How to Handle a "Character Switcher"?

[psionotic]

We have two players like this in different groups that I play with. It can be a bit frustrating at times, but both of them are good enough players and good enough guys that its not that big of a deal.

New characters in our group always start at the very bottom of the level occupied by the lowest level character in the party. So if people want to switch characters, they can, but they'll always be at least a tad bit behind everyone else in power level.

 

[dren]

Wow! I'm surprised there are so many harsh DMs that penalize players for switching characters.

I actually encourage players to switch if they are not happy, and then I usually take them over as an npc. It's a great way to add depth to the party. But my only exception to this is in the middle of a dungeon...they have to wait for party breaks, usually at the end of an adventure or mission to switch without penalty.

If death occurs in the middle of the session, I usually allow them to take over an npc, which sometimes means another's players former character comes back with them played by another player... otherwise, I usually hand them a pre-generated npc created on e-Tools. Until the mission is over, they don't have much choice.

In my years of DMing I've never really had a problem with players constantly switching, but they are alwao prepared to have their character die at any minute. As I've said, you should be able to tear up your character sheet at any time, if you can't, then you are emtionally attached to the character...

dren

 

[ced1106]

At this point he starts talking about what he'll do for his next character. ...

My biggest problem is that I spend quite a bit of time developing backstory and subplots for each character. This particular character happens to be part of the overall plot I'm running. Yet, I can't even be sure he's going to be at the next session.

Question: Any idea **why** he talks about his next character?

Thoughts: Have your PCs develop the backstory and subplots, then edit them to fit your campaign. If a player can't be relied upon, don't make his character an important part of the plot. I've been in a handful of situations where a particular PC was important to the adventure, so I assigned it to a player who was more reliable.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Jin Chi]

There is switching and then there is "switching."

We have one player in our group who regularly changes characters in games. It has gotten to the point where it's almost ridiculous. She'll always justify it with a vaguely suitable role-playing reason, but the end result is always another character brought into a game and all of the old plots have to be discarded.

It's one thing if you have a character disintegrated and they can't be brought back. It's another thing if you just keep changing characters.

I'm in two active long-running campaigns with her. In one she is on her 2nd character. The GM actually made her bring in a character that was something like 8 levels lower than the rest of the group. I think she was pissed (after 10 years, characters tend to be fairly integral to a campaign). In the other, she is on her 3rd character if you don't count the triple personality of her first character.

I can only think of one game in which she kept the same character the whole time.

So at what point does this really become a problem? I think it depends on the game. We tend to play very character and story-driven campaigns where a death is significant and a character change is extremely inconvenient. We were certain to give her last character a tough time when integrating into a group that has fought side-by-side for many years, died together, and saved the world more than once. Talk about a tough clique.

I grow very attached to my characters. After all, they are a part of me. I've never understood anyone switching characters frequently. I've had to due to irrevocable death (sucked into another dimension, captured by irradiated flying hounds, and hung up in a cave to starve to death), but whenver possible, I keep my character and watch him (or her) evolve. I can think of one example of where I had to change characters in the middle of a game. He had crossed the line into evil and his companions refused to travel with him further. It started him on the road to recovery and eventually he was able to join them again, but only after many, many real time and game years.

I guess my take on this is, how does the decision effect the campaign? Is it a necessity? Would continuing to play the character cause problems in the group? Or would changing characters in mid-campaign spoil the careful planning of the DM? Obviously the goal is to have fun, so if the character isn't any fun, this could be a problem. But if that is the case, perhaps the GM needs to figure out what it is that the player is not enjoying and perhaps change the game to accomodate them.

Jaime

 

[demon_jr]

this is just my opinion

it seems as if the majortiy of the DMs here are saying that the first character you make should be the final and only one you play. if your character dies, you should bring him back and if you don't, expect to be penalized. i just can't see the reasoning of forcing a player to start a campaign and be semi-forced to play the same character for the rest of the campaign, regardless if the player is enjoying it or not.

i can't think straight at the moment, so i can't really put what i want to say into words regarding players being free to reasonably switch characters, but i wouldn't mind hearing why players shouldn't switch, from DMs who want players to create just one character from the start of the campaign and then stay with it forever.

 

[jasper]

if they like to switch, then they give up the interesting plots and etc involving their character.
Just have him as a side kick. His Characters are always the supporting character and not the main. And don't worry about it.

 

[Dreaddisease]

I have to agree on the idea that it isn't that bad to character switch, especially after a character death. How do you know his character (after tasting the afterlife) would want to return to his mortal state? Thats a hard decision, one that any of my characters would have a problem with (considering that all my characters have a pretty high Intelligence and are interested in Planar doings, the gods and astrology. Imagine if you tasted the total knowledge and happiness of a perfect afterlife (lets say a holy Paladin dies and goes off to be with Heironeous), why would you want to return to the torment and struggles of life?

But that is only one aspect. There are other very good RP reasons to change characters. Maybe your character is weakwilled but a good fighter type. The minute he realizes that there are tougher things in this world than him may be the last time he puts his life on the line to adventure. Everyone starts out heroic, but few rarely make it to the hall of great heroes (or whatever you call the memory of heroes). Some people are after riches and power. SUddenly they are powerful and have enough stuff of value that they can retire and live like kings. So why should they go out and put their neck on the line to save a small town millions of miles away from a dragon? Or travel to find a better weapon when all he really wants is a quite castle in which to raise a family? Or why should that ranger who avenged his parents death by killing the orc leader continue to go on with adventuring?

and sometimes we as players get bored with our characters. We really thought that our dwarven defender would be great but after 3 levels of playing him we realize that he is useless. Takes him twice as long to get into battle because of his armor. His damage, though consistent, does not match the ranger, plus the enemy is always moving, making it hard to do our stance. We really thought that bard would be a great addition to the party but find that the hack and slash games are not conducive to what the character intention was.

And sometimes we just want to try everything out and metagame.

Just consider those before you get to harsh.

 

[Shallown]

If A player has become bored or unhappy with a character I let them switch, usually without penalty. It happens. But I have to belive that is why they switched. I as a GM have to have seen that boredom disatisfaction. The reason is I have half my group as people who like to make up characters and play new things. And that just disrupts the game and they know this. Becuase I have told them it screws up my plans as a GM. I wnat them to be happy but just switching to switch doesn't fly.

Character deaths that cannot be resolved (ie raise dead or character/ player just not wanting to come back) mean a new character equal to the old one. I don't start them at a lower level. Why punish them? most people argue the new character didn't earn the experience. How in the hell do you know. The earned it off screen just like the character who died earned it on screen. The player shouldn't be penalized for losing a character any more than they are normally for having a new character. Having a new character is enough penalty, they lack depth in the campaign the new characters don't know or trust them. (At least that is the way my players act.) and other things. They haven't earned enough thinsg within the game to also punish them with an experience point penalty.

Character switchers often find out in my games having an in game history is worth more than some new idea or trick they want to try and often that trick turnr out to not be worth it. My players are still little bit more Rollplayers than Role players but they are getting closer to the balance of those two things that I enjoy and until then I guess I'll just be patient and hope our styles sync even more but for now we have a blast.

Later

 

[tarchon]

and sometimes we as players get bored with our characters. We really thought that our dwarven defender would be great but after 3 levels of playing him we realize that he is useless. Takes him twice as long to get into battle because of his armor. His damage, though consistent, does not match the ranger, plus the enemy is always moving, making it hard to do our stance. We really thought that bard would be a great addition to the party but find that the hack and slash games are not conducive to what the character intention was.

That's what I see as the worst reason. People who change characters because their current character is "useless" just end up changing characters every other game if you let them, because a character is only as useless as you play it. When you end up with one of these guys who's constantly complaining about how every other character is more powerful than his, what you need to do is teach him how to play. 99% of the time it's just a case of "greener grass."

Some players will also use this as a cheap way to get higher stats. If you keep dumping characters until you get good stat rolls, you're going to get really good stats soon enough.

I agree with the idea that new characters already suffer some penalty from not having as much background, but the same type of player who does the character shuffle is the one who doesn't know what to do with a background (or doesn't care about it) anyway.

Usually, we'll give a new player some leeway for changing character features or even changing a character once, but it's not such a good idea to let it become a regular thing, unless you really want that disposable character feel of a computer RPG.

If people really get bored with their current characters, there's no reason they can't do something different with them. Multi-class, join a new cult, get polymorphed, play an alignment change, develop multiple personalities. Strike a Faustian bargain, get possessed. Seek lichdom. Talk with your DM about arranging some lycanthropy. Uncover the secret of your lost heritage. Come out of the closet. Develop the character in game. Any DM worth spit can come up with a nice balanced way to make such things work.

 

[Dreaddisease]

I think you missed the point a little.

It can depend on how you run your campaign. If a rogue who specializes in pick pocketting never ever gets a chance because every time he asks the DM says there is nothing or if he tries to be diplomatic in situation but everything turns into a battle no matter what then what is he supposed to do? Sometimes it comes down to what the DM expects. Make sure you are doing everything possible yourself in the campaign before you dictate how a player should act.

I was trying to point out that a style of the game can really make it hard on players. Hack and Slash do not help when your character wants to play a bard, and vice versa. If you are really trying to get political intrigue and role playing situations it can really be tiresome for the fighter with a low wis and int who spends half his time at the table doing nothing. We all want to be doing something when we play. So my suggestion is to make sure that players are included and that characters are benficial to the party.

A character switcher may be frustrated with the game. Its just a matter of communication.

In the case that this thread was started I would say to the player that he needs to consider the whole thing carefully. Talk to him as to his reasons why. Again the player can always not allow his character to come back. Tough.