Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DwarvenStriker 05-11-07, 04:59 PM	I am having a delima with the group I currently game with. I will gladly welcome any advice, although I am afraid there may not be an equitable solution. I need to start of with a few statements about my group first. 1) The core of this group has gamed for a long time, and are the ones who introduced me to the game. 2) In terms of play style we tend to be slightly roleplay heavy ( I would put it as 60% fighting, 40% various roleplay/exploration elements) 3) While by no mean experts of the CO board level, my group is able to create very efficent characters. 4) I really don't want any suggestion that ends with, 'screw them, leave' If it really comes down to that I don't really feel a need to play the game anymore, as I look forward more to chilling with the players then playing. I'm just running into frustration with a trend I have noticed with several members of a group. Often they will build a character that typically perfom rather well (see point 3), however if they feel that they aren't 'enjoying their character' they will simply complaign till the DM at the moment allows them to drop and make a new character. Now I have no problem with creating a character if someone isn't happy, I just feel that this mainly stems from issues with percieved mechanical effictiveness even if they (IMO) have a great character concept, backstory, etc. Is there anyway to deal with this? Am I simply wanting to much out of my fellow players? I just feel like that most character can be fun to play if you take the time to give them personality. I look forward to any imput posters here have to offer.
Sareld 05-11-07, 07:05 PM	It sounds to me like your friends dosent really get attached to their characters, which is a common problem in many gaming groups. My own group, including myself I might add, have suffered under this problem for years. I dont know your exact situation and gaming habits, but I suspect that you might gain some advantage by changing the way you start your campaigns. This is how we USED to do it: It is gaming night, and after last months TPK the DM has announced that he will be starting a new campaign. Being quite paranoid and opposed to using the point-buy system, he have disallowed the players to prepare their characters in advance, and thus insists that the players roll up their stats and money in front of him (you better not roll that 18 while hes blinking!). As a result of not knowing what stats they had at their disposal, the players have neither determined what class, gender, race or personality they wanted to play in advance. But why borther? After 30 minutes of character creation, the party consisting of Bob the Fighter, Fred the Wizard, Elf-who-will-someday-be-named the Cleric and Snotpot the Goblin Rogue is quite litterally ready to roll. After a few sessions however, we would grow tired of our characters. I for one usually found our that I had picked the wrong class/bunch of feats/skills/alignment/PrC for the type of character I had in mind, and that I have been doing some things in the game that was actually not like my character at all. As a result, I would deliberately start taking chances during the fights and eventually die and decline the raise dead spell.. and so would everyone else. usually after cycling through 2-10 characters, we would have hit just the kind of character that we really wanted to play, but the campaing would be over. The solution: We told out DM to put a sock in it, and allow us to make the character for his next campaing several weeks or even months in advance. People started to write page upon page of background stories for their characters, used the time to find the feats and PrCs that suited them the best, spent the time nessecary to come up with interesting and original personalities. The players would bond to these masterwork characters even before the campaign started, and the DM not has an unlimited supply of side quests in form of knowledge of the characters social positions, friends and family, enemies, past, motivations, ambitions and special abilities. As an example, I have already spent more time figuring out what clothes my next character will wear than I would have used to create her under the old system. In short, taking the nessecary time to create your characters will make people bond to them. Dont rush character creation!
celtredleg 05-11-07, 10:38 PM	If the involved creation process is not for you, then bring them back one level below the lowest in the group. mind, I think the post above is a superior solution, but not everybody is willing to go to that much trouble.
sbattisti 05-11-07, 11:24 PM	There's so many directions to go with this, depending on what you guys are like. One idea is talk to them. If you've been gaming together for so long, one would hope you have a close relationship. Basically, just tell them, "It's really a drag for me when you keep switching characters. Is there anything we can do to keep you interested longer?" Another idea would be to look to the DM. Why are they getting tired of the characters? Are the characters advancing too rapidly? Too slowly? Are they getting hit with challenge after challenge that points out the flaws in their min/maxing approach? Another idea would be to run several campaigns simultaneously. Play Campaign A one week, Campaign B the next. Just some thoughts... Steve
kelvinaw273 05-12-07, 03:59 AM	I 2) In terms of play style we tend to be slightly roleplay heavy ( I would put it as 60% fighting, 40% various roleplay/exploration elements) :rofl: I'm sorry that just cracked me up ... "Role-play heavy" should be 40% combat / 60% RP, not the other way around. In fact, I don't generally feel that a campaign has earned its RP laurels until we have had a three-to-four-hour long session without a single dice rolled .... As to your problem, these are the house-rules I tend to use: 1) All PCs must come with a minimum of one page of back-story and character background, preferably including family tree, reason for adventuring, significant romantic interests, colour of underwear when attending first job interview etc. 2) Ditching PCs involves a one-level drop for the next PC - who must also come with a full backstory, background etc. 3) Party's are encouraged to write a charter, in which probationary members (first couple of adventures with the party) get only a half-share of loot.
Optimized_Commoner 05-12-07, 04:53 AM	1) All PCs must come with a minimum of one page of back-story and character background, preferably including family tree, reason for adventuring, significant romantic interests, colour of underwear when attending first job interview etc. Why? I assume you're kidding about the particular examples (dying underwear isn't particularly common within medieval cultures), but why do you need that much information about a character. Barring padding and creative prose, the core of an amazing character can be built in a few sentences. The rest is just waffle. In a worst case scenario this kind of rule encourages people to build characters whose entire background and personality is just waffle without a solid core. 2) Ditching PCs involves a one-level drop for the next PC - who must also come with a full backstory, background etc. 3) Party's are encouraged to write a charter, in which probationary members (first couple of adventures with the party) get only a half-share of loot. Sounds like a brilliant way of persuading people to stop playing the game, rather than just their character or to restrain them playing a character they dislike and thus stop them enjoying your game.
danielinthewolvesden 05-12-07, 04:54 AM	It is a game. The idea of a game is to have fun. Some folks need to change their PC's often to have fun- most of the fun for them is designing new PC's. So, sit down with those players. Discuss with them WHY they want to change PC's so often. Discuss possible compromises. Work with them, but if they get disruptive with it (suiciding their PC's) do not be afraid to put your foot down.
Splendide 05-12-07, 06:09 AM	I was like that for a bit. Every encounter was hard core, so if you didn't have optimised characters, you were going to suffer a bit. And who wants to play optimised characters? Which basically means you sit around all combat, do something ineffectual, get knocked unconscious, and OOC talk **** with the cleric who is on call for when someone needs healing. Pretty hard to get attached to a character in a really tough environment where you are sucking.
Optimized_Commoner 05-12-07, 06:31 AM	It is a game. The idea of a game is to have fun. True. Some folks need to change their PC's often to have fun- most of the fun for them is designing new PC's. Guilty as charged here. So, sit down with those players. Discuss with them WHY they want to change PC's so often. Discuss possible compromises. Work with them, but if they get disruptive with it (suiciding their PC's) do not be afraid to put your foot down. Good advice on all fronts.
kelvinaw273 05-12-07, 09:27 AM	Why? I assume you're kidding about the particular examples (dying underwear isn't particularly common within medieval cultures), but why do you need that much information about a character. Barring padding and creative prose, the core of an amazing character can be built in a few sentences. The rest is just waffle. In a worst case scenario this kind of rule encourages people to build characters whose entire background and personality is just waffle without a solid core. You can, yes, but I find with myself and most players it helps them get 'into' the character's head - and they find out before they play if they actually like their concept. Sounds like a brilliant way of persuading people to stop playing the game, rather than just their character or to restrain them playing a character they dislike and thus stop them enjoying your game. On the other hand, if the players are just not giving their own creations a chance to shine, it might keep them trying just a bit harder. I've known players who, when they found a particular concept was not well suited to a single particular adventure, dumped the character rather than wait and see if the next adventure would be different. I appreciate what you are implying (and what dabielinthewolvesden has said) that for some players, building new PCs is the fun of the game. In this case it is a good idea to restructure the game somewhat - have the 'core' of long-term characters as the active core of the group that bring in help as and when needed for adventures. I was once the only regular player in a Shadowrun campaign that ended up working this way: my character dealt with the 'fixers' who gave me the breakdown of the job, I would 'cherry pick' a team (ie use my own skills and contacts to hire the the other player characters for that session) and go meet the 'Johnson' for the final mission brief. It can work really well if that is what the players would prefer - BUT there is a downside: the players who want to keep swapping have to realise that their one-shot characters are there effectively as hired help - they can contribute, but they don't call the shots. In the Shadowrun team, when crunch time came my character was the guy giving the orders, end of discussion.
Kouk 05-12-07, 07:46 PM	If they new characters they make are not wildy different than the previous ones (as in, one fighter is a two-hander, the new one is a finesser but still a fighter) it may just be they are not satisfied with their choices and want to try again. If it is all of them I would say it is just a group thing that has to be acknowledged by the DM and accounted for. You could try having the group able to make free re-training at every level (or whenever they want, maybe once a session max) so that they are free to find the "perfect" build they actually want while still retaining the character's identity and group cohesion. You may be sacrificing some verisimilitude, but if the adventuring group is just you with a constantly changing roster of random new guys I think it would be a fair trade. You might also consider a Point Buy, so they have total control over building the character. They won't have a nagging feeling like they could have "rolled better" so they kill the current one and try again. Many people feel very strongly about the point buy system (both ways) so that may not work for your group but the retraining rules from PHBII might. It could just be a difference in playstyles, some people like making characters more than playing them and you should probably get used to it if you want to game with them.
Optimized_Commoner 05-13-07, 02:39 AM	You can, yes, but I find with myself and most players it helps them get 'into' the character's head - and they find out before they play if they actually like their concept. So you make a rule, legally enforcing a good idea. Weird. Why not just tell your players "this is a good idea" and rely on their common sense and reason. On the other hand, if the players are just not giving their own creations a chance to shine, it might keep them trying just a bit harder. Again, common sense, reason. I've known players who, when they found a particular concept was not well suited to a single particular adventure, dumped the character rather than wait and see if the next adventure would be different. Numerically speaking, what is the number of adventures you need to sit through before you are allowed to change your character based on your perceptions of the gaming environment. the players who want to keep swapping have to realise that their one-shot characters are there effectively as hired help - they can contribute, but they don't call the shots. In the Shadowrun team, when crunch time came my character was the guy giving the orders, end of discussion. Absolutely. I think a player is a hypocrite if that they want to change characters every session and have their character (important point) treated like a core character. That just doesn't make any sense in the game world. Incidentally that shadowrun game sounded like fun.
kelvinaw273 05-13-07, 03:35 AM	Numerically speaking, what is the number of adventures you need to sit through before you are allowed to change your character based on your perceptions of the gaming environment. Well it's a greater number than one. Absolutely. I think a player is a hypocrite if that they want to change characters every session and have their character (important point) treated like a core character. That just doesn't make any sense in the game world. Incidentally that shadowrun game sounded like fun. It was. It actually turned out to be excellent for players to test out character concepts they were not sure would work, like the street-samurai based on throwing knives rather than guns, or the character based on contacts rather than equipment or magic. I recommend the format for that, if this is the kind of game the OP's group wants. At the core of the group you want a good generalist rather than a specialist - this way he's in a position to 'fill the gaps' that might be left by a constantly shifting party. He needs to have some social/mental skills and attributes, because he is going to be party leader; I suggest a bard or monk, or possibly a cleric or rogue. You also need an established NPC as your patron or 'fixer' who finds you the jobs to do. For a monk or cleric this can be their temple elder; for a bard or rogue the head of the local thieves guild; or it could be a noble, a mercantile house etc. The way it worked for us was: Core member is contacted by 'fixer' with outline details of 'the job'; core member then hires as appropriate and takes team to meet the 'Mr Johnson' who wanted the job done for final details. It meant that with a semi-regular group of players we managed to have a coherent campaign that was more than just a series of one-shots.
Optimized_Commoner 05-13-07, 04:42 AM	The way it worked for us was: Core member is contacted by 'fixer' with outline details of 'the job'; core member then hires as appropriate and takes team to meet the 'Mr Johnson' who wanted the job done for final details. Also sounds like a good format for the "character tree" idea, where everyone has a number of characters 'in storage' and for each adventure the most appropriate team is put together. This makes character death less of a problem as well due to the presence of 'backups'.
kelvinaw273 05-13-07, 08:49 AM	Also sounds like a good format for the "character tree" idea, where everyone has a number of characters 'in storage' and for each adventure the most appropriate team is put together. This makes character death less of a problem as well due to the presence of 'backups'. There is a hitch in D&D, and that is character level. For it to work you need at least one solid, regular character; this character will gain experience and loot every adventure, while other characters will not if they are swapped in and out. This is why the character needs to be a generalist (an un-optimized monk or bard generally won't outshine other characters too badly if there are a few levels of disparity), and they need to be generous loaning out 'party equipment'. You can still have the problem of needing to rotate your characters regularly to keep them all at roughly the same level, unless the DM makes provision for this ... Edit: Actually I'm really getting to like this idea again ... I think I might put this into action!
Optimized_Commoner 05-13-07, 08:59 AM	There is a hitch in D&D, and that is character level. Actually the idea is from D&D, (amongst other places), I'm referring to a second edition optional game style from Dark Sun. Your primary character gains full XP and loot, your secondaries get half XP and no-loot. Of course like many 2nd edition things it'll need to be adjusted heavily to bring it into 3.5 Another place which does this is Ars Magica. In that case you play a powerful being but also have a full assortment of their servants. You may be playing a mix of the different characters throughout the campaign. This idea adapts well to 3.5 as the powerful characters, who are probably played only rarely can be the focus for the group acting as patrons to the lesser characters that people play most often. You can still have the problem of needing to rotate your characters regularly to keep them all at roughly the same level, unless the DM makes provision for this ... Just because the character isn't going on THAT mission doesn't mean they're spending the time putting their feet up and watching TV. I'd assume that while the PC you're playing goes on the "main quest" the other characters in the tree are doing equally important things, gaining loot and XP at the same, or nearly the same rate. Edit: Actually I'm really getting to like this idea again ... I think I might put this into action! Yeah, you're inspiring me too. Though I don't know if my players would go for it. I'll chat with them tommorow and see what they think of the idea. I think they might like the 'ars magica' inspired one, the other I'm not so sure about.
danielinthewolvesden 05-13-07, 03:46 PM	There is another hitch. A freshly designed 7th level PC is going to be more powerful than a character played 1st-7th. For example, take the Toughness Feat- this can save many a 1st level PC's life, but after level 3 it loses it's usefulness. Of course, you could make every new PC buy Toughness, but..... Any good ideas here? And then there are class selections, where one can start at higher levelswith the cruddier classes over and done with so now you are in a nice PrC. And there are magic items- the folks playing all along likely have had to play " use whatever we find" and the new guy starts with optimized gear. I fix that a bit by having new guys start with wealth one level below the table and my parties usually are a little over table.
RainerNader 05-14-07, 02:34 PM	Make them build characters, not character concepts. I don't know how much time they're putting into backstory and role-play development, but my guess is the inspiration of their characters is more mechanically based. "If I take X class, Y prestige class, and Z feats, then I'll have a +26 to grapple by 3rd level!" So what happens? The mechanics stack as planned and you do have that +26 grapple check, only to realize it's not nearly as exciting as you thought. You can don't much damage once you establish the grapple, your ranged attacker allies get frustrated because they can't shoot without hitting you, and no matter what combination of mechanics you put together, many monsters have grapple checks twice as high as yours. So Mr. Grappler loses his allure and before you know it, you try to grapple a Purple Worm, end up pasted, and feel oddly relieved. Time for a new character... hmm, maybe you can put together barbarian, monk, and scout levels to get a 100 feet movement rate by 6th level! Now, what if Mr. Grappler had a real backstory, like being a championship gladiator wrestler? Or maybe he's cursed in that he can't directly strike someone, but he figured out grappling allowed him to be just as effective. Or maybe he grew up with an allergy to metal. Maybe he's a monk, orphaned at birth, whose real parents are... You get the idea. Then grappling isn't THE character, but just a mechanical manifestation of just one of the many background themes about the character. So even if grappling goes stale at time, the whole character doesn't, and the need to start rolling 4d6 is assuaged.
Optimized_Commoner 05-14-07, 04:13 PM	Now, what if Mr. Grappler had a real backstory, like being a championship gladiator wrestler? Or maybe he's cursed in that he can't directly strike someone, but he figured out grappling allowed him to be just as effective. Or maybe he grew up with an allergy to metal. Maybe he's a monk, orphaned at birth, whose real parents are... You get the idea. Then grappling isn't THE character, but just a mechanical manifestation of just one of the many background themes about the character. So even if grappling goes stale at time, the whole character doesn't, and the need to start rolling 4d6 is assuaged. While I don't mean to shoot your idea down, or imply that the OP shouldn't consider this possibility. I'm curious why you think that this would make a difference.
kelvinaw273 05-15-07, 09:45 AM	Make them build characters, not character concepts. I don't know how much time they're putting into backstory and role-play development, but my guess is the inspiration of their characters is more mechanically based. "If I take X class, Y prestige class, and Z feats, then I'll have a +26 to grapple by 3rd level!" Unfortunately we have no idea if this is the problem or not.
BW0222 05-15-07, 03:34 PM	DwarvenStriker, 2) In terms of play style we tend to be slightly roleplay heavy ( I would put it as 60% fighting, 40% various roleplay/exploration elements) I'm not sure I'd say that was roleplaying heavy. Standard D&D modules run close to this as do most RPGA types. 75/25% combat/roleplay is the standard split on XP. Often they will build a character that typically perfom rather well (see point 3), however if they feel that they aren't 'enjoying their character' they will simply complaign till the DM at the moment allows them to drop and make a new character. There are lots of reasons folks may not enjoy their characters. Some folks just aren't great with roleplaying certain character types. Some like trying new things. Is there anyway to deal with this? My recommendations (some of which you may have to talk with your DM about). 1. Decrease combat. Try going much more into roleplaying. Try 25/75% on roleplaying, say one combat per night max. At this point, roleplaying equalizes most character builds. Folks tend to worry less about optimization, weaknesses, etc. when most of their time is spent coming up with good ideas, plans, dealing with folks, etc. 2. Roleplaying with PCs. Try coming up with PC to PC roleplaying with them. Develop a personal connection with each PC. Each new town you go to, try arranging something interesting and personal. Take someone to a play. Buy someone some masterwork arrows. Ask someone if they'd like to help you find a place to bath your familiar. Task about their backgrounds, family, friends, etc. tell them about your background. Make bets, deals, investments, loans, etc. with them. Make sure their investment in your character is such that giving it away isn't an option. 3. Make a big deal about their former character leaving. Tell the DM that you want to visit with them. Continue treating them like an NPC friend. Send them letters, ask about their family, etc. When you meet the new PC, tell them about your friend who just left! Make it clear that even though others want to drop that character, you aren't forgetting about them. 4. Talk with the players. Tell them know that constantly switching characters is taking away some of the fun. Let them know you enjoy their characters and put a lot of effort into learning to roleplay with them. Ask them to spend some time with the DM, thinking about their new characters and not playing anything which they can't follow through with. 5. Ask the DM to put in more 'player specific' plot. Have him introduce an NPC who is a relative of the PC, have some NPC hunting the PC, or the PC knows some person who may be able to help lift the curse on the city. This may make plots more interesting and less desirable to switch players. 6. Ask the other players or DM to restart another campaign at first-level. Explain that since most of the group isn't involved in X, that your PC would likely quit the current plot. As such, restarting so that everyone has a fresh start might be useful.
kelvinaw273 05-16-07, 04:08 AM	A thought has occurred to me: Are these players being pressed into certain roles in the party, like Cleric (healer) or Fighter (tank)? If so it may be the case that thay actually just don't want to play in that role.
guru7892 05-16-07, 04:49 AM	if people really want to change an play diffrent charictars, let them change when ever they get to a town/ place that would have another adventurer. whats wrong with having a few charictars that always stick around and a few floaters that come in every once in a while? it happens in real life all the time and we arnt any worse for it. this also has the advantage of letting a player cycle through charictars untill he can find one he likes. sometimes players dont know what they want and need to figure it out. forcing them to do something they don't want to wont help at all. this salso has the added advantage of changing the game dynamics to keep it from getting stale. this makes the part better at adapting aswell. simply if the party needs to fight 'Kerrigothia the searring fiery hell-fire dragon of buring ash flames and lava' it is only natural that they would most likely have an ice-mage come in to help them (fire mages take out rogue scare-crows, ice mages deal with dragons and gnomes are used against creatures easily distracted: its all in their MO). remember never ask 'why should I?' when you could ask 'why should i not?' and when in dout put it up to the party while reminding them that fun is the main goal. *sidenote*Kerrigothia the searring fiery hell-fire dragon of buring ash flames and lava OFTEN uses the taunt 'don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me' as well as saying 'burn' after particular insults (and occasionaly uses the saying 'my heart burns for you, (name of party sorcerer), as well as the rest of my being, but dont worry thats normal')
Splendide 05-16-07, 06:47 AM	if people really want to change an play diffrent charictars, let them change when ever they get to a town/ place that would have another adventurer. whats wrong with having a few charictars that always stick around and a few floaters that come in every once in a while?Just off the top of my head, this scenario. The Party Members PC1 - Player one is not a frequent character changer PC2-4 - Players change PCs fairly frequently, by ongoing campaign standards. Because PC1 is the most consistent character, the DM has made him the integral character of the story's central plot. However, what if PC1 decides he wants to change his character too? Does the DM tell him he can, and ruin his ongoing plot? Or does he tell the player that he has to play the same character, even though everyone else has swapped, and risk a dissatisfied player anyway?
bob_the_great 05-16-07, 06:57 AM	you can't force other people to get more involved in their characters. Some people really get into it, some people don't. my girlfreind loathes character creation and would quit a game before she wrote a one page backstory. she's a pretty good roleplayer though and gets really attached to her characters. she starts with a very simple concept and grows the character as she plays. Does her character's father have a name? No. Does she do what her character would do, without concern for metagame consequences? Pretty much always. playing the same character for awhile has its own advantages. you go back to waterdeep where you started your adventure and you already have relationships with the npcs there. you have forged relationships with the other party members and have developed cache with the party. roleplaying is much easier because backstory and experiences were actually played out, and not written down on a piece of paper. I was in a group once where my girlfriend and I had been in the group for over a year real time, from levels 2-12 or so. other players kept dying, going on hiatus, or whatever so we were the only two who had been around awhile. we were the ones who had crossed the BBEG, we were the ones who had gone to hell and back (adds a ton of flavor to a character), and we had the respect of the group (when a new character joined and heard our stories we were afforded a certain respect). mechanically, switching characters should have a penalty. people shouldn't be able to create a new character with experience and gear equal to their old character. if that's currently being allowed you may want to bring it up with the DM.