Bringing in New Characters - What Do You Do?

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Everyone,

There has been a disturbing trend lately (over the past year or so) in our group of players taking out characters because either:
- They're not happy with them and want something different
- Their character died (hey it happens)
- The group is going somewhere bad (Return to the Tomb of Horrors - remember that old thread?) and the player does not want the character to die
- The character is retired (ranging from suitable to lame reasons)
- The character is forced out of the party

Our standard approach is that you bring in a character one level lower than the lowest in the party. While this was OK for a while, it no longer acts as a deterrent to the chopping and changing of late. I'm almost thinking of suggesting to the group that if you take a character out (whatever the reason), they should not be allowed to come back.

Do you guys have rules regarding this for your group?
Does a constantly changing character roster bother you?
Have you any thoughts on the matter or am I just being silly when it comes to the party make-up changing around all the time?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Steel_Wind]

As a matter of elegance, I can see why this is annoying to you.

But really - what's the issue? Is it a matter of consistency, inability to accurately plan ahead, story continuity?

What, in short, is aggravating you about these player choices?

I know from my own persprctive in the games I tend to run (huge epic quest metaplot) the consistency and story continuity would matter to me - a lot.

But not all DMs run a campaign like I run. Most, in fact, do not.

My point is: if the players are doing this as they are getting restless - why fight it?

Or is this just symptomatic of some other trend in the game that perhaps needs adjustment?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Steel_Wind,

As a matter of elegance, I can see why this is annoying to you.

But really - what's the issue? Is it a matter of consistency, inability to accurately plan ahead, story continuity?

What, in short, is aggravating you about these player choices?

I think in some ways it has cheapened the story. Unfortunately, I think it can be like a downward spiral with each change begetting more change. Maybe the blissful stability we enjoyed before provides too much of a counterpoint to the current situation?

I know from my own persprctive in the games I tend to run (huge epic quest metaplot) the consistency and story continuity would matter to me - a lot.

But not all DMs run a campaign like I run. Most, in fact, do not.

Ours however does run a game like this. Thus why I think I feel the way I do.

My point is: if the players are doing this as they are getting restless - why fight it?

Or is this just symptomatic of some other trend in the game that perhaps needs adjustment?

To this I cannot say. I know the player playing the rogue is not happy with large amounts of undead the module is currently focusing upon while the player playing the sorcerer is metagaming to a point that is truly frustrating not only to me as a player but also to the DM too. In short, I am sure there is some factor underlying this. I just cannot put my finger directly upon it. Thank you for the reply.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Elf Witch]

Hi Steel_Wind,


I think in some ways it has cheapened the story. Unfortunately, I think it can be like a downward spiral with each change begetting more change. Maybe the blissful stability we enjoyed before provides too much of a counterpoint to the current situation?


Ours however does run a game like this. Thus why I think I feel the way I do.



To this I cannot say. I know the player playing the rogue is not happy with large amounts of undead the module is currently focusing upon while the player playing the sorcerer is metagaming to a point that is truly frustrating not only to me as a player but also to the DM too. In short, I am sure there is some factor underlying this. I just cannot put my finger directly upon it. Thank you for the reply.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I can understand the rogue's frustration. In our campaign we have been dealing with undead for what seems like forever. The paladin of the party just wipes the floor with them he is immune to their drains and special attacks. Both my character and the rogue type character had weapons that did subdual not very good against undead. I have been so frustrated that I keep asking to bring in a new character.

One solution I think would be to throw a bone our way even with undead you can still find away to give the rogue something to do.

As for characters leaving you need to find out why? Are thwy bored there are some players who just can't commit to a long term character they start wanting to play something new. The only solution I see to this is to tell them look you can't do that and if it bothers you then maybe you need to find another group.

Some other reasons could be that they feel that their character is always being over shined by another character. Or the character is not able to perform the way they envisioned it. If it is these cases then you need to talk to the players and find out why they want a new character.

I agree that revolving door characters can really ruin the game when it is a long term campaign.

Is it possible your players don't want a long term game?

Communication would answer a lot of these questions so you should talk to your players.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

New characters can only be introduced if the old one dies & is not raised; & the new character comes in at 2 levels lower than the old one, which is 1 level worse than if it had been raised. If the player wants to bring in a new character while the existing one is alive they need an exceptional reason because my default answer is "no".

Existing characters cannot be easily discarded for 2 reasons:
1) I the dm along with the player have built up existing background & threads, & the thought of not being able to easily use this & instead having to do the hard work again fills me with dread.
2) Players choose early on to use 4d6dl or 25pt buy, if the character is dropped because the 4d6dl result is poor then they are invalidating this choice. Given that I believe 25pt buy is balanced with 4d6dl because of its reliability, this invalidation offends me to a degree which I know is not rational, but I cannot help.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

New PCs & Simplifying Player Expulsions

I simply let new characters begin with the average XP possessed by the party, which usually puts them at the same level as everyone else.

It's just easier that way; plus it helps cut down on player complaints of their PCs being weaker than other party members.

However, I do have an etiquette statement on my campaign pamphlet which reads as follows:

Character loyalty is important; it cuts down on DM labor and helps maintain campaign verisimilitude. You are therefore encouraged to continue using your current character until they legitimately die or become unplayable.

Any player who consistently violates the spirit of this suggestion is summarily ejected from our group.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Don't Tolerate Lousy Players

... the player playing the sorcerer is metagaming to a point that is truly frustrating not only to me as a player but also to the DM too.

In our campaign, metagamer PCs have this nasty habit of you know ... dying. Also, their players have this funny tendency to disappear from our table.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

As a DM, I had problems with this a couple of campaigns ago. Got really out of hand. I ended up bringing the game creaking to a halt before moving onto other things. Obviously not the best answer!

In the post campaign retrospective phase, I think there were a number of factors at work:

Some characters wern't particularly meshed into the campaign world. Basically new characters - just didn't have the backstory of some of the more established PCs. Takes a while to settle in - IME, this is the dangerous period for 'I just fancy a change'.

So, I've diddled around with character generation. Basically, developing a character background along a set of guidelines gives extra character building points... funnily enough, all the players take this up! Come up with more developed backgrounds - normally starting with some degree of emotional investment and attatchment to their character. Like it so much that I've used it in every game since. (Credit where it's due - first saw this idea put forward by Buttercup. Thanks!)


Death rate - found this a big problem. At the mid > higher levels, say 9th to 15/16th. Plenty of sudden and interesting ways to die and the game is getting very lethal. Getting raised costs a level, True Ressurection is too expensive for now... I've gotten stuck here playing the same level over and over again. Seen it happen to other players. IMO, it's incredibly frustrating. At some point a lot of people just want to throw the towel in and play a new character? Worst for fighter types, the more you die, the more likely you are to get killed. Not a good situation.

Several ideas: Tone down the 'cost' of getting raised. Making it cost the XP of the level below is one answer. i.e. dying at 10th level loses you 9000 XP from your current total, rather than reducing you to the base XP of level 9. Seems a little 'fairer', but isn't a great answer. Starting a new character would drop you to the bottom of level 9. Gives an incentive to get raised and keep on playing the same character.

WFRP fate points... avoid the 'costs' of death all together. Built in limit to how much you can use them. I really like this answer.

Make the game less lethal:
Perhaps any blow, spell or effect that would kill you, instead reduces you to -9 HP. Your friends get a round to save you.
Action Dice.
Die at -Con instead of -10.

Might feel too much like 'fudging' the game for some people.


Boredom with the campaign. Possibly plot related? Just not getting/enjoying higher level play? Fed up with rules heavy stuff? - any one of a host of things with no easy answers.

 

[delericho]

I've never had a problem with people chopping and changing characters. I have seen one GM suffer such a problem.

In the case of that player, the problem was that the GM was allowing access to anything from any of the supplements for the game (Vampire: the Masquerade). The player was in the process of reading said books, at a rate of one a week, and each week he "lost" his character sheet and had to create a new character, using all the kewl new powers he had discovered, usually carefully optimising his character for use against the other members of the group. Eventually, the GM simply told him he couldn't bring in any more characters, ever. So, if his current PC died, he was out of the game. Shortly thereafter, he left.

Personally, I'm inclined to allow a new PC to come in to replace an outgoing PC with the same XP as the current character, and equipment according to his level (per the DMG wealth charts). We use point-buy and fixed hit points, so there are no issues there. If a PC is brought in to replace a dead character, he can either start at one level lower, or pay out 25,000 gp from his starting gold, and begin at the same XP total as the old PC. (This is the material cost of a True Resurrection. Essentially, this ensures that there is no benefit in sticking with the current character or switching.)

In the event that I had a player who constantly wanted to switch, I would have a word with him and try to figure out why. I'd explain why it was a problem, and ask him to settle on one character.

In D&D it is important to introduce a variety of encounters. If the party find nothing but undead in their way, and never see a trap, then of course the rogue is going to be bored. If every problem can be solved with the sword, no one is going to want to play a bard. If the events of the campaign are marginalising one or more characters, the DM should simply allow the others to switch to a more effective type. The players didn't know how the campaign would turn out when they created their characters, and although the DM probably didn't intend to marginalise them, he has done so. Therefore, it is his responsibility to fix the problem, for the good of the game.

On another note:

In our campaign, metagamer PCs have this nasty habit of you know ... dying. Also, their players have this funny tendency to disappear from our table.

Or, you could try saying to them: "You're metagaming. Metagaming is cheating. Stop it." Just killing the character is inappropriate - it's equivalent to giving the silent treatment and then saying, "if you don't know the problem then there's no point in telling you." If you have an issue, discussing it with the offending party is always a more effective way to deal with it than just meting out punishment without comment.

 

[tensen]

In our campaign, metagamer PCs have this nasty habit of you know ... dying. Also, their players have this funny tendency to disappear from our table.

Remember.. kill the PCs, not the players.
This leads to less requirements of moving regularly.. and less questions from local law enforcement