It's so much easier to wrap a story around a set of characters that stay the same throughout a campaign...to figure out what would motivate those characters, and to design encounters and situations that cater to the strengths of, or occasionally weaknesses of, a static group.
But everyone has had that guy/girl in their group. (I've been that guy,but I'm recovering.) The one with the revolving door of characters. Story continuity be damned, they're bored with an elf wizard, and they just discovered dwarf brawler, and they want to switch! Two sessions in, that's not for them, so now a gnome bard joins the party. I literally had a girl in my group who played 7 characters in 9 weeks! I kept joking she was the same doppelganger every time.
Not only is it a pain for the GM to readjust conflicts for the new make up of the group, but you have to write the old character out, introduce the new character (often in the middle of a long dungeon, island adventure, or other locale where wandering into a random halfling thief not only doesn't make sense, but leaves the players having to suspend disbelief for a while to explain why this paranoid group of adventurers suddenly trusts a shifty guy hanging out in a dilapidated temple of a fallen god.)
Obviously you can say no switching, but there's a balance to be struck. After all, sometimes a character idea seems really cool in theory, but sucks in practice, and nobody wants to be stuck playing a character they don't like.
I think the best way to prevent this is to tie the character into the story somehow, make it intrinsically dependant on John the Great Killer, not Generic Human Fighter #37. However, this tends to be a little more difficult in APs, where the plot will occur regardless of the combination of four humanoids you throw at it. And don't even get me started on the party pillaging the dead players for loot, burning the body, and welcoming a new fully geared compatriot suddenly the next day...
I'm considering, for an upcoming game I'm preparing for, giving a sliding power scale for characters presented, not only to encourage preservation and stick-to-it-ness, but to give the characters an OOC reason to pay the money and temporary stat penalties for a rezz instead of just rolling up a new guy.
It's the Kingmaker AP, which is designed for 15-pt buy. I am doing 20-pt buy, and if they prepare their characters and backstory in advance and run it by me so I can tie it in to the AP with a little modification, they get 3 traits instead of 2. From then on any new characters made are 19-pt, then 18-pt, etc. I have also worked in that given the importance of their mission to Rostland, the Swordlords have put in a retainer at the temple of Abadar in Restov for one resurrection for each of them (though they do have to drag the body all the way there).
Do you think that's reasonable? What do you guys do to prevent the revolving door campaign cast?
There are a couple places early in Kingmaker where some characters will die...make sure you don't make the plot so tied to individual PCs that you can't adapt. Other people besides your problem child will be rolling new characters at some point.
I handle this problem in a way that probably will bug some players:
"Pick the character you want now. You are NOT changing your character later in the game. If you purposely try to off yourself or the group so you can roll new characters, I will DM fiat so that it doesn't happen. You can change if you die while trying to stay alive."
I run highly lethal games, though, so the chances of a character dying are high enough that these rules seem acceptable to people. But yeah, I effectively just hold up a rolled up newspaper and swat the player when they want to force a new character into the story like that.
Increase the reduced point buy pool penalty to -2.
Let your players find a few scrolls of Breath of Life
Until you have a 9th level divine caster with Wis 15, they'll have to chance activating it (caster level check DC 10 if you have Wis 15 and access to the cleric spell list, or Use Magic Device checks at DC 30 to emulate Wis 15 and DC 29 to emulate caster level 9)
Dont punish players for being in your game. Reduced point buy and the like Will not help you in any Way unless you want to make your game less enjoyable. Just make it clear that new characters have to fit in and that they Will have to accept that the oldies are more integrated of the story than they are.
I allow free switches until level 3. 7 characters in 9 weeks is a lot though. Maybe not allowing them to change characters until they have played the current one for at least 3 sessions will work. If someone was always changing like that I would not even give them an intro. Whatever their new character was I would pretend that character has always been around.
I do this a lot, but it is because I seldom get to play as a player. When I finally do, I get to play maybe 2 or 3 sessions and then I end up GMing for 4-5 months. By the time I get to play a character again, I've come up with a whole new concept of something I'd like to try.
In an ongoing campaign, I try to stick it out for at least 3 games. Like Wraithstrike above, I allow free swaps/rebuilds until lvl 3, at which point they are set. I run long term campaigns, and - as you say - having people change creates problems. Mainly I have to deal with people dropping. It's hard to keep the same group going for over a year - Real Life creeps up and intrudes! (I had a large group - 7 players, 6 of them "core" to the story I had set up. When I lost one due to RL, it was okay but a little bumpy. Losing 2 meant we had to put my story on hold and so started a Paizo AP instead.)
I either run big-6-less houseruled PF or 5e, new characters don't start out with magic items.
The other big campaign I had was 3.5. I made new chars start at 1. But I used the XP scaling chart, so after a few combats they would be nearly party level.
Psychic reformation is your friend. It lets people change up problems in their current character build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ever read a fantasy novel where the characters switch out a lot? The Belgariad series was like that. Or practically any Final Fantasy game? This is how I view my games: you are more than free to switch out characters if you're bored with it, but it's up to you (and I'm willing to assist) to explain why your old character is out and your new character is in. And I somewhat encourage this by having my players always have at least one backup character ready and properly leveled with gear in the event that their current dies or is put out of commission for a long time (on the order of sessions).
And I don't write my battles tailored to the party, I make a more generalized plan that can easily be switch around and shifted.
I say, embrace your player's changing desired and turn it into a strong suit. Make old characters into NPCs that they later face (whether ally, enemy, or random happening). Your players will get a kick out of it.
Well, heck - what about Game of Thrones? Talk about character turnover!
These examples are about very complicated plots written by professional writers. I may not be up to that challenge as a GM.
Ever read a fantasy novel where the characters switch out a lot? The Belgariad series was like that. Or practically any Final Fantasy game? This is how I view my games: you are more than free to switch out characters if you're bored with it, but it's up to you (and I'm willing to assist) to explain why your old character is out and your new character is in...
...I say, embrace your player's changing desired and turn it into a strong suit. Make old characters into NPCs that they later face (whether ally, enemy, or random happening). Your players will get a kick out of it.
I second this. Although it depends on the timing of the exit, you can have a PC leave the party with a good enough reason. Perhaps they get a message in a dream about someone important to them that they need to help immediately. Then you don't have the looting of the old PC. OR you can cast the new PC as a hireling for the party. This works best if you limit character switching to being in town where hiring the new PC is more likely.
You don't have to be a professional writer to do the switch, but I agree it can get annoying if it happens a lot. I would try the hireling approach and limit switching to being in town where replacements can be hired.
It's so much easier to wrap a story around a set of characters that stay the same throughout a campaign...to figure out what would motivate those characters, and to design encounters and situations that cater to the strengths of, or occasionally weaknesses of, a static group.
OK, so there's three main issues:
1 Motivating the charactersIf a single player is switching casually, then give up on including that player's characters in the story in any significant manner. It's a waste of time. The time to build stories around characters is at the start of the campaign.
2 Balancing the challenge
I wouldn't worry about it. A single character being swapped out shouldn't radically alter the group's power level all that much. Building encounters around the party can make for exciting battles, but it can also annoy players by making them feel you're neutralising their build strategies by increasing the challenge to match.
3 Bringing in new characters in a plausible manner
If a player changes characters for no good reason, you can always say they have to wait until they meet someone suitable before they can play someone new.
But even if players don't change characters on a whim, this still happens from time to time (unexpected deaths, etc.), so you should always have a plan for it anyway. Maybe there's a bunch of ill shipwrecked sailors washed up on the beach of the deserted island, or a cage full of sacrificial captives being held in the sinister temple.
I have my player make five extra names at the beginning of the adventure. There is no elaborate back story for these five, but they are all introduced and known to each other, and they all have some reason to be in the area (and a part of the adventure, weather another adventuring party or an individual "expert" in the area). This allows some plausible interaction later (and a way to incorporate the new character in the story arc).
I usually do not require an adventure trait for the first character (though they must have some reason for being there.). I do require a story trait for each subsequent character.
As always, just my two coppers...
-Doomn
|
I kept joking she was the same doppelganger every time.
This. EXACTLY THIS. If someone has character-itis or build-itis, I'll give them a monstrous shapechanging race that can explain the builds if it's just one character and just mechanics. Mechanics are mutable, so if they want to play that way, I'll facilitate a way for that person to be the same "character" and integrate them with a way for them to have fun experimenting.
I mean why not? It's not that hard to change doppleganger stats a bit to be more in line with a playable race. But then the party begins to wonder who all these new people are :) and where their friends went.
|
Is there a hint of exaggeration in the "7 characters in 9 weeks" story? I would get very annoyed at that player and they would know it. Most likely I would end up not asking them to my next game if this is a pattern.
I think you are on the right track by trying to tailor the game more to the player's characters. The more reason to buy in, the more the players will want to keep their characters.
I would forget penalties and just have a stern talk at the start of your next session. Find out what exactly you can do for each other to avoid frequent char-swap problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our group's policy: Bringing in a new character (due to death or switcheroo or whatever) means that new character is 1 level lower than the lowest at the table. Everyone is 10th level? Your new character is bottom of 9th level.
It lends some consequences to death without being soul-crushing, and discourages the revolving door. It's also fair to the players who have kept their characters alive.
Is there a hint of exaggeration in the "7 characters in 9 weeks" story?
Nope. Not even a slight stretch. Actually 7 characters, all different classes, in nine weeks. I wish I could remember them all, but only four had enough personality where they even stuck in my memory. Her longest running stretch was two sessions with a single character a couple of times. I started to hope there was going to be some sort of continuity, but next week she was back with another. She's no longer in the group (not for that reason, she just had to part for personal reasons on good terms - she was otherwise a great player).
I was not the GM at the time, and not one of those swaps was for a death - all were "You know this isn't quite what I had in mind, do you mind if I switch?" To which the GM let her go every time.
Our group's policy: Bringing in a new character (due to death or switcheroo or whatever) means that new character is 1 level lower than the lowest at the table. Everyone is 10th level? Your new character is bottom of 9th level.
It lends some consequences to death without being soul-crushing, and discourages the revolving door. It's also fair to the players who have kept their characters alive.
This is how our group handled it when we had problems with character surfing. It was not long before players stopped surfing. The level hit is prohibitive.
This is how our group handled it when we had problems with character surfing. It was not long before players stopped surfing. The level hit is prohibitive.Our group's policy: Bringing in a new character (due to death or switcheroo or whatever) means that new character is 1 level lower than the lowest at the table. Everyone is 10th level? Your new character is bottom of 9th level.
It lends some consequences to death without being soul-crushing, and discourages the revolving door. It's also fair to the players who have kept their characters alive.
I considered this, but I hate tracking individual exp, especially when one player can't make it and the rest of us want to keep playing, so I was going to either hand-wave levels astthe AP key points suggested, or keep a group exp pool that just leveled them all at once. So I thought of the lowered point buy for that reason.
I have two easy ways of handling XP:
1. Every level is worth 20 XP. Easy encounters are 1 XP, challenging encounters are 2 XP, very tough encounters are 3 XP, and encounters that are way beyond party level are 4-5 XP depending. Note that 'encounters' can mean non-combat encounters such as traps, puzzles, or diplomatic solutions (rather than murderhobo e'eryday). If an encounter is absolutely negligible (level 5 party fighting a couple kobold scouts), I won't even reward XP for killing it dead. Using diplomacy to get them to do something that affects the game majorly might, however (such as sparing them and having them arrange a meeting between you and their leaders).
2. Alternatively, I use the system of "You guys level up when I say you do, and everyone at the same time. By the way, anyone that's behind in levels doesn't level up any faster."
Both systems work. I prefer 1.
I am all for it. I tend to run games that have a hub or home base where not current player characters reside. I encourage everyone to roll multiple characters so that the party has all the bases covered in case someone can't be there any given week.
My only real rule with it is no switching mid adventure, or we have to come up with a way to explain it, but there is no penalty other than those that cannot be avoided.
By which I mean that in my games I grant certain boons to certain characters for things gained in the story. Powerful magic items, fancy titles, good working relationships with authority, notoriety, etc.
New characters have base WBL, which is typically lower than standard treasure by encounter for whatever reason, meaning they have less wealth to play with. Other than that the only requirement is we explain how we meet your new character.
Sometimes it actually takes a few character builds to finally figure out what you actually want to play, or sometimes the character you are playing doesn't fill the role your party needs and as a result you and the rest of the group are having less fun.
In my current game I have a player who is switching his monk out for a cleric which means I no longer have to run an NPC for the party which is great for me as I was already running their npc wizard.
It's not always bad.
|
In our home game, which also has a rotating schedule of DMs, we implemented something a lot like the Pathfinder Society. Not the organized play rules - the actual in-game adventurer's guild.
It's been a great success for us, because just about everyone in our group is into testing out new character builds. As our adventures only last 1-3 sessions each (after which the DM changes as well), this works out marvelously.
So, if you have more than just one person who enjoys rotating new characters into the story, try weaving all of your players/characters together under the banner of a single adventuring guild. The closest analogy I can think of (and another game in which it's worked very well) is Star Trek. The players don't just represent individual characters, they represent the entire crew of the ship. Any given session could involve the captain, chief medical officer, a security officer, and a lowly ensign (new player) along for the away mission. Next week, maybe only the chief engineer and one DM can make the game, so he gets a solo adventure that involves tons of technical stuff. The week after that, the player who rolled up the doctor is bored with that character, so she rolls up a tactical officer. No sweat, no loss of continuity, no DM headache.
I've only switched out characters once. I wasn't bored with her, far from it, it's just that she didn't want to go where the party was going.
Specifically Cheliax. The party was going there because the minion of an archfiend took interest in the sorcerer and was looking for a powerful spellcaster. She and the ranger/wizard kept this secret from the party for a while as they traveled to get a pseudodragon back to the magical academe it was thrown out of. My character was honestly a bit sheltered and the thought was intimidating...then she got hit for the first time in the campaign by a Kuthite Inquisitor and that's when her muse refused to go to Cheliax.
I was sad to let her go, but our table believes in playing the character and the character had enough adventure.
Some campaigns have built in penalties for swapping characters - if the PCs are gathering a lot of NPC contacts and positive capital with local NPCs - a new character is going to start without all of that and need to earn the trust, respect, good will of a bunch of NPCs from scratch - not as bad as grinding reputation in a MMORPG -but some consequences.
Honestly, the player that swapped characters 7 times in 9 weeks wouldn't bother me that much as I would feel that they are honestly looking for a concept that they like. I'm much more bothered by a player that changes every 3-5 levels just as their current class moves out of it's power sweet spot and they can bring in a new PC with feats/choices that are painful to play at low level but set up a powerful combo at the parties current level. Starting at 7th level with the feat or prestige class you qualify for with that first level skill focus feat in profession: basket weaving isn't bad - having to play 1st and 2nd level with your only feat being profession: basket weaving is a different proposition.
For the player that's had 7 characters - maybe talk to them about their concept and build the character for them? As a GM I can apply the rule of cool to a PC and balance new advantages/disadvantages to make a concept that is balanced to the party level in a way a player can't - and if someone else makes it for them they might feel they need to play it for a bit longer - giving the PC a chance to grow on the player.
These examples are about very complicated plots written by professional writers. I may not be up to that challenge as a GM.
Final Fantasy? Complex plots?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
These examples are about very complicated plots written by professional writers. I may not be up to that challenge as a GM.Final Fantasy? Complex plots?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I was more talking about the Belgariad and 'A Song of Ice and Fire'.
Who knows maybe the knew game will focus on story and compelling mechanics over visual fidelity?
I'd say it may suffice to force this player who wants to switch characters constantly of being in the role play position of merely being hired help. Then whenever he/she wants to switch characters it is simply that the character leaves the parties service. Thus allowing in game logic as to why the switch is happening. Allow any concept but there should be a common theme in the character pitch that they are selling their services to the party. This would degrade the significance of their character to the plot but this seems like a fair trade
Our group's policy: Bringing in a new character (due to death or switcheroo or whatever) means that new character is 1 level lower than the lowest at the table. Everyone is 10th level? Your new character is bottom of 9th level.
It lends some consequences to death without being soul-crushing, and discourages the revolving door. It's also fair to the players who have kept their characters alive.
How does this work with multiple characters dying?
The group is 10th level. Bob dies, and comes back at the bottom of 9th. Then Amy dies next week, and has to come back at 8th because Bob got killed. Then Jack dies and is 7th level, only to die over and over again because now he's perma-stuck 3 levels below the highest party level.
Do you run into problems?
Our group's policy: Bringing in a new character (due to death or switcheroo or whatever) means that new character is 1 level lower than the lowest at the table. Everyone is 10th level? Your new character is bottom of 9th level.
It lends some consequences to death without being soul-crushing, and discourages the revolving door. It's also fair to the players who have kept their characters alive.
How does this work with multiple characters dying?
The group is 10th level. Bob dies, and comes back at the bottom of 9th. Then Amy dies next week, and has to come back at 8th because Bob got killed. Then Jack dies and is 7th level, only to die over and over again because now he's perma-stuck 3 levels below the highest party level.
Do you run into problems?
The slippery slope is indeed, treacherous, but this worst-case-scenario you describe hasn't happened. What HAS happened is two PCs (one killed, one voluntarily changes out characters at level 9) have altered the APL from 10 to 9. So I've been putting together one-shot dungeons to give them and me some practice. When everyone is level 10 or 11, they'll pick up the main storyline in the Cinderlands again.