"The aim is for the players to have fun"

[Morrus]

While I agree one possibility is that the game is too lethal, another is that the GM wants the players to view their characters as more than playing pieces that are easily replaced.

If they're easily (or, more accurately, frequently) replaced then they'll be regarded as easily/frequently replaced. One leads inexorably to the other. Look at one of the most lethal (in terms of PC survivability) games in existence - something like Paranoia. Characters die every five minutes, and as a consequence are not viewed as valuable in any sense. If death is more rare, then death becomes a bigger deal.

 

[Omegaxicor]

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] has it exactly, though the Cleric was an example...

though the lethality aspect might be true, I just don't know how to inspire the players to value their characters

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IME, some players just don't. It's a playstyle- PCs are pieces.

One thing you can do to affect that mentality is make sure the PCs are tied into the game world in ways that make them clearly NOT interchangeable. That can be done with non-mechanical rewards that are character-specific bennies.

If, for instance, a PC does something that an NPC a great flavor, that NPC might pull strings for that PC: that connection gets lost if that PC dies. Similarly, a PC found to be a long-lost son of a powerful merchant/noble/royal house can open doors his "replacement" never could. Ditto a champion of the faith.

The players may still treat their PCs as mere pawns, but their focus will alter a bit, since each one has unique, non-replaceable attributes.

 

[Omegaxicor]

That's a very good idea, I hadn't considered that

I understand that that is their playstyle and it is a perfectly acceptable way to play D&D (not this campaign at the moment but D&D in general is accepting of it) but it is the opposite of my playstyle and changing the world to suit them means I won't enjoy it and changing the world to suit me means they won't enjoy it...kinda the point of this post

but good RP rewards that the players can use are wasted if there are ways to get around having that reward. If the NPC would pull strings and get the party into somewhere then that's great but if the required character dies then the party can find another way into there, the player will not miss the character but if there is no other way in without the character then either the mission is impossible or, if the mission is optional, the mission will just be ignored by the players...

 

[JamesonCourage]

If they're easily (or, more accurately, frequently) replaced then they'll be regarded as easily/frequently replaced. One leads inexorably to the other. Look at one of the most lethal (in terms of PC survivability) games in existence - something like Paranoia. Characters die every five minutes, and as a consequence are not viewed as valuable in any sense. If death is more rare, then death becomes a bigger deal.

I strongly disagree with this as a general statement. My players were, at one point, losing a PC about once every other session, and we played weekly. They never, ever felt like their characters didn't matter, or that they were easily replaced. They knew that, of course, they'd make a new character, but they in no way felt any less connected to those characters, nor did they plan on losing them before they did. This depends on the group.

If you're just saying "if people replace characters frequently, then they replace characters frequently," then I'll amend my statement to "... yes." As always, play what you like

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I feel your pain. I wish I had a good solution for you. My players are the same. Have been for years. Even when I've entirely switched around the players in the group, they've ended up with similar attitudes. I've tried giving them roleplaying benefits that are non transferable. They don't care. They get bored with a character and will ask me to retire it so they can play a new one. If I won't let them, they run head first into danger and get themselves killed.

I've tried starting them at lower levels if they make up a new character and keeping them at the same xp if they get resurrected to encourage them to keep the same characters. It reduced the amount of times they switched characters, but it didn't stop them. It still happened so often that the entire make up of the party would be different about every week or two of game time. Like you, I felt it was kind of silly to have that many adventurers, especially high level ones just roaming around ready to join the party.

I eventually gave up. None of my players seemed to care that the group was entirely different. They were more than willing to hand wave the situation and never bring it up. So, I eventually just went with it. I realized that if 6 others had no problem with it and were having fun that I'd just try to minimize it the best I could and deal. In one of my extremely high level groups, I just decided to explain it in game. I invented a group called Barricade who vowed to keep the multiverse safe from super powerful threats. They hired impossibly powerful adventurers from various alternate worlds where they were some of the most powerful people on their planets or planes. Then they sent them wherever they were needed most.

And that was often where the PCs were. They used teleportation magic to teleport new members directly to the PCs. They'd do it without them even asking as the PCs were asked to wear a magic item that sensed their vitals back to Barricade. If they died, their body would teleport back to HQ. They'd attempt to bring it back to life. If the person refused, they'd teleport a new member to the party.

It had the benefit of encouraging them to keep the same character(no down time while they wait for the party to leave the dungeon in a couple hours to get him resurrected, my out of character announcement that I'd like them to keep their same characters, and making them start at lower level if they switched). It also explained how they were able to create new characters when hey decided to. Though, even the players thought the group was kind of cheesy. But it worked.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I feel your pain. I wish I had a good solution for you. My players are the same. Have been for years. Even when I've entirely switched around the players in the group, they've ended up with similar attitudes. I've tried giving them roleplaying benefits that are non transferable. They don't care. They get bored with a character and will ask me to retire it so they can play a new one. If I won't let them, they run head first into danger and get themselves killed.

Sounds like the game you want to run isn't the kind of game they want to play. It doesn't make sense for you to blame them for that.

 

[N'raac]

Sounds like the game you want to run isn't the kind of game they want to play. It doesn't make sense for you to blame them for that.

Nor does it make sense for the players to blame a GM for stepping down if the game they want to play isn't a game he wants to run. Unfortunately, with that set of gamers, it may not be possible to have a game everyone enjoys - in which case, there's really no game.

 

[Morrus]

I strongly disagree with this as a general statement. My players were, at one point, losing a PC about once every other session, and we played weekly. They never, ever felt like their characters didn't matter, or that they were easily replaced. They knew that, of course, they'd make a new character, but they in no way felt any less connected to those characters, nor did they plan on losing them before they did. This depends on the group.

Sure, it depends on the group. That goes without saying. Regarding your experiences -- I believe you; and I submit that your group is unusual in this regard, and that most people don't tend to identify with and value characters which are lost with the frequency that you describe. But yes, it clearly depends on the group; some types of group being outliers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's a very good idea, I hadn't considered that

I understand that that is their playstyle and it is a perfectly acceptable way to play D&D (not this campaign at the moment but D&D in general is accepting of it) but it is the opposite of my playstyle and changing the world to suit them means I won't enjoy it and changing the world to suit me means they won't enjoy it...kinda the point of this post

but good RP rewards that the players can use are wasted if there are ways to get around having that reward. If the NPC would pull strings and get the party into somewhere then that's great but if the required character dies then the party can find another way into there, the player will not miss the character but if there is no other way in without the character then either the mission is impossible or, if the mission is optional, the mission will just be ignored by the players...

It's kind of a sandboxy concept. Yes, there usually are other ways to achieve those goals without the PC in question, but its usually not anywhere near as easy.

Think of it this way: imagine, for a moment, that JRRT was running a ME based RPG game, and the party had let the One Ring get lost in a fissure some way. Given who he was, JRRT would probably have let the PCs fins another way to defeat Sauron, on not discussed in the world's legends, but effective nonetheless.