Suicidal players

[Thornir Alekeg]

For the most part Weem hits it just right from my experience.

It is rough if the story is very involved with a particular PC, but if the player is no longer interested in the PC, then perhaps that is a warning flag that something is wrong with the way the story is going or how it is involving that PC. You need to make sure the players are interested and enjoying the game, and find solutions, either changing the course of the game, or having time to wind down a PC from the story, before it becomes an immediate issue.

Flip side is, so what if the PC is very involved in the storyline? What would happen if the PC died a legitimate death? DM intervention to prevent it, or is it assumed the PC will get resurrected?

In terms of little things to actively discourage PC suicide:
- have new PCs come in lower power than the lost PC - harder at very low levels.
- The new PC has to wait for a good time to enter the game. Might have to sit out most of a session or even more.

In the end isn't everyone there to have fun? Let the players change PCs if they want, but ask for the courtesy to give ample warning so it can be done neatly, even if that involves setting the PC up to go out in a spectacular blaze of glory.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Down my way there's a couple of players who like to change their PCs frequently, and others who prefer to stick, whatever the system. I think Nifft's advice there is sound.

 

[Crothian]

IMC characters that stay around get rewarded by seeing plots they are involved in and NPcs they know grow and develope. I tell my players if they want to jump characters that is fine but they will be much less involved in the story bercasue the new character won't have the 5 month history with the goings on as the other PCs.

 

[Pbartender]

I let them play something else, and I do this long before they try to think of in-game reasons to end their current PC's life.

Some people have an itch to try new things. Some people have an itch to play one dude for a long time. Make the story about the latter (for your own sanity), and let the former be "side-characters" (in a story sense, but still protagonists from a game perspective).

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Nifft again."

This is almost exactly how I handle it as well.

I prefer everyone to keep their characters for the long term, but no one should be forced to play a character they aren't happy with. In those situations, I simply look for a good excuse to write the old character out of the story and introduce the new character.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

It is rough if the story is very involved with a particular PC, but if the player is no longer interested in the PC, then perhaps that is a warning flag that something is wrong with the way the story is going or how it is involving that PC. You need to make sure the players are interested and enjoying the game, and find solutions, either changing the course of the game, or having time to wind down a PC from the story, before it becomes an immediate issue.

Generally the reason the players become disinterested in the character has nothing to do with the story, and is purely to do with power level, either the character being inherantly underpowered due to shoddy build and randomized stats, or because a new splat just came out with more powerful options. Since my group tends to be very much about MOAR POWER, there isn't a story in the world that could compell them to be satisfied with a character they perceive as underpowered. In fact, in a few cases players have specifically requested that they be allowed to continue playing the "same" character in an in-character sense, but simply swap in the unsatisfying stat block for a better one (e.g. "I really like playing Hero McAwesomesauce on his quest for the sword of destiny, but I'd like it a lot more if instead of being a 16 st. fighter he was an 18 str. paladin, so can we just handwave that he got blessed by god or something?)

IMC characters that stay around get rewarded by seeing plots they are involved in and NPcs they know grow and develope. I tell my players if they want to jump characters that is fine but they will be much less involved in the story bercasue the new character won't have the 5 month history with the goings on as the other PCs.

The issue for our group is that, while we like story, we tend to be powergamers, and by and large players would rather play a character who is of no importance to the story, but who has badass powers, than an underpowered character that is critical to the story. As one of my buddies put it a long time ago, "I'd rather be Faramir than Frodo--so what if he's a less important character, he's a much bigger badass".

But the thing is, if we do have the powerful characters we like, then we get really involved in the story and rp and our DMs will have a lot of fun coming up with plots for us...which work fine, until a new option comes out that is OVER 9000!!1! and somebody just has to play it, preestablished story be damned.

 

[Pbartender]

...which work fine, until a new option comes out that is OVER 9000!!1! and somebody just has to play it, preestablished story be damned.

Here's what I've found works for that...

"For this campaign, we will be using the PHB, DMG, MM and splat books A, B, C, D, and E only. Nothing else."

In other words, don't even allow new options to be added in the midst of a campaign. If you lay down rules like that at the very beginning, most often, players won't even bother to consider those new options (though some may still beg you for an exception to the rule).

 

[Asmor]

Well, this is embarassing... No sooner did I give Nifft some xp then I realize I meant Solomon, not Midas, and further there's no way for me to edit that or even call attention to it. Ugh.

 

[Nifft]

In other words, don't even allow new options to be added in the midst of a campaign. If you lay down rules like that at the very beginning, most often, players won't even bother to consider those new options (though some may still beg you for an exception to the rule).

While that certainly works for campaign sanity, it would conflict with my own personal, selfish desire to see all those new ZOMG TEH AWESOMEZ options tried out in play.

Part of why I try to accommodate players who try new stuff is to scratch my own (personal, selfish) itch to see how new stuff works in play.

So, I'm happy if a player wants to keep his PC (because the story advances), and I'm happy if a player wants to try 50 different PCs over the course of a game (because I get to see how those new mechanics work).

Thus, for me, the optimal situation is always going to be a bit of a balancing act.

Cheers, -- N

 

[weem]

Well, this is embarassing... No sooner did I give Nifft some xp then I realize I meant Solomon, not Midas, and further there's no way for me to edit that or even call attention to it. Ugh.

Took care of that for you hehe

 

[SteveC]

I had a player who did this incessantly, and it bothered me for a while, but eventually I just decided this was what he liked about the game (the novelty of trying a new character build, that is). The plot points of the game gradually became about the characters who were long standing members of the group, and I tended to only use his characters in short term scenarios.

One thing that I did with 4E was use the treasure parcel system to keep the game balanced with these frequent changes, since in prior editions the group tended to end up with way too much magic from all these characters leaving. What I did in 4E was to say if a character started play at 6th level, he'd get a 7th, 6th and 5th level item, and assuming the group still had the old character's items, that meant they had "found" a 7th, 6th and 5th level treasure. That worked out quite well, as it tended to reduce the tendency for the other players to say "can your next character have a bag of holding? We'll need that when you're gone..."

I found that in the end giving the players what they want in a game was the most important thing, and this tended to help out.

--Steve