Help with a player constantly changing characters

[ARandomGod]

As an alternative, you could turn the tables on the player. sometimes you have to think up a reason, even invent one to stay with the group. is a good point. If he isn't listening, then challenge the next PC with why the groups needs him. Explain that all of you have chosen to ignore the PC halo effect and his PC had better have a damned good reason why he should be trusted and included. After all, so many others have approached the PC's group and have not been able to cut it. Now your PCs are not going to include any more strangers unless they have a very strong reason to believe that the 'new guy' won't be slain out of hand, or abandon the group after a few days.

I think this is an excellent suggestion.

you could treat his new lower leveled PC as a rookie who the group doesn't want joining the team because you guys are worried for his safety. Roleplay with his PC that you don't think he's skilled enough to add to the group. You're worried that if he's not capable of handling himself in battle, you might die because of his lack of help. Tell him he would need more training before you'd adventure with him.

Could be a fun way to approach it. I might also suggest ... loosening ... the level requirements. Coming in as a forth level character when the rest of the group is level six might make it hard for him to think his shiney new character is 'good enough'. You can still use the "inexperienced rookie/new guy" routine on him, no matter what his level (characters don't come with a lable, you have to assume he's green until he proves himself).

Throwing him a plot hook bone is also a good suggestion if you haven't tried it before. AND a good way of introducing him to the party. His family/group could be hiring them to help him accomplish a goal. Then he's got an excellent in character reason to stay with the group until that goal is accomplished, and would be hard pressed to come up with a believable reason to leave (other than death, of course...)

many of these new characters are made using the absolute latest rule books in a dizzying combination. As I am the rules consultant for the game, I'm called upon to make calls as to what to do with these combinations, which also causes tension in the game.

Ah HA! A concrete reason. And that one IS easy to solve. Simply limit what books are available to new characters. Presto, now he can only draw from this limited selection. No 'new' characters, only variations of one's that are already thoroughly ruled upon!

When in doubt, make his dead PC, an UNDEAD PC.

HA! I almost suggested that. I did that to a (possibly similiar) guy in one of my games. I've seen him game before, his characters die frequently and hard, and then in comes a new/different one. I gave him some speical things to start with, and upon his first death... Presto, undead. Now he comes back next time. He can't die, all he can do is get killed (which he still tries to avoid because it WILL mean sitting out for a while as his body reforms, a modified Lich template).

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

Tell the dm that you and the other players find these new characters disruptive, then like any decent dm s/he would simply have to to put on the iron guantlet.

I agree and disagree

Disagree - this shouldn't be stuck all on the DM's shoulders to enforce - if the WHOLE group has a problem with the ever-changing party member (and that's what it shounds like to me) then the WHOLE group should be dealing with it - don't foist it off on the DM to deal with on his own - he's already got enough work running the campaign.

Agree - the iron gauntlet needs to be put on.

I'll throw my hand in with the idea of making him come up with a reason for the party to accept him - and allowing the party to say no to any PCs he comes up with. Of course it goes without saying that any other player introduces a new character the same rule must be followed. I know I write the games for my group to fit the PCs - if a new PC doesn't fit then it's a real pain in the proverbial - so it's time for the player to do the work and design something that fits in with the rest of the party and the campaign they're in. Bite the bullet and say no to any characters that don't fit... yeah you risk upsetting him, but he's already upsetting everyone else and it's time he realised that.

Also ARandomGod's suggestion to ban new splat books until they have been vetted by the DM is a good idea. I'll take it one further by suggesting you stop acting as the 'Rules Ref' for this guy - tell him he needs to justify it to the DM himself. And tell the DM that if he's not comfortable with whatever new rules/powers/feats the other player is trying to introduce that he needs to say no - or at least "not until I've had a chance to look at that - which means not until next session at the earliest and I'll need to borrow whatever book you got it from to make my decision"

I think what I'm getting at is that if the rest of you are finding his actions disruptive then you need to slam the brakes on them. As others have said require him to 'join the party' not vice versus.

I'll also suggest you don't change any of your PC replacement rules regarding level at this stage - instead once he has a character that fits in with the group and he's sticking with 'fast-track' that player with a few bonus XP points here and there for 'good role-playing' or whatever in order to bring him up to the same level as the rest of the group. That way he won't be left behind for too long.

 

[wally]

I tend to try and make all the characters in a game a part of the story. If I focus on one character more than the others at any given time, it should be known that I will get around to your character in time. That time doesn't usually take too long.

I had a player that wanted to keep changing characters. What it meant was that the new character went to the bottom of the list of focus time. As was said previously if you focus part of the campaign on a character and the character leaves, it kinda kills the current story.

If a player wants to keep changing characters, they should understand that they aren't going to be a part of the spotlight until they show that they will stick with their character for a while. This is the only way to keep the player out of the spotlight of ruining the game for everyone each time he drops his current character. It should also cut down on the frustration everyone else is feeling.


-wally

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Disagree - this shouldn't be stuck all on the DM's shoulders to enforce - if the WHOLE group has a problem with the ever-changing party member (and that's what it shounds like to me) then the WHOLE group should be dealing with it - don't foist it off on the DM to deal with on his own - he's already got enough work running the campaign.

Self regulation can only go so far, at some point he can hit back that he is being subject to the deadweight of democracy, i.e. the majority running roughshod over the minority. Assuming the dm is decent he's going to have the trust of all players & so he is in the position to make the call. Also his word carries weight, if you want to play in his campaign you have to accept his ruling.

I certainly agree that while a certain amount of metagaming is acceptable to allow the characters to bond, it should not stretch credibility. We've not allowed even dm approved characters into the group because of insurmountable reasons not to trust them.

Your last comment about the dm having enough on his plate is probably the crux of our differing viewpoints; I believe that when I am the dm my responsibility also includes making sure that the player environment is comfortable as well as running the campaign. I like to be the host as well as the dm.

Of course I run the game that you have 1 character for 1 campaign which is planned to run for 1 year, there is no new source material for players that is allowed so previous choices are not invalidated.

 

[SteveC]

Hi everyone,
Again thanks for some excellent suggestions. Taking what you’ve written into consideration, here is what I’m going to suggest to my GM:

The next character can start at level 5, which is the highest level any of the characters have reached currently. My GM told me we were going to have one character level up to 6th, but that didn’t quite happen yet. Alternately, I liked the suggestion of a lower level but with extra XP until he reaches the rest of the group. I’ll see what my GM likes.

With that said, this character needs to come equipped with a reason to both join the group and to stay with the group factored into their origin and background. Barring death or some other unusual circumstances, this character is the one for the game. I am also going to suggest the GM grant an unusual background request to go with this to tie strongly into the game. I think this last one will not be a problem, since our GM does such a good job of structuring the game around the group anyway.

I think there have been a lot of excellent comments made, so let me take a moment to address some of them:

On the group self-censoring character types. I think this is coming to pass, but it will likely end with a couple of the newer players simply leaving the game because they are getting sick of the bickering/discussions if this is not handled properly. I have to agree that the door swings both ways on accepting new characters…we have been very accepting of all of these oddball character ideas, and I think that’s been part of the problem.

I think the comment about new characters coming in at the bottom of the story pile is an excellent point. When you introduce a new character, there is a story that has to be resolved right away, which kind of puts that character at the center of attention. Once it gets resolved, the group is going to keep doing what it was doing unless there is a very strong reason to the contrary, which is something I think a player with a new character is going to have to accept. That means that having goals that are consistent with what the group is already doing and a reason to stay around is paramount.

On the subject of me being the rules referee, this is in response to what has happened in a previous campaign. Our GM is one of the best around in terms of story, character, pacing and conflict, but he really doesn’t have a rules-lawyer level knowledge of the rules. Most of the players in the campaign are fine with this, but we have a couple that will try to abuse the rules, and they’re also wrong about some of their rules interpretations. What I do is keep the session moving by looking up rules when necessary and also letting the GM know when there are other ways of looking at things. A lot of the time I try to find a RAW reason for what my GM wants to do anyway. What my GM would like to do is just make a ruling on something and move on, but this doesn’t sit well with all of the players: they want a RAW ruling, which is what I can give them. I think it helps that my character is a very basic and straightforward character that has not been overly tweaked. Frankly, I wish I didn’t have to be in this role, but our group kind of requires it. I almost think this could be another discussion: players who bring the game to a halt to argue rules issues. I know I’ve seen several of these on ENWorld already, and I can sympathize with the GMs.

So what does everyone think?

--Steve

 

[kigmatzomat]

Woof, you people are *nice.* I, apparently, am a RBDM on this matter. Barring freaky character death at introduction, your character is your character for that session. New characters should stick around for at least 2-3 sessions before being dropped. You get 2, *maybe* 3 chances to make a character that works in the game. I don't promise your character will be introduced next session; it may be a while before the game is at a point you can introduce a new PC with any rational chance of success.

I mitigate it in part by forcing new players to watch a session before they make their character. I give them basic hooks into the party and provide some guidance on what background origins are unacceptable (the party will not work with certain races or religions, for instance). Before a single die is rolled, I try to vet the concept to ensure nothing inimicable is created. As feats & the like are chosen I try to point out how the party will react to or integrate with these choices.

Sometimes personalities just clash but if more than 2 characters get trashed by personality conflict, the player doesn't jibe with the game.

I have sympathy; I encountered a game where I went through 4 characters. The first I ran for a year or two but it wasn't a comfortable fit for me. The second one turned out to overshadow the existing combat characters so we turned it to an NPC after 2 sessions. The third ran into a key NPC while they were doing the double-agent thing and I figured the group were traitors by association.

The difference is that I slogged it out with the first character, the second's removal caused a group-wide sigh of relief, and the third was a comedy of errors. (I really wanted to play him, too!) This guy needs to buckle down and join the team or sit out a while and figure out how to make a character that actually works.

 

[Nightfall]

ARG,

Another option for undead is either Revenant and/or Curst. They both are hard to kill AND even if they die, they come back. Ghost PCs are the same. Plus that mean you can use, dadadum, GHOST WALK!

Gneech,

My idea, if a GM keep changing games, toss him out on his rear. Bad enough when they only show up once or twice and THEN say "gee we need to change up." But constantly changing?!! That's just wrong and bad GMing/DMing.

 

[BlackSilver]

I have a few suggestions

- Have him sit out a session when he declares that he wants to start a new character.

- New character, okay you buy pizza for the group.

- Every character you make is one level behind the group. You have made six characters so that means you are six levels behind the group. When you hit zero or negitive numbers make up a Commoner.

- Stat reduction. I know I saw you roll up your character, now reduce all six stats by three.

- When your character dies all his magic items no longer function and are reduced to normal value, so no Master Worked weapons/armor or gear.

- New character. GM wants new set of dice, my choice.

- Reduce his Roll Playing time. Come to him only when its time for him to roll something, and in combat. Why? Your just going to change characters in a session or two anyways.

- Talk to the Player.

I have used a few of these. One of my Players switched and bounced around from character to character for a couple of sessions when we first started playing 3.0e. I let him because we were learning the system, but then I noticed he was refining his character making skills a little to much.

 

[Nightfall]

*still thinks undead PCs are cool, even they remain good*

 

[Lela]

BlackSilver, I'm curious as to which ones you've used and what their results have been.