PDA

View Full Version : Player playing the same PC over and over



pluizig
2010-07-06, 06:16 AM
I've been playing D&D3.5 on-and-off for a while now, in mostly the same group. We've had three different campaigns now, and one of my friends has played mostly the same character in all of them: a reckless, arrogant evoker -a bit like himself, really. They even had about 70% the same spell list.

Most of the time, this didn't matter. Sure, the rest of us thought he was limiting his experience a bit, not trying anything new, but that was his choice. He also had the personality down very wel, roleplay-wise.

When we asked about why he didn't differ from his usual concept that much, he explained that he really likes the mechanics of a blaster mage, wants to play it a bit further (we haven't ever even passed lv.5) and thinks that recklessness and arrogance suit a wizard well. Fair enough. He also contested that his PCs have been *that* similar, highlighting secondary and tertiary characteristics.

Until now, this hasn't been a problem. After all, a new campaign is a new campaign and we've been giving ourselves the freedom to roleplay the way we want. Depending on the DM, the focus has been mostly on story and not mechanics. (One of our current players is even playing a samurai and enjoying it.)

Last session, however, this player's PC died. It was very much a consequence of his recklessness and arrogance. He went scouting in a (small) dungeon by himself, got poisoned by a trap, didn't go back or heal himself and died from the secondary CON damage by himself, literally face down crawling in the mud.

When I (the DM) and the other longstanding players told him it would be nice if his new character wasn't going to be version 7.0 of his standard character, this player became a bit upset. He argued that it was his choice how he should play his own characters and that we couldn't limit him in this. He would feel restricted having to play in a certain way just because he would not be 'allowed' to show too much of his previous character(s).

The rest of us tried to convince him that if his new character was too much the same, it would cheapen death, as he could always roll up an almost-carbon copy and continue as normal. Especially because the returning characteristics in his PCs were exactly what got him killed in the first place. We all envisioned his newly rolled PC going down exactly the same path.

I even offered him to change the heavy CON damage into a permanent CON penalty, so that the character would live, but be changed by and having learned from his experience and thus develop. (I know that would cheapen death as well, but at least it would not result in another version of the same bloody character.) He declined this too, saying that we would always check if he was 'different enough' now.

At the end of the session, he said that he would roll up a new PC for the next session, but that it *will* be an evoker wizard, "because that is what I enjoy playing" (he wouldn't even consider a sorcerer), but that he will "do his best to give him some new personality traits." I really want to believe him -he is a good friend of mine, a pretty good roleplayer (despite what I've written here) and we always play at his place, but at the same time I'm scared that he'll just go on as he has done before.

What should I do? As a DM, I can tell him to choose a different class or *main* personality type. (His "maybe I'll play an old guy" doesn't give me much hope, for example.) But I want to give him a chance to try and change his style before I tell him what to do. After all, it *is* his character and not mine. Whatever happens, it won't be easy to change once he's started playing his new PC. Any thoughts?

Prime32
2010-07-06, 06:18 AM
Try pointing him to the warmage class, which knows blasty spells automatically and gets damage boosts.

Maybe this version (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3053.msg94900#msg94900). </shameless plug> :smalltongue:

pluizig
2010-07-06, 06:23 AM
I doubt it, since he's already rejected both sorcerer and warlock. Besides, this is more of a roleplay problem than a mechanics/rules problem.

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 06:27 AM
Is the problem that you guys are bothered by his playing the same character over and over? Or is it that the character he keeps playing is problematic in itself?

Because if it's the former, I can't really sympathize - it may be weird or a little boring, but it is, indeed, his character and he's not obliged to vary things to keep you entertained. While if it's the latter, then that's a problem quite apart from the fact that the character keeps recurring - if a single incarnation of the character is a problem, then address that, and leave the carbon copy issue aside.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-06, 06:29 AM
Only one thing to do.
Hide behind the pile of dead bards evokers.

potatocubed
2010-07-06, 06:31 AM
I'm with kamikasei. If he's happy playing the same kind of character over and over, that's his choice.

Ingus
2010-07-06, 06:38 AM
Put it this way: "Since now (after he did his character), anyone, I repeat, anyone doing a character, would roll the stats in front of me and he's not allowed to change them, not even for places. Moreover, he/she will roll on a table of random salient personality traits" (I guess there are some in PHII and maybe in UA).
If you want to be soft, you can try it as the end, for a new campaign/adventure

This, after the introduction of his last character, would be a deterrent on his premature death. On the other hand, if the deterrent doesn't work, he'll be forced to roll on a table to choose stats (and thus class) and personality. If he rolls a 18 on Int and the traits "arrogant" and "reckless", so you're really unlucky.

In the end, you feel it like a problem so it is, but try not to be too harsh: Raistlin has spoiled generations of players on the way they see a powerful wizard. :smallmad:

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-06, 06:39 AM
I'm with kamikasei. If he's happy playing the same kind of character over and over, that's his choice.

Same here.



Some people just like to play a certain type of character. I know a guy who's obsessed with Monks and Wizards and practically always plays one or the other, or a multiclass Monk/Wizard (and is frequently a tiefling). I know another guy who usually plays the arrogant loudmouth no matter what his actual character is. And there's nothing wrong with either of them. We don't demand they play different characters because doing so would be ridiculous.


EDIT:

Put it this way: "Since now (after he did his character), anyone, I repeat, anyone doing a character, would roll the stats in front of me and he's not allowed to change them, not even for places. Moreover, he/she will roll on a table of random salient personality traits" (I guess there are some in PHII and maybe in UA).
If you want to be soft, you can try it as the end, for a new campaign/adventure

This, after the introduction of his last character, would be a deterrent on his premature death. On the other hand, if the deterrent doesn't work, he'll be forced to roll on a table to choose stats (and thus class) and personality. If he rolls a 18 on Int and the traits "arrogant" and "reckless", so you're really unlucky.

In the end, you feel it like a problem so it is, but try not to be too harsh: Raistlin has spoiled generations of players on the way they see a powerful wizard. :smallmad:

Nobody I know would play in that game.

pluizig
2010-07-06, 06:42 AM
Is the problem that you guys are bothered by his playing the same character over and over? Or is it that the character he keeps playing is problematic in itself?

Because if it's the former, I can't really sympathize - it may be weird or a little boring, but it is, indeed, his character and he's not obliged to vary things to keep you entertained. While if it's the latter, then that's a problem quite apart from the fact that the character keeps recurring - if a single incarnation of the character is a problem, then address that, and leave the carbon copy issue aside.

Well, we've never had a problem with him playing the same character over and over, but don't you think it's a little jarring if a PC dies and a player replaces him with an almost-but-not-quite the same PC and plays along like nothing happened?

Like if Tordek the LG Dwarven fighter in chainmail died and got replaced by Gordek the LG Dwarven fighter in half-plate?

Aroka
2010-07-06, 06:43 AM
I'm with kamikasei. If he's happy playing the same kind of character over and over, that's his choice.

Me too. If he prefers playing something, let him play that.

The characters' similar personalities are explained by not being a deeply involved roleplayer; most people just play an avatar with some vague, unimportant personal characteristics tacked on. This shouldn't be much of a problem unless the game is supposed to be all about characters and personalities, rather than dungeons, dragons, and heroic deeds.

He'll either improve or not, but you can't force it - that sort of development would have to be self-motivated.

Prime32
2010-07-06, 06:47 AM
Well, we've never had a problem with him playing the same character over and over, but don't you think it's a little jarring if a PC dies and a player replaces him with an almost-but-not-quite the same PC and plays along like nothing happened?

Like if Tordek the LG Dwarven fighter in chainmail died and got replaced by Gordek the LG Dwarven fighter in half-plate?Didn't that happen in Voltron?

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 06:51 AM
Well, we've never had a problem with him playing the same character over and over, but don't you think it's a little jarring if a PC dies and a player replaces him with an almost-but-not-quite the same PC and plays along like nothing happened?

Do I think it's jarring? Yes. Do I think it matters? No. It's not my problem.

This sort of thing can be an issue when it creates or facilitates metagaming, such as when a player whose character dies because of another brings along said character's identical twin who has an inexplicable grudge against the responsible party. But if the replacement character just happens to be very similar to the original but isn't trying to pick up the original's role in the plot, then that's weird and I'd prefer people I play with not to do it but my preference isn't really a factor and it's up to them, not to me, what they want to play.

If a particular character type proved a bad fit for the game to the extent of getting the character killed, and the player wants to make the same type of character again, it makes sense to say "maybe you should consider something that would fit in better" - but that's just the same bit of preemptive caution that I think all chargen should involved, simply backed up with the fact that you have fresh evidence of exactly what kind of problems might occur.

Raistlin1040
2010-07-06, 06:52 AM
Well, we've never had a problem with him playing the same character over and over, but don't you think it's a little jarring if a PC dies and a player replaces him with an almost-but-not-quite the same PC and plays along like nothing happened?

Like if Tordek the LG Dwarven fighter in chainmail died and got replaced by Gordek the LG Dwarven fighter in half-plate?
I'm with you here, OP. I'm against this sort of thing. A game is a narrative. Every character has a role to fill, both from a thematic standpoint and a practical one. If you're running a standard four man party, and your healer dies, we're not going to make the player sit on the sidelines, and we're not going to let the party go without a healer. To fill the practical problem of "We need someone to make sure we don't die", a new character needs to join. But it makes death stupid if the same character comes back, and it doesn't do much for interesting inter-party roleplay or for a good story either.

SilverSheriff
2010-07-06, 06:56 AM
In the end, you feel it like a problem so it is, but try not to be too harsh: Raistlin has spoiled generations of players on the way they see a powerful wizard. :smallmad:

Well, thats just, like, your opinion man!:smalltongue:

eh, at the moment I'm playing a similar character, not that I always play this one character. I am rather partial to the Rogue myself.:smallcool:

pluizig
2010-07-06, 06:58 AM
Me too. If he prefers playing something, let him play that.

The characters' similar personalities are explained by not being a deeply involved roleplayer; most people just play an avatar with some vague, unimportant personal characteristics tacked on. This shouldn't be much of a problem unless the game is supposed to be all about characters and personalities, rather than dungeons, dragons, and heroic deeds.

He'll either improve or not, but you can't force it - that sort of development would have to be self-motivated.

Oh yeah. Maybe I should've mentioned that. Much of our game is, in fact, about characters and personalities. I know half the group (including this player) from acting class. Typically we run into one or two combat encounters per five-hour session.

Kiero
2010-07-06, 07:03 AM
Is the problem that you guys are bothered by his playing the same character over and over? Or is it that the character he keeps playing is problematic in itself?

Because if it's the former, I can't really sympathize - it may be weird or a little boring, but it is, indeed, his character and he's not obliged to vary things to keep you entertained. While if it's the latter, then that's a problem quite apart from the fact that the character keeps recurring - if a single incarnation of the character is a problem, then address that, and leave the carbon copy issue aside.

This. If his character isn't problematic in and of itself, then that's everyone else's problem and they need to get over it. Maybe he has a problem, but it's not the preserve of anyone else to forcibly fix it for him.

Aroka
2010-07-06, 07:07 AM
Then you (all of you, preferrably) need to talk about it with the player, explain that you're all about the characters and personalities, and that he needs to get with the program or find a group that suits him better.

Or you can suck it up and let him play the way he wants, even if it makes the game less fun for y'all.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-06, 07:11 AM
He really just likes that interpretation. How long have you guys been playing? Those things tend to water down over the course of a year, and he starts trying different things every now and then.

Jack_Simth
2010-07-06, 07:18 AM
Well, we've never had a problem with him playing the same character over and over, but don't you think it's a little jarring if a PC dies and a player replaces him with an almost-but-not-quite the same PC and plays along like nothing happened?

Like if Tordek the LG Dwarven fighter in chainmail died and got replaced by Gordek the LG Dwarven fighter in half-plate?
If he just happens to be tied up in the next room of the dungeon, sure. If, however, he joins up after a night of revelry in the town after coming back from the dungeon? Not so much.

A big hulking warrior in half-plate walks up, and says "Ach, laddie, I hear your last bodyguard got himself et. What bloody rotten luck. I am, however, looking for work, and you seem to be short a bodyguard...."

You just, you know, need to have the world at large have some knowledge of what's expected in a team of adventurers.

Sliver
2010-07-06, 07:20 AM
Put it this way: "Since now (after he did his character), anyone, I repeat, anyone doing a character, would roll the stats in front of me and he's not allowed to change them, not even for places. Moreover, he/she will roll on a table of random salient personality traits" (I guess there are some in PHII and maybe in UA).
If you want to be soft, you can try it as the end, for a new campaign/adventure

This, after the introduction of his last character, would be a deterrent on his premature death. On the other hand, if the deterrent doesn't work, he'll be forced to roll on a table to choose stats (and thus class) and personality. If he rolls a 18 on Int and the traits "arrogant" and "reckless", so you're really unlucky.

So for not playing the style you want, you will punish him and everybody else? That is a punishment, you know? "No, you don't get to choose what your character is like!" doesn't sound like a fun campaign concept.

The player has no obligation towards entertaining any of you but him, as long as he isn't directly ruining your fun. And playing a non destructive character that is created from the same basic mold so you don't find it interesting isn't ruining your fun. If asking him to make something else doesn't help, then you just leave it as is.

Ruinix
2010-07-06, 07:30 AM
1- his way of roleplay, his interpretation of his character way is problematic? then resolve with the player, if he dont understand then resolve as DM, u can obligate someone to do anything, and if he dont undestand why and continue been problematic then he shouldn't be on your game, friend or not.

2- if his RP is ok then is his choice. u can always put a NPC or any of ur others players can make a character who "control" this guy, it should be easy as u guys know very well their PCs.

AstralFire
2010-07-06, 07:30 AM
How long have you all been playing?

Morph Bark
2010-07-06, 07:33 AM
One of my players is very similar, except he enjoys playing Paladins instead of evoker wizards. In our first campaign (that ended before level 3 even) he was a Paladin. The second, a gestalt Cleric/Paladin. The third, he used a homebrew class that was rather gishy with something akin to rage, but it also had a code of conduct like the Paladin. The fourth and fifth saw him moving away from this, though the characters were never evil or chaotic. Our current campaign has him as a Paladin again, though now a homebrew version. Also, everytime he has taken up playing RPGs or MMOs, he'd prefer playing the Paladin-y types. See a pattern there? I've told him in our next campaign Paladins won't fit as PCs since it will be a pirate campaign, and he has agreed to that, but I highly doubt he will be very evil or chaotic, unless pressured by circumstances.

Thing is, as long as he is having fun and the group is having fun, it doesn't really matter. If you see it as a problem, ask him why he thinks it is. Also going beyond level 5 might help, since tons of fun can be had at higher levels, and he might just be really hoping to finally be able to cast fourth-level and higher evocation spells!

pluizig
2010-07-06, 07:38 AM
We've been playing for almost two years now. We've had two or three two-month breaks though. The times we play regularly, we play bi-weekly for five or six hours.

And I'd like to stress this point again: it's not his repeated playing style, or even his chosen class that bothers us, but rather that his character died, and that going on with a very similar character (especially in terms of personality), this cheapens the impact of death. It's like he never left, so why even bother having him die?

Bagel
2010-07-06, 07:41 AM
Only one thing to do.
Hide behind the pile of dead bards evokers.


Made my day, now i have to watch both movies again :P

honestly there isn't a whole lot you can do, but if he somehow keeps ending up rerolling clones from his own arrogance and stupidity he will either eventually learn or stop playing out of frustration.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-06, 07:43 AM
If you'd provided a setting where people could really develop their characters, then it might be a good idea to encourage diversity in character types. But if you've never passed level 5, the main limitation is in your games ─ not the character.

I suggest you get past level 20 a few times before restricting character choice.

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-06, 07:51 AM
I would suggest you ask him to try something else. Offer him a plot bribe to play a character with plot behind him that you tie into the game strongly. This gives you the a "reason" to have some controls for his character. He likes an offensive style in combat, so don't go that far from that.

Consider suggesting he play an orb heavy conjorur who is tied up in the meta plot. Try to get him to move his character just a little bit out of his comfort zone. Don't make this a punishment, but make it an opertunity. Don't push to hard, let him stay arogent, but suggest calculateing rather than reckless. let his understanding of the character evolve.

It will give him more options (summoning, blasty orbs, and fogs) so he can survive if he is caught alone.

The other option is to quietly make the game more dangerous. That will make going off and doing stuff alone more dangerous. The problem sould self correct if your player likes to avoid dieing. If you go this route, you should ether say that you are upping the dificulty of the game a bit, or say absolutly nothing. Remember that it helps nothing to think of your player as at fault. He just needs to move his comfort zone and still have fun.

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 07:55 AM
It's like he never left, so why even bother having him die?

Surely the original character had done things this new one hasn't, had met people, had formed relationships, had discovered things etc. that don't carry over. Don't those count?

Ehra
2010-07-06, 08:04 AM
A game is a narrative.

A game is a game, which are meant for people to have fun with. If he wants to play only one type of character then that's his choice, all it takes for everyone else is a little suspension of disbelief. Isn't that what role playing is? Lots of imagination and pretending?

This could even be made into some kind of plot hook for the campaign setting (do you guys use the same setting for your games?). Maybe all of the Wizards from Evokerville are arrogant, reckless, loudmouths. Maybe there's something in the water, possibly put there intentionally by someone else. Maybe the neighboring Conjurerburg wants to wipe Evokerville off the map because they're jealous of Evokers being known as the kings of Blast, even though Conjurers are way awesome plus have tons of other things they can do. Heck, there could be some kind of cold war going on between all of the wizarding villages as certain schools try to knock off their rivals so the rest of the world will come to them to solve their problems (Diviner Town moved to the other side of the world a long time ago, selling their land before the threat of arcane death skyrocketed and the worth of the land plummeted).

There are a near infinite number of things that can be done to make this "work," the only limit is how far the rest of the group is willing to go to accommodate one of its own players.

Now if he starts taking advantage of this, throwing his character into stupid deaths then remaking the same character again, then something needs to be talked about. But, going by what the OP said, this isn't very likely.

prufock
2010-07-06, 08:06 AM
If they're carbon copies, insist on calling his new character by his old character's name. Don't object to his new character at all.

Iferus
2010-07-06, 08:32 AM
How do you introduce new characters in your campaign? In my campaigns, I use a full session to work them in. I offer a good story reason for the players to cooperate with the new character, and then it's up to them. I've had my players reject new characters quite a few times. They've even rejected new characters on racist grounds (you can't trust a guy with horns! -> end of tiefling). However, they've also rejected new characters upon RP reasons. (He's a worshipper of the OLYMPIAN gods?!? We can't morally kill him, so let's tie him up at night and leave.) In both cases, the player whose character was rejected learnt to adjust for the greater fun of the group and realism of the world.

My advice: Let the new character meet the current party, and let the party decide they do not want anything to do with such a mage again. Let them tell the character they have bad experience with his sort, and that he'd better go elsewhere. Then tell the player that he is free to play whatever character he wants, but that he needs to be part of the group. And this group has come to dislike evocaters due to his last character.

Morph Bark
2010-07-06, 08:36 AM
We've been playing for almost two years now. We've had two or three two-month breaks though. The times we play regularly, we play bi-weekly for five or six hours.

And I'd like to stress this point again: it's not his repeated playing style, or even his chosen class that bothers us, but rather that his character died, and that going on with a very similar character (especially in terms of personality), this cheapens the impact of death. It's like he never left, so why even bother having him die?

Well, you could reinforce the idea of "new characters must be 1 level lower than the party average/lowest-level member of the party".

Maar ja.

Another thing you could try would be to throw in monsters more resistant to his spells, whilst bringing in more undead (necromancy anyone?) or humanoids (hello enchantment) or golems that are weak to certain spells.

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 08:37 AM
My advice: Let the new character meet the current party, and let the party decide they do not want anything to do with such a mage again. Let them tell the character they have bad experience with his sort, and that he'd better go elsewhere. Then tell the player that he is free to play whatever character he wants, but that he needs to be part of the group. And this group has come to dislike evocaters due to his last character.
I cannot recommend against this advice too strongly. This simply amounts to taking the out-of-character issue (we don't want you to play the same character again) and wasting a session pretending it's an in-character issue, which will make you seem like passive-aggressive jerks. If you want to argue that your characters wouldn't recruit someone so similar to the guy they just lost because they didn't like him, then make that argument outside the game, don't put it in to your characters' mouths after he comes back with a character ready to play.

Psyx
2010-07-06, 08:50 AM
"I know half the group (including this player) from acting class."

He must be a pretty awful actor then, if he isn't interested in playing more than one role over and over again :smallbiggrin:

Maybe try to sell it in that way: That he needs to develop character flexibility.

Galileo
2010-07-06, 08:52 AM
Actually, I would be interested in playing a game where the character's basic traits are randomised. More as an experiment in roleplaying, but still. It'd be pretty hilarious if you rolled up a nonviolent barbarian. Kinda "I AM SO MAD RIGHT NOW BUT I'M NOT GONNA PUNCH YOU CAUSE THAT WOULD BE WRONG!"

Aroka
2010-07-06, 08:53 AM
I cannot recommend against this advice too strongly. This simply amounts to taking the out-of-character issue (we don't want you to play the same character again) and wasting a session pretending it's an in-character issue, which will make you seem like passive-aggressive jerks. If you want to argue that your characters wouldn't recruit someone so similar to the guy they just lost because they didn't like him, then make that argument outside the game, don't put it in to your characters' mouths after he comes back with a character ready to play.

This is so true.

Don't waste everyone's time by being passive-aggressive about an issue you can't solve in-character anyway.

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 08:54 AM
Actually, I would be interested in playing a game where the character's basic traits are randomised.

Try Maid. (It helps if things like balance and sanity aren't relevant to the game.)

Morph Bark
2010-07-06, 08:56 AM
"I know half the group (including this player) from acting class."

He must be a pretty awful actor then, if he isn't interested in playing more than one role over and over again :smallbiggrin:

Maybe try to sell it in that way: That he needs to develop character flexibility.

Admittably, many actors often play similar roles to those they have already played before. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jean-Claude van Damme played tons of cops for instance, Tom Cruise frequents the action-y guy with an eye for the ladies, Whoopi Goldberg tends to be a woman who is contend but needs a moral lesson, etc.

However, this could work, if the player is into acting.


...on the note of randomized characters, I've made a sort of system for that that involves cards. >w>

prufock
2010-07-06, 08:58 AM
How do you introduce new characters in your campaign? In my campaigns, I use a full session to work them in. I offer a good story reason for the players to cooperate with the new character, and then it's up to them. I've had my players reject new characters quite a few times. They've even rejected new characters on racist grounds (you can't trust a guy with horns! -> end of tiefling). However, they've also rejected new characters upon RP reasons. (He's a worshipper of the OLYMPIAN gods?!? We can't morally kill him, so let's tie him up at night and leave.) In both cases, the player whose character was rejected learnt to adjust for the greater fun of the group and realism of the world.

My advice: Let the new character meet the current party, and let the party decide they do not want anything to do with such a mage again. Let them tell the character they have bad experience with his sort, and that he'd better go elsewhere. Then tell the player that he is free to play whatever character he wants, but that he needs to be part of the group. And this group has come to dislike evocaters due to his last character.

While I think it would be fine for the party to act freaked out that the new guy is so similar to the old guy, I think going through the trouble of creating a new character that just gets rejected by the group is a waste of that player's time. Your players might be fine with it, but it's not for everyone. Mine wouldn't go for that.

I find it more worthwhile to say "what kind of character are you thinking of making" and then letting the group decide whether that would be just outright rejected by the party. Necromancer in a party of Paladin, Cleric of Pelor, and a Rogue who's necrophobic? Not a good idea. Come up with something else.

pluizig
2010-07-06, 09:01 AM
Maar ja.

Ha! Do I spot a fellow Dutchie? Altijd grappig om te zien dat het internet kleiner is dan het lijkt.

On-topic: It seems that most of you disagree with me, so maybe I should suck it up and let him play the nth iteration of the same bloody character again.

It surprises me though, because the rest of the group is also in a 'oh no, not that guy again' mentality. Then again, the rest of us have changed personality and class many times and enjoyed it. We really regard it as an opportunity instead of a limitation -maybe because of our theater backgrounds.

potatocubed
2010-07-06, 09:02 AM
Well, bear in mind that this isn't acting class. This is Sparta D&D. He might just want to leave the acting for acting class and pwn some orcs with his buddies.

I have also been known to play wholly randomised characters before ("This ninja wears lemon yellow and is known for his fanciful hats, which he incorporates into his fighting style.") but I do it because I want to, which is the key thing here.

EDIT: Oop, ninja'd.

Gnaeus
2010-07-06, 09:09 AM
On-topic: It seems that most of you disagree with me, so maybe I should suck it up and let him play the nth iteration of the same bloody character again.

It surprises me though, because the rest of the group is also in a 'oh no, not that guy again' mentality. Then again, the rest of us have changed personality and class many times and enjoyed it. We really regard it as an opportunity instead of a limitation -maybe because of our theater backgrounds.

I'm with you pluizig. I have played with "guy who only makes 1 character ever" and it bothered our group as well. It isn't just his decision when it breaks realism and bothers the other players.

That said, I am at a loss as to what the best thing to do about it is. It depends a lot HOW MUCH it bothers everyone else. Are you willing to say "You can't play that character again." if it means that the player will leave?

We tried rules like "If your character dies, your next character can't be same class, race, etc." Sometimes it worked O.K. Sometimes the problem player just plays for a month, doesn't enjoy playing anything but his alter-ego, disrupts the game and eventually suicides so that he can play another clone.

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 09:10 AM
On-topic: It seems that most of you disagree with me, so maybe I should suck it up and let him play the nth iteration of the same bloody character again.

It surprises me though, because the rest of the group is also in a 'oh no, not that guy again' mentality. Then again, the rest of us have changed personality and class many times and enjoyed it. We really regard it as an opportunity instead of a limitation -maybe because of our theater backgrounds.

The thing is, while it's quite possible he's missing out by not mixing things up a bit more and trying new things, that's his loss. I may think it's odd and unfortunate that a friend always orders the same thing at a restaurant, or always wears the same outfit, but the fact that I'm a gourmand or a fashionista doesn't oblige him to change for my sake, however much I think he'd enjoy another dish or look much better if he expanded his wardrobe.

Morph Bark
2010-07-06, 09:10 AM
Ha! Do I spot a fellow Dutchie? Altijd grappig om te zien dat het internet kleiner is dan het lijkt.

Subtiele hint is subtiel. :smallwink:

What potatocubed is saying might be right though. The player might not be going about it so subtly, but he might just want to curbstomp some baddies and flame some trolls (but not on the internet). No doubt he finds it a shame he never has gotten really far with this character. Perhaps next time you start a campaign you could start at level 7 instead of 1-5? Or maybe you could throw in some IC downtime and ask what the PCs would do over the course of a few months of not adventuring, see if this stimulates some good ideas from him, and if the party might like it, have them go up a level instead of waiting another 10 CR-appropriate encounters.

Rather than a variation in character, perhaps this player is looking for variation in playstyle from time to time, and feels like he hasn't been given the chance to develop that.

Psyx
2010-07-06, 09:11 AM
"Actually, I would be interested in playing a game where the character's basic traits are randomised."

Cyberpunk randomises your dress sense, but you need to go to Pendragon for random personality traits [on a sliding scale!]


"Admittably, many actors often play similar roles to those they have already played before. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jean-Claude van Damme played tons of cops for instance"

And they are both bad actors. Point that one out to the player as well.

If someone else wants to play a wizard, it might be pointing out that someone else wants 'a turn'.

Or when the character dies next have the other players secretly primed to have an IC discussion about 'who next'. Our rolemaster game many years ago got shafted over constantly by an evil PC caster played by the same person who we evicted from the group at sword-point. Then he did it again and was again evicted and announced he was going to play an Evil Mentalist. We then had an IC discussion about what niche needed filling in our party and promptly headed off to the nearest church of a LG-type deity to look for a cleric or paladin who could heal and who we could trust. The player did sulk massively, but we pointed out that from an IC point of view, there was no way in heck that we were going to let another dodgy spellcaster amongst us.

Why would your adventuring group want a wizard in the party who goes off alone, dies by traps after trying to get the treasure and is generally arrogant... SEVEN TIMES?

Prodan
2010-07-06, 09:11 AM
Actually, I would be interested in playing a game where the character's basic traits are randomised. More as an experiment in roleplaying, but still. It'd be pretty hilarious if you rolled up a nonviolent barbarian. Kinda "I AM SO MAD RIGHT NOW BUT I'M NOT GONNA PUNCH YOU CAUSE THAT WOULD BE WRONG!"

You could do it with Imperious Command.

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 09:17 AM
Cyberpunk randomises your dress sense, but you need to go to Pendragon for random personality traits [on a sliding scale!]
Maaaaaaaaaid!

Though it only gives you a few randomized traits which you have to flesh out. It's not FATAL.

If someone else wants to play a wizard, it might be pointing out that someone else wants 'a turn'.

Or when the character dies next have the other players secretly primed to have an IC discussion about 'who next'. Our rolemaster game many years ago got shafted over constantly by an evil PC caster played by the same person who we evicted from the group at sword-point. Then he did it again and was again evicted and announced he was going to play an Evil Mentalist. We then had an IC discussion about what niche needed filling in our party and promptly headed off to the nearest church of a LG-type deity to look for a cleric or paladin who could heal and who we could trust. The player did sulk massively, but we pointed out that from an IC point of view, there was no way in heck that we were going to let another dodgy spellcaster amongst us.

Why would your adventuring group want a wizard in the party who goes off alone, dies by traps after trying to get the treasure and is generally arrogant... SEVEN TIMES?
Why do this IC? It's faster and more honest (in that there's no room for the player to feel that you're trying to fob your wants off on your character) to just say OOC "that character type won't work in the game, none of us want to play in a group with it, please choose something else". And it saves the player the hassle of making a character only to be told it's useless once he starts playing.

Jornophelanthas
2010-07-06, 09:21 AM
My suggestion would be not to restrict the character options for the player if that is a sore point, but to request changes in his new character's background.

Was the old character a humble farmer's son? Suggest the new one could be a noble.
Was the old character taught by a reckless, arrogant master evoker? Maybe the new one could be taught by a kind and patient wizard, or be completely self-taught by using a stolen spellbook.
Was the old character a male human? Ask the player if he would consider playing a female, or a different race.
Did the old character like to hang around in the tavern to get drunk? Perhaps the new character would rather spend his time impressing the local townsfolk with his magic, or scribing large amounts of scrolls "just in case".

Also, have NPCs react differently to the new PC. For example, if the old character had a friendly relationship with a certain NPC (e.g. a childhood friend who is now in the thieves' guild), this NPC would probably not know or trust the new character, and react accordingly. Instead, the new character could have a drinking buddy who is a member of the city watch, or a sister who is an alchemist. This also allows for different story hooks.

You get the idea. Try to nudge the player into such background changes that would cause him to adventure (with the other players) for entirely different reasons or personal motivations than the old character. The goal here is to make it impossible for anyone in the game to confuse the old character and the new character, because they play a different role in the world (though not in the party).

This way both sides win. The player gets to keep playing a character mold that he likes to play, and the DM and other get a new PC that is noticeably different from the old character.

(I used to always lurk, but I really wanted to add my two cents here.)

molten_dragon
2010-07-06, 09:33 AM
Ha! Do I spot a fellow Dutchie? Altijd grappig om te zien dat het internet kleiner is dan het lijkt.

On-topic: It seems that most of you disagree with me, so maybe I should suck it up and let him play the nth iteration of the same bloody character again.

It surprises me though, because the rest of the group is also in a 'oh no, not that guy again' mentality. Then again, the rest of us have changed personality and class many times and enjoyed it. We really regard it as an opportunity instead of a limitation -maybe because of our theater backgrounds.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there some particular reason that a raise dead is out of the question for his character? Then it wouldn't be a carbon copy, it would be the same character. Even if the party is too low to afford it at the moment, perhaps a powerful patron could do the deed, and then you'd have roleplaying opportunities galore, since the party (and your wizard in particular) would be in that patron's debt. That way, death isn't cheapened. If your issue is truly with him cheapening death by making his new character a carbon copy of the old, then that would solve your problem handily.

If however (as it seems to me), you also have a problem with the way he's playing his character, then that's something that should be discussed OOC. If the only sort of character he enjoys playing clashes with what the rest of the party enjoys, then maybe you shouldn't be gaming together.

pluizig
2010-07-06, 09:33 AM
I like Gnaeus and Jornophelanthas's suggestions. I think getting this player a bit out of his comfort zone, but not disallowing him to do what he likes best, is a good solution where, indeed, 'everybody wins.'

pluizig
2010-07-06, 09:41 AM
Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there some particular reason that a raise dead is out of the question for his character? Then it wouldn't be a carbon copy, it would be the same character. Even if the party is too low to afford it at the moment, perhaps a powerful patron could do the deed, and then you'd have roleplaying opportunities galore, since the party (and your wizard in particular) would be in that patron's debt. That way, death isn't cheapened. If your issue is truly with him cheapening death by making his new character a carbon copy of the old, then that would solve your problem handily.

You're absolutely right. Thing is, I explicitly gave him the opportunity to be 'only mostly dead' and survive, and subsequently develop his character through the experience, but he didn't like the idea because he would have to change his style, and he likes his style. Raising him would have the same result, I reckon.


If however (as it seems to me), you also have a problem with the way he's playing his character, then that's something that should be discussed OOC. If the only sort of character he enjoys playing clashes with what the rest of the party enjoys, then maybe you shouldn't be gaming together.

I admit that the way he plays bugs me a little bit -he can unintentionally hog the spotlight, as a player, and playing an arrogant and reckless PC doesn't help, but generally we all like the same thing. Say, 75/25 RP/action. It's not like he is all kick-in-the-door-and-start-fireballing-everything and the rest is mostly social. We are all good friends and work together very well on a meta level, it's just about the execution.

Daimbert
2010-07-06, 09:55 AM
You're absolutely right. Thing is, I explicitly gave him the opportunity to be 'only mostly dead' and survive, and subsequently develop his character through the experience, but he didn't like the idea because he would have to change his style, and he likes his style. Raising him would have the same result, I reckon.

Why would he have to change his overall style? There's no guarantee that dying once -- or almost dying -- would change a reckless character into something more cautious immediately. If you're demanding that he change his style to a character or personality that he dislikes in exchange for his living, I can certainly see why he wouldn't like that.

So, if his playstyle is a problem, deal with that and see what sort of compromise you can work out. If it isn't, then let him play the way he wants to play, even if it is a mostly carbon copy.

Kiero
2010-07-06, 10:11 AM
It seems that most of you disagree with me, so maybe I should suck it up and let him play the nth iteration of the same bloody character again.

It surprises me though, because the rest of the group is also in a 'oh no, not that guy again' mentality. Then again, the rest of us have changed personality and class many times and enjoyed it. We really regard it as an opportunity instead of a limitation -maybe because of our theater backgrounds.

That may be so, but it is fundamentally not your place to unilaterally make that decision for him.

Psyx
2010-07-06, 10:42 AM
"Why do this IC?"

Because OOC didn't work...

Honestly, we told the guy to play a team character who didn't mess us around, because we wanted to play a friendly game, not constantly be his pawns while he was on an ego trip. He didn't see how it was in any way reasonable for us to 'force' him to play something OOC and turned up next week with a pre-statted Evil Mentalist. So as he sat down at the table, we started discussing the matter IC and decided that we didn't have anyone who could heal and that we would be facing a lot of undead, and that we needed someone that we can trust... and that there was that great holy temple city place just 3 days ride away.

We started off, and the GM charitably had a black robed mysterious and skeletal looking person [the new PC] at the next cross roads. We rode past. When he yelled 'wait for me' we said 'who are you?' and he said 'Blah, the evil mentalist', so we kept on riding!

It wasn't one of my proudest gaming moments (nor was going to dice on the prior character), but for three months our games had been pretty rubbish and filled with friction. OOC complaints fell on deaf ears, and it was only when the guy was faced with actual IC rationale that he got the point. Characters are people too, and not only were WE sick of him, our characters had had it up to here with secretive, evil spellcasters.

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 10:47 AM
"Why do this IC?"

Because OOC didn't work...
Ngh. I feel for you, but honestly I'd have booted the guy before it reached that point. Such disregard for the wishes of the other players is just not okay. If that approach worked out for you in the end, grand, but I'd treat something like that as very much a last resort.

It sounds like basically a case of you all telling him OOC "we don't want the character you propose in the game" and him thinking this was a bluff he could call. That's quite different from skipping directly to the IC approach.

denthor
2010-07-06, 10:57 AM
This sort of thing happens.

we had a man that insisted on being called Pam to the point that he had his name legally changed.

would only run a drow wizard female, that was on the surface, that was Chaotic Good.

spell list mage armor, shield, false life and Magic Missile.

It was 7th level and that was its complete spell list.

Same character name every time. We made the elves a secluded race same character. We went to plane where magic was surpressed by three levels it was effective with that spell list.

At least your wizard cast an boom spell.

denthor
2010-07-06, 11:01 AM
"Why do this IC?"

Because OOC didn't work...

Honestly, we told the guy to play a team character who didn't mess us around, because we wanted to play a friendly game, not constantly be his pawns while he was on an ego trip. He didn't see how it was in any way reasonable for us to 'force' him to play something OOC and turned up next week with a pre-statted Evil Mentalist. So as he sat down at the table, we started discussing the matter IC and decided that we didn't have anyone who could heal and that we would be facing a lot of undead, and that we needed someone that we can trust... and that there was that great holy temple city place just 3 days ride away.

We started off, and the GM charitably had a black robed mysterious and skeletal looking person [the new PC] at the next cross roads. We rode past. When he yelled 'wait for me' we said 'who are you?' and he said 'Blah, the evil mentalist', so we kept on riding!

It wasn't one of my proudest gaming moments (nor was going to dice on the prior character), but for three months our games had been pretty rubbish and filled with friction. OOC complaints fell on deaf ears, and it was only when the guy was faced with actual IC rationale that he got the point. Characters are people too, and not only were WE sick of him, our characters had had it up to here with secretive, evil spellcasters.

Always carry a Paladin with you. I can not stand Paladins but the paladin will get a warning from god and one will convert or die.

Loren
2010-07-06, 11:14 AM
The only advice I could give is calm down, there is no point in getting up set. Then mock... ceaselessly

Remember that it is only a game. Who cares what people do in it. Live or die, so long as the players are having fun everything is working as it should.
He has the right to make what he wants (within the limits provided by the DM, which should apply universally). The other players have a right to express their opinion of his character. The question is how those opinions are expressed. In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained from being mean spirited. But a couple of jokes here and there, a little light teasing, can get the point across, namely "the rest of us are bored with your character."

If you absolutely need to put an end to this character who some how gets reincarnated into every game switch settings. Play a campaign in a low magic setting, or maybe a setting like Dark Sun where wizards are hunted. In these cases a reckless wizard is either impossible or likely to meet a quick death at the hands of a mob. The key is that these rule apply to all the players. Everyone is in the same boat so that player isn't being singled out and having rule applied just to him.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-07-06, 11:42 AM
I know a player who tends to play the same personality EVERY TIME. . .

It seems to me that this is your real problem.

What you need to do is talk to the guy and tell him he needs to do SOMTHING differently. . . either play a different class, or play a different personality. His insistence on playing the same thing over and over is bothering the group and he needs to mix it up a little.

My bet is that he'll play a new class over a new personality. if i'm wrong then he'll play the same class and TRY to play a new personality for about 2 sessions. . .then lapse into the old one. if he does that, take him aside and talk to him about it. if he seems to be really trying then let him go with it, if he seems to be blowing it off. tell him its not working and that he can either get with the program or find another group.

Even somthing normally that wouldnt be a problem in many groups, can be a problem in certain groups, based on THAT GROUPs dynamic. All groups are different and if your group feels one guy playing carbon copies is a problem then it IS a problem.

Kiero
2010-07-06, 12:18 PM
"Why do this IC?"

Because OOC didn't work...


If it didn't work OOC, it absolutely, definitely and categorically will not work by passive-aggressively trying to do it IC.

Aroka
2010-07-06, 12:22 PM
If it didn't work OOC, it absolutely, definitely and categorically will not work by passive-aggressively trying to do it IC.

Seriously.

If an attempt to speak civilly to the guy didn't work, there's two options:

1. Play with him, in which case you can either waste time being jerks or not.
2. Not play with him.

It's not that hard. It's a team game, and if he doesn't want to play the game the way y'all do, you don't have to keep him.

The kid in first episode of The Wire was not correct - you don't gotta, even if it happens to be America. (Or the Netherlands. Whatever.)

Umael
2010-07-06, 12:33 PM
We've been playing for almost two years now. We've had two or three two-month breaks though. The times we play regularly, we play bi-weekly for five or six hours.

And I'd like to stress this point again: it's not his repeated playing style, or even his chosen class that bothers us, but rather that his character died, and that going on with a very similar character (especially in terms of personality), this cheapens the impact of death. It's like he never left, so why even bother having him die?

I think a lot of people ARE missing this point - that you and the rest of the gaming group are uncomfortable with him bringing in someone who is so similar.

To address this issue, I have the following suggestion - make him give you a good reason to have a similar character. Someone brought up the example of a bodyguard looking for work tracking them down because he (or she) heard that they lost their old one. It is also true that certain kinds of personalities are attracted to certain kinds of professions, so maybe that would help explain why this evoker is arrogant as well.

Of course, he could just go with the somewhat cliche answer and bring in a relative. Not necessarily a twin brother or even a non-twin brother, but someone who is a blood relative. Similar outlook, similar personality, similar professional - all makes sense.

But in return, your player should promise that he will make this character memoriably different from the last one. A quirk, a flaw, something he had that the other lacked or vice versa. You can help that by having various NPCs mistake him for his dead relative ("Why, Frank, you've grown so much since I last saw you!" "My name isn't Frank!"), or "worse", even compare him to his dead relative... and find him lacking. Or improved, whichever strikes your fancy.


Now on to the second issue, which you touched upon, which is that when you and the rest of the gaming group suggested he play something different, he got offended and defensive. He claimed that you (plural) were trying to make him play a certain way.

Bullfeathers.

There is a huge differences between being made to play a certain way and being forbidden from playing a certain way. If you imagine characters as locations on a map, you are forbidding him entry into this country over here, but the rest of the world is still his to explore.

This in-and-of-itself is not unreasonable. A lot of playing groups don't allow Evil characters in the party. The GM might not allow anyone to play an elven PC due to the game setting. In my gaming group, the players (not me, the other players) forbade anyone from playing a ronin after an incident with the last ronin someone played.

The trouble is - is there a good in-game reason to forbid him from playing an evoker AND/OR someone who has a similar personality?

Maybe there is one. Maybe the idea of another arrogant evoker makes the group nervous, IC. Maybe they think that since the last one died, this one will be no better. The point is, if there IS a good reason, the group needs to tell him that the game itself can suffer.

He might get upset. But he should realize that him playing the way he wants to play can get in the way of everyone else playing the way they want to play. So some compromise might be in order. After the rest of the gaming group presents the issues at hand, they should take a step back and allow him to address them, one at a time, and provide solutions.


As a final note, while this is not what you were asking, I have to agree with the general sentiment that most of the forum members have expressed - this guy needs to learn variety. Now I know you've been playing for less than two years, so there is a chance he will outgrow this, but frankly? Someone like that would drive me nuts.

1) Monotomy. "Oh, look, he's playing the same character. Again."
2) Suspension of disbelief. "Wow, another arrogant evoker. It's like the rogue Tremere, one is a rare coincidence, two is like someone planned this!"
3) Stifles creativity. "Let's see, I know what my character will do... and I know how your character will react... so why bother even doing the scene?"
4) Restricts freedom. "You know, for a change, *I* would like to play someone who is an evoker. But since you've spoken for the evoker already... again, I'll play something else, I guess."
5) Frustration. "I know you can play more varied characters than this. Just... you know, give it a try!"

So while, yes, I know it is his character to do with as he wishes (within the limits of the game, of course), it is my opinion to feel a certain amount of disgust at his choice.

Severus
2010-07-06, 12:48 PM
I cannot recommend against this advice too strongly. This simply amounts to taking the out-of-character issue (we don't want you to play the same character again) and wasting a session pretending it's an in-character issue, which will make you seem like passive-aggressive jerks. If you want to argue that your characters wouldn't recruit someone so similar to the guy they just lost because they didn't like him, then make that argument outside the game, don't put it in to your characters' mouths after he comes back with a character ready to play.

Kamikasei is completely right.

It seems to me that this isn't an issue for player, it is an issue for the GM who wants to force the player to do something differently when he enjoys what he is doing.

If the players are annoyed by his arrogant jerkishness. Just say so. As players not characters. Ask him to tone it down.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-06, 12:51 PM
Demand that your DM give you one of these:

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-1543-j

And then, INTO THE FIERY ORB WITH HIM!

Ranos
2010-07-06, 01:17 PM
It seems your problem is that playing the same character over and over again cheapens the impact of death. That he should lose something.

Some people have been suggesting the stick. I say, use the carrot.
You need to give your characters things to care about. Things you can't just get at chargen, or by optimizing a lot. Relationships. Status and social power. Special powers acquired through plot. All those things that make a character more than just a sheet.

Die and you lose them permanently, doesn't matter if you're effectively playing the same character. Your wizard school and devoted apprentices ? They've never seen you before. Your wife ? Get out of her house. Your kingdom ? Ruled by the old character's heir, and he doesn't like you. Your power to summon powerful spirits, granted to you by the king of the fey court ? You guessed it, gone.

Don't underestimate the carrot. Let them have stuff, so they can be afraid of losing it.

molten_dragon
2010-07-06, 01:54 PM
You're absolutely right. Thing is, I explicitly gave him the opportunity to be 'only mostly dead' and survive, and subsequently develop his character through the experience, but he didn't like the idea because he would have to change his style, and he likes his style. Raising him would have the same result, I reckon.

Only if you expect him to change the way he plays his character. That's what's confusing me here. You say that the problem is that him creating a carbon copy cheapens the idea of death in the game. But you also seem to be pretty insistent that he change the way he's playing, since the option to not be dead came with strings attached (namely that he change how he plays the character). I think that maybe you need to spend a little time thinking about which of those two things is really the problem here.


I admit that the way he plays bugs me a little bit -he can unintentionally hog the spotlight, as a player, and playing an arrogant and reckless PC doesn't help, but generally we all like the same thing. Say, 75/25 RP/action. It's not like he is all kick-in-the-door-and-start-fireballing-everything and the rest is mostly social. We are all good friends and work together very well on a meta level, it's just about the execution.

If you're really okay with how he plays the character (or mostly okay with it I guess), then why not let him get the character raised without the expectation that he changes the character's behavior. From what you told us, it wasn't the idea of being raised that he was against, it was the idea of having to play the character differently if he got raised that he was against.

Lord Loss
2010-07-06, 02:03 PM
It seems your problem is that playing the same character over and over again cheapens the impact of death. That he should lose something.

Some people have been suggesting the stick. I say, use the carrot.
You need to give your characters things to care about. Things you can't just get at chargen, or by optimizing a lot. Relationships. Status and social power. Special powers acquired through plot. All those things that make a character more than just a sheet.

Die and you lose them permanently, doesn't matter if you're effectively playing the same character. Your wizard school and devoted apprentices ? They've never seen you before. Your wife ? Get out of her house. Your kingdom ? Ruled by the old character's heir, and he doesn't like you. Your power to summon powerful spirits, granted to you by the king of the fey court ? You guessed it, gone.

Don't underestimate the carrot. Let them have stuff, so they can be afraid of losing it.

I use this alot when I DM and it works like a charm. Players fear PC death. I'm starting a grim, post-apocalyptic campaign now, so I'm going to use this waaaaay more often.

kamikasei
2010-07-06, 02:13 PM
If it didn't work OOC, it absolutely, definitely and categorically will not work by passive-aggressively trying to do it IC.
Normally I'd agree, but in this case it seems it did work, so if it got the point across ("yes, we really are willing to simply ignore you IC rather than play with this character") and the player wised up and made something compatible with the group, then it was better than booting him. (If in fact he just left the group anyway - I'm not totally sure which happened - then I think booting him would have been the better, more seemly option.)

Always carry a Paladin with you. I can not stand Paladins but the paladin will get a warning from god and one will convert or die.
Good god no. Really. Paladins trying to enforce their norms on the rest of the party are bad enough, making them into instruments of the DM's wrath or scapegoats for the players' inability to just talk out a problem like adults only makes it worse.

Only if you expect him to change the way he plays his character. That's what's confusing me here. You say that the problem is that him creating a carbon copy cheapens the idea of death in the game. But you also seem to be pretty insistent that he change the way he's playing, since the option to not be dead came with strings attached (namely that he change how he plays the character). I think that maybe you need to spend a little time thinking about which of those two things is really the problem here.
Agreed here.

woodenbandman
2010-07-06, 02:17 PM
adding an evoker to the party after yours died is a perfectly reasonable (and not at all weird or derivitive) impulse. After all, you apparantly need an evoker, otherwise why have him along in the first place?

As for the guy having the same personality over and over, I'd say just roll with it. To be honest, almost everyone at my gaming table plays the same archetypes over and over. I got my "crazy but harmlessly lovable" guy, my "Crazy and nobody in their right mind would associate with this guy" guy, and the guy who likes paladins.