&D), so there's no "oh my gosh, that's a cool/overpowered new class/feat/race, I want it" factor in my campaigns.