Have you had a problem with "character dumping"

[Barastrondo]

I've seen it become a problem. I prefer to run and play in campaigns where there is a lot of continuity, and I find that constant character switching really disrupts that.

But I'm also a believer in "death penalties" in general. I don't care for campaigns where players who get killed return to play with a new character who is the same level as the one who just got killed. I like it when death hurts.

I tend to feel that death is gonna hurt because the player is really going to miss the character and all the various social relationships, positive and negative, the character has built up. If the player sees a character as disposable and isn't going to miss roleplaying them any more, either that player isn't really compatible with my gaming style or I haven't been treating the character right.

If a player's bored with a character because I haven't given them enough opportunity to become invested in the campaign with that particular persona, then I'm not gonna punish them for my screwup. If they're bored because they were into that character solely for the mechanics, well, I don't think starting a level behind with the next character is going to increase their attachment to the new character any. (Of course, if the player's not interested in the game outside of mechanics, I also wouldn't punish them for finding a different campaign more suited to their tastes. The house style doesn't quite cater to that.)

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Certain players make it an issue somewhat. In the game I run now, one of the players is well known to go through characters like disposable razors. Already, about 15 sessions (if not less, and several of those were multiple sessions for massive dungeons) into the campaign, he's about to make his third attempt at a lasting PC. If it keeps up, I'll have to do something, but hopefully it really is just a matter of him finding a character he'll not get bored with.

 

[Jack99]

Not really.

Bored players make for bad games. If 'dumping' a character helps to avoid boredom, I would encourage rather than punish it.

Disco

 

[JackSmithIV]

My players are too attached to their characters to abandon them. It got to the point where one player took on an extra character so they'd have a striker in the party, but they abandoned the new warlock because it left that player's original character in the shadow of the new one.

They missed hearing more from the paladin. Because in character, they're all friends. To my players, living out a character's story is more important than that feeling of a fresh set of combat abilities. It's not that they don't love combat, they're absolute fiends for it... but persevering story elements take priority.

And that's their decision, not mine.

 

[wedgeski]

I subscribe to the bored players=bad game philosophy whole-heartedly. It would disappoint me if a player wanted to swap characters regularly, but I can't say it's ever been a particular problem. I would however quickly lose interest in integrating that PC directly into the campaign, because it would probably end up being wasted time that I could have better spent on the other characters.

 

[Fenes]

I will not punish a player for switching characters. I will also not reward them for it. PCs that are long lasting in my campaigns find they have more plots around them and are more involved in the story. That is my reward for players that don't switch characters like this. However, it is rarely ever an issue with us.

I've got a similar stance. I also don't think anything is wrong with (retroactively) changing a character's stats/feats etc., as long as the core concept of the character remains, or if it reflects an enduring process, so there's not much "My character sucks, I need a new one" in my campaigns.

 

[S'mon]

You have to let players retire their PC if they want. However the new PC should at least come in with a lower XP total; I typically use "2 levels below the highest PC in the group, or half your last character's XP, whichever is better". The old PC walks off with their accumulated magic items, of course - or else the new PC comes in with nothing.

To somewhat discourage dumping, I don't force players to play a bad set of rolled stats. My new approach is that player rolls normally (best 3 of 4d6 x6, arrange as desired) but if they don't like the results they can use the default array 15 14 13 12 10 8 instead. If a player was abusing this by continuously retiring PCs in the hope of a better roll I would make them take the default array automatically, but I haven't seen that happen.

 

[papa_laz]

I also have a player who could be described as having D&D ADD. Though I prefer to look at it as a form of bipolar localised to the character creation section of his mind. Before I started my campaign he came up with around 20-30 characters before finally settling on one to play. During this time he had even requested I write up the rules for him to play a miniature ogre mage, which he basically custom designed. Even though this took a couple of hours of poring over the rules in Savage Species I didn't mind as he enjoys this aspect of the game and as a DM I believe I should accomodate the wishes of the players as best I can. However this character idea and my meticulously crafted level progression table was scrapped within a week, which left me feeling a little peeved.

We've played our first session of the campaign and its all gone very well. His number crunched fire newt druid with flesh raker animal companion has turned out to be an absolute beast in combat, which seems to make him happy. However after the game he talked to me privately about possibly changing his character to an ogre fighter, which was his second preference before we started. I'm starting to become a little irritated by this as I place great importance on telling a story, and I think messing with continuity should be avoided.

He is an out and out powergamer which I don't mind because thats how he enjoys playing, but I don't want this to be a constant burden which puts extra pressure on me to work new characters into the story. I think because he doesn't really engage in the roleplaying aspect of the game his way of enjoying himself is to design a combat machine, and then once his design proves itself he feels no real attachment or compulsion to keep playing it, and wants to move onto the next design challenge.

I will argue that he should stick with this character for a couple of sessions, and if he is still sick of it and wants to kill it off then that can be arranged. But I'm hoping once I challenge the party in combat he will start to discover the potential of this complex and dynamic character.

 

[Glyfair]

You have to let players retire their PC if they want. However the new PC should at least come in with a lower XP total; I typically use "2 levels below the highest PC in the group, or half your last character's XP, whichever is better". The old PC walks off with their accumulated magic items, of course - or else the new PC comes in with nothing.

Which is the sort of "solution" that the beginning of the article mentions. One of the tips even mentions starting them at the beginning (remember, the tips are not just for D&D).

 

[Runestar]

I have had a few situations (around 5-6 times?) where players realized that the characters they were playing were not as fun/effective as they believed it should have been. So they requested for permission to replace it with another PC. Since my games tend towards more relaxed, light-hearted games that are less focused on immersive roleplaying, I usually oblige.

Can't really blame them. Certain classes such as the hexblade just plain stink, and players should not be made to bear the consequences of incompetent game design, IMO. Others, like the warlock, are one-trick ponies and quickly become dull and repetitive to play when you keep spamming the one same tactic over and over again.