Too Much Effort to Make New Characters?

[MarkB]

Have them wake up the next morning fresh as daisies but without any equipment or armor, just their clothes.

The players or the characters?

 

[Retreater]

If we are talking about D&D5, I can relate to the feeling of not being enthused about new character creation, though. I find the organization of information in the books to be rather terrible - it's probably a lot better if you have D&D Beyond (or any other character builder). In other systems, where character creation is lighter (e.g. DCC, Dungeon World or Broken Compass) then it's usually less of a problem.

Well, we are playing Pathfinder 2e, and they have access to Pathbuilder (a free and easy-to-use character creation website/app). I can make a low-level character on there in 5 minutes (and of course, our game is low-level).
I've offered pre-gens for those who don't have time or interest to make their characters. I've offered to build characters for them based on their ideas.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I find it very rude and a little baffling that some posters in this thread think that just because someone is sad their character died and that they don't want to go to the effort of making a new unique character that they don't like the games at all. It's a very limited view, and certainly a DnD centric one.

This is my feeling as well. Statements like: "I'd go find a group that actually wants to play" or some such to the effect that the players aren't really playing if they're not wanting to make new characters is just nasty One True Way-ism to me.

They obviously don't want to play the way you (general) want to play. But they want to play.

It might be better to find a group whose playstyle meshes better with you. But don't poopoo on other modes and methods of play.

 

[kenada]

If you were the GM, how would you respond to a group's attitude that if their characters die, you should just re-play the encounter or move on anyway - because it's too much work to make a new character and losing an evening's worth of game progress is "punishment enough?"
Like, I'm flabbergasted here. Maybe these people shouldn't be playing RPGs - or at least mainstream games like D&D or Pathfinder?

Fire my players and find better ones.

 

[Andvari]

I’d consider switching to a system with a simple character creation process that requires few choices besides race and class.

Castles & Crusades for example.

 

[Blue]

If you were the GM, how would you respond to a group's attitude that if their characters die, you should just re-play the encounter or move on anyway - because it's too much work to make a new character and losing an evening's worth of game progress is "punishment enough?"
Like, I'm flabbergasted here. Maybe these people shouldn't be playing RPGs - or at least mainstream games like D&D or Pathfinder?

This isn't "BADWRONGFUN", even if it doesn't match my play style.

Character creation is a combination of the mechanical elements, the personality and related details, and possibly backstory/hooks for character arcs. It can get heavy depending on the system and how much effort the player puts into the non-mechanical parts. You mention PF, that is a system where you need to plan ahead of time and working out a build is a large investment of time just on the mechanical part. If they carry that practice over to D&D (or play 3.x which is what spawned it), then that part can appear to be daunting as well.

It feels like the DM has been training them that every fight is winnable, so that when a death comes they feel it's an aberration. This is on the GM (and previous ones) setting expectations. If there are no down beats based on character actions, and character actions always lead to progress regardless of the road they take to overcome challenges, that's on the GM.

It also seems like a unhealthy conflation of character goals = player goals that is common in the very games you mention, D&D and Pathfinder, where players feel they are being punished if they aren't making progress.

I am loathe to invoke the tired "video games are killing RPGs" trope but this is how they have experienced those types of games and set expectations as well.

And while this is being overtly discussed as "too much work to make a character", there are likely also "I like this character and don't want to lose them" for a multitude of reasons.

I can see this style, and a chunk of it is expectations the players have from both outside sources but also from their DM.

 

[Blue]

i would end the game, then and there, and wish everyone the best before finding a group that actually wanted to play.

This comes across as if you are ignoring what is written in order to make your point. The player are obviously interested in playing if they feel it is punishment to lose a session's worth of progress. So you "find a group that actually wanted to play" you have to know is false.

So it feels like you are trying to assign them motives that they are written not to have just so you can judge them. And that doesn't read well.

 

[J.Quondam]

Personally, i don't find chargen to be much fun in the more complex systems like PF or D&D, so I can understand some players' distaste for making a new PC. When I've run games in such systems, i've always had on hand a few playable NPCs that could be handed over as temp PCs; and required players to maintain a second/third PC (usually a level behind) that can be swapped in at some opportune moment in the adventure if a primary PC dies.

One other option in this particular case is to just reskin the dead PC. Different name, different background, different equipment, swap out a couple features/spells or whatever, and toss him in a cage in the next dungeon room to be rescued by the rest of the party. Yes, it's a lazy way out of the predicament, but it might be a compromise that the table can work with for now, at least until the campaign wraps up and you can look at switching to another system more in line with the players' expectations.

 

[Retreater]

I’d consider switching to a system with a simple character creation process that requires few choices besides race and class.

Castles & Crusades for example.

I've suggested rules lite systems in the past. The problem is a mix of interests in the group: some prefer tactical depth, others are there for the story and friendship. All of these guys are friends IRL, so it's hard to tell them to just "split the group."
The other issue is that the players who are interested in story don't want to abandon campaigns/rules systems just because it's not working for them. And they also don't want to learn new systems they could enjoy more.

This isn't "BADWRONGFUN", even if it doesn't match my play style.

Agreed. But it is playing against the type for the style of game we are playing (which they also chose to play after knowing those expectations).
So how does a GM running an Adventure Path allow a group to always "fail forward?" When a system like D&D or Pathfinder is based on combat and character injury but characters can't die?
If I let the characters live to face another day while there are story implications for defeat, can we still follow the story of the Adventure Path?

 

[Emirikol]

If you were the GM, how would you respond to a group's attitude that if their characters die, you should just re-play the encounter or move on anyway - because it's too much work to make a new character and losing an evening's worth of game progress is "punishment enough?"
Like, I'm flabbergasted here. Maybe these people shouldn't be playing RPGs - or at least mainstream games like D&D or Pathfinder?

This is a really great question to ask. In 40 years of being a dm, I've set some table rules:
#1 No xp penalty for replacement characters---EVER. Xp penalty is a outdated notion from 1974 gaming and is a dick-move that punishes good players.
#2 Char gen sux arse. I hate it myself. It is a massive gaming subsystem that sux to learn for every..new..edition..every..new..game. It sux, sux, sux. It's a massive turn off for new potential players and it sux for replacement characters. I get it.
But, players need to keep a back up character prepped OR you need a stack of pregens ready to go.

#3 replacement character introduction needs to be rapid and seamless because nobody wants to just sit there doing nothing--being punished. It's simple psychology: BAD DOG! YOU SIT THERE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE!!!! --YOU TERRIBLE PERSON YOU!!! HOW DARE YOUR CHARACTER DIE! YOU TERRIBLE PERSON YOU!!![cue disappointed parent finger pointing]. NOW TAKE AN XP PENALTY TOO YOU TERRIBLE PERSON YOU!!!

So get the player back in action as soon as is prudent.

Give the players a second to background-story how this new character is ALREADY known by the group, and move on.
That's another stupid thing-//-..this dude wanders up that nobody knows..blah blah blah boring reintroduction whole night wasted../ I have to laugh when I see this crap for the 967th time.

So I guess my point is don't make replacement character process a punishment or suck as a social event.