The_Gneech
Explorer
Nightfall said:
Well, my point was that I am the GM and I keep constantly wanting to change. It's frustrating.
-The Gneech
Help with a player constantly changing characters
- Thread starter SteveC
- Start date
Well, my point was that I am the GM and I keep constantly wanting to change. It's frustrating.
-The Gneech
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
First, discuss this openly with everyone, letting all air their concerns on the matter. Be sure to stress that it isn't that the players characters are BAD, just that there are TOO FRIGGIN' MANY of them. That is a problem for everyone. NOBODY has time enough to really get a feel for any of these characters, the player in question included. A DM needs time to properly work a new PC into ongoing plots. Players need time to allow their characters to develop relationships with the new PC.
Second, the DM should institute a new rule - ALL new PC's from this point forth in the campaign MUST be CORE RULES ONLY. No freaky supplements for prestige classes, feats, or races of any kind other than what's found in the PH/DMG. If you deny the player the temptation to dabble in anything and everything that comes along ("I want to use the Flavor of the Month prestige class!") you will very likely put an end to the parade of new PC's for no reason.
Third, if the DM is looking for a means to work this endless parade of PC's into the campaign I thought it might be interesting to discover that these are in fact all the SAME character. He just keeps coming back in new forms. Maybe it's a curse. Maybe each of these characters has somehow been important in achieving some goal.
Second, the DM should institute a new rule - ALL new PC's from this point forth in the campaign MUST be CORE RULES ONLY. No freaky supplements for prestige classes, feats, or races of any kind other than what's found in the PH/DMG. If you deny the player the temptation to dabble in anything and everything that comes along ("I want to use the Flavor of the Month prestige class!") you will very likely put an end to the parade of new PC's for no reason.
Third, if the DM is looking for a means to work this endless parade of PC's into the campaign I thought it might be interesting to discover that these are in fact all the SAME character. He just keeps coming back in new forms. Maybe it's a curse. Maybe each of these characters has somehow been important in achieving some goal.
Goblyns Hoard
First Post
FreeTheSlaves said:
Absolutely - me too.
My point is that it is the responsibility of all the people in the group to make sure everyone else is having fun - not just the responsibility of the DM. If one person is pissing off the group then the group has to respond to that - not just the DM. I'm not saying put the guy on the spot or anything - but equally don't just tell the DM to get on with policing the group dynamic and leave him to it - the other players need to be part of the discussion as they're also part of the group and THEY are responsible for the DM having fun just as much as vice versus. As Steve isn't the DM in this situation and he's the one that has raised the issue it appears to me that the players are equally annoyed about the one player's actions. So why should it be the DM's responsibility alone to confront one player on what the group considers to be unacceptable?
Steve - I'm making some assumptions there about what the whole group is feeling - let me know if I've grabbed the wrong end of the stick
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
I don't think the dm is confronting one player alone if the dm can point to the others players being discomforted. Perhaps what I am getting at is that the dm is the final arbiter for resolution but I don't deny that players can regulate themselves, in fact the best players do regulate themselves to free up more 'dm concentration'; in return all they ask for is an involved & complex campaign...Goblyns Hoard said:
If I was a player in SteveC's game I would ask the player to stick with one character for reasons of verisimilitude. If this was rejected I would appeal to the dm. If this failed and the game was still fun I would not favourably metagame my character to find reason to accept the companionship of his new character. At this point conflict would bubble to the surface & again I would come back to the question of "why did the dm not step in earlier?"
But then I'm feeling violent.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
These thoughts came to me as I read my post and the end question.
1) I am playing in a campaign where my expectations are out of whack with the group.
2) The dm is not doing a good job.
1) I am playing in a campaign where my expectations are out of whack with the group.
2) The dm is not doing a good job.
Some suggestions
I've run into the problem before, both as a player and a GM, and it can be difficult to deal with (in my experiences) if you approach it the wrong way.
Fortunately, from the situation you described it doesn't sound like the player is intentionally trying to disrupt the game or break the rules, but more likely is having trouble finding that spark that he or she is looking for.
For starters, let's address (quickly) what NOT to do: Don't play "Hard(butt) GM!" or try to "lay down the law." You're looking for a solution, not a confrontation, and it sounds like the player is interested in having a good game, and is being a pain incidentally, not intentionally. Unless the player is extremely disruptive, such tactics generally anger the player, anger the GM (funny how that works), and set a really foul mood for the group in general. Sometimes it must be done, but this doesn't sound like the case.
Now, for solutions. I'd go at this from two angles:
First, introduce the character to the idea of "slanting." Many times a lone-wolf style roleplayer feels that they need to go off on their own because their "character demands it." The undead rogue has no reason to stay with the party, or the ancient wizard would rather study his spellbooks than go adventuring.
Slanting is actually a really simple idea that many very good players just don't think of. If you're given an essentially non-critical choice, pick the choice that helps the group. That doesn't mean you have to give up your character concept, but put a bit of effort into helping the group out. Perhaps that undead rogue owes a big debt to one of the party members, or the ancient wizard thinks they'd be more likely to find those powerful magical tomes on the move instead of sitting at home. The player doesn't have to sacrifice concept, they just have to give 50/50 decisions in favor of the party. The other players can always help with this, but it is effective and remarkably simple.
The other piece of advice is to help the player connect with other characters. Oftentimes I do this intentionally with newer players to help them come into a group, but even an experienced player can get alot of mileage and entertainment out of "buddy" characters. Maybe the new character is somebody's bodyguard, or a family member or in some other way directly connected to another PC. This should help the new character fit into the group extremely fast and also gives many easy reasons for slanting actions in favor of the party.
So, long post short, tell the player to cut some slack in favor of the party and create a few story connections that keep the character in the group.
I've run into the problem before, both as a player and a GM, and it can be difficult to deal with (in my experiences) if you approach it the wrong way.
Fortunately, from the situation you described it doesn't sound like the player is intentionally trying to disrupt the game or break the rules, but more likely is having trouble finding that spark that he or she is looking for.
For starters, let's address (quickly) what NOT to do: Don't play "Hard(butt) GM!" or try to "lay down the law." You're looking for a solution, not a confrontation, and it sounds like the player is interested in having a good game, and is being a pain incidentally, not intentionally. Unless the player is extremely disruptive, such tactics generally anger the player, anger the GM (funny how that works), and set a really foul mood for the group in general. Sometimes it must be done, but this doesn't sound like the case.
Now, for solutions. I'd go at this from two angles:
First, introduce the character to the idea of "slanting." Many times a lone-wolf style roleplayer feels that they need to go off on their own because their "character demands it." The undead rogue has no reason to stay with the party, or the ancient wizard would rather study his spellbooks than go adventuring.
Slanting is actually a really simple idea that many very good players just don't think of. If you're given an essentially non-critical choice, pick the choice that helps the group. That doesn't mean you have to give up your character concept, but put a bit of effort into helping the group out. Perhaps that undead rogue owes a big debt to one of the party members, or the ancient wizard thinks they'd be more likely to find those powerful magical tomes on the move instead of sitting at home. The player doesn't have to sacrifice concept, they just have to give 50/50 decisions in favor of the party. The other players can always help with this, but it is effective and remarkably simple.
The other piece of advice is to help the player connect with other characters. Oftentimes I do this intentionally with newer players to help them come into a group, but even an experienced player can get alot of mileage and entertainment out of "buddy" characters. Maybe the new character is somebody's bodyguard, or a family member or in some other way directly connected to another PC. This should help the new character fit into the group extremely fast and also gives many easy reasons for slanting actions in favor of the party.
So, long post short, tell the player to cut some slack in favor of the party and create a few story connections that keep the character in the group.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
Oh I think you're spot on in your assessment. We have a large group, 8 players in the game, and we have about 5 of them who are very frustrated with the situation. Three of them are just about ready to leave the game over what's been going on. Of the other players, two of them are very close friends with the player in question, and I don't think they have as much of a problem as a result. That leaves me, and I'm in the middle on it. On the one hand, this is a good player and a good friend, but the constant bickering is becoming difficult to deal with.Goblyns Hoard said:
Here's my situation: I'm in my 30's, so time to play games is something that's both important to me and also a little hard to come by. I just have a huge issue with having something that should be a good time be frustrating and and full of tension instead. The other thing is that the game is great: it's a labor of love for the GM and it really shows...plot, characters, story arcs, they're all top-notch. The GM writes a weekly story hour complete with interludes about what is happening in the greater world, and it is just an incredible level of detail to the storycrafting. That's what makes it all so darn difficult to deal with. In my role as "rules consultant" I'm kind of a bridge between the GM and the group, and the GM is also one of my very best friends, so I want to make this situation better for him and everyone concerned.
I think of all of that and then say, but this is just a game, a hobby and something I do for fun.
I like the idea of having a discussion about this as a whole, but I don't think it will go particularly well that way...we have discussed it before, and it didn't go well. The player in question basicly just said "I'm going to be true to my character come heck or high water" and left it at that. That's why I think we're going to either have to get him to play a character that will work better with the group or eventually have him leave the game, which will be a real shame. I know it may not sound that way from the picture I've been painting, but it would.
--Steve
