Have you had a problem with "character dumping"

[Montague68]

Most of the time character dumping IME has been powergamers that are dissatisfied with the powerlevel of the character and want to chase the next character build du jour. Sometimes though it's MY fault, as when it comes down to it the players in question are sometimes bored with the game itself, or something I am doing in the game is marginalizing their character in some way.

 

[Dedekind]

Yes. When I started my game, I allowed constant switching of characters until we hit 3rd level (which took 6 sessions). So if they wanted to try a new character concept every game, that was fine. However, at 3rd I wanted them to pick something and try to make that character survive.

I sorta did this. I made raise dead/resurrection/True resurrection pretty easily available once the characters hit 12th level. In exchange, they needed to keep the same character to keep continuity.

As for "punishing" characters that died, I modified one of Andy Collins' optional rules. Players who died received a negative level until they gained another level (I changed it to level * 1000 worth of xp). My players were pretty OK with this, though it hit the spellcasters harder than the others. Regardless, they seemed pretty pleased with it as a compromise, and I didn't have to worry about my party's power level as a DM.

 

[Lanefan]

There's three things that cause turnover:

1. Player boredom with their character(s), usually but not always leading to one of the next two options.

2. In-game events, i.e. simply through doing what it does and following its own personality a character in effect role-plays its way out of the party. (I've done this with characters I wanted to keep playing, just because it made sense from the character's perspective)

3. Character death, without revival. (whether the player is bored with the character or not)

As a player, I've done all three, many many times each. As a DM, I've also seen each happen a great many times. I'm cool with it, and don't see it as a problem; as long as there's at least some sort of identifyable party left when they're done. And sometimes, retired characters return later and become significant.

What I *have* learned is to not build a story or plot around any particular character, as for sure that'll be the one that retires or dies next.

The general rule-of-thumb I use is that new characters come in a level below the party average, ignoring NPCs, henches, etc.

Lanefan

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I don't think there should be a penalty to dropping a character and making a new one. Sometimes your initial character doesn't fit the campaign well, doesn't mesh with the party well or the character concept/class isn't what you expected it to be. At that point what does penalizing someone for changing their character accomplish? It teaches them to stick with a character that isn't fun to play? (I also think it's silly to penalize people for character death but that's a different issue.)

I would caveat that opinion when you have a player who continually changes up characters because they have a short attention span. I think those players need to be talked to individually to correct the issue instead of making an across the board rule that penalizes non-trouble players.

 

[OchreJelly]

I have never had a problem letting my players try a new character. Then again, we have never had a problem handwaving characters entering and leaving constantly.

In fact, this is more common since many players in RL can't attend every week so it's a lot easier to just handwave their characters not being around that session.

In 1E & 2E I saw players really stick to their characters. I don't think I ever saw any dumping in those editions. I can't say why although I suspect as a system develops more options players want to try more things (see below). Also I suspect because we were a lot younger and the game was "newer" that people may feel more attached to their first characters.

In 3X I saw a lot lot of players wanting to try new characters. It was a combination of the sheer amount of options and PRCs, but on more than one occasion it was a PC feeling underpowered next to the burgeoning wizards and CODzillas.

In 4E I have had one player ditch his warlock (to be fair he got eaten by a gelatinous cube, but the player was happy to see him go). In this case it was more that the warlock didn't meet his expectations and playstyle and he quickly grew bored with it.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Personally I have no problem with Character Dumping. D&D is a game, and games are meant to be fun. If a player isn't having fun with their character but is forced to stick with it or take some kind of penalty to their new character then the game becomes much more "Un-Fun".

 

[Halivar]

we are playing 4E gestalt

I don't want to threadjack, so I'll kindly ask you: can you link to a thread, or start a new thread, where the mechanics for 4E gestalt are discussed? I'd like to know how you implemented it.

 

[Admiral Caine]

It has been a problem...

However, with respect to the Original Poster, just the notion of character dumping can be ambigious. I mean, I agree that if a player has tried a character and it just isn't working.. they should be allowed to take another one. Most of the time this doesn't happen too often.

I have no problem with that, and that has never been a problem in of itself. I'm happy to be a help in making the game more fun, because a happy player makes it fun for me.


BUT.. then there is that guy...

The ones that has asked to change his character three times in a couple months of weekly play. The guy that asks you to "kill his character", so that he can make another one and the other players won't look at him oddly.

I started asking what the problem was, and found out it was either:
1.) Player envy
2.) Insecurity that some other player was stealing their niche in the party (there were only five players at a time).

After a point I had to step back and ask, "What can I do to help, that doesn't involve a character change? What could I do to make them feel special and important?"

And when I was told there was nothing to be done, except a character change.. I felt I had to decline. When the player got mad, I had to offer that maybe this just wasn't the game for them.

There's a point to which I can accept partial responsibility, and then there's a point when the player has to take some responsibility as well.

I guess just to re-iterate.. I only had one player do this to me.

And honestly.. it was disruptive. I like to develop backgrounds and shared stories with players and work them in the continuity.. and plugging one PC in and swapping one back out was really hard on me. After the first one (which I was more than willing to do without question) I felt like it was robbing me of energy to GM.

That's my story anyway.

 

[Thanee]

Why should I force someone to play a character he or she no longer wants to play for whatever reason?

Having fun is the #1 rule (only rule #0 can beat it ).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Greg K]

Personally I have no problem with Character Dumping. D&D is a game, and games are meant to be fun. If a player isn't having fun with their character but is forced to stick with it or take some kind of penalty to their new character then the game becomes much more "Un-Fun".

And, for a lot of groups, having one person constantly character dumping is not fun.