I've found it really curious that I keep hearing about players getting tired of their characters and moving on. I was wondering what causes this, because we've never had it in my group before.
Is it the power gamer attitude? You make some OP build and it's repetition gets boring and then you have no personality to fill in the gaps?
Is it bad DMing? You can't keep your players attention long enough or invest them enough into the world that they don't care about what happens to their character?
Or is it simply player inattentiveness? Are there players who are dedicated enough to do a full character write up, but yet still have quick turn arounds in character concepts?
From my experience there are a few things that come close to "Got tired of their character", but never quite hit it.
Example 1: A player had his CN character turn CE, after upsetting the party so much that each session was the other characters struggling (but succeeding) on keeping him in line so much the character died in battle, and a new character was created. He later claimed he didn't want to play the character anymore anyways, but this sounded more like him being bitter for not getting his way than genuine "I was ready to move on."
Example 2: A player's character died after his personal story arc was complete. He hadn't picked up much in the way of plot threads he was devoted to, and upon his death he decided his character would not return but he would instead make a new one tied in upcoming events.
Example 3: A player communicated to the GM between sessions that they really wanted to play a certain character concept, especially after seeing certain things in the current campaign, or having new material come out that supported the concept. But they continued playing their current character because they were invested in that character's story.
I invite everyone to share their own experience and knowledge of this phenomenon.
|
Players generally like to try new characters, when they see a new thing they want to build a character around it, I do this all the time. If you want the players to stay as the same person but be able to change look up the Hourglass of Transformation. It is a Metagame artifact that allows a player to rebuild a character completely. This can help them try new things while staying as the same person for the most part and helping stay away from conveniently finding a level 14 Arcanist waiting to join the group at the nearest tavern after the sorcerer died yesterday. A note, it does not change gear around so make sure they know that before hand.
This should help with example 3 at least
Example 2 sounds like the player was roleplaying realistically, he did what his character needed to do then chose not to risk his life every day.
There was no problem with example 3, though. I think you missed my point, the player wanted to keep playing the character they were playing because they were invested in that character's arc. Spontaneously becoming a completely different person would have ruined that.
I don't think you understood the post. None of the examples are problems, they're just the closest I've ever seen come to the "player getting tired of their character" story I've heard more than one person mention before.
And since I've never experienced it, I found it interesting and wanted to hear personal experiences and opinions on the topic.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it the power gamer attitude?
Is it bad DMing?
Or is it simply player inattentiveness?
First of all, I think you would gain some benefit from comparing this list of ideas you came up with to some of the ideas that myself and others will offer, and seeing if you can discern some trends in your own ways of thinking that might help explain why you've encountered so much friction with other gamers lately. You might end up happier in the end. :)
Now then, I have indeed had a couple of instances of getting tired of a character. I'll try to articulate my experiences:
I had a fighter that I played up to 9th level. I thought maybe I could buck stereotypes and have a "smart fighter" who was able to defeat foes as much with superior cunning as with brute force. So I made a fighter with some INT, and picked up things like Improved Trip and Improved Disarm. Up through about level 3-4 or so, it was pretty cool: tripping and disarming was something that other PCs couldn't do, so the character actually felt different instead of being just another brute. Sure, I did a little less damage than others, but it didn't seem to be making much difference. So it was cool and fun.
But Pathfinder changes as you level up. I started facing foes who couldn't be tripped (no legs, flying, too many legs) or didn't care much about being tripped (spellcasters) and who couldn't be disarmed (monsters, spellcasters). Against those foes, my fighter played exactly like all the carbon-copy brutes (except weaker, though that was a smaller issue than the loss of identity). Also, I eventually realized that even when I was at my best using trip/disarm/AoO tactics against humanoid weapon-users, the net result on any given round was that I'd taken this long, roundabout path to eventually just dealing damage, but did it during AoOs instead of on my turn. So I was still just hitting things like everyone else, except I used up more table time doing it because of how many extra dice it took to get the same final result.
So to sum up, I got tired of a character because Pathfinder doesn't support the concept I wanted to roleplay. (Pathfinder's so bad at it, in fact, that years later I even published some 3PP "smart fighting" material to try and help fill the gap, with mixed success.)
I've had other characters with similar stories: I would get a cool concept in my mind, make the character, then discover over the course of a few levels that it did not at all offer the play experience I was after. There was a rogue, a druid, a cleric, one or two others... (Eventually I did manage a "perfect storm" of a concept that I liked and which was also supportable in the system, and he was my favorite character ever—and well-liked by my tablemates too!)
I would make a guess that this is one of the more common reasons people get tired of their characters: they don't support the intended concept as well as expected, leaving them playing a character other than the one they were in love with.
Hope that helps. :)
It often coincides with the arrival of a new PF hardbound book. Fresh material that players want to try out -- I don't charge for retraining if some new feat or archetype was something the character would have taken from the start if it existed in the game. Maybe you weren't tired of your monk, but really feel the need to test-fly a mesmerist ASAP. That would require more than just retraining, it would require a character swap-out. New classes, new settings, new adventure paths, wanting to dive into something new does not mean you were bored with what you had before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of wearing my grognard hat, I think it's partly the sign of the times.
The last time I had a group of players where everyone played the same characters for a whole year was back in the 80s (or very early 90s). Back then, we had fewer distractions (the video gaming industry wasn't as pervasive in all our lives, we didn't have facebook, etc.). Back then, the OTHER things we did when not gaming didn't have such an instant-feel-good model as many things do today, so we were trained to invest in long term-entertainment rather than short-term entertainment. And back then the gaming industry didn't release 2-3 books of new content every year with Open License for other 3rd-party publishers to release literally scores of more books every year.
So we stuck with one story, one set of heroes, and enjoyed the long-term benefits of campaign and story much more diligently, we had fewer quick-fix distractions, and we weren't tempted nearly as often by new content (particularly races/classes/builds).
Now the gaming industry is all about "Hey, here's something completely different!" to tear us away from characters we're building, and our world in general is faster paced with shorter attention spans, so many of us want to stat up a new idea, use it for a while, then stat up the next idea as soon as possible.
More or less.
Is that the entire problem? Certainly not. But I'm sure it contributes.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is that the entire problem? Certainly not. But I'm sure it contributes.
Little disclaimers like this, which take a thorough post that speaks in broad terms about a large population of people and then deny responsibility for its broadness, are often carelessly hurtful.
Yes, there are some tables which are negatively affected by one or more individuals whose addiction to instant gratification has kept their attention spans to a minimum.
There are also some tables which are negatively affected by one or more individuals whose advancing age has long since reduced their ability to process information accurately.
Suppose I wrote a post as long as yours, discussing in a similar level of detail the rather large population of aging gamers and the potential detriment they can bring to the hobby, and speaking in the same broadness of terms as you did, with the same short disclaimer about how they're not the whole problem, they just contribute. What would your reaction to such a post be? Would you be okay with someone having the same kind of reaction to what you just wrote?
If you're going to speak about a group of people that includes people you've never met or interacted with; if you're going to speak more broadly than just your own personal experience; stop and ask yourself what it would feel like if someone wrote the same thing about a group to which YOU belong. If you don't like how it would feel, then perhaps you could reconsider how you communicate your point, or even whether it needs to be said at all.
Thanks.
I have had, in our current RotRl AP, two players get "tired" of their characters. In one case, the player of the gnome aberrant sorcerer got tired of doing his high pitched gnome voice and being rather ineffective in combat (later admitting he had made poor choices during spell selection). Rather than change a fundamental characteristic of the character, decided to retire him. It was only a few sessions into the AP so it was a pretty minimal impact on the campaign. He rejoined the party with a rogue/wizard combination of some sort. They later found the dismembered body of Gigi the gnome during a particularly gruesome scene.
The other character we "retired" from this campaign was a witch. The player wanted to play something like the Warlock from 3.5. Well, the Witch is nothing like that but he liked the idea that witches serve unknown, unseen extraplanar lords so he rolled with it. Of course, he took the slumber hex but having not much else to do in combat in the early levels he got bored and gave me permission to slaughter the character in front of the rest of the party. He rejoined the group with a barbarian who had a lot more fun in combat.
Interestingly enough, all four characters I just described are the only PCs who have also permanently died during this AP (there was another death, but the cleric was brought back by a deal made with a literal devil; oh yes, the paladin paid for that one...).
Hmmm, I don't think I was speaking of any age group at all.
I myself am one of those people whose gaming trend has become more focused on short-term gains rather than long-term. I see it in my own choices in video games now as well as in the things I do in RPGs.
I never intended my broad generalization to be about any group of people of any age or other group distinction. Just about people, and the culture we all live in.
I have met people. Lots of people. I've gamed with (not including one-night games in gamestores or conventions, but only counting long-running gaming groups) well over a hundred gamers and counting. In them, and in myself, I've noticed this trend.
Every one of them? No. Just a trend, not a mandatory or obligatory condition. In every other player in the world that I haven't met? Again, no, but I think I can extrapolate a trend I've observed in that sample group well enough to suggest that this trend might be larger than just the people I know.
Note that I didn't say "to a minimum" or use any other absolute terms. As for me, my trend is less long-term than it used to be, but I haven't gone to the extreme end of a minimum attention span. Nor has any other gamer I've met. My post wasn't about extremes or absolutes.
And finally, if my observation doesn't fit your own, then maybe I wasn't talking about you. I welcome your differing viewpoint. But I don't welcome you taking it personally or being offended by it because that certainly is not how I meant it, nor do I welcome your turning the tables, as you perceived it, to attack me as a way of making your point that I attacked you, especially since I didn't. However, if you do feel aging gamers are a detriment to the hobby, then sure, post about it, and I'll probably post my viewpoint there too - but without taking it personally.
At the risk of wearing my grognard hat, I think it's partly the sign of the times.
The last time I had a group of players where everyone played the same characters for a whole year was back in the 80s (or very early 90s). Back then, we had fewer distractions (the video gaming industry wasn't as pervasive in all our lives, we didn't have facebook, etc.). Back then, the OTHER things we did when not gaming didn't have such an instant-feel-good model as many things do today, so we were trained to invest in long term-entertainment rather than short-term entertainment. And back then the gaming industry didn't release 2-3 books of new content every year with Open License for other 3rd-party publishers to release literally scores of more books every year.
So we stuck with one story, one set of heroes, and enjoyed the long-term benefits of campaign and story much more diligently, we had fewer quick-fix distractions, and we weren't tempted nearly as often by new content (particularly races/classes/builds).
Now the gaming industry is all about "Hey, here's something completely different!" to tear us away from characters we're building, and our world in general is faster paced with shorter attention spans, so many of us want to stat up a new idea, use it for a while, then stat up the next idea as soon as possible.
More or less.
Is that the entire problem? Certainly not. But I'm sure it contributes.
I think a heavy nostalgia filter and generally grognard-ness is indeed the major factor to this view point, as through my experience as new material has come out and systems have gotten less and less unfair over time (2e -> 3.5e - > 4e/Pathfinder) I've found that my campaigns have lasted longer and players have been less interested in playing new material.
Though perhaps it's because my players have played over so many systems (several of which I didn't mention). That they further value what has been already committed down rather than what's hot off the press.
My group has often joked about playing 2e, but it always falls flat the moment people really start to think about it and above all the mechanic flaws lies the looming threat of needless character deaths with little or no dramatic impact.
No, there probably isn't only one reason people get tired of their characters.
I've seen characters retire because they happened upon something in the story that their character wouldn't reasonably abandon.
I've seen players drop characters because that character would pursue a different course of action from the rest of the party, suspending that character till such a point as it made sense to reintroduce them.
I've seen players retire their character due to a length of missed game sessions that left them feeling not invested in the character anymore, preferring them to be an NPC.
I've seen players retire "RP heavy" characters upon realizing that their bad choices were just bad and not good flavor or whatever.
I've personally retired a character effected by too many errata forcing monthly tweaks and just being a hassle to play. though I may bring him back in some form when they're done dicking around with the game.
I think the first character I saw retired in Pathfinder was early on due to general confusion over mounted combat and nobody wanting to deal with it. His next character died, was reincarnated as a gnome and also retired.
I recommend trying not to imagine a universal cause in things like this.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@DM_Blake: Re-reading your previous post, it looks like you're talking about modern gamers rather than older gamers' modern selves, though I can see the latter meaning now that I'm looking for it. I'll chalk that up to simple miscommunication; sorry about that. :)
There are a couple of things I want to point out, though:
First, you are erroneous in your (apparent) assumption that disliking your post must necessarily mean I thought you were talking about me and I took it personally. Believe it or not, there are still people in the world who will speak up when they see someone else in the line of fire, rather than only when they get their own toes stepped on. I just saw something that seemed potentially hurtful to others, and I thought pointing it out might be more beneficial than flagging it.
In addition to a dislike of your post not meaning I was personally offended, it also doesn't mean I have an opposing viewpoint. I in fact explicitly stated that I agreed with the actual content of your post, so I'm not sure what "differing viewpoint" you think you "welcome" from me.
Furthermore, I do not (as you assert) "feel aging gamers are a detriment to the hobby". The fact that you could look at my post and take it that way was kind of the point.
As for "attacking" you, well, that's a very interesting interpretation of the Golden Rule.
Anyway, I can only give you feedback; I can't force you to do anything particular with it. Sorry for the derail and (apparently a bit of) miscommunication.
|
During AD&D I saw people commit character suicide all the time, though rarely at higher levels. Usually it was below level 3 or 5. Almost always it was the result of terrible stat rolls, not because they actually wanted to try out a new character concept or got tired of the character.
Yet another reason to use point-buy instead of rolling for stats.
My big wish is that they'd roll leveling stat-ups into creation point-buy. Instead of getting +1 to a stat every 4 levels, you'd get a character creation style stat-point every level past 1st. It'd help MAD classes a lot, and it'd make putting level-up stat points into multiple stats not dumb.
|
During AD&D I saw people commit character suicide all the time, though rarely at higher levels. Usually it was below level 3 or 5. Almost always it was the result of terrible stat rolls, not because they actually wanted to try out a new character concept or got tired of the character.Yet another reason to use point-buy instead of rolling for stats.
My big wish is that they'd roll leveling stat-ups into creation point-buy. Instead of getting +1 to a stat every 4 levels, you'd get a character creation style stat-point every level past 1st. It'd help MAD classes a lot, and it'd make putting level-up stat points into multiple stats not dumb.
That's actually not a bad idea...
The last time I switched characters was because I was about to ruin the campaign. We were playing evil characters and my character wanted to be cardinal instead of the cardinal. Now sadly, he got the chance to actually do this at level 7 while the campaign should ends at 20. I had to choose between derailing the campaign, downplaying my characters ambitions or making a new character to replace my old one.
I've found it really curious that I keep hearing about players getting tired of their characters and moving on. I was wondering what causes this, because we've never had it in my group before.
Is it the power gamer attitude? You make some OP build and it's repetition gets boring and then you have no personality to fill in the gaps?
Yes and no.
First of all, I am an unrepentant power gamer. The information on my character sheet lets me interact with the game rules, and I want to do that effectively.
That said, there are two reasons to get tired of a character:
1) I'm getting tired of my character's personality, or
2) I'm getting tired of my character's abilities.
Both of these are perfectly valid reasons to tire of a character. I have had immensely powerful characters turn into people I was no longer comfortable roleplaying, and I have had beloved characters turn into useless gimps that left me twiddling my thumbs when the dice were rolling.
People trade characters for lots of reasons. The ones I've experienced directly:
1.) The character is ineffective, or feels redundant.
The only time I've swapped out a character mid-campaign (as in, not at a natural "jumping off point") was my second Monk, Sun Xiao. Though that was a more a temporary hiatus while I rebuilt him. He did quite well from levels 4-6, but around 7th the Barbarian of the party did what he did, but better, and then we got a Paladin because the Rogue died and he did the same, and then we got a Ranger because the Sorcerer left...and another damage dealer was just redundant, especially when he wasn't nearly as good at it as the other three.
2.) The character itself bores you.
Recently, I swapped out another Monk-like character because I made him under a time crunch, and his backstory and personality weren't really up to snuff. I played with him through a story arc, and really wasn't feeling it, so I swapped him out for a character that was more interesting (personality and build-wise).
|
I had a character unexpectedly die at the end of session and I had little time to create a backup, I made a 5th level cleric and just kind of threw it together, by the time that character was 10th level, I couldn't really do much of anything well and was increasingly frustrated by my character. I asked my GM if I could phase him out, I had written an outro story for him which gave him a decent reason for being phased out.
Sometimes a concept can sound like fun.... but after a couple years it isn't fun anymore.
I made an infernal sorcerer who was intended to be kind of dark and broody. He'd done things he wasn't proud of in his past and was a bit burdened by it.
What it turned into was whiny and angsty. We've also been playing that campaign for 4 years now.
After he died, the DM let me changed his bloodline to Destined and he wasn't as angsty about the foul sludge in his veins... and he got better.
I think of it like this. there A) Cool ideas that would make a fun character to see.... and B) Cool ideas that will be fun to play for years and years.
Sometimes a concept, attitude, accent, stat dump, etc. really has a shelf life before it goes from quirky to obnoxious not just for you, but the whole table.
That doesn't even count the characters that were built with a theme or concept in mind, and a few bad choices during building ruins him for that concept...
/Shrug.
It doesn't happen often with our groups, but it makes perfect sense to me.
Reasons I have seen:
1) Some people just like building characters, and always have a few new ideas they want to try *raises hand*
2) the character is not mechanically working for them
3) the player feels they have resolved the character's personal goals/story arc and they don't have a reason to stick around any more
4) the character's personality in actual play turned out not to work well with other party members
5) the campaign theme was not what was expected or changed over time so they no longer fit (One friend still hasn't forgiven the GM that encouraged her to bring a solitary combat-oriented gunslinger she had been toying with in her head to what turned out to be an intrigue heavy Halloween one shot)
Since I've got over 35 years playing RPGs, mostly D&D and now Pathfinder, much of the last 15 or so years I've mostly been the GM. At this point I get bored of playing a PC after about 4 or 5 sessions. Since GMing requires so much work, I'm use to doing lots of work, then trying to be content with one PC just doesn't have the attraction as it once did for me.
So none of the OP's examples apply to my case, I get bored of playing PCs because I have so little to do as a PC, and I miss the workload of being a GM where I have to play multiple NPCs, monsters, narrate the terrain and environment, adjudicate rules, and tell stories. I even love game prep (really) and have become a professional industry cartographer due to my love of game prep.
2) the character is not mechanically working for them
...
4) the character's personality in actual play turned out not to work well with other party members
I've run into both of these in the past, both as a GM and as a player. Sometimes that personality quirk you thought would be fun wound up being annoying, or the character build that looked solid on paper fell apart in actual gameplay.
|
I've been running Kingmaker for about 5 years now. Over that time, I allowed my players to put together backup characters, who they will occasionally switch into playing (for variety and because of how much content I've added), and I've also let them rebuild their characters from the ground up.
One player started as a human cleric, multiclassed into necromancer, died, came back as a dhampyr undead bloodline sorcerer, later retrained into necromancer and then did a quest to reunite with the Church of Pharasma and retrained into kobold publishing's Theurge.
I had another character who was a bard, retrained into gunslinger, found the gunslinger to be simultaneously too effective, and too boring, retrained into a bard/gunslinger multiclass and is enjoying that immensely.
I have two rogues who I allowed to swap into Unchained rogues for free.
I had a gnome destined bloodline sorcerer, who had the mind of a powerful shadow bloodline fey sorcerer trying to take him over, they eventually merged into a Destined/Shadow crossblood sorcerer with the stats of a Medium Gnome.
By being very liberal and generous with allowing players to rebuild and retrain their characters, my story keeps continuity and players can try new things so that they can best fit their characters.
I also have players who haven't changed since the inception of their characters, King Thundershield the Dwarf Cavalier with a pegasus mount has always been a dwarf cavalier.
I tried a new concept (buffing bard skill monkey) and hated it. Dumped him after the first book of an adventure path and built a cyber soldier with some traits and feats spent on disable device and diplomacy. Much more interesting and fun character for this particular game.
|
|
I often find that around mid way through an AP we begin to see the flaws in our party, the roles not being filled well, or the roles being over filled, or build strategies and tactics that just aren't working well. What usually happens is a character death or two will begin to accrue in the cracks that have been forming, and so folks will choose not to come back and instead shift their focus to try and round out the party better. In part I will chalk it up to us being a little to independent when it comes to building our party, we often end up an unwilling amalgam of individuals, in lieu of a team.
|
|
I often find that around mid way through an AP we begin to see the flaws in our party, the roles not being filled well, or the roles being over filled, or build strategies and tactics that just aren't working well. What usually happens is a character death or two will begin to accrue in the cracks that have been forming, and so folks will choose not to come back and instead shift their focus to try and round out the party better. In part I will chalk it up to us being a little to independent when it comes to building our party, we often end up an unwilling amalgam of individuals, in lieu of a team, and adjustment becomes nessesary.
All depends on the game. When you have an open sandbox game, all of the players have 3+ characters to use, and there is not giant meta-plot then characters can come and go. Some retire because they made their money and want to live comfy lives for what time they have left, another might finally have the funds and opportunity to start a church, and another may have just decided that after having his soul sucked on by a shadow he/she doesn't want to adventure anymore.
Sometimes players just want to try something new or get bored with their existing character.
I look at it this way. Retired characters are features of the game world. They are a known entity that I as GM can use to pull the players in more and engage them. Retired players don't just disappear.
