Would you allow your player to change their character mid-campaign

[Spence]

On 3/29/2022 at 9:26 AM, Jujitsuguy said:

 

Would any of you allow this?

In my old groups we handled this differently.

 

The only time we allowed a built PC to be changed was after the first game session.

 

Every player had a "stable" of PCs.  You could only actively play one PC per session, but you had multiple characters.

 

I usually had at least three primary in a campaign and they were usually very different types. 

 

But I was very quickly turned away from allowing established characters to be reworked.  It has significant ripple effects on pretty much everything.  It doesn't just make me have to rework that PCs threats and enemies, but pretty much all of them.  I don't build up enemies as separate villains for each PC.  If possible I try to use a single villain to cover multiple hero complications.

And if you let one person make the change it is almost guaranteed that at a minimum half the remaining players, if not all will want to do it as well.

 

A supers game is not a XP progression game like D&D or most others.  Supers are usually already competent with the slow rate of XP accumulation used more to tweak or adjust abilities rather that exponentially add to the characters power.  A new build PC can and will be able to join in a game if built at starting point value.  You just don't have the insurmountable disadvantage that occurs in systems that use levels.

[Killer Shrike]

On 3/29/2022 at 9:26 AM, Jujitsuguy said:

I have a player in my Hero 6E campaign who has changed the character already once in the game prior to starting.  We have played six sessions, which is maybe 1/4 or 1/5 of the way through the campaign.

 

The player now wants to play a digressively different character, because he said it would be more fun.

 

Would any of you allow this?

 

Yes. I generally like it when players rotate characters. When I get the chance to play, I rotate characters as befits the narrative. As the GM I do enforce character shtick / niche protection, i.e. I wouldn't allow a player to make a new character that just steps on another existing PC's niche. And of course the introduction of the new character and exit of the old should be bent to fit the continuity of the campaign rather than the other way around.

 

As long as it isn't super disruptive, like every session of two, I see it as a beneficial thing. It can be an opportunity to extend the larger story of the campaign, reinvigorate the group dynamic, provide new hooks and / or pull in new antagonists, and so on.

 

On 3/29/2022 at 9:26 AM, Jujitsuguy said:

As a GM, I am highly frustrated at this attitude period I believe it is showing a great disrespect for the effort that I’ve made to not only create this game, but I actually work with the players to create a backstory which will fit into the game and allow me to write their stories into the campaign material.

 

Try not to make everything about you. Are the players there to serve you? Or are you a group of peers getting together to enjoy a collaborative creative activity? 

 

In the end, its just about having fun together. If any of the players, including the GM, are not having fun then either adjustments need to be made or one or more people should leave the group.

 

If this player isn't having fun playing the character they have, and them wanting to change their character is making things not fun for you, pick a path and go down it:

1. Player keeps character, possibly with some changes to the character or the campaign or both.
2. Player makes new character
3. Player leaves group
4. GM ends campaign

My experience in life is that most people problems start and end with a failure to communicate effectively. Try talking to the player to understand why they want to change characters, why that bothers you, and then figure out together which of the above four choices is best to your situation.

 

On 3/29/2022 at 9:26 AM, Jujitsuguy said:

Am I wrong to think this way?

 

Right and wrong are irrelevant to subjective / emotional things. I would ask instead, is it productive for you to think / feel this way? Are your feelings making things better or worse? Seems to me that it is making things worse. So, flip the script and find a more productive footing to proceed from.

[Killer Shrike]

On 3/29/2022 at 7:52 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I have a possible solution to the ever-swapping player.

 

I built a character that had like 20 multiforms, each one a different superhero.  Kind of like Dial H, or the Miracleman concept, where you swap into a "body suit" of some different character.  Except he had no control.  The GM selected or randomized a character and handed the character to me when I activated the multiform.  That would give the guy variety without being terribly disruptive.

 

Yes, I've also done this. I've spoken in past posts years ago about a random Multiform based PC from one of my past campaigns. Each form had an Accidental Change particular to that form's shtick that when triggered would force a random roll on the list of forms. The forms were all over the place; a few were deliberately useless or disinterested or antagonistic (one of them was even the Hunter of one of the other PC's). 

 

I've also allowed / encouraged characters like Mr. Goodspeed and his array of vehicles, dual body constructs like ERG-9, various non-identical Duplication based shenanigans, a shapeshifter with virtually all points in a form-specific VPP, and other similar open ended / complex characters. It's a thing the Hero System does better than any other system I've used over the years. 

[Killer Shrike]

On 3/30/2022 at 10:30 AM, Jujitsuguy said:

I have known and played in this individual's campaigns for over 5 years now...he is a friend, and outside of the game, not a bad person at all; however, any game conversations that he feels are not in his favor go south immediately...he has even shut down games because he disagreed with a player....I don't mean major fallout, but just because something he didn't like...

 

Whenever I try to discuss these things, he throws a fit and threatens to leave the game.

 

Well, ok. Let him leave, then. Sounds like he's "that guy" who has been the bane of many an RPG group over the years. Ask the other players how they'd feel if he does in fact take his ball and go home. If he's as obnoxious as you indicate, at least some of them would probably be ok or even happy to see him go.

 

This is starting to sound less like a struggle over character continuity and more of a passive aggressive struggle for control over the social group to me.

[Killer Shrike]

On 3/31/2022 at 9:42 AM, Jujitsuguy said:

Just as a closure on this thread....after I presented him w/ my proof his character is not only illegal, but messes up the campaign, he chose to stick with the character he settled on when we started the game.

 

I guess I should have read to the end before posting.

 

On 3/31/2022 at 9:42 AM, Jujitsuguy said:

I need to hire guys in the towns where my players live....so in case they pull **** like this, I give Bruno, Jimmy, etc., a call and he goes over with the "Whack" stick to readjust their **** and get them with the program.

Hmmm....I think I might just have a niche in that market...rent out RPG thugs that adjust remote/online players who don't conform to game rules....  😉

Now, I see the smiley face and acknowledge that you mean this as a joke, but to me it still very much seems to be an expression of something you actually feel to some degree. Coercing others to conform to your preferences with the threat of violence isn't a great way to be. Maybe take a beat and consider if you yourself have some control freak impulses to overcome. You'll be a better GM, and more importantly a better person, if you exorcise the impulse to use force to bludgeon people into doing what you want them to do.

[wiseblood_13]

I was going to suggest Spence's method - our first concepts for play were passionate, heat of the moment builds so we could get playing, but after learning the game and it's dynamics better, we had new concepts banging around in oUr heads and wanted to maybe switch them out.  The GM already had plot strings laid out involving some characters, but just like in the comics, sometimes a plot gets put on the back burner for an issue of two, which allowed us to write up 'new recruits' and get them in the flow of things and even begin to tie them to the previous plots.  We allowed for three members of the burgeoning supergroup apiece per player - so I could run  my old-soldier acrobatic martial artist Brigand, or my flashy teenage blaster Radar Rider, or my blind alien butterfly woman Firethorn, who used mental and light powers to explore her new world and help her new friends fight bad guys.  Kept it mixed up enough to keep the game fresh for us and the GM.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The real danger is the "character of the week" guy who gets tired of what he's playing really fast and changes over and over.  While it can be handled, usually that is disruptive to the campaign, ruins storylines, and annoys everyone else in the game.