So I'm being a bit of an intentional contrarian to the rest of the respondents, but if you and the player are putting the failure of this character feeling interesting to the player at the rest of the parties' inability to draw out the backstory, I think there may be some things to discuss before you just hit the reset button and hope the player is happier this time.
More discussion is fine, but I've never been able to convince someone who's not having fun that they actually were having fun all along and the reason they think they're not having fun isn't the real reason they're not having fun. It sounds condescending. Sometimes you're just done with a character. Every time I've seen DM resistance to this, the player just turns into Leeroy McSuicide because their hand has been forced to do it the hard way.
The player's expectations weren't met by the game. Aside from trying a new character, what is being done between the expectations the player holds and the way the game is played to go better ... not the next time because they're still playing in "this time." You may want to color my take on asking for a harder examination of the request condescending, but isn't honoring a player whose request blames their disappointment on the rest of the party not playing out the character's back story a little pandering (that's the things about pejoratives, there's often an antonymic response)?
Again, if the DM honors this request, there's now precedent for the mists to presto change-o everyone who "after 8 months of play ain't feeling it" (and evidently ain't working with the DM on it in this initial instance, which is a narrative need in the game's moment, despite the player in question apparently having put the work into their unworkable backstory). Player burnout in a hardcover adventure happens, and reboots happen, but rebooting just one player does literally privilege one player over the rest of the group unless some commensurate opportunity is made to the rest of the party. You know, fair play?
So I'm being a bit of an intentional contrarian to the rest of the respondents, but if you and the player are putting the failure of this character feeling interesting to the player at the rest of the parties' inability to draw out the backstory, I think there may be some things to discuss before you just hit the reset button and hope the player is happier this time.
More discussion is fine, but I've never been able to convince someone who's not having fun that they actually were having fun all along and the reason they think they're not having fun isn't the real reason they're not having fun. It sounds condescending. Sometimes you're just done with a character. Every time I've seen DM resistance to this, the player just turns into Leeroy McSuicide because their hand has been forced to do it the hard way.
The player's expectations weren't met by the game. Aside from trying a new character, what is being done between the expectations the player holds and the way the game is played to go better ... not the next time because they're still playing in "this time." You may want to color my take on asking for a harder examination of the request condescending, but isn't honoring a player whose request blames their disappointment on the rest of the party not playing out the character's back story a little pandering (that's the things about pejoratives, there's often an antonymic response)?
Again, if the DM honors this request, there's now precedent for the mists to presto change-o everyone who "after 8 months of play ain't feeling it" (and evidently ain't working with the DM on it in this initial instance, which is a narrative need in the game's moment, despite the player in question apparently having put the work into their unworkable backstory). Player burnout in a hardcover adventure happens, and reboots happen, but rebooting just one player does literally privilege one player over the rest of the group unless some commensurate opportunity is made to the rest of the party. You know, fair play?
When one of my characters was feeling boring to play, my dm worked with me, and now that character is really fun and interesting. Alternative solutions are probably something to explore, including multiclassing, tweaking the players roleplaying characteristics, and subclass/spell change. Is there a way they can incorporate concepts from the other character to their current character?
I‘ve decided to switch out the character. However, I’m going to let the group decide how we will do this. Also, this becoming a precedent was the biggest concern for me. I was going to open the door for “one-time-only” to reboot any character that wants to. We’ll have a chat about whether this is something we want to allow moving forward.
Whatever decision is made, the group will make it and because of that, it will be the right decision for us.
You guys put this all in proper perspective for me…
Cheers!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The player's expectations weren't met by the game. Aside from trying a new character, what is being done between the expectations the player holds and the way the game is played to go better ... not the next time because they're still playing in "this time." You may want to color my take on asking for a harder examination of the request condescending, but isn't honoring a player whose request blames their disappointment on the rest of the party not playing out the character's back story a little pandering (that's the things about pejoratives, there's often an antonymic response)?
Again, if the DM honors this request, there's now precedent for the mists to presto change-o everyone who "after 8 months of play ain't feeling it" (and evidently ain't working with the DM on it in this initial instance, which is a narrative need in the game's moment, despite the player in question apparently having put the work into their unworkable backstory). Player burnout in a hardcover adventure happens, and reboots happen, but rebooting just one player does literally privilege one player over the rest of the group unless some commensurate opportunity is made to the rest of the party. You know, fair play?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
When one of my characters was feeling boring to play, my dm worked with me, and now that character is really fun and interesting. Alternative solutions are probably something to explore, including multiclassing, tweaking the players roleplaying characteristics, and subclass/spell change. Is there a way they can incorporate concepts from the other character to their current character?
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Thanks so much for all your input.
I‘ve decided to switch out the character. However, I’m going to let the group decide how we will do this. Also, this becoming a precedent was the biggest concern for me. I was going to open the door for “one-time-only” to reboot any character that wants to. We’ll have a chat about whether this is something we want to allow moving forward.
Whatever decision is made, the group will make it and because of that, it will be the right decision for us.
You guys put this all in proper perspective for me…
Cheers!