Do you actually CARE about your PC?

[Oryan77]

One thing I've noticed when reading D&D forums is how many different games people play in or have played in.

It really blows me away because I can count the different campaigns I've played in on 1 hand. Granted I DM 90% of the time, but if I play in someones game, I usually stick to the same system (D&D) and the same edition. I like fantasy worlds (D&D), so I don't get an itching to play sci-fi or modern worlds that much. The campaign is more important to me than the rules, so once I found the rules that "worked", I was cool with it. Things people nitpick about rules just really aren't an issue for me...I agree with their complaints, but it doesn't keep me from having fun playing D&D. I liked 2e, but I thought 3.5 was easier to run. I tried 4e, & like playing my PC in the 4e game, but I still prefer 3.5. So D&D 3.5 is my "go to" game.

But man, a lot of people (most people?) go on and on naming the different games they've played. A major reason I don't like to hop from game to game is because I really get into playing my characters. I like to see them grow. Is this uncommon? Most players I game with seem to like their PCs, but they are usually quick to throw them away and play another.

Are your characters "special" to you? Or do you see them as nothing more than a tool to use to kill things and become the best? What I mean by special is, if you had read about your character dying in a novel, would you care the way you would if your favorite character in a real novel died? Or would you look at it like a video game character where you get to just "start again" so it's no big deal?

I'm just curious to know why people are so quick to jump from game to game where they'll have to create a new character each time. Is it the simple urge to try something new? Or is playing a character as if he/she was a real person just not your style of gaming? Why do you not really care about playing the same character and watching him grow?

 

[Crothian]

I care. I have to like the character as miore then a means to an ends or a set of numbers or I'm not going to have a lot of fun with the game.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm probably more in the middle of the road and it depends upon the investment required for the character.

For example, dying in an RPGA game in 3.x was a major hassle. I did everything I could to keep my character alive, choosing my fights instead of just charging in, and considered surviving a module more important than actually winning in it.

If I saw players at the table doing stupid stuff that was risking getting my character killed, I tended to get short with them really quick and would metagame to get them to cut it out and pay attention.

In our home campaigns when I played, it's a little different. Dying is a hassle, but it may not be the end-all outcome like it could be in a regimented campaign in the RPGA. The same player who makes a doofus move in the home campaign doesn't bother me as much if he gets my character killed, because I can roll with it and keep on going.

On another take, I don't want to play the same character for years and years on end. Once I get them up there in levels and the DM is done with the campaign, it's time to retire. I feel as a more well-rounded player and gamer if I get to try other things, new games, and new character types so my typical character length is about a year to two years.

 

[Cadfan]

I tend to care about other player's characters more than my own. I might invest my own character with a personality, sure, but I'm a pretty big problem solver as a player. Ultimately, my character is my means of interacting with the story and the challenges, and overcome them. The character ultimately, and primarily, serves as a tool.

But other people's characters? They don't exist as a tool for me to wield. So I tend to care a lot more about them than about my own PC.

 

[Theroc]

Well, I haven't been playing D&D very long (See my membership start point, subtract a few days, and that's basically my D&D career, minus a couple one-offs), but I have been into roleplaying that was so rules-lite there were no real rules...

So, I do care about my characters as the purpose of the roleplaying is to create a story with other players... and I just hate the character's I've spent time developing dying off.

 

[pawsplay]

No!!!! Blackleaf!!!!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Um, yeah, I tend to be pretty invested in each of my characters. Mind you, not to the extent / in the way that it spills over into real life, at all. But yes, I generally end up caring quite a bit about my PCs, and - while playing them - identifying very closely with them. Basically, being them, for the duration. I know there are plenty of other ways to roleplay, and they've all got their merits, but that's just how it tends to be for me, and for most of those I roleplay with these days.

 

[lkjopajdowma]

I do.

So much so, that I've figured out a plausible (within the context of D&D, anyway) reason for my wizard that was originally in a homebrewish world for Thunderspire Labyrinth is now in Eberron for our next adventure. This is not an alternate, Eberron version of the character, but the same character. Which works well since I personally know very little about Eberron, so roleplaying that part should be easy.

Other people in my group never seem to get attached, getting bored with characters quickly and wanting new ones. I would like to try and run a longer-term campaign at some point, but because of the tendencies of some players, it would certainly have to have "outs" and "ins" for changing characters every few levels.

I have plenty of other PCs I've created that never made it to the end of their story that I hope to bring back and continue to play, as well.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I really care about characters - I have one that has been played for 17 years, and I've spent a fair amount of money on commissioned artwork for her, and have a full adventure record for her ... but she is the extreme exception.

I tend to play Hero, and I put a fair amount of work into character design and background. I don't feel like I've really connected with a character until 15 or so sessions, and I don't like games that last less than 3 years.

Our group, which the core group has been together for 17 years, is a one system group (Hero).

But I approach D&D the same way - my main two characters in 3.x made it to 30th level or so before the wife couldn't GM them anymore due to the amount of work for adventure design.

I really don't like to flit from campaign to campaign.

 

[Alt F4]

It varies. Sometimes I care about my characters quite a bit, other times they don't matter to me very much. It really depends on the setting, the play style of the group, how interesting I find the character concept to be, and probably most importantly whether the campaign is meant to be long term or not. No point in getting attached to a character in a game that you know is only meant to run a few sessions or in a game run by a GM who has a habit of starting campaigns and abandoning them after a few sessions.

Setting is a large factor too. If the setting doesn't interest me, or if it's known for being lethal, then I'm far less inclined to become attached to a character.

Even when I am particularly fond of a character, there could be reasons why I'd change characters in the middle of a game. If a vital niche isn't being filled, if the character isn't meshing well with the party for reasons of alignment / goals, or if it just makes sense for the character to leave the group for purely story reasons.