|
I have a couple of people at my table who do not care if their PC dies. They feel that its no biggie "I will just roll up a better Character". This is somewhat troubling to others at the table but more so to me (the GM). This has become a way of power leveling for them, and an unfair advantage as the new build is custom designed for what is/has been happening in the AP. There is no real penalty that I can think of imposing that will not hurt the group as a whole. What have others done to prevent this type of behavior?
We usually have replacement characters come in with a level lower's wealth. But then the (new) wizard lucked out by the loot from his "first" session.
Maybe give them 2 levels down on the average wealth per level chart?
I care for my characters, but I also like making new ones if the old ones die. Mostly due to only being in 2 active games. One is luckily weekly. The other is sadly once a month.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reducing their Wealth level seems the most appropriate. Some restrictions on what they can buy would also be appropriate.
Might also want to stop killing the characters so many times. I tend to lose interest in a campaign that has too many character deaths. Why should I invest a lot of time coming up with a background and personality for a character that will not last through the night?
I'd try carrots rather than sticks. More screen time for established characters as NPCs remember them and talk to them first, perhaps adjust upcoming treasure so that it's best suited to those PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make people care.
The truth is, you really can't without getting into 'being a dick' territory, such as:
Make the new character start at 1st level (real dickish)
Make the new characters have to start one level behind the highest player level (less dickish).
The reality is, if the player wants to change characters, they will find a way unless you make the choice an unpalatable one because they lose something in the process, like always being a level behind the others or worst.
The problem also magnifies the party wealth by level problem. The dead character's belongings go into party treasure and unless you insist that new characters come into the game un-geared for their level, party wealth spiral out of control. I have heard of some campaigns where the players deliberately endanger their characters to ensure a very full and well provisioned party treasury.
Giving those characters whose players care a boon may be a better approach to try to solve your issue.
I use hero points, which can be used by the player to re-roll a dice roll or to add a fixed modifier to a roll. Survival earns the player more hero points. New characters start with no hero points, so constantly dying so you can bring in a new character means that player will have very little hero points to influence die rolls for a character they finally are committed to. The advantage of hero points is their very nature mitigates your problem - the players have hero points to help ensure the survival of their characters.
Good luck with your problem. It is a tough one to deal with.
Do you do much in the way of role-playing? If so, then the major downside should be that the character's story has ended. By having a character's exploits matter, by forging connections between the PC and various NPCs, the player should care more about their PC.
If your group is more on the hack n slash side, then you'll probably have to use some kind of a mechanical penalty, as that will be the best way to make your players pay attention.
How much of a penalty is up to you - if you do point buy, you could reduce the number of points for each character death.
Personally I like to separate deaths into legit and illegitimate deaths. Legit deaths are from no fault of the player. Illegitimate are from a player suiciding their PC. I don't penalize the first kind, but I do the second.
Are they wanting to make tweaks to their characters but keep their established backstories? If so, being a bit more generous with retraining and rebuilds might satisfy players who would otherwise see retiring or killing the player character and replacing him as the only way to access goodies that they could not have anticipated when they first built the characters.
I've run into this in games. It usually happens when I have interesting character and the game goes in direction that invalidates my characters.
Like I had an inquisitor that with ties to the location. I took traits, feats and such for that exact purpose. It was great at first but then adventure took us on journey's far and distant. It felt like I left half my character in the first locale. I had a decent character just lost purpose with it.
I find this less of problem with APs due to the players guide but it still happens. What I do is allow the player to retire the character and work closely with the player to create a character that will fit the adventure better. Then they tend to care more.
|
|
Reducing their Wealth level seems the most appropriate. Some restrictions on what they can buy would also be appropriate.
Might also want to stop killing the characters so many times. I tend to lose interest in a campaign that has too many character deaths. Why should I invest a lot of time coming up with a background and personality for a character that will not last through the night?
Well, the player attacked a boss with 1 hp left instead of stepping back and letting the Cleric heal him. That type of behavior is out of the hands of even the most fudge loving of GM's. He/they do not care about the death of his character. This style of play is not uncommon, from two players at my table. I just need them to be invested in their current PC's, not flaunting their "Alt" that they rolled up just in case this one dies....
|
|
Are they wanting to make tweaks to their characters but keep their established backstories? If so, being a bit more generous with retraining and rebuilds might satisfy players who would otherwise see retiring or killing the player character and replacing him as the only way to access goodies that they could not have anticipated when they first built the characters.
I was thinking along this same line. Problem is it was a 15 point buy to begin with and I'm not only penalizing the offender but I'm also penalizing the party who now has a 12 point buy mid level party member.
Do you do much in the way of role-playing? If so, then the major downside should be that the character's story has ended. By having a character's exploits matter, by forging connections between the PC and various NPCs, the player should care more about their PC.
I agree. Encourage the player to care about their characters by having the NPCs care about their characters. Reward them for living heroically by the adoration of the people they rescued. It is a roleplaying reward rather than a mechanical reward, but it is a reward.
For example, in Burnt Offerings at the beginning of the Rise of the Runelords adventure path, the characters help fight off a goblin raid. The town was thankful and gave them gifts. The leaders of the town respected the characters. The party earned its place. But a new member of the party? The town would respect the newbie only because of the respect they hold for the other party members. In their eyes, the newbie has not earned his place.
Also, every time a character does something unique a story is created. I don't mean getting the critical hit the deals the final blow to the big boss enemy. Anyone could do that. I mean something that reflects the style of the character. As a GM it is possible to set up events that could lead to these stories.
For example, in Night of Frozen Shadows in the Jade Regent adventure path, the local thieves' guild, led by a ninja, saw that one party member was a ninja. They hired the party ninja as new recruit, which allowed the ninja access to some secrets useful to the party. And that set up an iconic battle at the end between the party ninja and the thieves' guild ninja. If the party ninja died and was replaced, the replacement would no longer be the person who won that epic battle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Electric shock collars. Character's pain is their pain. :)
Some people love creating new characters. That may be part of it.
Try talking to the two players. See why they aren't invested. Explain how you find it disruptive them switching characters so often.
Also realize that you may not be able to fix this. Some people will never be very invested in their characters.
|
|
Do you do much in the way of role-playing? If so, then the major downside should be that the character's story has ended. By having a character's exploits matter, by forging connections between the PC and various NPCs, the player should care more about their PC.I agree. Encourage the player to care about their characters by having the NPCs care about their characters. Reward them for living heroically by the adoration of the people they rescued. It is a roleplaying reward rather than a mechanical reward, but it is a reward.
For example, in Burnt Offerings at the beginning of the Rise of the Runelords adventure path, the characters help fight off a goblin raid. The town was thankful and gave them gifts. The leaders of the town respected the characters. The party earned its place. But a new member of the party? The town would respect the newbie only because of the respect they hold for the other party members. In their eyes, the newbie has not earned his place.
Also, every time a character does something unique a story is created. I don't mean getting the critical hit the deals the final blow to the big boss enemy. Anyone could do that. I mean something that reflects the style of the character. As a GM it is possible to set up events that could lead to these stories.
For example, in Night of Frozen Shadows in the Jade Regent adventure path, the local thieves' guild, led by a ninja, saw that one party member was a ninja. They hired the party ninja as new recruit, which allowed the ninja access to some secrets useful to the party. And that set up an iconic battle at the end between the party ninja and the thieves' guild ninja. If the party ninja died and was replaced, the replacement would no longer be the person who won that epic battle.
Ya, tried that, they were the Hero's of Sandpoint. Had the run of the city, little children would sing songs about them, their money was no good in town....Geeze the more I try and explain this the more I realize maybe I cant fix stupid :)
I was thinking along this same line. Problem is it was a 15 point buy to begin with and I'm not only penalizing the offender but I'm also penalizing the party who now has a 12 point buy mid level party member.
You say they're powering themselves up by doing this, by making a character built to handle the specific challenge they're facing. That suggests you can afford to reduce them in power just enough to cancel out this advantage without harming the group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yakuza rules. Any time a character dies the player must cut off a finger.
I'd suggest sitting down with the players and talking to them about why they want to switch characters so often. Is the game very combat-heavy without much role-play? That might be part of the reason they don't really get attached, or they might just be the sort of players that don't really care much about the RP elements. Maybe ask them out-of-game what would make them feel more attached to their characters, and tell them that the "revolving door" is throwing off the campaign. Imposing some kind of penalty for suiciding a character might work, like people were saying above. I wouldn't penalize a player for having a character die generally, but it sounds like your players are just using it to gain an advantage.
It's possible that these players just want a different kind of game than you want to run, which kind of sucks, but there isn't a whole lot you can do about that, short of finding some new players.
Ya, tried that, they were the Hero's of Sandpoint. Had the run of the city, little children would sing songs about them, their money was no good in town....Geeze the more I try and explain this...
When a new character comes in, do the NPCs act appropriately? Do the long standing characters get small boons from the NPCs while the new don't?
When going shopping for items, do the long standing characters get slight price reductions while the new do not?
Do bartenders name drinks after the long-standing characters and give them free drinks?
Lay it on thick and see how the players react.
I never mind if a character dies, but I won't actively pursue their death during a game unless the character is actively pursuing death.
Heck, bam make that their motivation. If they plan on dying all the time make them play death-seeking characters who want to die in the most glorious way possible. Basically tell them that if they want to keep dying they had better start doing so in fantastic/absurd ways.
If not, my advice is a punishment dungeon. Not literally mind you, but if they keep dying make them have to RP getting out of hell or w/e instead of just letting them roll up a new character. Or throw a party of their previous characters appropriately leveled at the party, or theme a villain around reviving dead heroes and using them to get revenge on the party that got them killed.
Don't punish the player, that will just make you seem dickish. Instead, make it clear that the group is suffering for their mistakes.
We do it where if your character dies you start at the same level but you start with lesser gear. Also you don't automatically start in the game you have to wait till there is either a story reason to bring in a new person or at least till the group returns to a town.
Okay, here's a different, radical idea: Don't sweat it. Let them have fun and play the game. If characters they're bringing in are too optimized, feel free to have a chat with them when they're creating them and point out that they're being a bit meta-game and ask them not to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, tried that, they were the Hero's of Sandpoint. Had the run of the city, little children would sing songs about them, their money was no good in town....Geeze the more I try and explain this the more I realize maybe I cant fix stupid :)
Sometimes players grow bored with their character. In the Rise of the Runelords game I mentioned before, one player played a dwarf fighter who died a heroic death in a side quest between The Skinsaw Murders and Hook Mountain Massacre. The GM offered her one extraordinary event to save her character, but she instead used that event to make sure her character took down the BBEG with her.
That player took over an appropriately-leveled gnome druid NPC. She played that druid through Hook Mountain Massacre but then decided to retire the character and start a new one, because playing a druid did not suit her. In a side quest between Hook Mountain Massacre and Fortress of the Stone Giants, her dwarf bard joined the party.
In the same game another player started with a cleric, but had to quit when his work schedule conflicted with the game. When his work schedule became agreeable again two modules later, he opted to create a new paladin character rather than revive the old one.
Some players just have trouble finding a character that suits them. Point out that retiring the character is an option that allows the original character to return if they change their mind. And retirement lets them swap the characters at a more convenient place than the middle of a dungeon.
In fact, maybe the punishment for character death is that they have to finish the dungeon playing an NPC of your choice until the party reaches a place where a stranger can be recruited.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, here's a different, radical idea: Don't sweat it. Let them have fun and play the game. If characters they're bringing in are too optimized, feel free to have a chat with them when they're creating them and point out that they're being a bit meta-game and ask them not to.
This is probably what is going to happen. They are having fun and that is rule one. I guess I will praise survivors more, throw in a few re-roll token and a few boons and call it solved lol.
Another thing to be sure of is that you are not making it too difficult to retire a character. If your players actually get into the heads of the characters that they are playing, it should be far more likely that a character decides to retire from adventuring to do something safer than that he suddenly becomes suicidal.
Okay, here's a different, radical idea: Don't sweat it. Let them have fun and play the game. If characters they're bringing in are too optimized, feel free to have a chat with them when they're creating them and point out that they're being a bit meta-game and ask them not to.
It's a good answer, but I hate the answer at the same time. "too optimized" is a real stab in the heart to people who love game mechanics, and certain things which might be cool in concept are really frustrating to play mechanically. You run into that once and you decide not to waste your time anymore, you look up mechanically excellent builds and select the one you like the best and now you're a power gamer when in reality you just didn't want to fall into the trap of playing an unsupported build.
Also, if you play certain classes you end up too optimized from the start (wizard) which really invalidates any argument against a supremely optimized fighter or rogue in my mind.
I've long had a standing order that unless your PC dies to force majeure (a massive critical hit or something else outside of the player's control) your next PC starts at half wealth. If you don't want to lose all your wealth, take the resurrection hit.
It is crude but it has worked well for a few years now (one powergamer left one of my groups but that's less than 5% of my player pool).
While not a solution I have an interesting idea, one of these times when their character dies and he party returns to town and ends the session tell the player oh btw your character isn't dead then use the rules for reincarnation and give them the character but with a different race
I have a couple of people at my table who do not care if their PC dies. They feel that its no biggie "I will just roll up a better Character". This is somewhat troubling to others at the table but more so to me (the GM). This has become a way of power leveling for them, and an unfair advantage as the new build is custom designed for what is/has been happening in the AP. There is no real penalty that I can think of imposing that will not hurt the group as a whole. What have others done to prevent this type of behavior?
No amount of cajoling or pressure will make players who are only interested in gaming into roleplayers. These are the folks for whom the first three intials of RPG mean absolutely nothing compared to the third. You either learn to accept and accomodate these people or remove them from your home campaign.
PFS Judges don't have that luxury as long as such players do not disrupt the experience for others at the table.
You can try, but if they're the kind of person who derives their enjoyment from playing instead of roleplaying (and both are equally valid) then you probably can't pull them in with story.
'Playing' is a bit vague, which makes me want to break things down in more detail.
Things a player might enjoy:Surviving danger
Solving mysteries
Completing quest objectives
Killing monsters
Protecting allies
Role-playing and developing a personality (via speaking in character, etc.)
Making tactical decisions
Exploring environments
Interacting with NPCs
Building characters
Someone who mainly enjoys building characters, protecting allies, exploring environments and killing monsters is going to be less concerned about whether their character survives a given battle.
Okay, here's a different, radical idea: Don't sweat it. Let them have fun and play the game. If characters they're bringing in are too optimized, feel free to have a chat with them when they're creating them and point out that they're being a bit meta-game and ask them not to.It's a good answer, but I hate the answer at the same time. "too optimized" is a real stab in the heart to people who love game mechanics, and certain things which might be cool in concept are really frustrating to play mechanically. You run into that once and you decide not to waste your time anymore, you look up mechanically excellent builds and select the one you like the best and now you're a power gamer when in reality you just didn't want to fall into the trap of playing an unsupported build.
Also, if you play certain classes you end up too optimized from the start (wizard) which really invalidates any argument against a supremely optimized fighter or rogue in my mind.
To clarify - when I say "too optimized", I'm addressing the OP's concerns that the new characters are customized to the exact challenges in the exact adventure not that they're mechanically well-built.
Some folks just really like building and trying out new characters, rather than sticking with one established one. There's nothing wrong with that. I'd say maybe work a bit with that preference, and find a way to incorporate it into the campaign. Basically, if the player is an alt-oholic, have them run guest star characters instead of full members of the party.
What I do is have replacement characters start with no wealth whatsoever, they have to be equipped from the party's funds. This assumes that the party has access to the old characters gear. if the got disintegrated or burned alive in lava, I would probably be more lenient.
The other thing you can do is craft personal quests for characters at the start of the game, encourage you players to come up with goals/motivations for their characters and create plots that ties into them; of course this assumes that your players enjoy this sort of thing, if not your kind of out of luck.