Character Change

[LandShark]

Re: Re: Character Change

I'd let you build another character if you wanted to. I wouldn't force you into the game at a lower level either...well...not exactly. More than likely, I would start a solo game with you at one or two levels lower than your previous character, then role-play you up to the rest of the party's level, then join you up with them.

I like this idea a lot but...

Have you considered just changing the current character? There must have been something you found interesting in order for you to choose him in the first place. Could you maybe focus on that and stop doing the other things that you've found you don't like? Perhaps an alignment change, or some new oaths (ie. "I'm am a holy warrior, not a healer." so no more healing).

... this idea needs to be checked out first.

What do you think about that, Latency?

 

[Drawmack]

differences in playing styles can be hard to overcome. I like a fast paced game and played in a game where the party wanted to discuss every decision for two hours before doing anything, I'm talking things as simple as going left or right in a dungeon - I mean eventually you'll go both ways anyway. So my character just started announcing his actions and then doing it. The party would be arguing and I would state, the thief goes right taking the pack animals with him. At first this met a lot of contention then eventually we arived at a resolution to the problem that involved specific times limits on discusion time.

As far as having a character that you don't like to play. I've been stuck with that one a couple of times as well. I start giving them interesting personality quirks. For example I had a thief with an undo sence of guilt so everytime he stole stuff he went into a guilt crazed fit of self abuse. I had a paladin who relized that he was on the wrong side of his cause but was too high ranking in the order to start over so he just starting doing a half assed job.

Personally I believe it is unimagintive players that can't make a character interesting. It isn't the DMs job to make your character interesting it is yours. The DMs job is to make the adventures exciting and to tell the story. Sorry but that's my opinion.

 

[kreynolds]

Personally I believe it is unimagintive players that can't make a character interesting.

While I consider your examples imaginiative...

For example I had a thief with an undo sence of guilt so everytime he stole stuff he went into a guilt crazed fit of self abuse.

...I consider this one irritating, from a player's and dm's point of view...

I had a paladin who relized that he was on the wrong side of his cause but was too high ranking in the order to start over so he just starting doing a half assed job.

...and this one not worth the time to role-play with as a player, or to run a game for as a DM. But that's just me.

Mostly, it depends upon play style. Sometimes it's just time to retire or ditch a character and start over from scratch. I'll usually raise an eyebrow when someone wants to create a new character because they missed a feat a few levels back, and now they won't be able to min/max as well. However, if you're not having fun with the character in role-play, it could be for several reasons, one of which might be that your character's personality just doesn't quite fit with the rest of the party.

Now, what's less disruptive: building a new character or suddenly changing the personality of your character, without any rhyme or reason to the rest of the party's perspective?

It all depends on the player in question.

 

[Drawmack]

So you consider the first one irritating?

I didn't describe the self abuse. Often it was a couple of nights on a drunken rampage of debauchery. If also was often taking front line in battle right next to the fighters. It's not like I'd sit there and carve things into my skin. Also out of this guilt rose a robin hood type character. I would often steal from the rich and give to the poor more often then not focusing on orphanages. If stealing to help the poor I didn't suffer the self abuse.

So you consider that not worth the time to role-play huh?

So when I received notice that a goblin horde numbering approximatly 100 was on it's way to attack the citadel and I sent out my five worst worries to stop it and then had to suffer the repurcussions of my actions that wouldn't be interesting to you? When I received orders to go to a town that was controled by a rival power and attempt to gather inforamtion about their plans and I walked up to the front gate announced myself and asked what they were planning on doing that wouldn't be worth role-playing to you? Hmmm.

While neither of them are standard they are both worthy characters.

Anyway, who said abrupt and unexplained personality change. Are you going to let the characters go to sleep one night and wake up the next morning with another character in the cleric's sleeping bag?

The thief ran into a little girl who was destitute becuase what my character had stolen was a family heirloom that had been used as collateral in procuring loans for generations. He felt so bad about having stolen it that it cause his undo sense of guilt. The paladin accidently received official documents intended for someone else that led to his change of heart.

thanks for calling the theif's idea creative I came up with that and suggested it to the DM to give me a way to work it into the character development of the character.

 

[Al]

I'll take the plunge and throw my hat into kreynolds' ring (an action one should not take lightly ).

I had the same experience in my group. One of my players (a novice) decided to play a good cleric, and quickly devolved into the party medicine cabinet. It was an early and half-baked character, lacked personality, had little scope for roleplaying and the player was deriving so little pleasure from playing the character that he began making excuses to miss sessions.

In the end, I confronted him and told him that I was fairly sure that his dissatisfaction stemmed from his character. He agreed. We discussed a new character, built him up from scratch and he entered play. The old character was, thoroughly in character, retired, and the new one entered play: and he kept it until the end of the campaign.

Now, an anecdote can only prove so much, but the fact remains that the object of the game is fun. If a player is dissatisfied with a character, why not simply retire it? A question mark may be raised if the new character is overwhelmingly more powerful than the previous one, but so long as the substitution is for roleplaying reasons, I don't see any problem. Drawmack, you ironically seem to counter your own point. By advocating that interesting characters are the most important goal, it can be argued that you make a case for retiring non-interesting characters for more interesting ones, and as kreynolds puts far more concisely than I, 'suddenly changing the personality of your character, without any rhyme or reason ' to make a character interesting is an implausible cop-out.

If you feel discontent with your character, retire it and start anew. That's my advice.

 

[kreynolds]

thanks for calling the theif's idea creative I came up with that and suggested it to the DM to give me a way to work it into the character development of the character.

Tell you what. Next time, explain it a little better and you'll be able to avoid creating little misunderstandings like this.

And dude, chill out. Don't throw a temper tantrum. Sheesh.

Anyways, now that you've explained it, I like your implimentation of your rogue. Pretty cool. But, like I said, the best solution depends upon the player/character in question. So, it's not always the same.

All I was saying is that your character's personality change needs to make sense to everyone, not just you. Otherwise, your character just looks like a loon, and for that, I'll just feed ya' to the umberhulks and be done with it.

 

[Poltergeist]

My current group has a rule that if you "abandon" a character out of dislike you enter with a new character "two levels lower" than the previous one. While I personally disagree with the rule it at least ensures that no one abandons a character on a whim. I am of the "fun" school of thought and feel that if someone does not like their character, allowing that character to retire (or die) and allowing a new character of equal level to replace him or her in the party is the best choice. I think it can also be great if the character is written out in dramatic fashion:

Let the paladin face insurmountable odds, dying to save the rest of the party as a horde of his gods foes overwhelm him.

Let the amoral thief finally make a big enough score that she has little use for the dirty and dangerous life of an adventurer anymore, flips her party off, and rides off into a life of leisure.

Let the romantic in your party fall in love and settle down, leaving behind the dangers of the road.

Let the sorceress discover the true nature of her blood gift and leave behind the world of mortal men joining her <dragon/faerie/infernal/celestial/whatever you pick) ancestors.

When characters leave in this kind of fashion, it is a nice writing out that will leave the character memorable even though gone and even leaves potential for them perhaps popping up at a later date as an NPC or "guest star." New characters can also breathe new life into a campaign, allowing new tactics, new role playing opportunities, and even a shift in part culture.

To nerd myself, I will reference the British Sci-Fi series Doctor Who and his ever changing array of companions. Watching a beloved companion leave was always sad, but the introduction of a new and interesting companion often breathed life into the show when it was getting stale.

 

[kreynolds]

My current group has a rule that if you "abandon" a character out of dislike you enter with a new character "two levels lower" than the previous one.

Generally, I do too. The only difference is that I will run a solo game a couple of times for you, primarily so that you can get familiar with your new character. Only you can know the true personality of your character. The better you know and understand who your character really is, the better you will be able to communicate that to me and the rest of your party.

 

[LandShark]

I have run into real problems in the past when I have let PC's make new characters or change their existing ones. I let them use the starting gold from the table on page 40 of the DMG and buy whatever magic items they wanted. Not a good idea. They come back to the campaign with a new character named Minimus Maximus, a flying half-ogre/half-drow with two large double-headed +5 thundering mauls thus stealing everyone else's thunder. Players who are changing their characters for the wrong reason should be discouraged to do so in my mind. Or whatever -- it's all in fun.

 

[The_Gneech]

Have you considered multiclassing? Cleric/Monk makes a surprisingly cool combo...

-The Gneech