D&D 5E Retireing characters

[Jer]

MY main concern about allowing this as a norm stems from a previous game, where all the players ended up trying to kill their characters. The DM wouldn't allow retirements so death was the only way out. It got quite farcical and certainly detracted from the enjoyment of the game. I'm hoping that allowing retirement will allow the PC's to play what they want, I was just a bit worries about another - unforeseen - pitfall.

Most of what people have said allays that fear, but I might have a progressive penalty, of 0, 1, 2... levels lower that the party average, to make sure players REALLY want to change characters.

I would strongly suggest instead of having a penalty that you talk to your players instead and find out if they're bored with their characters or are otherwise unsatisfied with the characters they have. This is especially important if these characters are only the first or second characters for 5e that your group has played with. In any edition of the game there can be concepts that sound awesome as an idea but turn out to be anti-fun at the table for an individual player. I tend to allow players to change their characters whenever they want to and come in with level equal to the rest of the party. For my players at least the real place where churn happens is levels 1-5 or so of a new edition - as they're messing around with different ideas and trying to figure out what the right fit for this edition is for them. After that they understand the system enough to make good choices and they tend to pick characters that they will have fun with.

Now if you have players who are just looking to have more variety in general - or who bore easily and have a need to try new characters constantly - consider allowing them to have a "character pool" of 2-3 characters that they can swap into the group as the story allows. That way if they start getting bored with their Barbarian they can swap him out for their Warlock or their Cleric and take part in the game. It can give your sessions a more "guest star of the week" feel for those characters, but it can work and can be less disruptive than having a player constantly wanting to change their character to something else because they're bored.

 

[pdzoch]

Ultimately, this is your campaign and your friends and you know your group better than any of us. You will know how they will react to your adjudication and how it will affect your game and the group relationship.

But I will share how I approach this problem. MANY MANY years ago, I would have bristled at players wanting to change characters mid-story. Mostly because it disrupted plans I had for the campaign.

Nowadays, I have no restrictions. If the players are bored with their characters and want to change their character, I allow them to do so. I encourage them to come up with a good reason for the character to leave the group (higher paying group elsewhere, elevation to politics or business, retire, study abroad, whatever). I also encourage them to come up with a reason the new character would join the group (recommended by outgoing character, relative, protege, some tie to the current plot line, whatever). New character comes in at the same level as the outgoing character. And the game continues.

If there is a mass effort to change characters, I would feel that the problem may be with my campaign, and I would ask them if they want to continue the current campaign or if they want to start a new one. It has happened.

However, if a players feels he is being railroaded into continuing to play a character he has become bored with, there is some unfortunate events that could occur. Those players may become reckless, seeking death in the game so they could switch, which puts the rest of the players in a bad spot, probably at the worst time, and risk a TPK. Or they may begin to start not caring about the campaign and actively seek to disrupt it. Or, they may be good players and continue to play, but only until absolutely necessary, and may miss a session or two, or the next campaign altogether.

I consider character switching simply a part of turnover in a high mortality rate industry (adventuring). It does make the campaign planning hard. But campaigns reliant on certain characters usually compel a player to continue playing the character. If not, then the campaign simply might not be that interesting to them, and that is a problem I have to fix. I have started secondary campaigns for some groups. It may be an opportunity for someone else in the group to start a new campaign that the player can play the character they would like to try out. But I will still look to my campaign to see what was wrong with my story.

I do not mind character penalties, as long as they are game related (loss of level, limb, abilities, etc as a result of in-game decisions --- these are what the game is about, glory at great risk). But I would not penalize the character for a player decision. I am not sure a group of experienced adventurers would replace a key member lost with a lower quality new hire. They would replace the member lost with one of equal or close to equal capability. Such penalties to a character penalizes the entire group.

As soon as the players start to not have fun, or feel forced, they might start not playing or leave. And no one wants that.

The above is based on personal experience and not hypothetical. Just my experience that informs my approach now. For your consideration.

In the end, your game, your players, your decision.

 

[MrHotter]

A lot of this depends on how the game is run. If it's more of a 'dungeon of the week' kind of campaign the players could swap characters at will and it will not change the story.

If the campaign is story heavy, then replacing characters needs more thought to make sure alliances and story elements still make sense.

I have a story heavy game, and in one of my campaigns, I had a player swap characters at level 7. He was a half-orc who was able to defeat his father and take over the orc tribe that was threatening the area. His long term goals for the character were reached, so he let that character retire and he made a new one (I let him keep his current xps since everyone agreed with the change).

 

[MNblockhead]

If you impose level penalties, doesn't that also penalize the other party members by making the party less powerful?

 

[Sunseeker]

Typically, I allow tradeouts 1-for-1 (ie, you come in the same level) if you have discussed it with me (the DM) and have made a serious effort to enjoy your character. Some people honestly don't try and so their characters are always boring or not fun for them. These people get punished, level penalties, being forced to wait until the next "major town" or whatever. The first type of people don't.

I LOVE making characters and sometimes I get caught up in the newness and the shinyness of a new character concept, which makes me bored with my previous or current character. But with a little effort I can set the shiny newness aside and enjoy the character I have, but sometimes....it just isn't working. Maybe the concept isn't right, maybe the build isn't working out, maybe I'm plain just not feeling the character. I figure then, if my DM is reasonable like myself, then a good talk should be able to set things right.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If the campaign is story heavy, then replacing characters needs more thought to make sure alliances and story elements still make sense.

I think it is important to remember that "needs more thought" and "needs enough thought that it is reasonable to consider this fact a deal-breaker" are too entirely different things.

My games are all story heavy. Characters can come and go at the whim of my players, and it doesn't change that.

 

[Lanefan]

Man, I remember all those rules from the early editions. System Shock/ max number of resurrection was an interesting one.

System shock was one thing. Resurrection survival roll was another, usually just a bit easier. Both were % rolls based on your Con at time of death. If you failed it, you were (usually) done for. If you made it you came back down one point of Con. In theory you could never be revived more times than your original starting Con score but in 35 years I've never seen this one become relevant...by the time you're getting anywhere near that point your Con score is going to be low enough that you're bound to fail a Res roll anyway.

Lower level resurrections brought you back with a level loss and higher spells didn't.

Not in 1e. That's a 3e thing. In 1e the main difference was the lower-level revival spells needed a complete corpse while the higher-level ones needed just a bit of one.

Some of my players fearfully remember the days of the level draining Wights. So many things could take a level from you. So many undead could drain levels, on a hit no less. So you get hit three times, lose three levels. That was harsh. I'm certainly glad those days are behind us.

I'm not; I think removal of level loss (and various other Bad Things that can happen to characters) is a flaw in "modern" game design. Leave the benefits, take out the penalties, and everyone sees unicorns and rainbows.

Also, lost levels could be restored by spell or (rarely) device.

And as I said earlier (and still stand by): a player who wants to drop out of a game just because something bad happens to his character isn't a player I'd want in the first place.

Lanefan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And as I said earlier (and still stand by): a player who wants to drop out of a game just because something bad happens to his character isn't a player I'd want in the first place.

And as I said earlier, and still stand by, you are misrepresenting what it is that is causing the player to want to drop out of the game.

It isn't "just because something bad happens to his character".

It's because something bad happened to the character that is likely to only be the start of a cascade of more bad things happening to the character and possibly even the entire party depending on how the group handles it.

 

[discosoc]

You're probably always better off letting a player reroll a character they don't enjoy than forcing them to play something they are tired of. Retirement is good because it keeps something on the backburner in case they want to bring him back. Not letting people reroll is the whole reason they'll start suiciding their way through the adventure.

 

[Lanefan]

And as I said earlier, and still stand by, you are misrepresenting what it is that is causing the player to want to drop out of the game.

It isn't "just because something bad happens to his character".

Sure it is, as described.

It's because something bad happened to the character that is likely to only be the start of a cascade of more bad things happening to the character

Sometimes the case, more often not; and never known in any event until it's played out.

and possibly even the entire party depending on how the group handles it.

Hmmm...that's pretty fine-tuned math, perhaps overly so, if the loss of one level in a party throws things that much out of whack. And the party always have options even if this is the case, one of which is abandonment of the current adventure in favour of something less challenging and another (among many) is to find some restoration magic.

That said, if a few others in the party also lose levels along the way then the original guy's right back in the mix, hm?

All I know is that if I and others here took a similar bail-when-crap-happens approach we'd have all stopped playing shortly after we started.

Lanefan