Last Night - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Last Night

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
graymer
Dec 16, 2010 11:53:36
So our campaign has been going here for about 2 months now. I joined an already established group as a 4th player, and have filled the Defender role.

Recently, my character had been a Goliath Battlemind, and while I enjoyed the class, I decided that something a bit simpler would be a better fit for me as I'm still fairly new to 4E as of this summer. As a result, I worked it out with my DM to swap to a normal PHB Dwarf Fighter.

Well last night was the session of the switch, and I coordinated it with the DM to work it into the story rather perfectly. Our party was inquiring with the local loremaster about some history that would put us back on the path of the BBEG we've been chasing, and my character decided to stay outside for some fresh air. During this, he had a horrendous vision, which sent him off running. This provided a possible opportunity for him to return as an NPC later in the campaign if the DM so wished.

My Fighter then entered the scene as a conscript sent by the king to be put in service of the party to aid in their quest. Kind of like a, "It's a dangerous job, so here's some help." I thought it worked out pretty well, and was careful to weave the switch in with my DM so the story could flow smoothly.

Well, it turns out that after the switch, 2 of the 3 other party members have also been unhappy with their characters. I found this odd as neither of them had complained about them before. Nonetheless, I'm all for playing something you enjoy. The two classes that are unhappy are a Rogue and Cleric.

First, the Cleric threw a complete hissy. Saying that my character has now invalidated his build, and he has to reroll a completely brand new character to now fill the void. I tried explaining to him that Clerics are actually one of the, if not THE, most flexible Leader classes in the game, and gave him suggestions to tweak some things so that a brand new character wasn't necessary. As it turns out, he had also had a really bad day at work, so this may have compounded the fact. He then went on to lobby for a party with no Leaders, claiming that my character obviously didn't need any healing (I picked a Battlerager as my Class Feature), and said we could easily get by with a Potion Bandolier and chug health potions all the way through epic. I honestly didn't know what to say.

The other character, the Rogue, is more or less the one who has been driving the story thus far. To sum it up, he's essentially a lorekeeper in training, and has been sent on his "task," which is to locate some rare artifact, and returning with it would thus prove his readiness for a full time position. The Rogue is a noble Dwarf, connected to the king, who my character was commissioned by. Quite complex indeed. The player, who was a bit more level headed, said that the character concept he had in mind just wasn't coming together as he had planned.

In response to all of this, I just agreed to retcon a bit of my backstory and say that I was the one given the initial quest - finding this rare artifact, and myself and the other party member, a Wizard, had recruited these other two before we set off.

Honestly, I wouldn't have opted to change my character if I had known this chain of events would take place. Maybe I should have thought about it a bit more seriously when I picked my character, but I really thought I could get into the Battlemind. Turns out I was wrong.

We are doing a double dip before the holidays this week, with an extended session planned for this Saturday night. I can't tell if there is tension in the group or not, but last night certainly didn't help matters.

Any advice? Sorry in advance for the length of the post.
#2
miarra
Dec 16, 2010 13:04:52 I've seen this happen before. A player decides to change their character and other players suddenly want to as well.

In some cases, when they see a player change their character out, it makes them start wondering "Oh, he changed because he wasn't happy with his build. Maybe I'm not happy with my build? Maybe I should change my character now too, before its too late?" etc etc.

The other extreme would be the folks who suddenly think their character is rendered useless by the new addition.

It looks like you're experiencing these two different reactions to your new character. Should the other players actually decide they want to change their characters out, it's honestly something the DM is going to have to deal with, not you.He allowed you to do it, and now he has to decide how to handle the reactions it has caused.

Actually, the potential for this should have been something addressed before the game even started - "If anyone decides their characters aren't working for them and you want to change out, it would be nice to know early to avoid any conflict - maybe by the fourth session [or insert suitably appropriate time length here]"

It may be that your DM will have to address this situation in this manner now. It can be highly frustrating, if not potentially plot-shattering, to have a mass character change out.

- - -
#3
tubaman
Dec 16, 2010 13:06:31 the rogue is the easier of the two, so i'll start there.

he has the option, i would think, of keeping his story intact. He could rebuild his character completely, from the ground up, without messing up the story in the slightest if he only keeps one thing:

his backstory (which may or may not require his race to stay the same).

if he did rogue-ish things in the past? no problem, any class can do that stuff. As long as he wants to keep the character going the same way (if he's happy with the story - maybe an invoker would help him keep a "loremaster" theme and keep his character concept alive).

the cleric just sounds (from what i'm reading) to be acting like a baby about "you got to change but now he wants to!"

To be fair, leader is, and always has seemed the most thankless job in D&D (3.5 clerics anyone?). Less so in 4e than in any other editions, but it still feels like the spotlight is never on you. Try a leaderless party, make sure your DM is aware of this. Use lots of healing potions, second winds, etc. Encourage the former cleric to at least look carefully at his new class and build so that he doesn't want to switch again.
#4
graymer
Dec 16, 2010 13:16:00 Thanks for the feedback.

The Rogue will be doing a completely different character - some Gnome/Weremoose Shaman. Will be using Shifter rules. The backstory should be totally off the wall, which is what he's known for.

The Cleric hasn't decided, but I guess has a history of waiting untilt he last minute. But we will have a Leader, so I'll be a happy Dwarf.

The focus of the campaign will adjust so that my proposed retcon - my character searching for this artifiact instead of the Rogue - will take effect. So at least that's settled.
#5
tubaman
Dec 16, 2010 13:37:52 i have to say i feel a little sorry for your group with those changes taking place.

It looked like you had a pretty down-to-earth party before doing cool things with believable backstory and good RP opportunity.

A gnome/weremoose just sounds bizarre, and so far, in all of the games i've run or participated in, bizarre has led to harder to integrate backstory and players behaving in really really wierd ways that don't seem to mesh even what they've SAID about their character (raised by wolves minotaur with a warhammer who had never been to civilization before walks into a town with the party, proceeds to be comically polite to EVERYONE, and then goes and buys a cowbow hat).

bizarre characters also seem to turn RP into a series of comic 1-liners, and they drive DMs up a wall when they are trying to decide how on earth NPCs (important or mundane) should react to the antlered gnome. Being too much like paranoid transylvanian villagers makes the player feel like the DM is trying to screw him, and having people treat him normally makes the character feel like his racial choice has no story impact.....anything in between those two extremes tends to result in spotlight hogging because every initial NPC reaction has to then include the Gnoose.
#6
graymer
Dec 16, 2010 13:42:16 It is unfortunate in terms of the story prior to these events, but I think we have an opportunity to still have a blast. We're all determined to make it work.

The former gnome/weremoose decided to just go with a Minotaur instead after I pointed out the possible future implications of his complicated concept. He'll come up with an appropriate backstory, as he has in the past, and be ready to go on Saturday.

The beat rolls on. My experience thus far with the group has been excellent so far, and I fully expect us to recover and forge ahead.
#7
DontEatRawHagis
Dec 16, 2010 21:34:46 I did this after I found out I was bad at being a leader. Granted the first encounter was supposed to be a one on one fight, but I ended up jumping down into a hole for cover. I now play a Monk, which is a lot better than I thought it would be. My character is a lot more fleshed out and has a great backstory.

Hopefully your DM doesn't get too hammered with all the story elements that have changed. If one of my players changed from his halfing I would have to destroy a perfectly good storyline about a Halfing tribe being killed off as an act of genocide.
#8
zmortis
Dec 17, 2010 8:23:56 I have a couple of different perspectives on the OPs original post. First as a player, I think that if character backstories are interlinked between players, then before one of the players changes characters the change should be discussed in meta-game after the regular session before it is done. We had the player of a Minotaur runepriest in my current party decide they were not happy in the leader/support role (our party had two leaders) and opted last session to bring in a human sorcerer to supplement our overall low DPS issues. He discussed this desire to change with everyone first, and no one was caught flat footed by his change affecting party composition.

The reason this change was ok, was first, the impact effect to party composition was acceptable (actually advantageous overall), and he simply temporarily retired his other character to become an in-town NPC while the Minotaur explores a new avenue of their life (their personal discovery of the worship of Torm).

Speaking as someone who has often frequently played the "medic" or "religious" style cleric in various game styles I also understand it takes a "helper" style mentality to play a buffer/healer over the kind of character who gets to be a glass cannon. This "helper" style mentality is simply not everyone's way of having fun.

The pressure to keep playing the cleric due to party need over personal desire might be what is driving this player's level of personal discontent. Him witnessing you just being presented a change in character you want without understanding that he could (and should) have requested the same has probably led to this current "issue". I think 4E in following a "balanced" party model from MMORPGs has sometimes forced players to feel required to choose "party need" over their own preference.

As a DM when I run a game, I'll always suggest that the players play what they like/want to play. I'll deal with a party of all fighters, or all glass cannons with my encounter design balance instead of insisting on always having a proper "party mix". These choices may make some fights more challenging for a party, but as a DM I always assure my players a fight is survivable even if not always winable (sometimes on rare occasions NPC granted ressurections are neccesary to make it happen).

As a DM in this situation, instead of retconing a story line from the Rogue to another character having the main hook "quest". I would simply indicate that the quest objective is actually being pursued by multiple individuals. The rogue leaves the party to pursue a pressing personal goal (which should be developed by the player of the departing character), and a new person (their replacement character or yours even) is introduced to the party to continue the "quest". This new character has been up until recently been pursuing a different angle to achieve the quest goal, and has run into a dead end realizing they now need a party of people to proceed.

As a final note I think as a DM I prefer to be fairly flexible with accomodating a player's desires in terms of the kind of character they want to play. I realize some people get bored or frustrated with a build or class not becoming what they envisioned, and start looking for something different. As long as a player works with me on developing a new character, and helping me to integrate it into the ongoing campaign, then I'm perfectly willing to allow them to swap out for a different character.

I hope this helps.
#9
graymer
Dec 17, 2010 10:30:38 Your post was very insightful, Z.

When I first began to think about swapping characters, I went back and forth with the DM just so that I could make it a smooth transition. This meant working in a proper exit for my current PC, as well as hook for the replacement.

One of the things that didn't happen is that I communicated to her that it may be best to let others know about the change, so they could adjust their characters accordingly. Looking back on my decision, and taking into account your perspective, it would probably just have been best to discuss this openly with the rest of the group before proceeding behind closed doors.

With this point of view, I can now see the frustration on the part of the person playing the Cleric. However, I still feel that his reaction was somewhat over the top. Despite this, I don't feel that it will affect the sentiment amongst the group, and we can all chalk it up to him having a bad day.

I'm very eager to sit down tomorrow night and see how this all plays out. I know that I'm really happy with my swap, and the Rogue/converted Shaman has been crafting an excellent tie in to the current adventure. I'll keep everyone posted.
#10
elhrrah
Dec 17, 2010 10:41:20 The main thing with character swaps is build-up time. In my group, I have a player who would, if I'd let him, have a different character each session, as he experiments with each idea he comes across (I think his last spark of inspiration involved a werehamster paladin named Pepe, with a horrible French accent). Rather than allowing that, I tell him to sit on it for a session or two, and if he's still keen on it, then I'll look at giving his old character the curtain and letting the new one in.

This way, character changes are weightier, and typically involve some sort of boss fight, dramatic scene, or game-changing event, and the player in question can prepare for it. I think I've name-dropped Pepe four or five times over the last four weeks, and the rest of the part really wants to meet him by now.
#11
zmortis
Dec 17, 2010 12:11:46
The main thing with character swaps is build-up time. In my group, I have a player who would, if I'd let him, have a different character each session, as he experiments with each idea he comes across (I think his last spark of inspiration involved a werehamster paladin named Pepe, with a horrible French accent). Rather than allowing that, I tell him to sit on it for a session or two, and if he's still keen on it, then I'll look at giving his old character the curtain and letting the new one in.

This way, character changes are weightier, and typically involve some sort of boss fight, dramatic scene, or game-changing event, and the player in question can prepare for it. I think I've name-dropped Pepe four or five times over the last four weeks, and the rest of the part really wants to meet him by now.

Thanks for the kind remarks graymer. I also agree Elhrrah that short attention span players should not be swaping characters any time they get bored with their current build. As a DM I would work with them in creating and integrating new characters, but I would have them wait until key campaign points before these swaps would happen (usually at ending one adventure series and before starting the next). This may mean 2 to 4 sessions before a swap would be enacted.

I also would not penalize the player xp or items when making a character swap, but instead I would try to make it equitable to the character they are setting aside.

I hope this helps.
#12
miarra
Dec 17, 2010 13:56:15
As long as a player works with me on developing a new character, and helping me to integrate it into the ongoing campaign, then I'm perfectly willing to allow them to swap out for a different character.

I hope this helps.

I think this is a key point - it doesn't seem quite as sudden when it happens like that. From my understanding, this is what the OP did. It's perfectly accpetable when players are willing to work with the DM on their new concept, and it isn't out of the blue - instead of just "Oh he changed? Well I want to change my character too!" That initial wave of reactions is what can seem overwelming for many-a-DM, at least in my experience.

- - -
#13
graymer
Dec 20, 2010 11:24:18 So Saturday actually went really well. The Cleric ended up rolling a Strength Paladin, and both him and the Shaman had excellent hooks for the current story.

I'm pretty hopeful for the future of this campaign, and we had a blast. Thanks again for all the advice and kind words in this thread.

graymer

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 graymer Dec 16, 2010 11:53:36	So our campaign has been going here for about 2 months now. I joined an already established group as a 4th player, and have filled the Defender role. Recently, my character had been a Goliath Battlemind, and while I enjoyed the class, I decided that something a bit simpler would be a better fit for me as I'm still fairly new to 4E as of this summer. As a result, I worked it out with my DM to swap to a normal PHB Dwarf Fighter. Well last night was the session of the switch, and I coordinated it with the DM to work it into the story rather perfectly. Our party was inquiring with the local loremaster about some history that would put us back on the path of the BBEG we've been chasing, and my character decided to stay outside for some fresh air. During this, he had a horrendous vision, which sent him off running. This provided a possible opportunity for him to return as an NPC later in the campaign if the DM so wished. My Fighter then entered the scene as a conscript sent by the king to be put in service of the party to aid in their quest. Kind of like a, "It's a dangerous job, so here's some help." I thought it worked out pretty well, and was careful to weave the switch in with my DM so the story could flow smoothly. Well, it turns out that after the switch, 2 of the 3 other party members have also been unhappy with their characters. I found this odd as neither of them had complained about them before. Nonetheless, I'm all for playing something you enjoy. The two classes that are unhappy are a Rogue and Cleric. First, the Cleric threw a complete hissy. Saying that my character has now invalidated his build, and he has to reroll a completely brand new character to now fill the void. I tried explaining to him that Clerics are actually one of the, if not THE, most flexible Leader classes in the game, and gave him suggestions to tweak some things so that a brand new character wasn't necessary. As it turns out, he had also had a really bad day at work, so this may have compounded the fact. He then went on to lobby for a party with no Leaders, claiming that my character obviously didn't need any healing (I picked a Battlerager as my Class Feature), and said we could easily get by with a Potion Bandolier and chug health potions all the way through epic. I honestly didn't know what to say. The other character, the Rogue, is more or less the one who has been driving the story thus far. To sum it up, he's essentially a lorekeeper in training, and has been sent on his "task," which is to locate some rare artifact, and returning with it would thus prove his readiness for a full time position. The Rogue is a noble Dwarf, connected to the king, who my character was commissioned by. Quite complex indeed. The player, who was a bit more level headed, said that the character concept he had in mind just wasn't coming together as he had planned. In response to all of this, I just agreed to retcon a bit of my backstory and say that I was the one given the initial quest - finding this rare artifact, and myself and the other party member, a Wizard, had recruited these other two before we set off. Honestly, I wouldn't have opted to change my character if I had known this chain of events would take place. Maybe I should have thought about it a bit more seriously when I picked my character, but I really thought I could get into the Battlemind. Turns out I was wrong. We are doing a double dip before the holidays this week, with an extended session planned for this Saturday night. I can't tell if there is tension in the group or not, but last night certainly didn't help matters. Any advice? Sorry in advance for the length of the post.
#2 miarra Dec 16, 2010 13:04:52	I've seen this happen before. A player decides to change their character and other players suddenly want to as well. In some cases, when they see a player change their character out, it makes them start wondering "Oh, he changed because he wasn't happy with his build. Maybe I'm not happy with my build? Maybe I should change my character now too, before its too late?" etc etc. The other extreme would be the folks who suddenly think their character is rendered useless by the new addition. It looks like you're experiencing these two different reactions to your new character. Should the other players actually decide they want to change their characters out, it's honestly something the DM is going to have to deal with, not you.He allowed you to do it, and now he has to decide how to handle the reactions it has caused. Actually, the potential for this should have been something addressed before the game even started - "If anyone decides their characters aren't working for them and you want to change out, it would be nice to know early to avoid any conflict - maybe by the fourth session [or insert suitably appropriate time length here]" It may be that your DM will have to address this situation in this manner now. It can be highly frustrating, if not potentially plot-shattering, to have a mass character change out. - - -
#3 tubaman Dec 16, 2010 13:06:31	the rogue is the easier of the two, so i'll start there. he has the option, i would think, of keeping his story intact. He could rebuild his character completely, from the ground up, without messing up the story in the slightest if he only keeps one thing: his backstory (which may or may not require his race to stay the same). if he did rogue-ish things in the past? no problem, any class can do that stuff. As long as he wants to keep the character going the same way (if he's happy with the story - maybe an invoker would help him keep a "loremaster" theme and keep his character concept alive). the cleric just sounds (from what i'm reading) to be acting like a baby about "you got to change but now he wants to!" To be fair, leader is, and always has seemed the most thankless job in D&D (3.5 clerics anyone?). Less so in 4e than in any other editions, but it still feels like the spotlight is never on you. Try a leaderless party, make sure your DM is aware of this. Use lots of healing potions, second winds, etc. Encourage the former cleric to at least look carefully at his new class and build so that he doesn't want to switch again.
#4 graymer Dec 16, 2010 13:16:00	Thanks for the feedback. The Rogue will be doing a completely different character - some Gnome/Weremoose Shaman. Will be using Shifter rules. The backstory should be totally off the wall, which is what he's known for. The Cleric hasn't decided, but I guess has a history of waiting untilt he last minute. But we will have a Leader, so I'll be a happy Dwarf. The focus of the campaign will adjust so that my proposed retcon - my character searching for this artifiact instead of the Rogue - will take effect. So at least that's settled.
#5 tubaman Dec 16, 2010 13:37:52	i have to say i feel a little sorry for your group with those changes taking place. It looked like you had a pretty down-to-earth party before doing cool things with believable backstory and good RP opportunity. A gnome/weremoose just sounds bizarre, and so far, in all of the games i've run or participated in, bizarre has led to harder to integrate backstory and players behaving in really really wierd ways that don't seem to mesh even what they've SAID about their character (raised by wolves minotaur with a warhammer who had never been to civilization before walks into a town with the party, proceeds to be comically polite to EVERYONE, and then goes and buys a cowbow hat). bizarre characters also seem to turn RP into a series of comic 1-liners, and they drive DMs up a wall when they are trying to decide how on earth NPCs (important or mundane) should react to the antlered gnome. Being too much like paranoid transylvanian villagers makes the player feel like the DM is trying to screw him, and having people treat him normally makes the character feel like his racial choice has no story impact.....anything in between those two extremes tends to result in spotlight hogging because every initial NPC reaction has to then include the Gnoose.
#6 graymer Dec 16, 2010 13:42:16	It is unfortunate in terms of the story prior to these events, but I think we have an opportunity to still have a blast. We're all determined to make it work. The former gnome/weremoose decided to just go with a Minotaur instead after I pointed out the possible future implications of his complicated concept. He'll come up with an appropriate backstory, as he has in the past, and be ready to go on Saturday. The beat rolls on. My experience thus far with the group has been excellent so far, and I fully expect us to recover and forge ahead.
#7 DontEatRawHagis Dec 16, 2010 21:34:46	I did this after I found out I was bad at being a leader. Granted the first encounter was supposed to be a one on one fight, but I ended up jumping down into a hole for cover. I now play a Monk, which is a lot better than I thought it would be. My character is a lot more fleshed out and has a great backstory. Hopefully your DM doesn't get too hammered with all the story elements that have changed. If one of my players changed from his halfing I would have to destroy a perfectly good storyline about a Halfing tribe being killed off as an act of genocide.
#8 zmortis Dec 17, 2010 8:23:56	I have a couple of different perspectives on the OPs original post. First as a player, I think that if character backstories are interlinked between players, then before one of the players changes characters the change should be discussed in meta-game after the regular session before it is done. We had the player of a Minotaur runepriest in my current party decide they were not happy in the leader/support role (our party had two leaders) and opted last session to bring in a human sorcerer to supplement our overall low DPS issues. He discussed this desire to change with everyone first, and no one was caught flat footed by his change affecting party composition. The reason this change was ok, was first, the impact effect to party composition was acceptable (actually advantageous overall), and he simply temporarily retired his other character to become an in-town NPC while the Minotaur explores a new avenue of their life (their personal discovery of the worship of Torm). Speaking as someone who has often frequently played the "medic" or "religious" style cleric in various game styles I also understand it takes a "helper" style mentality to play a buffer/healer over the kind of character who gets to be a glass cannon. This "helper" style mentality is simply not everyone's way of having fun. The pressure to keep playing the cleric due to party need over personal desire might be what is driving this player's level of personal discontent. Him witnessing you just being presented a change in character you want without understanding that he could (and should) have requested the same has probably led to this current "issue". I think 4E in following a "balanced" party model from MMORPGs has sometimes forced players to feel required to choose "party need" over their own preference. As a DM when I run a game, I'll always suggest that the players play what they like/want to play. I'll deal with a party of all fighters, or all glass cannons with my encounter design balance instead of insisting on always having a proper "party mix". These choices may make some fights more challenging for a party, but as a DM I always assure my players a fight is survivable even if not always winable (sometimes on rare occasions NPC granted ressurections are neccesary to make it happen). As a DM in this situation, instead of retconing a story line from the Rogue to another character having the main hook "quest". I would simply indicate that the quest objective is actually being pursued by multiple individuals. The rogue leaves the party to pursue a pressing personal goal (which should be developed by the player of the departing character), and a new person (their replacement character or yours even) is introduced to the party to continue the "quest". This new character has been up until recently been pursuing a different angle to achieve the quest goal, and has run into a dead end realizing they now need a party of people to proceed. As a final note I think as a DM I prefer to be fairly flexible with accomodating a player's desires in terms of the kind of character they want to play. I realize some people get bored or frustrated with a build or class not becoming what they envisioned, and start looking for something different. As long as a player works with me on developing a new character, and helping me to integrate it into the ongoing campaign, then I'm perfectly willing to allow them to swap out for a different character. I hope this helps.
#9 graymer Dec 17, 2010 10:30:38	Your post was very insightful, Z. When I first began to think about swapping characters, I went back and forth with the DM just so that I could make it a smooth transition. This meant working in a proper exit for my current PC, as well as hook for the replacement. One of the things that didn't happen is that I communicated to her that it may be best to let others know about the change, so they could adjust their characters accordingly. Looking back on my decision, and taking into account your perspective, it would probably just have been best to discuss this openly with the rest of the group before proceeding behind closed doors. With this point of view, I can now see the frustration on the part of the person playing the Cleric. However, I still feel that his reaction was somewhat over the top. Despite this, I don't feel that it will affect the sentiment amongst the group, and we can all chalk it up to him having a bad day. I'm very eager to sit down tomorrow night and see how this all plays out. I know that I'm really happy with my swap, and the Rogue/converted Shaman has been crafting an excellent tie in to the current adventure. I'll keep everyone posted.
#10 elhrrah Dec 17, 2010 10:41:20	The main thing with character swaps is build-up time. In my group, I have a player who would, if I'd let him, have a different character each session, as he experiments with each idea he comes across (I think his last spark of inspiration involved a werehamster paladin named Pepe, with a horrible French accent). Rather than allowing that, I tell him to sit on it for a session or two, and if he's still keen on it, then I'll look at giving his old character the curtain and letting the new one in. This way, character changes are weightier, and typically involve some sort of boss fight, dramatic scene, or game-changing event, and the player in question can prepare for it. I think I've name-dropped Pepe four or five times over the last four weeks, and the rest of the part really wants to meet him by now.
#11 zmortis Dec 17, 2010 12:11:46	The main thing with character swaps is build-up time. In my group, I have a player who would, if I'd let him, have a different character each session, as he experiments with each idea he comes across (I think his last spark of inspiration involved a werehamster paladin named Pepe, with a horrible French accent). Rather than allowing that, I tell him to sit on it for a session or two, and if he's still keen on it, then I'll look at giving his old character the curtain and letting the new one in. This way, character changes are weightier, and typically involve some sort of boss fight, dramatic scene, or game-changing event, and the player in question can prepare for it. I think I've name-dropped Pepe four or five times over the last four weeks, and the rest of the part really wants to meet him by now. Thanks for the kind remarks graymer. I also agree Elhrrah that short attention span players should not be swaping characters any time they get bored with their current build. As a DM I would work with them in creating and integrating new characters, but I would have them wait until key campaign points before these swaps would happen (usually at ending one adventure series and before starting the next). This may mean 2 to 4 sessions before a swap would be enacted. I also would not penalize the player xp or items when making a character swap, but instead I would try to make it equitable to the character they are setting aside. I hope this helps.
#12 miarra Dec 17, 2010 13:56:15	As long as a player works with me on developing a new character, and helping me to integrate it into the ongoing campaign, then I'm perfectly willing to allow them to swap out for a different character. I hope this helps. I think this is a key point - it doesn't seem quite as sudden when it happens like that. From my understanding, this is what the OP did. It's perfectly accpetable when players are willing to work with the DM on their new concept, and it isn't out of the blue - instead of just "Oh he changed? Well I want to change my character too!" That initial wave of reactions is what can seem overwelming for many-a-DM, at least in my experience. - - -
#13 graymer Dec 20, 2010 11:24:18	So Saturday actually went really well. The Cleric ended up rolling a Strength Paladin, and both him and the Shaman had excellent hooks for the current story. I'm pretty hopeful for the future of this campaign, and we had a blast. Thanks again for all the advice and kind words in this thread. graymer