Think its ok?

[RandomNPC]

so the gamers are chasing a lich BBEG and he's running to a city where the linchpin of reality sits. Its a tower (metaphor for a big important pin) with a few specific qualities. not just anyone can enter, and only so many can enter. there's no teleporting, and a few other things in on and around the tower. the tricky part is only so many people can go inside.

when the party gets there they are going to run into a group that lives in the city and wants to defend it from the lich, and the players can pick if they want to keep the character they have, or if they want to use the other characters, and each person can keep or change, its not all or nothing.

so the trouble comes in at the point where the group asks who these people are and what they can do. when they ask i plan to hand out the 3rd level characters they already made and say "lets find out, a year and a half ago..."

so is that to much of a mean thing to do, stopping them and starting something new with the BBEG that close? will they linch me? would you linch me? two people i asked who aren't going to tell my group gave me 1 go ahead its awesome, and 1 no way thats horrible.

anywho, am i a bad person for wanting to do this to my group?

[bosssmiley]

They will either lynch you, or think you are the greatest GM they've ever had. Take the risk!

I for one think your GM-fu is HUGE and you should be feted and have statues and such...

[martyboy74]

So it's a 'lich'pin?

Seriously, if you give each person the individual choice of switching characters, and let them talk it out amoungst themselves, I can't imagine why they would dislike it.

EDIT: Nevermind. I misinterpreted it. This is an all-or-nothing decision, because the rest of the players can't do anything. I would be quite annoyed at you for doing this.

[kamikasei]

and the players can pick if they want to keep the character they have, or if they want to use the other characters, and each person can keep or change, its not all or nothing.

If some want to keep their characters and others want to change... what do the players whose characters have already live through that year and a half do with their time? Sounds like it would have to be all or nothing to work.

[RandomNPC]

If some want to keep their characters and others want to change... what do the players whose characters have already live through that year and a half do with their time? Sounds like it would have to be all or nothing to work.

thing is i hand out the character sheets for 3rd level characters and the game goes back a year and a half or so and they build up to the present, where they will hopefully be the same level as the first group.


bosssmiley, if i don't end up doing it i'm going to tell them it crossed my mind and see what they say they would have done. hopefully i'll get me a statue.

[kamikasei]

thing is i hand out the character sheets for 3rd level characters and the game goes back a year and a half or so and they build up to the present, where they will hopefully be the same level as the first group.

Yes... but how does that work with only some of the players opting to switch to these "new" characters?

[RandomNPC]

thats where they might linch me, they would all have to play the characters and advance them to the present. but after the game they might get attatched to the characters and decide to keep them, they might not. thats why i want to do it that way.

you're right about them not wanting to do it, and if they don't then we just keep all the old characters, but when i got the idea I felt inspired by the idea of doing it.

[Jack Mann]

Well, I can't speak for your players, but I know I wouldn't take you up on that. Not many players I know would rather play a character the DM made rather than one they worked on themselves.

If your players wanted to play a different sort of character, they'd probably be playing that character now. If they've changed their mind since then, they will still have a much better idea of what they want to play now than you do.

[Metal Head]

You're taking an enormous risk, but if you pull it off your players will love you.

[Inyssius Tor]

Jack Mann: No, he said "hand out the 3rd level characters they already made", which implies that he either told them to make two characters when they started the campaign, or something similar.

EDIT: and I, personally, would love it. That would be really awesome.

[Murderous Hobo]

Seems to me like you are stopping a movie just before the climax and then showing the end three weeks later. The end just won't be as good anymore.

So I think it's the wrong timing, though the idea is really nifty.

[RandomNPC]

they know there is a city based game coming and they recently rolled up characters for it, if they don't want to do the character swap i can finish the game and do something else with the characters, this group has me do things on the fly all the time.

[Jack Mann]

Ah, I missed that line. Objection withdrawn. I'm still not sure it's a great idea, but if you think they can come to a group decision without killing each other, it could work out all right.

[Matthew]

Interesting idea, but what is the purpose behind it?

[Ravyn]

My DM recently pulled something like this, and it actually worked pretty well, though it took a while to catch on. I'd recommend giving them fair warning, running the game, and then letting them choose once they rejoin the main timeline, though.

[Icewalker]

Sounds like a cool idea. As I get your meaning, they get there, then there is a flashback in which they play other characters, and once it is over they can choose whether to keep going with their old or new characters?

I think this sounds like an excellent idea, especially if you can work out the new characters so that the players would be interested in them. I would guess some people will think it is awesome, and some may dislike it. Opinions will vary.


One question which will well determine whether it'll work well: How long will they be using the flashback characters? One short adventure getting them up 1-3 levels, or for a mini-campaign to get em quite high? If it's very long, people could get annoyed. Anybody ending up with a character they don't like won't be happy playing them for long. Anybody who gets a character they love will be fine with a short flashback because they can keep the new one.

[CASTLEMIKE]

I need more information. I like that it is voluntary but it sounds like they will be getting hit with an empowered maximized level drain.

Personally I'd rather play a new PC than play my old favorite after getting powered down particularly with a sorcerer or wizard who is coming into his own now as the fighters powere down mechanically. Is the BBEG lich getting powered down to because of the linch pin?

How long they have played these characters? If you invest a lot of time in a PC you generally want them to retire or go out memorably not get traded in on a lesser model.

Is that real world or campaign time or both?

What level is the party after a year and a half?

Are the new PCs of comparable level?

How will half agreeing to new PCs and half keeping old PCs work mechanically?

If half agree and half don't will you have 2 level 3 guys and 2 level 12 guys?

[Kurald Galain]

It's a cool concept, but perhaps you could do a couple of flashbacks instead of playing those characters up from level 3 entirely. That way it's more fun for people who don't want to switch.

[Korias]

Ok. so its pretty much something along the lines of "Ok. Now, you can eithr face the BBEG now, or you all go back and play from level 3. Again."

This is a bad Idea at this stage in the game. The players have characters, items, and experieinces that they wont want to give up easily. Personally, do it AFTER you defeat the BBEG, and then take character set two for a spin and have a parallel adventure with the old group, and culminate in a big fight with the Lich again, but this time add more than just the Lich. Perhaps multiple Liches. Lich and Army. Lich and Dragon. Lich and Dragon and Army with more lich clones that arent really liches. Just like in OOTS.

[tannish2]

if i were one of the players i would kill anyone who decided to use the new character, then eat their soul.... then move onto you, unless i want really into the plot, then i would be mildy annoyed unless you pulled this off VERY well.

[AKA_Bait]

It's a cool concept, but perhaps you could do a couple of flashbacks instead of playing those characters up from level 3 entirely. That way it's more fun for people who don't want to switch.

This is a good idea.

[ranger89]

I think it's a very interesting idea that borders on DM brilliance. However, as others have indicated in this thread, not all players will see it that way. I'd let your players decide if they want to do it and to what extent (ie., play all the way from level 3 or the flashback ideas, etc.). No harm, no foul in that.

If I were at your table, I'd be all for fast tracking the alternate storyline and then have those PCs join the original PCs in the final battle with the BBEG (i.e., two PCs per player). Now that sounds like fun to me!

Please be sure to post what you do.

[PinkysBrain]

What's the point?

Hey, a campaign with no surprises where I have to prevent myself from metagaming at every turn ... oh and I have to give up my old character (well I don't have to, but a couple other party members did and my DM won't let me play if I don't do it as well ... same thing really).

Why?

[tainsouvra]

The idea isn't terrible, but it does have a big problem...if you go back and play the other half of the story, the first party is effectively "in limbo" while you're catching up on the second party. For players who just invested a fair amount of time and ideas into the first party, having those characters pulled away for more than one or two sessions is bound to rub someone the wrong way.

In other words, play one or two adventures with the second party, then fast-forward them to the present...or don't do a second party at all...or be prepared to have at least one of your players get frustrated at having his favored character sitting in the penalty box.

[Wolf_Shade]

DM: You encounter a group aware of the tower and desiring to defend it from the lich. The group consists of blah. You can either continue your current character, or trade in for them.
Players: Ooooo, what are they capable of?
DM: Well, I can eithere tell you, as I have here level x character sheets for them, or I can show you, as I have here level 3 character sheets for them set 1.5 years ago. So do you want the short version or the flashback sidequest?
Players:.......

Put it to a vote. If anyone is extremely against it, go for the short version.

[Tormsskull]

If this was a heavy RP campaign then I think it would be great, especially if some of the characters they are able to play in the flashback are particularly memorable. But realise that none of the flashback characters can die because they are all there.

See, if I were doing something like this, it would be like:

"Your group turns the corner, and there it is, the menacing Tower of Darkness. A good distance from the tower you see the camp set up that you were told would be here."

"We approach the camp."

"As you approach the camp, one of the squires comes out, bearing the emblem of Lazarus Twin Blades, and you see behind him other squires, bearing the symbols of Void, the Magician, Kazmeraz the Bold, and Lady Dragon Felva."

"How has this come to be? I thought these heroes had been vanquished/trapped/delayed."

"Actually, that's a interesting story. Because..." *hands out the character sheets to each person, explain situation to them briefly*

Or something like that, might be cool to play one of the campaign-memorable NPCs for a while/learn more about them, etc.

[SalientGreen]

It's been asked twice but not answered yet: why?

Why do you want to this? How would it further the story? Just doing it because it seems like a fun RPG gadget might not be a good idea. If I were a player, I'd want some sort of connection to the new party....