PDA

View Full Version : Short Attention Span Players



Talakeal
2011-06-12, 08:06 PM
Do any of you have a problem with players who have trouble focusing on one character for any length of time?

I have had several players who want to play a new character every couple of weeks or months, and if I don't let them they either suicide their character or just leave the game all together.

I find it disruptive as it is very hard to work a storyline around characters who are constantly popping in and out for no reason, especially a storyline that involves said characters. It is also hard from a tactical perspective as they usually create a gap in the party when changing roles, and both that player and the rest of the party never gets a chance to learn how to work with said character.

I also have the same problem with DMs. Most DMs get bored of the campaign after a few sessions and then either want someone else to DM, start a new campaign, just quit scheduling games, or intentionally TPK the party so that the game ends on its own.

Currently my group has either outgrown the behavior or purged the members who do this, at least as PCs, however I am looking for a new group right now and imagine I will have to deal with this issue again as it was a MAJOR problem for me up until a couple years ago.

So, anyone have any experience with this problem? Any solutions or advice?

Aidan305
2011-06-12, 08:16 PM
In general, I find that the main cause of multi-character-itus is when you have the player building around a mechanical idea, rather than... how can I put it... building a character.

That is to say, a PC built around the idea of a bunch of numbers an statistics with little to no thought going in to the character itself. A character with no character as it were.

Generally, if you can encourage them to think more about who their characters are before play starts, they'll be less interested in changing to something else the moment they find a new sourcebook, class or ability.

With regards to GMs who start and don't continue, I think that generally happens with people who don't realise just how much work goes in to GMing until after they've started their campaign. The other is that sometimes and GM wants to take a break and roll up a character to crush some heads. A good way to get around this is to arrange for a break every couple of months where someone else DMs a one-shot of a game in some other system, just to relieve some of the tension.

Talakeal
2011-06-12, 08:26 PM
While I agree they don't really get into character, in my experience it is not neccessarily a mechanical idea.

Usually they saw some cool character in a movie / tv show and what to be just like that person. Then a couple weaks later they are no longer obsessed with said movie / tv show, or see a new shiny movie / tv show that they want to emulate.

Aidan305
2011-06-12, 08:29 PM
While I agree they don't really get into character, in my experience it is not neccessarily a mechanical idea.

Usually they saw some cool character in a movie / tv show and what to be just like that person. Then a couple weaks later they are no longer obsessed with said movie / tv show, or see a new shiny movie / tv show that they want to emulate.

Haven't come across that one myself, but it makes sense.

The solution is still the same though. Try and get them more invested in the character. Throw plot hooks and character development their way. I find that people are less willing to give up something they're actually emotionally invested in.

Mastikator
2011-06-12, 08:32 PM
Well, I am sort of like that when I play. But I don't make my characters into numbers, it's the opposite, it's usually a concept with fully fleshed out personality, motives and background.
And then after a while I get a new idea and the old one is tried and proved.

Techsmart
2011-06-12, 08:49 PM
I've had players like this in the past. Usually, if I talk to them about it (as above posters have mentioned), they change how they play entirely, and get better. However, I've had times where they would not budge, so I made a deal with them. Their character was a mercenary for hire. After each mission, you take your pay, and can switch characters. In exchange, your character is gonna be more likely to get messed up. If your guy dies, you are done until the party can get to a large town (which may mean you are out half a session). your new characters always came in a 3/4 WBL and would not give or recieve anything from other players outside of potions and other cheap objects. This actually fixed a few, since they found out that keeping the characters with the +4 keen longsword (not actually the object, but a good ref) is a lot better than coming in as a lvl 7 fighter with 3/4 WBL. In about 2 campaigns, almost everyone kept their toons, or left.

rayne_dragon
2011-06-12, 10:54 PM
I actually tend to be this kind of player, although I recognize what a problem character-itis can be and try to avoid doing it as much as possible. Sometimes you may just have to bear with it until the person finds a character they can settle on. If they go through three or more characters it might be a good idea for the DM to sit down with them and discuss what they need to make a character that they will want to stick with.

Saintheart
2011-06-15, 05:59 AM
Give them only swift actions to work with. *b-boom tsss*

Eldan
2011-06-15, 07:59 AM
Let them make a Factotum/Binder/Chameleon? :smalltongue:

But yeah. Had a player like that. Couldn't really find a solution. Though he changed every two weeks, not every couple months.

Epsilon Rose
2011-06-15, 09:15 AM
I once had an idea for a solution to the player part of the problem (I've never run into the DM portion). It was based on having the PCs be part of a gang/guild/company/loose association of refined entrepreneurs. The players would be allowed to create additional characters that are also part of the same group and switch between these characters at logical points. All of a players characters would normally receive xp and wbl at the same rate but if a players stable grew past a certain point characters that aren't used often enough start accruing xp more slowly. Players wouldn't be allowed to aggregate wealth between their own characters but could swap one item of roughly equivalent value for the duration of an adventure with the understanding that the other character might not be done with it when they get back.
Under this model the not currently active characters are assumed to be doing things (hence why transferred items might not be immediately returnable and xp and wbl are obtained).
This has the twin advantages of populating a guild/whatever with interesting npcs (i.e. inactive pcs) that the players are likely to care about (after all if one of them dies they can't play as that character any more) and letting the DM deal with different parties on occasion so things don't feel as stagnant.

Of course, I've never had the opportunity to test this so I have no idea how well it might (or might not) work.

hydroplatypus
2011-06-15, 11:29 AM
Epsilon has a good idea. Letting the PCs have a small (lets say 3) group of PCs that change would allow them to change characters, and make them less bored

Tyndmyr
2011-06-15, 04:57 PM
I have had several players who want to play a new character every couple of weeks or months, and if I don't let them they either suicide their character or just leave the game all together.

Get new players?

I've often seen some kind of a penalty for rolling up a new character. Typically, it's a lost level or similar. The reason for this is that people otherwise tend to roll new characters instead of taking the hit for Raise Dead. This is a reasonable penalty. If they want a shiny new character, they end up a level behind. Decision time.

Eldan
2011-06-15, 05:06 PM
Get new players?

Well... it's a nice idea in theory. In practise, I haven't found a new group in four years, despite asking around in three game stores and joining the only swiss forum I could find that was kinda nerd-ish. Some people just have to play with the few interested friends they get. And I'd still rather play with someone who changes characters every second session than not play at all.

Tyndmyr
2011-06-15, 07:46 PM
Ah, judging for Talakeal's threads, this is not the only problem he's got with that bunch. They seem a troublesome lot.

There's got to be a certain element of cooperation to make games go off smoothly, though...sure, the DM has a lot of responsibilities...but he doesn't have ALL the responsibility. The players also have to work together a bit to make sure things work out well.

Sometimes, I've found that training an entirely new gamer works out better than hanging out to a troublesome one, even if they've played a long time. Sure, it's a nerd stereotype, but some gamers are just really bad in social settings, and rpgs are inherently social games.

Mordar
2011-06-15, 08:10 PM
I've often see the player-side of this issue from younger or less-experienced players...or those who would rather be doing something other than playing PnP RPGs (or that specific system).

For experienced gamers who might not prefer a system/setting, or earnest young/rookie players, I might recommend a period of fluidity at the onset of a campaign - perhaps the first 2-3 full sessions - during which they can decide if they have something they want, and then allow a swap.

For the disaffected who are really just there for something to do...well, impress upon them the need for stability and recognize that the revolving door doesn't work in a serious campaign. If it doesn't sink in, gently reinforce the idea by limiting them to one change. If they try to disrupt the game by suicide, let them...and decline to allow a new character. I don't want to sound like I'm advocating for forcing them to play something they don't like...but far too often in my experience, this player doesn't really want to play anything and is just at the table because of the snacks or enuii.

DMs, on the other hand...I've run into three kinds:

1) Those that are so excited by all the new systems out there that they "HAFTA RUN THE NEW GAME I JUST BOUGHT" (and just ignore the previous "campaign" and replace it with the new);

2) The guy who got forced into DMing; or

3) The DM with a style or goal that just doesn't mesh with the players.

#1 is fine if they can be toned down or if you have multiple game nights...after all, playing new games can be fun, and an occassional break from the norm can be enlightening. If it is consistant, though, just assume that all the adventures/stories are one-offs and don't get too invested.

#2 happens far too often in small circles. Search for inspiration among the players, I guess, and find someone who really wants to run something;

#3 can be the frustrated storyteller or competitive DM who isn't happy with the players ruining his fun...or it can just be a misunderstanding of motivations. Talk it through is about all I can suggest.

Of course, the key is to find a brilliant set of experienced gamers who have a good style- and goal-mesh that really enjoy each other's company and are willing and happy to compromise to the needs of the group. Good luck with that one. :smallsmile:

Katana_Geldar
2011-06-15, 08:44 PM
My group started this way, until I explained why it worked in my favour to have the same characters. I pointed out that making new ones all the time makes them disjointed, however I do two things.

1) Giving opportunities to players to make new characters if they so want to. Certain points of the game give you good reasons to change.
2) Promising the above event at a later stage. I say "Look, your character is not in a good position to leave and the party isn't in a good position to take someone new one. Can it wait a little?"

I always respect the player's right to play what they want, within reason of course. That is something a GM should never take away.

cattoy
2011-06-15, 09:56 PM
I don't experience this problem, but then again, everyone in my group is over 30.

crimson77
2011-06-16, 01:17 AM
So, anyone have any experience with this problem? Any solutions or advice?

When a friend of mine DMs, he has a house rule that all new characters must start at level 1 and continue to join the campaign. Thus, if someone wants to reroll a character or they die, they are back at level one. This drastically reduced people's willingness to start a new character. If the entire party dies (which rarely occurs) then they re-roll characters and he works the plot a bit to create a hook for the new party (he also scales the encounters a bit if the party is super low level). He has some players whose characters have been there for over a year.

It can be hard to be a level 1 character playing with a few level 13 characters but you do level fast if you live.

Jay R
2011-06-16, 10:21 AM
Everyone seems to think that the solution is to find a way to get the players to play the way they don't want to.

Why?

The ultimate solution is to go with it. Stop creating continuing stories and start playing short stories. A three-part adventure with one set of characters, followed by a one-shoot, followed by a short two-adventure game, etc.

If they aren't interested in keeping long-term characters, then don't plan for long-term characters.

This lets you develop serious stories that would force the winning characters to settle down afterwards. Take over the kingdom, rescue and marry the beautiful princess, etc. This way, each adventure can be the most important thing that ever happens in the life of these adventurers.

Talakeal
2011-06-16, 04:11 PM
Everyone seems to think that the solution is to find a way to get the players to play the way they don't want to.

Why?

The ultimate solution is to go with it. Stop creating continuing stories and start playing short stories. A three-part adventure with one set of characters, followed by a one-shoot, followed by a short two-adventure game, etc.

If they aren't interested in keeping long-term characters, then don't plan for long-term characters.

This lets you develop serious stories that would force the winning characters to settle down afterwards. Take over the kingdom, rescue and marry the beautiful princess, etc. This way, each adventure can be the most important thing that ever happens in the life of these adventurers.

But that would absolutely ruin the game for everyone else. Most people, myself included, think that characters are the most important aspect of a game and don't want to throw a perfectly good character away every couple of weeks and start over from level 1.
Also, as a DM, I enjoy telling stories, and there are very few stories that can be told in 2-3 sessions. Well, there are, but they won't have any context or emotional investment.

hydroplatypus
2011-06-16, 05:07 PM
When a friend of mine DMs, he has a house rule that all new characters must start at level 1 and continue to join the campaign. Thus, if someone wants to reroll a character or they die, they are back at level one. This drastically reduced people's willingness to start a new character. If the entire party dies (which rarely occurs) then they re-roll characters and he works the plot a bit to create a hook for the new party (he also scales the encounters a bit if the party is super low level). He has some players whose characters have been there for over a year.

It can be hard to be a level 1 character playing with a few level 13 characters but you do level fast if you live.

My DM has the same rule, although it has never really been used as my group (and me) are new to gaming. The only time we died was when a TPK happened, and we agreed to just start a new campaign (also the TPK was a result of our stupidity not bad DMing). I really encourages characters to stay constant.

Jay R
2011-06-16, 06:01 PM
But that would absolutely ruin the game for everyone else. Most people, myself included, think that characters are the most important aspect of a game and don't want to throw a perfectly good character away every couple of weeks and start over from level 1.
Also, as a DM, I enjoy telling stories, and there are very few stories that can be told in 2-3 sessions. Well, there are, but they won't have any context or emotional investment.

The same character can continue. The first three adventures are about placing PC 1 on the throne. The next set involve clearing PC 1.1's name. Then there's one serving character PC 2, while PC 1.3 joins the group. Soon, he wanders away, and PC 1.4 joins PCs 2, 3, and 4.

The people who want continuing characters are the stars of the show, PCs 2, 3 and 4, while the one who wants to keep changing their characters plays a sequence of guest stars - PCs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.

The point is to make it a feature, not a bug, for those who want it. The plots associated with guest stars are quick ones; the plots associated with stars can play out over time.

Amphetryon
2011-06-16, 06:20 PM
Because I DM in a public place as a volunteer, "get new players" is something I deal with regularly, but getting rid of the old ones is not. I've specifically listed among my house rules "thou shalt not intentionally commit character suicide", yet it does not prevent one of my players from doing it anyway, and another regularly dies to ill-advised charging when the attention's been diverted from him for more than, say, 10 minutes.

I've yet to find a satisfactory answer either.

Talakeal
2011-06-16, 06:20 PM
The same character can continue. The first three adventures are about placing PC 1 on the throne. The next set involve clearing PC 1.1's name. Then there's one serving character PC 2, while PC 1.3 joins the group. Soon, he wanders away, and PC 1.4 joins PCs 2, 3, and 4.

The people who want continuing characters are the stars of the show, PCs 2, 3 and 4, while the one who wants to keep changing their characters plays a sequence of guest stars - PCs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.

The point is to make it a feature, not a bug, for those who want it. The plots associated with guest stars are quick ones; the plots associated with stars can play out over time.

I don't quite follow how this would be any different than how it works currently except that I openly announce when the best jumping off / in points are.

I have also had problems with characters loaning or giving their gear to other PCs before leaving and then expecting full wealth on their new character. I remember playing in one game where the DM gave full WBL to new characters, so every time someone got bored they would suicide in a discreet manner and the rest of the party would loot them.
I had one player (this was in a building point system) whose only thing was: I shoot stuff real good! He put all his points into offense and purchased an artifact gun that was the most powerful available, costing a huge BP investment. Then he tried killing a god by shooting him, and when he found out the god was immune to physical harm he immediately got bored of the character. Next session he suicide and then I had to come up with a reason why the other party couldn't just take the priceless artifact off his corpse.

One time I also a very short attention span player create a stable of characters to choose from. The result was every single one was extremely one sided and power gamed, the guy who is the best fighter in the world but can do nothing else, best healer in the world who can do nothing else, best thief in the world but can do nothing else, ect. The result was that the party would be extremely lop sided in overall capabilities, and never the same one any two sessions in a row, and during "important" adventures he wanted to bring his entire stable at once, controlling seven or so PCs at a time. After all, the fate of the world is at stake, why would his allies just sit out?

Solaris
2011-06-16, 06:51 PM
Do any of you have a problem with players who have trouble focusing on one character for any length of time?

When I read the thread, my first thought was "Wait, there are players who don't have short attention spans?"


I have had several players who want to play a new character every couple of weeks or months, and if I don't let them they either suicide their character or just leave the game all together.

I find it disruptive as it is very hard to work a storyline around characters who are constantly popping in and out for no reason, especially a storyline that involves said characters. It is also hard from a tactical perspective as they usually create a gap in the party when changing roles, and both that player and the rest of the party never gets a chance to learn how to work with said character.

I had a player like this in my old group. He'd make a new character every two or three weeks, at least until the storyline really got going. I helped him come up with a backstory and some adventure hooks for each of those characters, too, so I can sympathize with your irritation. Working to come up with several adventures worth of material for a character that suddenly decides to quit adventuring is pretty annoying.

That said, with a weekly game it can be a little fun to have the fifth wheel character swap out every couple of months. The party had a notable turnover rate in general, mostly due to characters getting killed. It was a war, after all. The players did work to keep most of their bases covered; if the cleric got whacked and the player wanted to play something different, the ranger or paladin could step in some to cover some of the role he played. Most of their characters were fairly permanent.


But that would absolutely ruin the game for everyone else. Most people, myself included, think that characters are the most important aspect of a game and don't want to throw a perfectly good character away every couple of weeks and start over from level 1.
Also, as a DM, I enjoy telling stories, and there are very few stories that can be told in 2-3 sessions. Well, there are, but they won't have any context or emotional investment.

Characters are not the most important aspect of a game. Players (including the GM) are. With nearly everyone, this is an excessively fine definition. With the revolving door player who changes characters every thirty minutes, it is a very important one. Treat his characters as a tagalong to the real stars of the show, who're the characters that have spent a long time in development. Like whatsisname said, the guest star.

Jay R
2011-06-16, 10:24 PM
I don't quite follow how this would be any different than how it works currently except that I openly announce when the best jumping off / in points are.

The difference is that you know that these are short-term characters and don't build long-term plots around them. This solves the problem you mentioned of working scebnarios around them. It also solves the problem of people who have short attention spans. Unfortunately, I now see that neither of these is your actual problem.


I have also had problems with characters loaning or giving their gear to other PCs before leaving and then expecting full wealth on their new character. I remember playing in one game where the DM gave full WBL to new characters, so every time someone got bored they would suicide in a discreet manner and the rest of the party would loot them.

The actual problem isn't short attention spans; it's a planned long-term action, which requires a long attention span.

This is an attempt to cheat - to use the rules to give the party more than the party has a right to have.


I had one player (this was in a building point system) whose only thing was: I shoot stuff real good! He put all his points into offense and purchased an artifact gun that was the most powerful available, costing a huge BP investment. Then he tried killing a god by shooting him, and when he found out the god was immune to physical harm he immediately got bored of the character. Next session he suicide and then I had to come up with a reason why the other party couldn't just take the priceless artifact off his corpse.

You have two problems here. The first one is character creation. You shouldn't allow an extremely powerful artifact to come from it, and this is why.

The second one is easier to deal with. It doesn't matter whose hands the gun is in, that player's points are in it, and as long as they are available to the party, he can't have them back.

Replacement characters should get as many points as a starting character, minus the points that player still has active in the game.


One time I also a very short attention span player create a stable of characters to choose from. The result was every single one was extremely one sided and power gamed, the guy who is the best fighter in the world but can do nothing else, best healer in the world who can do nothing else, best thief in the world but can do nothing else, ect. The result was that the party would be extremely lop sided in overall capabilities, and never the same one any two sessions in a row, and during "important" adventures he wanted to bring his entire stable at once, controlling seven or so PCs at a time. After all, the fate of the world is at stake, why would his allies just sit out?

Again, this is not a player with a short attention span. This is a player with a long, carefully planned attempt to get more power than he has a right to.

That's why he cannot have more than one character. Tell him, in clear, unambiguous words, that he cannot have seven times more power than the rules allow. Don't be loud or pushy; just rule that he only has one character.

If that character dies, leaving items of value in the hands of the party, his next character has that much less wealth. The sum total of everything his characters have active in the game should not be allowed to exceed anyone else's - regardless of whose hands that wealth is currently in.

(I also recommend letting people know that artifacts may have some properties unknown to the user. Specifically, I would rule that that gun is cursed in any hands but that of the original owner.)

TurtleKing
2011-06-17, 01:44 AM
For me as a player I tend to create or at least think about a few backup characters. However instead of just suiciding my character so I can play the next one I just play them as they would act/react. This may sound like they should last a long time but usually not. Under one DM I used to be with most characters had a life span of a few sessions. Reasons being either dying or hey lets try a new world of mine. Might also be the reason I tried to increase their power if I could to an acceptable level.

As for the other way of interpreting the title of this thread of players who have a hard time paying attention. Thanks to my ADHD it makes those points where I'm not active is nuts. Thankfully I channel it through pacing or playing with my Buckyballz (actual name of the product). Just wish the ones I play with will stop taking them so I'm left with pacing. Seriously its torture.

Archbow
2011-06-17, 02:07 PM
We have this issue all of the time in our recent campaign. Granted my DM thought it would be a genius idea that more=better, so we're running with 8-9 players on average which is a challenge in its own right.

But as I mentioned, I feel your pain. It's so hard for the DM to read off the next installment of plot while two players are talking over him about their day yesterday, and another 3 are trying to play music off their cell phones. It's gotten to the point to where I've kind of taken on the role of assistant DM and helping him push along the story, contain the masses, and parrot the damage rolls so he can move onto the next character in the initiative. Chaos.