As a DM, what would you do in this situation?

[swrushing]

I would choose A. Bringing him back at lower Xp isn't going to help anything and will only detract from his enjoyment and potentially everyone else's, especially if he sees it as punishment.

The issue of "sticking with and enjoying a character" and the issue of "how much Xp do i give you" are separate, except that "shafting him" on Xp can make it just a contentious issue.

So, let him know twon things.

First, if he does bring it vack, he suffers no Xp penalty or punishment.

Second, you know that you and you think the others enjoy a stable set of characters more than back-n-forth, so the two of you need to work through the character issues and stick with one he can enjoy. Workn this through as a totally separate thing from any Xp notions.

 

[S'mon]

I'd use A or C, whichever was higher.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The old character has history, story, backstory and hooks associated with it. I'd never make it more beneficial to start a brand new character than to bring an old one back in so I'd go with option A unless C was higher.

Cheers

 

[Li Shenron]

C) Bring his old character back with the same amount of XP he had when he "retired?"

I suppose this is the least advantageous for him, but this is where I would start from: his character restarts from where he stopped.

I absolutely don't mean this as a general rule. In this case it seems ok because IIUC he would pick up the old character at level 11, while others are at level 13. This is very feasible, it's not going to be a problem at all.

But as a general rule, I would be definitely be in favor of letting him restart at a level higher than he was when he left, and justify it with the fact that he had gained those extra Xp in the meantime. This could be necessary if the party was 3 or more levels higher (and 2 is quite a limit I already wouldn't go below), or if the game was overall lower-level.

Don't make your decision as a fixed house rule of the group! Keep it clear, if you give him extra xp, that you're doing this because as the DM you think he needs a help in this specific campaign situation, and you may take a different decision in other circumstances.

 

[pogre]

The old character has history, story, backstory and hooks associated with it. I'd never make it more beneficial to start a brand new character than to bring an old one back in so I'd go with option A unless C was higher.

Agreed. I would be concerned, however, that this player has expressed dissatisfaction with his first character earlier - or at the least was tired of it.

I personally would let him bring in a new character concept if he does not really want to play the current one or his old one. I would clearly explain to him I am bending over backwards to try and make the game fun for him, but constant switching is disruptive and it would be great if he could hold the line on this one.

 

[Shallown]

I think it doesn't matter really how much XP he comes back with. It is much more important to address the isuue of needing to switch characters.

Is this a new trend or just a mistake the player made. I know I have changed out characters and then realized it was indeed a mistake. That I missed my orginal character.

Changing out characters several times is an issue but people due change thier mind and/or make bad decisions. I would worry much more about why this is happenening then what to do.

As far as actualy applying your house rules leave it up to the players. If your concern is what is fair and whatis unfair that (in this situation) is really a matter of opinion, an opinion set by your players and yourself. What do they think?

I know in my group we are pretty lenient about that sort of thing. We have one player who misses a lot of sessions (compared to the restof the group) and had fallen behind in levels but we decided it didn't matter to us if he got full Xp so that he was not a liability and so he would not feel less useful in the group. In the end he was being "Punished" enough by not getting to play, which is what we really enjoyed.

I don't think fairness is an issue anyone but the GM and players can decide. The only other issue is setting a rule to discourage players from switching willy-nilly their characters. If that is not a problem and not a forseeable problem then don't make it an issue.

Our group policy is when you character dies you come back at the experience you left at including the fight you died in. Dieing is bad enough. Also our group (as players) has set a no ressurecting / raise dead agreement. Just a pact that we won't bring our characters back from the dead even if the ability to do so exist. So the game is much more risky and real in a sense. Some players plan to bring back their character and retire them becuase it is in character to do so but they won't come back into the campaign as a PC.

Later

 

[cuteasaurus]

Same level as before. It is the same character after all, and he "retired" so I assume he has been sitting around enjoying the good life instead of adventuring in his retirement.

But I thought the "retirement" was to study his psionic abilities? It doesn't seem to make sense to me that he'd be at the same level he was when he'd left...I guess I'd say put him at level 12 since he's done things since he left and yet probably wasn't as active as the regular group.

*Edit: I say 12 because of the way you've set up your house rules (XP at lowest party level). If it were a game I was in...I'd say he has the same XP as the character I was currently playing (level 13).