Preference for removing old characters and introducing new ones

[Asmor]

Just a quick question. What do you all prefer when it comes to getting rid of old characters and introducing new ones? Personally, I prefer to just get it over with in as quick a manner as possible, even if it's not that likely story-wise. For example, in my curent game a few sessions back I had a character burst an embolism and just keel over right at the beginning of a session. The player had moved away a while before and I'd gotten sick of running the character. In that same session, the party was aboard a flying ship which crashed in the middle of a large forest. Two of the players wanted to play new characters, so I just said that their old ones died in the crash and the new ones just happened to be nearby and saw the crash. (To be fair, they were a hunter (from the World of Warcraft RPG) and a Thri-Kreen monk), so it's not horrendously unlikely that they wouldn't be found in the forest...).

So do you prefer to take care of things when the story allows, or do you prefer more instant gratification?

 

[Corsair]

If players want to play new characters, no reason to force them to stick with old character longer.

 

[Bagpuss]

I ticked other, I like the change to be logical but it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to think up some sort of vaguely plausable excuse. Certainly you shouldn't make 'story' force a player to sit out most of the session.

 

[blargney the second]

We don't usually kill characters if we can avoid it. They'll disappear off a crashing airship (funny parallel with Asmor), get dominated by a bad guy, or even just retire. I haven't yet fought a PC-cum-NPC, but I'm looking forward to the eventuality!

 

[reanjr]

Characters get dropped efficiently and brutally. Adding them in is usually done with more care, though.

 

[Lanefan]

Other - entirely dependent on situation.

If a continuing player wants to cycle living characters, I usually make them wait till the end of the current adventure; then, no problem.

If a continuing player loses their character(s) in mid-adventure and revival effects are not available, I'll try to find a way to get a new character in if the player wants. Often, the other players will take care of this for me: "Damn, we lost our Thief...better go see if we can recruit another one."; even if the new PC isn't a Thief, this rationale brings the party to a place where new PC's can be met. That said, there's been the odd occasion when story considerations have taken priority and the new PC has just had to wait.

If a player leaves in mid-adventure but it makes sense that their PC stays with the party, then it stays as a QPC (quasi-player character)* until the party gets back to town, whereupon it retires - and may be met again later.

If a departed-and-moved-away player stops into town for a visit and wants to get their PC into the game for a session or two, I'll usually chuck the reality simulator out the window, bring the PC in by any means I can dream up, then have it disappear again the same way when the player leaves (assuming it survives, of course).

* - QPC definition: a player character active in a session at which its player is not present.

Lanefan

 

[el-remmen]

I chose "other"

I try to make it make sense in the story - if someone's character dies I am more sympathetic about pushing things to get their new character in.

If it is just that they are "tired" of the old character - well, they just have to wait until it makes sense.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It voted equal. If a character has a lot of history and depth, I figure that they deserve to go out with style. However, if the character is brand new or particularly uninspired, they get a very simple exit. If the player was a putz, they might get a vindictive end.

 

[MPA]

He just creates a new character and begins playing with it. He can still use the older one later if he wishes.

 

[was]

We usually incoporate the leaving into the storyline as a minor point.