PDA

View Full Version : Player Boredom/Character Suicide



tedthehunter
2012-03-08, 08:00 PM
Hey there Playground! Got a good one for you!

I was just looking through the "Things I am not allowed to do anymore" thread and I came across this:

"Not allowed to commit suicide just because I get bored of my character."

I've been DMing for a while now (about a year and a half) and I've actually had experience with this. :smallfrown: (All from one player) It really bothers me when this happens as it causes a lot of problems for me as the DM. Namely, I have to explain the Character's sudden decision for suicide, and explain the arrival of a new character with the exact same XP level. Also, having to deal with a constantly changing party gets old.

Do any of you DMs out there have any suggestions for encouraging this to NOT happen, hopefully short of booting the player from the group. I want this to stop, and if it continues, I will be asking the player to leave.

Also, we've been playing 4e, but we're starting a Pathfinder campaign really soon, if that helps.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-08, 08:10 PM
This is just bad roleplaying. If one of my players did this? Tough ****, you don't get to play a new character until the next session, or whenever I find it appropriate to introduce a new one. Maybe never, if I found the act annoying enough to not want you around the table anymore.

When a good player is tired of his character and wants to make a new one, he cooperates with the DM to get rid of it in a fitting fashion. Not just randomly commits suicide or makes his character attack others and hope they'll kill it.

Almaseti
2012-03-08, 08:11 PM
New character comes in a level behind the old one. Soon they get sick of being weaker than everyone else and stop killing off characters when they're bored.

nedz
2012-03-08, 08:20 PM
New character comes in a level behind the old one. Soon they get sick of being weaker than everyone else and stop killing off characters when they're bored.

this, only I'd make the penalty 1,000 xp the first time, 2,000 xp the 2nd, 3,000 xp the third etc. It allows them to do it a few times and then break the habit. Be prepared for the player to walk though.
Retiring a character is something I always allow, but I've rarely had to deal with it. Here its done in good order as part of the story.
Sacrificing your character for some greater good is another matter of course.
Neither of these last two situations would attract a penalty from me.

tedthehunter
2012-03-08, 08:28 PM
Retiring a character is something I always allow, but I've rarely had to deal with it. Here its done in good order as part of the story.
Sacrificing your character for some greater good is another matter of course.
Neither of these last two situations would attract a penalty from me.


See, I agree with this wholly. There is nothing wrong with retiring a character, given that they let me know ahead of time. And there's certainly nothing more appropriate than a paladin sacrificing his life for his friends.

I like the idea of having them come in a level behind or so. And I have considered making them wait a session, but I really don't want to make it seem like I'm singling him out. The player is one of my friends and I don't want this game to cause any bad blood.

bloodtide
2012-03-08, 08:28 PM
Do any of you DMs out there have any suggestions for encouraging this to NOT happen, hopefully short of booting the player from the group. I want this to stop, and if it continues, I will be asking the player to leave.

It's common enough to have 'That' player in a game.

The easy thing to do is to make the player feel 'special' enough that they don't want to dump the character. This is not so hard. Just find whatever little thing that would make the player happy, and do that.

If you have the right kind of player you can make this a role-playing type thing. But a lot of players will want something more real. And that is simple enough to give a character something. And the best thing to give is something very special and very unique that only that character has. It does not have to be game breaking, it can be very simple, as long as the players thinks it's cool.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-08, 08:32 PM
I am going to be the voice of dissent, as usual, but why exactly is that a bad thing? Oh, I'm sure it's quite inconvenient for you, but you can't tell me it's not very easy to set up a small plot-friendly setup that explains the constant influx of new characters. Maybe the party is hired by a rich, powerful noble who sends them reinforcements when a party member dies. Maybe the fate of the world is at stake and goodly nations and churches are putting on a call for adventurers of all stripes, and replacements show up as soon as they can (which conveniently coincides with the character's death). Maybe the characters have set up a guild, crime syndicate or some other organisation, and replacements are their underlings that get a sudden promotion. You see where I'm going with this. This doesn't have to be inconvenient at all.

So let the character do whatever they like. Once it's no longer inconvenient for you or the players, I personally don't think you have any business criticising what they do with their own characters, much less penalising them for it.

Inyssius Tor
2012-03-08, 08:53 PM
I would suggest talking to the player who keeps changing characters about the subject and figure out where the problem is and how the two of you can solve it. It sounds like at those points when your player gets that tired of their character and moves on to another one, neither of you are having fun.

Perhaps the two of you working together can come up with a character that can stay interesting over longer periods? If that doesn't work out, perhaps the two of you can come up with a more forward-thinking explanation for why their characters keep being replaced?

One such idea:

perhaps their next "character" is a faceless changeling maltheist, cursed by the gods long ago for some unknown transgression. Whenever the curse takes hold, he is overwritten by a different character, literally becoming that person. Each new character is someone who fell in service to some god--but that's not a very strict limitation. The curse is designed to teach the poor bastard "that the gods are everywhere", or something like that, so for these purposes pretty much anyone who dies doing something heroic "fell in service to" Bahamut; everyone who died in a bar fight they started "fell in service to" Gruumsh; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. As such, there are basically no restrictions on who your player can play, so your guy can continue playing new characters in the hope of finding one that stays appealing.

And although a given character don't remember anything about the life or personal history of any of the previous characters who inhabited the changeling, he is inhabiting the changeling's head, so he has access to the changeling's memories. As such, he remembers everything the previous guy did while they were a member of the party. Which means that he comes in knowing all the in-jokes and remembering all the adventures and generally not disrupting the party cohesion.

Say the anguished changeling vessel staggered in to meet the party in one of the brief periods when he is himself, and agrees to pay them with the location of some ancient, hidden treasure trove if they can come across a way to break the curse--because, you know, your party has presumably gotten some sort of reputation for running into unusual things. Maybe they'll run into a lead? And if so, he'd like to come along.

The changeling can't die; he just regenerates and then gets inhabited by another new character. But if your player ever finds someone they would like to stick with for a longer period of time, you can give them a clue to breaking the curse, turn that into an adventure, and at the end of it split the changeling in two--one of them the cursed god-hater, himself again at last; and the other, the last character who was inhabiting him. The former goes on his merry way; the latter stays in your party for the long haul. (And if that character doesn't work out, you can just have the curse reassert itself and bring the changeling back into the party.)

Inyssius Tor
2012-03-08, 09:01 PM
I like the idea of having them come in a level behind or so. And I have considered making them wait a session, but I really don't want to make it seem like I'm singling him out. The player is one of my friends and I don't want this game to cause any bad blood.

I would really advise not doing either of those things. I would think that when your player is tired enough of their character to get him/her killed just so they can play a new one, they're not having much fun either. Why punish them by forcing them to have even less fun?

Solve things like a reasonable adult and talk to them about it.

tedthehunter
2012-03-08, 09:02 PM
One such idea: (and so on and so forth)

Wow. That is seriously helpful and cool. The only problem I forsee with this is that we will probably go through a forest's worth of character sheets. :smallbiggrin:

Rorrik
2012-03-08, 09:03 PM
Between Bloodtide and Nedz I think you have an effective carrot-stick combo going here. Give him some free feat or bonus ability that while not particularly powerful, he thinks is really cool. I've got a player that this would work marvelously on, I've got lists of things I could give him to keep him interested. And if that doesn't work, then you can always penalize his XP for suicide, like roleplaying xp, but negative. You gotta be some sort of bad sport to commit suicide just because you got tired of a character you made yourself.

Bastian Weaver
2012-03-08, 09:06 PM
I am going to be the voice of dissent, as usual, but why exactly is that a bad thing? Oh, I'm sure it's quite inconvenient for you, but you can't tell me it's not very easy to set up a small plot-friendly setup that explains the constant influx of new characters. Maybe the party is hired by a rich, powerful noble who sends them reinforcements when a party member dies. Maybe the fate of the world is at stake and goodly nations and churches are putting on a call for adventurers of all stripes, and replacements show up as soon as they can (which conveniently coincides with the character's death). Maybe the characters have set up a guild, crime syndicate or some other organisation, and replacements are their underlings that get a sudden promotion. You see where I'm going with this. This doesn't have to be inconvenient at all.

So let the character do whatever they like. Once it's no longer inconvenient for you or the players, I personally don't think you have any business criticising what they do with their own characters, much less penalising them for it.

Which reinforcements are coincidentally always the same XP level as the party's late suicidal friend. But nevermind that. Sure, it's easy to install something like that - but using such a plot device only to let one player replace his character easily? That's ridiculous, and also provoking other players to follow his example. Which, in turn, means more headache for the game master.
Besides, people in here already pointed out a couple ways in which the player may stop such things from being inconvenient.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-08, 09:15 PM
Which reinforcements are coincidentally always the same XP level as the party's late suicidal friend. But nevermind that. Sure, it's easy to install something like that - but using such a plot device only to let one player replace his character easily? That's ridiculous, and also provoking other players to follow his example. Which, in turn, means more headache for the game master.
Besides, people in here already pointed out a couple ways in which the player may stop such things from being inconvenient.

Not by coincidence, no. If you want to promote someone in an organisation, it stands to reason it's the one with the most XP. If you put out a call for adventurers, it stands to reason they would send to the party the one with the most XP. And so on.

Riiiiiiight. Setting up a minor handwave to avoid inconveniences is ridiculous. Right. Just like working with your player to incorporate their backstory to the game. Simply ridiculous.

Also no. You missed the entire point. If the DM comes up with a quick justification why there are replacements coming every time a character dies, other players doing so creates less headaches for the DM, rather than more. It wouldn't be a solution if it brought more trouble for the DM, now would it?

Again, why is it a problem? The only thing that makes this a problem is the inconveniences it causes. The DM can easily handwave it (the player too can come up with such a reason, so it's not entirely on the DM's back), so what's the problem? The only thing the player was doing "wrong" (for a more or less consensual definition of 'wrong') was inconveniencing the DM with their antics. That can be easily solved. Now there is no more problem.

tedthehunter
2012-03-08, 09:26 PM
Again, why is it a problem?

Because the fastest way I can imagine to destroy the verisimilitude that is so much a core part of RolePlaying (at least for me), would be to have armies upon armies of PCs created and discarded so quickly that there is no time to effectively create, much less integrate their backgrounds into the story whatsoever. It's not just about inconvenience, it just kills the idea of roleplaying for me, having character after character hastily created with no proper fleshing out, just to have them commit suicide.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-08, 10:04 PM
Because the fastest way I can imagine to destroy the verisimilitude that is so much a core part of RolePlaying (at least for me), would be to have armies upon armies of PCs created and discarded so quickly that there is no time to effectively create, much less integrate their backgrounds into the story whatsoever. It's not just about inconvenience, it just kills the idea of roleplaying for me, having character after character hastily created with no proper fleshing out, just to have them commit suicide.

Well, let's break that down, shall we?

Firstly, you are not supposed to integrate the character's background into the story at all. That's why the ideas I suggested are all about recruiting/calling/promoting/etc. You don't have to take into account the character's background at all. So that's a non-issue.

Secondly, if you have a playstyle that does not mesh with your player's, I am not going to support any suggestion or idea that attempts to change it. At most, I will recommend that you talk to him and explain to him how much it upsets you that he does that. However, if he doesn't budge, my official stance is that you two part ways or you find a way to deal with it.

Inyssius Tor
2012-03-08, 10:12 PM
Wow. That is seriously helpful and cool. The only problem I forsee with this is that we will probably go through a forest's worth of character sheets. :smallbiggrin:

Yay, I helped! :biggrin:


(also, Shadowknight? seriously, please tone it down a little. your heart's in the right place, but you're bringing a huge amount of confrontational heat to a thread that really, really doesn't need it.)

Grinner
2012-03-08, 11:12 PM
Here's an idea: Save the character sheets and have the souls of those suicides come back to haunt the party, maybe as damned agents of the BBEG.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-08, 11:24 PM
I am going to be the voice of dissent, as usual, but why exactly is that a bad thing?

Because someone who creates random characters at whimsy and quickly gets bored with each and every one should not be encouraged to do so. When you cut this behaviour, they might be forced to think just what kind of character they want to make, and stick with it. And as a result, the player is less bored with the game and more invested in it, and doesn't annoy everyone else with constant character shuffling. Everyone wins!

Shadowknight12
2012-03-08, 11:33 PM
Because someone who creates random characters at whimsy and quickly gets bored with each and every one should not be encouraged to do so. When you cut this behaviour, they might be forced to think just what kind of character they want to make, and stick with it. And as a result, the player is less bored with the game and more invested in it, and doesn't annoy everyone else with constant character shuffling. Everyone wins!

Counterpoint: People are not told (or "convinced" or "encouraged" or "educated" or whatever synonym pleases you the most) how to play/run the game, those with incompatible playstyles can part ways. Everyone wins!

Tengu_temp
2012-03-08, 11:44 PM
Yeah, I'm sure that convincing a player to change his playstyle a bit in a way that will be more fun than everyone is a worse solution than telling him "there is a slight quirk in your playstyle I don't like, get the **** out of my game".

Jay R
2012-03-08, 11:58 PM
If you are bored with your character, talk to me and we'll arrange to have that character leave, and somebody else show up, in ways that make sense and don't disrupt the game.

If you are bored with your character and therefore cause a difficult situation, causing trauma for the other PCs and disrupting the flow of the game, why in the world do you think you'd be allowed to attend another session and have another character?

I can't keep you from disrupting my game once, but I can sure keep you from doing it again.

bloodtide
2012-03-08, 11:59 PM
Because the fastest way I can imagine to destroy the verisimilitude that is so much a core part of RolePlaying (at least for me), would be to have armies upon armies of PCs created and discarded so quickly that there is no time to effectively create, much less integrate their backgrounds into the story whatsoever. It's not just about inconvenience, it just kills the idea of roleplaying for me, having character after character hastily created with no proper fleshing out, just to have them commit suicide.

To give a quick example: I once had a 'jumpier' player like this. So, I just gave him a special ability: His gnome alchemist could now polymorph liquids by touch. It was mostly random, and very 'Midas like', as when he touched liquids with his mouth and tongue they changed too. The player did use this from time to time for great game effects, but more then anything he loved the roll playing effect. After all it was common for folks to offer the characters drinks...and every time the gnome would have to drink and risk something...sometimes it would just be like 'goblin wewe', sometimes acid. In the end the player stuck with that character forever.

Gavinfoxx
2012-03-09, 12:16 AM
You know... you can just have the characters leave. They don't have to DIE...

HunterOfJello
2012-03-09, 12:49 AM
I had a character playing a Warforged Warlock who tried to do this. I told him, "fine, roll for attack and damage."

I allowed him to do an coup de grace on himself to get auto-crits on shooting himself in the face. Unfortunately, his warlock's eldritch blasts weren't very powerful and he was only able to damage himself for a fraction of his health with each blast.

The other PCs and several NPCs around him freaked out when he started doing that and began casting magical spells around the area and restrained him thinking that the warforged was being manipulated by an enemy's magic. He eventually attacked some city watchmen who decided to beat the **** out of him and knocked him out completely. He was later admitted to an insane asylum inside Sharn designed specifically for magical warforged.

I can't remember if the player came back after that session, but we had some good fun out of it.

tedthehunter
2012-03-09, 12:51 AM
To give a quick example: I once had a 'jumpier' player like this. So, I just gave him a special ability: His gnome alchemist could now polymorph liquids by touch. It was mostly random, and very 'Midas like', as when he touched liquids with his mouth and tongue they changed too. The player did use this from time to time for great game effects, but more then anything he loved the roll playing effect. After all it was common for folks to offer the characters drinks...and every time the gnome would have to drink and risk something...sometimes it would just be like 'goblin wewe', sometimes acid. In the end the player stuck with that character forever.

Thanks for the example, that sounds like it was fun. It seems to me that the core of this problem is a certain lack of awareness on my part. Because for me, the core rules give enough options to really get me hooked on my character. I sort of assumed that my players felt that way as well.

The only thing that worries me is where does it end? If you give a mouse a cookie and so on and so forth... I have very pushy players and I could see a simple cantrip type thing like that turning into a 20-30 minute argument. I'll definitely give it a shot though. We're starting a Pathfinder campaign for the first time, and I'm really excited about it. We'll all be relatively new to the system so hopefully that will play in my favor.

Bastian Weaver
2012-03-09, 05:06 AM
Riiiiiiight. Setting up a minor handwave to avoid inconveniences is ridiculous. Right. Just like working with your player to incorporate their backstory to the game. Simply ridiculous.

Yep, it is. Because this is purely overkill.
If there's a powerful sponsor for the team, why does he limit his support to sending new characters just when one of the old ones gets bored and commits suicide? That is ridiculous. And if this sponsor is played in a more logical and interesting way, it means introducing serious changes to the plot of the game. Just because someone doesn't know how to play.
Like I said. Ridiculous.



Also no. You missed the entire point. If the DM comes up with a quick justification why there are replacements coming every time a character dies, other players doing so creates less headaches for the DM, rather than more. It wouldn't be a solution if it brought more trouble for the DM, now would it?

I would like to ask you a question: have you played as a DM a lot? If you have, I suppose your players had a rare opportunity to get all of their characters' wishes granted almost immediately.



Again, why is it a problem? The only thing that makes this a problem is the inconveniences it causes. The DM can easily handwave it (the player too can come up with such a reason, so it's not entirely on the DM's back), so what's the problem? The only thing the player was doing "wrong" (for a more or less consensual definition of 'wrong') was inconveniencing the DM with their antics. That can be easily solved. Now there is no more problem.

How about it being a problem for other players? There's a little thing called "roleplaying". And if my character has to deal with the fact that yet another of his teammates commited suicide, it can become really frustrating pretty soon. So I - and my character - either start ignoring the whole thing, which isn't good roleplaying, or get very angry and start even more trouble.
Lose-lose situation. And all about something that the player doesn't really need, since there are many other ways to get rid of a character. Better ways. More interesting ways.

Jornophelanthas
2012-03-09, 05:12 AM
@tedthehunter:
Whatever you decide, talk to the player first. Ask him why he keeps wanting to switch characters.

This has several benefits:
1. Maybe he can actually tell you what it is that he needs to stick with a single character.
2. You can tell him that it is very inconvenient for you to accommodate all the party changes he causes.
3. You can ask him to retire characters in different ways than random suicide (or suicidal actions), and you can actually help with incorporating that into the story.
4. Maybe you find out that he isn't interested in roleplaying at all.

Whatever you do, don't just hand out free goodies (or abilities) to him without asking. This can upset the other players, and it might not even get him to like his character more.

---
@Shadowknight112:
You appear to be advocating one very specific playstyle. This is fine, of course, but tedthehunter appears to be having a different playstyle, which is just as valid as yours.
You propose that tedthehunter adapts his playstyle to match yours. While this can be a solution, if tedthehunter decides that he doesn't feel like doing that (which he did), this particular discussio should end there.

Because playstyle preference is a matter of taste. Nobody is wrong.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-09, 05:39 AM
Because playstyle preference is a matter of taste. Nobody is wrong.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along.

Absol197
2012-03-09, 11:44 AM
One of the reasons I really don't like rapid character switching is because it ruins the plot of the game.

The games I run tend to be character driven stories, and the events I plan out from the beginning are related to the characters I was told I would be DMing for from the beginning. It has happened on a couple of occasions that nearly the entire party had been switched out halfway through the game.

Why are these incredibly different people still following the same quest? It just doesn't make sense to me.

A partial solution to this is (as other people have said) the character retires. Have a side-quest or something that gives the character what they were looking for, the character says fairwell to their compatriots, and gives up adventuring. Then, add another element to the plot, and have that link with the new character. It works well enough, as long as the entire party isn't switching out. Otherwise, as a DM, I jsut can't make the story work anymore.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-09, 12:04 PM
Because playstyle preference is a matter of taste. Nobody is wrong.

This is true, but there is one important thing to consider: people can adapt to a playstyle that's not their preferred one and still have fun. It won't always end up in success, but it's certainly a better choice than going "I won't even try, I'm out of this game" from the get go.

Rorrik
2012-03-09, 12:30 PM
One of the reasons I really don't like rapid character switching is because it ruins the plot of the game.

The games I run tend to be character driven stories, and the events I plan out from the beginning are related to the characters I was told I would be DMing for from the beginning. It has happened on a couple of occasions that nearly the entire party had been switched out halfway through the game.

Why are these incredibly different people still following the same quest? It just doesn't make sense to me.

A partial solution to this is (as other people have said) the character retires. Have a side-quest or something that gives the character what they were looking for, the character says fairwell to their compatriots, and gives up adventuring. Then, add another element to the plot, and have that link with the new character. It works well enough, as long as the entire party isn't switching out. Otherwise, as a DM, I jsut can't make the story work anymore.

Absolutely, I tend to have a basic concept for where things start and plan some possible relations for the PCs into things. Once they give me their backstories, I start building the world to accommodate who they are and why they ended up the campaign they're in.
The upshot of this is that when a new player joins the game, or a player asks for a new character, the character they get is more restricted and I throw together a skeleton backstory to explain their origin, then they add the color. It's more work than if they just kept their character, and they don't get as much control over who their character is because it was required to spring out of the scenery with a justification for the desired class.

bloodtide
2012-03-09, 12:43 PM
Thanks for the example, that sounds like it was fun. It seems to me that the core of this problem is a certain lack of awareness on my part. Because for me, the core rules give enough options to really get me hooked on my character. I sort of assumed that my players felt that way as well.

Not everyone feels this way, of course. A great number of players feel the core stuff is just normal and boring.



The only thing that worries me is where does it end? If you give a mouse a cookie and so on and so forth... I have very pushy players and I could see a simple cantrip type thing like that turning into a 20-30 minute argument. I'll definitely give it a shot though. We're starting a Pathfinder campaign for the first time, and I'm really excited about it. We'll all be relatively new to the system so hopefully that will play in my favor.

Well, it never ends. One of the basic things in any RPG is the DM 'gives' the players things. If your worried about things getting out of control, you can simply use an in the rules type thing like a feat, spell or magic item and not a vague special ability. I'm not really sure where you'd get the argument.

A fun way to do it, is to give the character an anti-gift. Something like a curse, for example. But one they can live with and have fun with. So your not exactly giving the player anything 'for free', as it is a curse. For example the player of a dwarf barbarian might now care if he had the curse 'stench of a troglodyte' and might even be able to have fun with it....but he would have a hard time in any social situation.

Another fun way is the temptation of evil. There are plenty of rules to slowly make a character more powerful, if they sell their soul to evil(see book of vile darkness, Fiendish Codexes, Heroes of Horror, etc). It's another great way to 'give' a character something unique, but at a cost. And it need not be evil, you can homebrew up some other ones.


And don't forget the Ye Old Plot Trick:The God Azuth comes down and touches each of the characters and says 'now you have my touch and that will let you get into the Dungeon of Doom and get the Fountain of All Healing'. Well, the player sure wants that, so then they have to keep the same character(as after all a new character would not be 'touched').

Jornophelanthas
2012-03-09, 12:45 PM
This is true, but there is one important thing to consider: people can adapt to a playstyle that's not their preferred one and still have fun. It won't always end up in success, but it's certainly a better choice than going "I won't even try, I'm out of this game" from the get go.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Are you suggesting that the DM should be willing to try and accommodate the player's playstyle by following Shadowknight112's advice?

Or that the player should be willing to try and accommodate the DM's playstyle by sticking with a single character for more than a few sessions?

Or both?

If it is the second, then I agree. Mostly because for a DM to change their playstyle mid-campaign runs an unacceptable risk of killing the plot, altering the setting and/or upsetting the other players.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-03-09, 12:52 PM
@Shadowknight112:
You appear to be advocating one very specific playstyle. This is fine, of course, but tedthehunter appears to be having a different playstyle, which is just as valid as yours.
You propose that tedthehunter adapts his playstyle to match yours. While this can be a solution, if tedthehunter decides that he doesn't feel like doing that (which he did), this particular discussio should end there.

Because playstyle preference is a matter of taste. Nobody is wrong.
Does that include Shadowknight? :smalltongue: (In all seriousness, you can't tell somebody "No, your suggestion is wrong." and then follow it up with "Nobody is wrong.")

I think that it's perfectly fine to request/require a level of playstyle conformity. We don't live in some fuzzy-wuzzy non-confrontational dystopia, after all. This sort of thing is called a "problem player", because it creates headaches. This "playstyle" makes it very, very hard for other players of certain playstyles to enjoy the game, and it makes it rough on the GM as well. So much so that I would say it is far less valid.

e.g., offering an analogy here: this would be like the chaotic evil orc PC in a party of lawful good paladins. It causes trouble, far more trouble than it's worth. Sure, there's something to be said for accommodation, but you can only tolerate so much.

When a player gets quickly bored with a character and kills them off, this means that the GM has to rewrite the plots that were intended to tie into the character. It means that the party's dynamics have to shift. And, if you're really thinking about it, a party member suiciding is going to have a strong impact on the rest of the group. Not to mention, they then have to work to bond with a new character, whom they've had little time to bond with (as compared to the old characters, who are comrades in arms).

This is a problem, and there have been some very good solutions proposed.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-09, 01:16 PM
Are you suggesting that the DM should be willing to try and accommodate the player's playstyle by following Shadowknight112's advice?

Or that the player should be willing to try and accommodate the DM's playstyle by sticking with a single character for more than a few sessions?

It's the second, yeah.

Jornophelanthas
2012-03-09, 03:22 PM
(In all seriousness, you can't tell somebody "No, your suggestion is wrong." and then follow it up with "Nobody is wrong.")
You misinterpret me.
"Nobody is wrong" refers to a preference in playstyles. Shadowknight112 is not wrong to suggest a playstyle change to tedthehunter. Tedthehunter is not wrong to reject the suggestion. Because it boils down to personal taste of all players involved, including the DM.


I think that it's perfectly fine to request/require a level of playstyle conformity.
This is something i support. I tend towards the opinion that the player should adapt more to the DM than the other way around, because there are also other players in the game. However, because I don't have all the information on this particular gaming group, I don't presume to pass judgement.

Jay R
2012-03-09, 08:06 PM
I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Are you suggesting that the DM should be willing to try and accommodate the player's playstyle by following Shadowknight112's advice?

Or that the player should be willing to try and accommodate the DM's playstyle by sticking with a single character for more than a few sessions?

Or both?

Both, of course. In fact, I'll go further - every person in a cooperative game should be trying to cooperate with all the others.

The problem with a unilateral suicide is that, if anyone is roleplaying at all, all the other characters should be depressed by the suicide of their friend.

If a player wants to switch characters, let's work together to find a way that doesn't hurt other players and the DM.

If a player doesn't want to play any character long-term, he doesn't have to disrupt the game. He tells the DM, who provides a series of short-term allies for the party, all of whom that player plays.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-09, 08:25 PM
Ahem, I'm pretty sure that question was directed at me specifically. And while it's true that the DM should be flexible and try to accomodate all of the players' needs, and that communication is the key to a successful game, changing the style of the whole game from something all but one players like to something only one player will like is not the way to go.

tedthehunter
2012-03-09, 10:01 PM
A fun way to do it, is to give the character an anti-gift. Something like a curse, for example. But one they can live with and have fun with. So your not exactly giving the player anything 'for free', as it is a curse. For example the player of a dwarf barbarian might now care if he had the curse 'stench of a troglodyte' and might even be able to have fun with it....but he would have a hard time in any social situation.

Another fun way is the temptation of evil. There are plenty of rules to slowly make a character more powerful, if they sell their soul to evil(see book of vile darkness, Fiendish Codexes, Heroes of Horror, etc). It's another great way to 'give' a character something unique, but at a cost. And it need not be evil, you can homebrew up some other ones.


And don't forget the Ye Old Plot Trick:The God Azuth comes down and touches each of the characters and says 'now you have my touch and that will let you get into the Dungeon of Doom and get the Fountain of All Healing'. Well, the player sure wants that, so then they have to keep the same character(as after all a new character would not be 'touched').

Man, you are just chock full of these awesome tidbits :smallbiggrin:. I'll definitely give some of these a try. As I said before, we're starting a Pathfinder campaign, and I think that the system will help me a little with this.

Really excited to try all this out, and thanks to everyone for all your helpful posting! :smallsmile:

Dimers
2012-03-10, 12:08 AM
I have considered making them wait a session, but I really don't want to make it seem like I'm singling him out. The player is one of my friends and I don't want this game to cause any bad blood.

Dude, he is singling you out and causing bad blood by forcing this insensible situation on your game. You are not a genie and wish fulfillment isn't your duty.

It holds true for pets, children, friends and lovers: you setting a boundary and sticking to it will often be exactly what they need to feel better about whatever relationship you have, particularly when there's an imbalance of power involved in either direction. Set the boundary by talking to the player; let him know the behavior is a problem and is no longer an action you'll accept. Be ready to stick to it (in a mature way!) come hell or high water. You'll certainly end the problem, one way or another, and you're likely to see a more fulfilling relationship too.

Zeru the Dark
2012-03-11, 09:21 AM
I have a player I've been playing with for five or more years now, and when he started, he was a lot like this. He'd just throw away character after character, always looking for something new and more interesting. After awhile, I got sick of it, and increased the gap between the party level and him after every needless character death, and pretty fast, he started sticking to one character. Once he started sticking to one character, he started developing his character. And from there, he really started role playing...and then, about two years into playing D&D, he started to really enjoy the game. Sometimes, it really is worth while to force someone to fit your playstyle; if they hate it, they'll leave, but if they don't hate it, now at the very least they're on the playing field you're comfortable with, and you can start showing them why you prefer the playstyle you do.

Though of course, I recommend taking this with a grain of salt; you need to know the person you're doing this to well, and really make an effort to reward them for development.

Oscredwin
2012-03-11, 11:44 AM
I was a player like this. I would see the new books and want to play a new character. It wasn't too bad, stating out a new character in my spare time gave me most of the fun I was looking for. The problem arrose when I would play a character, and it wouldn't play like I wanted it to. One example was a Wizard I was playing in a game, and my GM wouldn't let me get new spells (with a level) without spending one day per page. He was also running a fast paced game where each day mattered and we were leveling up quickly. Another time I wanted to switch was when I played a barbarian and the DM had my +3 greatsword shatter on a critical fumble on my first attack roll. Then there was the DM where everyone got a magic item, the fighter got a magic sword and my wizard got a magic crossbow (wands were overpowered and I was told not to take a crafting feat).

Templarkommando
2012-03-11, 12:32 PM
I've had a little of this happen too. I think I've figured out part of why it happens, but I'm at a bit of a loss for a full explanation as well.

For the last few years I think I've been doing loot wrong, and as a result, my players start to get below their expected wealth after just a few levels. I suspect one of my players seems to suicide/ put his PC on a bus in favor of a new one in order get a reasonable amount of loot. On the one hand, I have revamped the way I do loot - what I had been doing was rationalizing what monsters dropped loot. ("Well, this animal isn't in its lair, so no loot") and I was doing it a lot. So much so, in fact that in addition to this PC suiciding every few levels, he also volunteered to be the party treasurer, and tended to have more cash than everyone else... which was a source of some contention.

I also think that I need to find better ways to engage my players in terms of plot with their backstory. One of the solutions I've employed to try to assuage this is by giving players a good XP bonus for getting a backstory down on paper. Otherwise, I'd have players with no real backstory, that expect me to know everything that their character has been through in life.

Jornophelanthas
2012-03-11, 03:16 PM
"Well, this animal isn't in its lair, so no loot".

Maybe it's off-topic, but the corollary to this one should be:
"Well, then we'd better go look for its lair."