When is it acceptable to allow a player to make a new character?

>>48725319
When their character dies, and even then they must come up with an acceptable substitution that can be feasibly inserted into the campagin. They must start at level 1 but I give them plenty of opportunities to catch up.

>>48725319
When it serves to enhance the enjoyment of the group.

Unless they abuse the privilege, any time they're in a town or otherwise not actively engaged in an adventure.

>>48725319
Do they want to? Then fucking let them when it's reasonable I don't know. If they're doing it every two sessions then say "look dude you can't be doing this" but if their current character has just gone stale or never really was planned out with to start then no harm done. Just make it fit into the plot.

In my current session the druid I'm playing isn't fun at all, either in combat or in rp. So my GM is letting me recon a boss battle we just did so that he dies and I can use a different character.

>>48725565

I find a complete restart unacceptable.

Players end up leaving because they feel useless and I either kill them too quickly or have to alter how monsters act (ie the monster purposefully avoids attacking the level 1) in order to keep them alive.

In my games new characters start at -1 level from the groups collective average, so if the group is, on average, level 10, the new character will be the minimum experience to reach level 9.

This is unavoidable UNLESS you died doing something suitably heroic.

>>48725319

Character death.

Also I find its great for resolving character conflict. When a character really doesn't mesh with the group and the players cant really think of a good reason for them to stay with the group I think it's a good idea to have that character leave, and allow the player to reroll. Ideally the player would roll up a new character that does mesh well with the group.

Whenever they want to, as long as they can come up with a reason for him to join the group and a reason for the previous character to leave.

>>48725319

Either after death or within a reasonable amount of time from the start of the game. If the system is really imbalanced I let people make new characters if they feel useless with their role/class/etc.

It's about having fun after all

>>48725565
This. Except new PC starts just 2 level lower (to the minimum of lvl1) and there's no preferential treatment for them.

>>48725319
Whenever they want to. If I only let them do it when their character died, then they'd have to find an excuse to get killed, which is dumb and potentially hurts the rest of the group.

>>48725319
anytime

>>48726447
Agreed. It's best to make the new character be roughly the same level/equivalent as the others in the team.

After all, if the team is hiring/recruiting/kidnapping someone new to replace the person they lost it would make sense that they get someone who can be useful to the team.

>>48725565
>>48726447
>>48726686

In 5e, I just start them at the bottom of the party-average tier they're in. So if someone dies when the party averages about level 7, they remake at level 5 cause that's when the new tier kicks in.

>>48725319

When the original character is irrevocably indisposed or dead with no reasonable prospect of rectifying the situation.

Incarcerated by the city guard and the rest of the party is unable or unwilling to initiate a jailbreak.

Cut in half by the orc chieftain and the party can't afford or acquire a means of revival.

>>48726447
>>48727649


Not the anon either of you were responding to, but I find I often have trouble with this approach, because a lot of characters use the "recon by suicide" approach, since they know they can make a new character roughly as powerful as the old one.

If the character no longer has any reason to stay with the group, they can make a new character, same if they die. The new character is one level lower unless it was a heroic death or legitimate reason to part ways.

>>48725319
when they damn well please because their fun is Important

>>48728057
Jesus christ what kind of shit players do you get then.

>>48725319
Whenever he's without a character, or in a case where replacing the previous character would result in the group having more fun.

>>48725565
>They must start at level 1
I really, really dislike that. It's just an invitation to make sure at least one of your players won't have fun at all.
I'd only ever do it if all members of the group insisted.

>>48725319
Never. If you die in my campaigns you can stick around and watch but you're out. I've been using this rule for 20 years and it makes combat truly exciting and life or death.

Character death is the most obvious reason.

But if a player just feels like they're useless - they build a charisma-oriented character in a game that ended up having a better face, for instance, or they just realize they hate ranged combat compared to being the party tank - then I guess it's already to let them get a new character so that they actually have fun.

>>48725565

>restart at level 1

That's fucking intolerable. All it does is guarantee the player will be dead weight for the party for the rest of the game.

You might as well just refuse to let them create a new character at all because it's effectively the same thing

>>48728057
Then you have shitty players and should probably ditch them and find a new group.

You guys post stories about people making horrible characters: Mary sues, min maxers, needlessly edgy characters, magical realm bait, lolsorandumb chaotic neutral, poorly optimized to the point of useless, or completely opposed to the setting. If a player makes one of the above but realizes his mistake pretty quickly why shouldn't you let him roll another to better the experience for everyone.

>>48725319
When either the character dies or the player decides to make a new character. It's not all that odd for a player to discover that he's just not having much fun with his current character, either because of his party role, mechanical abilities or if the kind of person his character ended turned out to be a lot less fun to play than he envisioned. We just get the guy to play until a point where the character can leave the party without much fuss to pursue his own goals or settle down and then let the new character join the next session.

>>48728533
Because those sorts of players rarely realize the mistakes they're making and don't want to make new characters. They'd get made if you forced their character to die, or just roll up the same kind of character with some slight differences, or a character with another aggravating problem instead of something good.

>>48728313
>bait?

that or you just legitimately rarely kill characters. To screw someone out of game night for a month or two cause of bad dice is too stupid to happen off of /tg/.

>>48725319
I feel like if I ever played an RPG, I'd end up making a character with a clear, straightforward and eminently achievable goal, achieve it within the space of maybe 3-4 sessions, then retire the character and make a new one, since the old character has no reason to hang around with the party any more.

Would that seem weird? Would you be willing to roll with that, as a GM?

>>48728553
It happens ocasionally we had a pathfinder game a while back where one guy made a rouge that was a dead pool expy, but realized two sessions in how shallow and boring that is and made a new character.

>>48725319
In the campaigns I've run, apparently whenever. The original cast that started this adventure isn't the current cast. We have one person who joined a bit later (around level 3) and has not died or refilled, and they're all level 11 now.

It has made the creation of a big bad a bit difficult. So instead we have a stable of recurring villains, one who just recently permanently killed.

Would it be so bad to start off new characters at level 1 but have then level up once a session until they catch up with all the bigger characters on the team, or maybe one level beneath?

I mean I somewhat understand why you wouldn't want to start at level 1 because that shit is lame and is kind of a death spiral, but its a roleplaying game and death should both be punished and you start at level one. That's the point.

>>48728854
Honestly, even if you're starting a brand new campaign you probably shouldn't start the players at level 1 unless you're just introducing them to the system. Or playing OSR.

>>48728954

Well I am playing OSR so that's kind of why I was trying to go for a compromise.

>>48728485
I second this

File: 1467648806437.jpg (213KB, 605x714px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 605x714px

>>48725565
>> They must start at level 1

>>48728057
>Recon by Suicide
Color me curious, what does that mean exactly? Is it what I think, or something much, much dumber.

>>48729689
Im pretty sure he means throwing chars on suicide missions to get info on dungeouns and other items/enviroments. Which is really shitty because

1. It doesn't make sense that any of the new characters would know any if this information so it would be metagaming and poor roleplaying
2. Turns a beatiful interactive storytelling system into a bland game which is probably less fun than any crpg videogame

>>48728315
Bards are not often the face of a party anyway, its usually the paladins.

>>48725319
>I want a new character
Okay.

>I want a new character for the 3rd time this month
Make one you like, because you're stuck with him until death
(and maybe after if he goes too soon)


I once rolled a fresh character to immediately have him betrayed by the party "cleric" and burnt alive the first session he was used in. Normally I would have rolled with it but we agreed the character was entertaining enough to the group that they threw in to resurrect what later turned out to be my favorite fighter.

>>48725319
Players can retire characters at any time. If a character dies or is retired, they can make a new character 1 level lower. They must wait for the new character to be introduced to the party by the DM.

>>48729779
In one game for me it was the rogue, actually - he got a bonus because of being a halfling, and got a very good roll for his charisma.

Still, if players work things out before hand, you could have a bard face, a paladin face, even a sorcerer face.

>>48728315
A few times I've had people reroll because their character didn't fit the party. As in, "There's no earthly reason why my character would ever continue to travel with these people." If they show up with a better fit and retire at an appropriate time (usually after the end of an arc), I think this is valid too.

>>48729994
That is something that I think people should be more willing to do, especially if they just jam together a bunch of crazy characters that just don't work out.

Don't force your paladin to stay in the neutral/evil party, don't force your elf-hating tiefling to hang out with the pro-elf half-orcs who already do everything he can do and more.

>>48725319
Whenever the player wants to make a new character, or whenever they're forced to (for example, from character death).

Here's an anecdote: recently I realized that my character was toxic for my group and my party. His personality and attitude didn't fit the tone of the adventure and he didn't have any skills or abilities that helped the group. He wasn't a bad character, and I didn't hate playing him, but I wasn't having fun. He would have been great in a different campaign, but he simply didn't fit in this one. After a session I brought up my feelings with the rest of the group and everyone agreed that making a new character was the solution. Now I'm having a great time with my new character, and everyone else has given me very good feedback about her.

Another anecdote: I was in a different campaign many years ago where our GM both (1) refused to kill any of our characters in combat and (2) refused to let us make new characters. That doesn't sound too bad at first, but everyone made 'skillmonkeys' and the GM constantly threw stuff 5+ CR higher than us. Thus every battle ended with all but one character KOed and the remaining monsters 'miraculously' missing every attack until the last remaining character won. Every player asked to make characters that were more suited to fighting, but the GM refused, and in the end everyone dropped his campaign. Thus, sometimes it's better to let people make new characters when they want to, and not to block them from doing so. Not to say that would have fixed his terrible campaign, but it would have helped.

>>48730112
Your second anecdote is the reason every group should coordinate on making the party, or at least tell each other what they plan to make.

>>48725319
Character death or conclusion, not every player character has to die, frodo didn't, and the ending to lotr was still a really nice ending.

How I handle it.
>character died being a jackass/metagaming/whatever
>>the beginning of the level below the lowest character

>character died doing regular adventure stuff
>>beginning of the level of the lowest character

>character died doing something very important to their character/sacrificing themselves for the party/a cause
>>ranges from starting at the bottom of their current level to actually keeping their experiences or even gaining more experience for their next character

>character left the party for no reason other than the player wanted to try something new
>>the same as dying like an asshole

>character left the party for character reasons/conflict whatever
>>as dying regularly

>character leaves party after completing their reason for adventuring in the first place
>>start new character at same amount of xp

>>48728313
>guaranteed replies

From what I've gathered from reading /tg/ most GMs here don't actually allow their players to die so the question is moot

>>48730762
That's a fine method, but I think you might have troubles with what each person considers an "important sacrifice". Some players might think that band of orcs is a clear sign to retreat and one or two spells can keep everyone safe, but the fighter might think that's the perfect sacrifice in name of the group. After all, they don't know how the story will develop.

>>48728057
1. You have shit players.

2. Change the encounter after the "recon by suicide".

>>48728576
>>48730780
>literally everyone who disagrees with me is bait

who invented this meme?

why did they do it?

>>48730112
>toxic

why has this become such a popular buzzword since 2007?

is tumblr behind this?

>>48731339
In this case, it's exceedingly difficult to believe that it isn't bait though.

Forcing your friend to sit out of a campaign forever because they died once (something that can often be entirely unavoidable or random) is just bad GMing, and bad friending.

If simply the risk of losing your character isn't enough to make combat feel exciting and risky, your players need to make characters they actually care about.

>>48731339
He's a shitty DM then, either way he should leave the thread.

>>48731434
Wow, lad, that's a bit rude, don't you think?

>>48731439
What's rude is forcing your friends to literally stop playing the game when one of them dies. These aren't exactly the kind of games where they'll end in 30-60 minutes afterwards.

>>48731496
>These aren't exactly the kind of games where they'll end in 30-60 minutes afterwards.
What if they are, though?

Not every /tg/ is D&D.

When the character had fulfilled their purpose.
When the player genuinely has no interest in continuing playing that character.
In both cases I strongly suggest taking over an established character rather than making up a new one on the fly. I normally let the extended party/contacts include a few retainers, apprentices, children of characters, etc with the assumption that they are backup characters.

I've rarely killed off my player's characters without some discussion of it with them first, but that's just the tone of games I run.

File: you died.gif (38KB, 468x240px)

38KB, 468x240px

>>48728313

>>48725631
pretty much this

for my own campaigns, i usually allow it for when they die or if decided to roleplay their character out of the campaign
>but i just leave the group anon!
no you dumb nigger come up with a legitimate reason as to why your character would leave in the middle of heavy plot related shit.

>>48725319
House Rule: All new characters start at a level below the lowest level at the table.

>>48729779
In my current game the wizard is the face.

>>48731397
It hasn't been around for that long

>realize it's 2016
>times a bitch

>>48725319
Bitch, if you get all six clones of your Troubleshooter killed you have lost at Paranoia.

For tonight, anyways. Now put the book down and watch your fellow 'shooters suffer for the rest of the session.

>>48725319
When they are vastly underpowered, have reached a dead end of character development (if your group is into that) or can't contribute in any meaningful way.

If they're overpowered, give them a mini arc and murder them. Or help the others catch up and amp the difficulty from there.

>>48733305
I do hope you don't kill them yourself, and it's always death by teammate. If yes, carry on fellow ultraviolet.

>>48728057
If your players are invested one bit in their chacters, it's a failure on your part (and/or you have shitty players)

Also, unless the PCs are gods in a setting without a multiverse, there should be plenty of people with the same amount of skill in the world. Unless you absolutely want to include a story-relevant level 1 commoner into the group, the party should seek a valuable member to remplace the loss, not a deadweight.

>>48735996
*If your players aren't, dammit.

For me, a player can make a new PC when having their current PC continue with the group no longer makes sense. Usually death, occasionally because we hit a point where they would leave the group.

The player is always required to make something different.

>>48728057
Sounds like you need to encourage your players to roleplay enough to get attached to their characters.

How often do they make the exact same character ?

>>48726406
That seems like an awful lot of pandering to a player who didn't think out his character concept enough. There shouldn't be an excuse for wanting a reroll because your character isn't 'fun' in combat. You knew what mechanics you were working with, you knew what your party composition was (I hope), the fact that it doesn't live up to your expectations is either because you didn't bother to familiarize yourself with the way a druid plays, or things don't keep you interested for very long. In both cases, but especially the latter, you're a shitty player. (Unless the GM is purposefully making your character perform subpar in combat, which hardly seems likely as he's willing to retcon shit for you)

The character not being fun to roleplay can happen occasionally, if the theme of the setting or party doesn't really match what you had in mind and you have the feeling you're not playing it the way it's meant to be played. But very often, roleplay is what you make of it yourself. The fact that you're not enjoying yourself is likely...your own fault for not getting involved with your character concept or thinking it out enough.

Rerolls are no fun for anyone, not the GM who has to adjust and adapt to make the campaign fit the new character and not the party who just had a party member they got used to swapped out for another. Seriously, spend a decent amount of time on your new character. You won't tire of an actual well-thought out character that feels and plays like a human(oid) being, and in the case that you do again, do your GM a favor and quit.

>>48736750
>not the GM who has to adjust and adapt to make the campaign fit the new character and not the party who just had a party member they got used to swapped out for another
what the fuck kind of drugs are you smoking
it's not hard to change shit for a party member getting swapped out or dying - that shit just happens sometimes anyway, whether it's planned or not, and if you honestly have that much difficulty adapting to it then you should seriously rethink how strictly and rigidly you're designing your campaign
unless, of course, you're one of those plebs who haven't DMed and constantly talk like it's such a big deal, in which case what the fuck are you doing making those assumptions?

the advice to spend more time actually making a good character is, well, good - it's probably the only decent advice you've given in that entire post, but then going 'lol just quit' is pure faggotry

>There shouldn't be an excuse for wanting a reroll because your character isn't 'fun' in combat.
the fuck is this
>you're a shitty player because you didn't minmax your character to be a combat monster
>you're a shitty player because you don't like how your character works in combat
seriously hope you're baiting senpai
even if we ignore the fact that it's entirely possible - and most plausible, in this situation - that the player is just plain new to the system and will have trouble building a good character mechanically anyway, there's still the fact that you can find yourself just not having fun with a class anyway
especially if they ARE broken or super competent - that just gets tedious, and an overpowered character is actually more annoying to the DM than somebody dying or changing character, because NOW you have work to do - you're either challenging the demigod and therefore the rest of the party is fucked, or you're not and the demigod breezes through it, and there's very few ways to easily solve that kind of situation that are satisfying for everyone

>>48737981
Okay, I'll bite.

>it's not hard to change shit for a party member getting swapped out or dying - that shit just happens sometimes anyway, whether it's planned or not, and if you honestly have that much difficulty adapting to it then you should seriously rethink how strictly and rigidly you're designing your campaign

Is a legit point of view, and certain campaign styles are indeed suited to replacing PC's without a great deal of effort. Campaigns that are engaging and immersive - which are traits that I'd consider to be hallmarks of a -good- campaign, don't allow for this. You party has built relations, party members have connections to NPC's and the world around them, have witnessed certain events and have played important roles in events while the campaign has been going on. Y' know, this is the fabric of any campaign where you feel you're part of an overarching story. Character death should certainly be possible, and when a character dies, it's a traumatic event that impacts the future of the PC's and the world around them. The PC's had connections to their deceased party members, NPCs liked that guy, enemies were hunting for revenge, et cetera. Who killed the PC and in what circumstances suddenly becomes relevant, and adds to the story.

Integrating a new party member will still an odd fit, new relations need to be forged, every previously met NPC needs to be acquainted with the new party member, enemies will need to remark on the changed party composition. The PC needs to have a reason to come butting into the plots and quests the party has going, a favor for this lord, revenge on this goblin chieftain, a fetch quest for this important sage. You need reasons why a new guy is suddenly tagging along, and in any campaign that is somewhat immersive, it either needs to be done well or breaks immersion.

Now rerolling with a retcon death is like going through that trouble, without any of the elements that add to the story and make it interesting.

>>48737981
To continue
>you're one of those plebs who haven't DMed and constantly talk like it's such a big deal

I usually hate an argumentum ad verecundiam, but I've been GMing for quite a while now, if you're particularly interested I can upload some campaign notes and character sheets. It's precisely because I've ran into this situation with new players more than I care that I'm so on my horse.

>even if we ignore the fact that it's entirely possible - and most plausible, in this situation - that the player is just plain new to the system and will have trouble building a good character mechanically anyway, there's still the fact that you can find yourself just not having fun with a class anyway

"Hey GM, want to help me out building a competent character?" or the ubiquitous "How to build a competent X in system X, Google?". Seriously, make a minimum effort to prepare. If you're unsure how a class or role plays, ask the GM. If you think you won't enjoy it, ask the GM what would fit your playstyle.

>especially if they ARE broken or super competent - that just gets tedious, and an overpowered character is actually more annoying to the DM than somebody dying or changing character, because NOW you have work to do - you're either challenging the demigod and therefore the rest of the party is fucked, or you're not and the demigod breezes through it, and there's very few ways to easily solve that kind of situation that are satisfying for everyone

It's not because /tg/ regularly parrots this that it's unambiguously true, think for yourself. A turbo minmaxed character is not needed and is not fun for anyone, I never claimed so. The character you make should be competent and contribute to the party. That's all.

File: Poor Faulkner.jpg (86KB, 831x320px)

86KB, 831x320px

>>48738488
>Argumentum ad verecundiam

Pretentious/10

>>48738679
plebeian/10

>>48725319

Well, whenever one of my players wants to, except for when it's not possible. I try to have them create a new character beforehand, and then I usually let them either play it until the next battle where they "happen" to die either due to my involvment or their own poor tactical choices, or they'll disappear in the middle of the night right in the beginning of the session.

Only times I oppose this if they're for example in a completely empty place or right before a boss battle, times when it's just not probable of a new character appearing, but that never happens. Their characters usually die before they get bored of them.

>>48729689

It means doing something insanely risky and/or stupid because the high likelihood of death isn't that big of a deal, replacements are on the way.

>>48736044


>How often do they make the exact same character ?

Not that often, to be honest. I think some of it (hard to tell how much) is "I'm bored with this character, I want to try NEW IDEA", time to get my old guy killed.

>>48725319
When its reasonable to do so. I like to keep old PC's around as NPC's. Some of the best and party favourite NPC's were once PC's. I see no sense in forcing the player to kill their character because they dont want to play it anymore. I request they play until a reasonable point, and we work together to find what that point is, and then they roleplay their character leaving, and later the induction of the new character into the party.

Depending on the campaign they may come back slightly weaker, or not at all different xp wise. Really depends on the group.

I prefer a lost level, so that the swapping of characters is kept to a minimum. However I have allowed one shot characters where they bunker their old character for a session if the character is unavailable, and try something new.

The wizard playing a fighter for example, or vice versa. This is typically done from 'base' so to speak, and with prep. ie a fighter doesnt poof into a wizard and I still expect roleplay to be done, and done well. We have standards after all.

>>48725319
why are his intestines coming out of a bite in his neck?

>>48725319
When the current character dies, retires, or is otherwise unable to continue adventuring, such as becoming a nugget or vegetable

>>48726447
>unavoidable UNLESS you died doing something suitably heroic
You were doing well imposing a reasonable penalty, but then you had to go and remove all pathos from player characters heroic sacrifices by removing all consequences for death in that instance.

What a let down.

>>48726686
>no preferential treatment
Better. That's an impartial ruling that I can respect, even if I don't agree with it myself.

>>48727649
>if the team is hiring/recruiting/kidnapping someone new to replace the person they lost it would make sense that they get someone who can be useful to the team
Useful, yes. But with a party of supposed heroes, there can no guarantee that there is anyone in the world competent enough to add to the party as an equal right off the bat, or it makes the player characters trivial and forgettable nobodies, or damages immersion.

>>48727887
>cause that's when the new tier kicks in
How absolutely spellbindingly arbitrary. I bet you're in favour of RAW in all circumstances if you fall back on rule conventions like level tiers.

>>48728057
>since they know they can make a new character roughly as powerful as the old one
And it removes all the tension and consequences from acting stupidly, heroically or getting unlucky. This guy gets it.

>>48728208
>I really, really dislike that.
Boo hoo.

>>48728485
>That's fucking intolerable. All it does is guarantee the player will be dead weight for the party for the rest of the game.
No, it doesn't - not if you play in a system that's worth shit and are actually clever about what you do instead of charging headlong into every encounter with battleaxe swinging, you entitled braindead millenial neo-tg trash.

>>48725319
you don't deny people things. if they want to play in some obviously retarded way you talk to them about it. p&p is not a fucking video game.

when they want a new character and it's acceptable you write out their old one and the new one shows up as soon as it's appropriate.

>>48739082
...Isn't that where you keep yours?

>>48725319
Only if they're willing to commit ritual suicide around the table. It's the only way to be sure.

I literally have this problem coming up in a future game; and to be honest it really does mean a lot of extra work for me.

I had plot hooks and a lot of backstory woven into this character, but because his character (a Warlock) didn't play as he thought it would, and he didn't get to decide all the backstory for his patron, he's copping out and remaking a new character to (presumably) be introduced alongside his girlfriend's.

The plot isn't even at a point where these characters can be injected cleanly; I've no idea where the party might want to go next, so a set-piece introduction will be difficult.

I'm allowing it nonetheless, because I probably can make this work, and it's no fun to keep a player locked in misery if that's where he is with the character he's made, but I do feel that's because of the way he's played his character, not anything mechanical about it, and this will be the only time I allow this from him.

>>48726447
not to argue in favor of that other guy but it's not impossible. ideally a new PC is just one of the NPCs that would be around regardless who suddenly gets heroic motivation, and most NPCs probably aren't on the party's level. there are other ways to be relevant.

ie.
>you are now the village chief. instead of you being neutral as per original plan the gobbo antagonists have now killed your women
>though you are low level, 10 of your hunters have sworn the blood oath with you and as much militia is also happy to follow you around for a week or two
so you hunt the gobbos, maybe lose some of your men, resolve the situation to some degree and by the time the militia goes home and you convince most of the hunters to get on with their lives and abdicate to become a vengeance-consumed adventurer you've killed enough things to also have a useful level.

TL;DR if a character is low level they probably should not also be a fucking hobo, because then why would they even be involved? give them another form of power that they can convert to quick leveling.

>>48725319
When they die, or leave/retire due to in-story reasons.

I use Rune Quest, so stats don't increase naturally; only skills, and my campaigns are rarely ever straight hack and slash fests.

Re rolled characters start with the base skill level you can expect from a fresh character; which if you specialize can be quite considerable; RQ combat is less about slug-fests and more about exposing your opponent's weakness and killing them outright.

I mean, even if you're a seasoned Humakti Death-Lord with Sword skill in the 90th percentile you can still be filleted in your sleep by an inexperienced Trollkin with a rusty shiv.

>>48725565
So a party of level 10 players is carrying along a level 1 guy who's gonna get one=shot by every monster?

Pretty dumb desu.

>>48739396
Here's the thing, anon.

When you set someone to level 1, you're not just penalizing them for whatever circumstances lead to their death and potentially driving them away from the game, you are breaking the game's believability.

In many systems, you can reach level 3 before the age of 12. Average army soldiers are level 4. Knights can get up to level 7 with ease. Landed nobles level 12 or more, and actual kings are often level 15.

A level 1 character is a total loser. You can't be a hero at level 1 in any sense.

That's even worse than doing what I do; Having a character's level be based on their concept.

>>48729779
In our group it's the cleric, not because he's more charismatic than the bard, he's just not evil.

>>48740082

There's a simple and classic answer, anon. Have the new characters rescue the party in a perilous situation, during which the old character dies.

>>48725565
clearly a pure shitter dm who has never been a player.

>>48740462

Not really in the kind of situation where that can happen I'm afraid.

>>48740548
Of course it can; you just haven't conceptualized how yet.

In a world with wizards or supertech or just really tough angry people; nowhere is truly safe from being turned into an abbatoir.

Kindergartens, Court Houses, locked rooms a hundred feet underground.

All these can contain something itching to pull a PC's viscera out through his asshole and wear it like a feather boa.

>>48740621

No really, considering where we're at; it's very implausible. Literally at the top of a nightmare tower only accessible through a Galeb Duhr's blessing. There's no way- at all- for outside help of a level of the party to get in there without it being obviously deus ex.

It'd just be bad. But they'll be out of it soon enough (hopefully) and we can work with what might happen then.

I always allow players to bring a new character to a new session. Characters on the "bench" get 1/4 XP. They can only have two backup characters at a time. The whole party knows backup characters, so they can jump in at any point (eg when the rogue gets captured while scouting ahead.) I've been enjoying having a roster, since it also allows me to hand a new player a character sheet without the "you seem trustworthy" thing going on

>>48726447
I let them start at the lowest level of the group. Nothing sucks more than having a new character be higher level than you.

>>48740665
The PCs have been petrified by a trap in the tower. They serve as a warning against the trap, and the PCs find a stone to flesh scroll (wand?) right after the trap.

What I'm saying is that you should have the new players already in the tower. Sure, you'll have to make a new room or two, but it'll be worth it.

>>48740791

They're infront of the last room. They know it's the last room. I appreciate the help but at this point it would be more complicated to do that than to do something else further down the line.

>>48739082
She's just a webcomic artist. You think she studied anatomy?

>>48741007
>They know it's the last room

How sure of that are they? Is one more room with a crazy trap that impossible? Did they use divining magic to see it? If not...

If someone's character dies, I make them wait 1-2 weeks, then allow them to rejoin the campaign with a new character that starts at level 1. They earn triple EXP until they catch up with the party.

>>48740385
He's the stupid sort of cunt that mass-replies. That's before going into is stupid viewpoints.

Just ignore the troll.

>>48738726
>Calling Hemingway a plebeian

There's being wrong, then there's being wrong AND gay

>>48730274
The GM specifically didn't let us co-ordinate with each other before we showed up to the first session, he wanted us to "focus less on roles and more on characterization". So we got a Bard, a Rogue, and a Monk, all of which were skill-specced with low to mediocre combat stats.

>>48731397
Toxic, as in referring to 'a toxic relationship', has been around for a while. It's common parlance these days.

>>48725319
>Character dies
>Has a retainer, consort, cohort, wingman.... that is so metal and amazing that must become a complete PC even if the player must handle now two sockpuppets at once.
>PC becomes unviable or unfunny for the player or the group

>>48725565
If someone did that to me I would just quit the game. Don't find it fun being dead weight forever.

>>48739396
It amuses me that only one person (now two) took your bait. Before you reply with anything, I didn't even read the content of your post. It's very easy to tell by your posting style.

>>48731397
>is tumblr behind this?
Not everything has to do with Tumblr. Toxic relationships has been a phrase around for a long time.

>>48730762
>character died being a jackass/metagaming/whatever
Reminds me of how my first character died

>Getting ripped apart by some mercenaries, everyone taking damage
>Turn 180 and walk away
>WALK, forget to run
>Get hit in the back with an axe as I walk away and get killed
>Entire party except two people end up being killed (not that my presence would have helped much)

File: 1446478085288.jpg (61KB, 523x512px)

61KB, 523x512px

>>48743138
Hemingway is not that great and there are plenty of better writers overall, and even amidst his contemporaries there are a few that outstrip his writing quality.

If you feel personally attacked by this assessment then allow me to rub salt in the wound and meme on you.

>le ebin drinky "this passage is boring on purpose" mindblowing man of poor capitalization :DDDDD

>>48743821
don't forget run-ons

or the irony of that utter pretentiousness being used as a gold standard for 'intelligent but not TOO intelligent' communication

>>48743724

You mean the Virt-esque multiquote?

Probably is Virt too.
Hey Virt, I hear you search 4plebs for your name. Just want you to know I laughed when I read that story about you getting cucked. Stay mad. :))))

File: A Farewell To Arms.jpg (256KB, 1434x1662px)

256KB, 1434x1662px

>>48743821

He is /tg/ though.

>>48744069
Alright, I smirked.

>>48743748
>>48743258
>tumblrites getting this defensive about le toxic maymay

congrats lads, you just blew your own cover

>>48741152
Dunno man, when the DM ends session right in front of a big pair of brass double doors or some shit you know shit's going down.

>>48728576
Don't know man...actually was in a game with a DM who had this as a rule...shit game.

>>48728313

How much players pass to death in these 20 years you have been mastering?

>>48744039
>Probably is Virt too.

It is.

The only time it isn't acceptable is if a player is abusing the privilege. If you give up on characters so often it starts being disruptive, then maybe it's time to have a talk with them. But otherwise, just let 'em do it.

File: image.jpg (98KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 960x640px

>>48741124
Funnily enough she studied rocket science. Works at NASA now.

I switch characters so often it's crazy. One session i'll show up with a fighter and the next session i'll want to play a monk and so on

File: image.jpg (132KB, 493x750px)

132KB, 493x750px

>>48749868
Personally I believe this to be a masterful and subtle use of bait to facilitate guarantied replies

Then again it's 1:14 am here I am surfing an anonymous Taiwanese Shopping Forum so that just goes to show how much I know.