I am a very harsh DM, and I really want to punish players for loosing their characters, mainly because i don't want players stop caring about their characters. I want them to take put effort in keeping them alive and I want to avoid them the thought of "well, this character is week, if I can start with a new one with the same level he will be much more awesome".
Still, the DM's guide tells you explicitly to introduce the new character with the same level as the lowest character of the party (wich will be the same than the rest of the party in 90% of the cases).
So, I don't know well what to do. How would you guys handle introducing a new character in the party because the player's last character died. How would you make sure than loosing a character is a bad thing from a metagame point of view and not only from an emotional (in some cases) point of view, without ending party balance.
This might not be a major set back level 1-3, but how on Earth has it worked in your games at higher levels? I want my players to love their characters but I don’t want death to ruin the game for them (or the rest of the party, who would have to really go out of their way to defend a level 1 character). I would imagine any new character would also be very quick to die again and again as levels get more disparate.
A character dying is punishment in itself, no further punishment is needed and I think new characters should be of an equal level.
Always start them at the same level as the party. Otherwise they stand in the back, useless and hoping they don't get one-shot by an AoE (cause then they're making yet another level 1 character). And if you are trying to make people care about their characters, forcing them to be lower level than everyone else surely won't do it.
And I really don't understand your motivation. If a player stops caring about their character, that's their business. Sometimes people get bored of a concept, or it doesn't work out like they thought. It's not up to you to tell someone else what they like or don't like anymore, or if they should care about something. Now if someone just decides they don't want to play a character anymore, and they randomly show up with a new one every week, that's a different issue because it can really screw with you plot and preparation for the session. But punishing someone because their character dies really falls into an insult to injury situation.
My experience is that you will lose players if they are stuck playing a useless character, and at higher levels you have the problem that the low level character is likely to be accidentally killed as collateral damage from an area effect; you can't start a character at level 1 when the party might get hit with a fireball because that character just instantly dies. That said, it's fair to leave a character relatively weaker for a few sessions.
The problem is that I have players that are like "o my randomly generated statistics are really bad, I hope my character dies soon to get to play a powerfull character".
And i don't want to have that logic in my tables but I don't know how to counter it.
The problem is that I have players that are like "o my randomly generated statistics are really bad, I hope my character dies soon to get to play a powerfull character".
And i don't want to have that logic in my tables but I don't know how to counter it.
Any ideas to counter that?
Sure. Don't use randomly generated statistics. New characters get point build or standard array.
Might go with the less harsh loose one level like back in the 3.5 days, still has cost to a powergamer but doesn't force the kind of work on your end of balancing for 3 level 7 chars and one lvl 1. If it's issues with random generated stats it may be worth exploring pointbuy for your games so they can't fish for higher stats.
Let them re-roll if they have bad numbers. Why make them stick with something crappy-to-mediocre? It’s just a game, and a game no one really wins, so why Not let them try again and again?
The problem is that I have players that are like "o my randomly generated statistics are really bad, I hope my character dies soon to get to play a powerfull character".
And i don't want to have that logic in my tables but I don't know how to counter it.
Any ideas to counter that?
This makes no sense.
1. Use Unearthed Arcana 2nd Edition for an idea on how to get players stats they want if they are finicky... (basics is throwaway stat is 4d6 drop low, primary stat is 9d6 drop low 6, one step between each.)
2. Roll two sets of 4d6, pick one set.
3. Roll 4d6, use standard array as a baseline, starting with highest roll, pick between the roll and the highest available number in the array. Cross out numbers not used.
4. Point buy system, if 27 points with a 15 max doesn't float the boat, increase to a 16 max (+3 points) and up to 30-33 points
5. Let them roll characters until they get what they want. Or just give them all 20's and no ASI/Feat options until level 12. (Fighters exception, take away their first two)
Eventually your players will find the "joy" in running suboptimal characters. Or you up the encounters to match up with your very heroic characters. One of the best campaigns I was ever involved in was everyone started with three 10's and three 11's at 1st level...
I think the heart of this issue is that your not wanting characters to suicide out just to reroll. If your games are all about combat and attributes are the major focus you will always get players wanting to reroll a new character, not saying your games are I have obviously never played with you. My suggestion is to make things personal for the character, give them npcs to befriend, contacts, love interests, a family dynamic. Make them feel no matter the stats their characters are a part of the world.
As others have said... if randomly rolling stats is giving them weak characters then stop having them randomly roll stats. I use a "generous" standard array rather than the regular one (17-15-13-12-10-8, as suggested by the Dungeon Dudes on YouTube). The thing about using a standard array is, they can toss out the current character all they want -- they ain't getting any better stats by re-doing it.
Also, are your players rather new? With new players I tell them, if they don't like how they allocated their stats at first, until 3rd level, they can change them around. Sometimes you have to see it in action to know you want that higher WIS rather than INT or what have you. And since my new player is doing that, I extended the same offer to even vet players (who shouldn't really need it). The point is, there's no need to play a character whose stats are making you miserable.
The real question I have is, why aren't any of them becoming attached to their characters? Most players in my experience fall in love with their characters and like to keep playing them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I let players change anything they want to for their character until they hit 4th level, after that they’re locked in. If they replace their character for any reason, they start at the lowest level in the party, at the minimum XP. If there are 2 characters who just hit 5th level (say 6,600 XP),and two about to hit 5th (say 6,400 XP) , the player who makes the new character starts at the lowest possible XP to be 4th level (2,700 XP).
Well, I like random points and so do most of my player so I will discard that option.
I will also don't let any players to re-roll their random hit points, my players would have to force me at gun point to re-roll their character statistics.
Still, I heard your feedback, every new character will have the same level as the lowest level of the party (wich will be likely less xp than the party).
And BioWizard, most of my players love their characters, but there are some that don't, still, even between those who love them, many tend to think "my next character is going to be awesome", instead of focusing on the current.
Did that in the 3.x days as well. thing is what is being used as leveling system. if it is xp based not much of an issue. the lvl 1 scrub can lean back and be careful. after several encounters they'll be within level range that they can contribute meaningful again. if you use something milestone based... then this is a shit houserule.
Well, I like random points and so do most of my player so I will discard that option.
I will also don't let any players to re-roll their random hit points, my players would have to force me at gun point to re-roll their character statistics.
Well, that is your preference but then you are asking for the behavior you say you want to stop. If you are going to say they have to keep whatever they roll up to start with, no changing, no making a different character, no re-trying till you get nice rolls, then stats-focused players will want to keep dying until by luck they roll up a bunch of 18s and 16s on their dice.
There's nothing particularly wrong with any of that except YOU said you wanted to change it. What you're enforcing is not going to help change it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Well, I like random points and so do most of my player so I will discard that option.
They are the reason you have this problem. Demonstrated behavior from the players is "They like the option, as long as they roll well", which is like saying "I like gambling as long as I win". If you only like winning, you don't actually like randomness.
There are methods of doing randomness that don't amount to "a chance to create a superpowered character", but they don't resemble any of the systems in the player's handbook.
The problem is that I have players that are like "o my randomly generated statistics are really bad, I hope my character dies soon to get to play a powerfull character".
And i don't want to have that logic in my tables but I don't know how to counter it.
Any ideas to counter that?
Sure.
Option1: Point-buy stats
Option 2: Standard Array (which is really just a common set of numbers you can get through point-buy)
Option 3a: Roll up stats, 4d6 drop lowest, BUT if your total is below 70, reroll the whole set (the Matt Mercer)
Option 3b: Roll up stats, 4d6 drop lowest, BUT if you don't have two scores of 15+, reroll the whole set (the Matt Colville)
Option 4: Roll up stats, if they look janky say "this character stays home, becomes a farmer, and never goes adventuring" and try again until you get a non-janky set of stats
Option 5: Just let them pick whatever the heck stats they want.
But again, the way they're playing, in that "my stats are bad, I hope they die fast so I can roll a new one" is a playstyle *caused by* the way you force them to make characters. If you aren't open to considering other methods, you're not going to fix your problem.
If your players think their characters are not fun to play, why do you want to force them to play characters they don’t think are fun? It seems to me that the easiest way to make sure your players are focused on “this character” instead of “next character” is to do everything in your power as DM to make sure that “this character” is fun. If that means changing characters, why not?
I'm an old-school DM, so I'm with you on starting characters at 1st level. As long as you're awarding XP, after a session or two of being careful, the PC will level up quickly. Death becomes much less likely once you get to higher levels, so it's unlikely you're going to have to deal with introducing a 1st level player with a high level party. If it did happen, perhaps have them start at the lowest XP for the tier instead.
As for players not liking their character rolls, if they are the type of player who complains about running low stat characters, then offer them the option to use the standard array. But honestly, I much prefer players who view low stats as a challenge, not a a source of suck.
I'm a political scientist and game designer. I find it absolutely fascinating to see how rules affect outcomes like behavior, voting patterns, crime rates, or the amount of fun being had among friends. I agree with what many people have already said, that to get a certain outcome you need to change the rules they're functioning under.
Partially.
I don't completely agree with what they've said. Rules affect human behavior certainly (I would know!) but so do other things. Story can be a huge driver of behavior. Here's an interesting video from Game Maker's Toolkit about how different video games address morality in games, and how some encourage good morals via mechanics (e.g. Bioshock gives you better rewards if you do the 'right' thing) and others reward you via story (e.g. Undertale gives you a much more interesting storyline if you do the 'right' thing, plus also some extra gameplay). He explains pretty well how mechanics certainly affect behavior and how a player will feel about a game, video or otherwise, but how many other things also factor into experience.
If someone feels trapped in a situation they don't like, they tend to try to break free. That's just how people (usually) work. If your players are feeling trapped in a character, that might be because of bad stats. If I were in your shoes, I would let them fudge their stats within reason. Personally, I usually have my players choose between whatever they rolled with the 4d6 drop one method, and an array of my own design (7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16). They seem to like this method - my array isn't stellar, but it gets you a good variety of abilities and most find it satisfying. However, you've made it clear you don't want to do something like that, so we'd need to find another method of helping people not feel trapped by bad stats. Consider making the challenges your characters face not be dependent on stats, but more on roleplaying. Or perhaps when a character has bad stats, consider secretly lowering the DC you require them to make to succeed on a roll. Make it so a character may be better off when they have better stats, but make it so you don't have to have good stats to feel like you're succeeding in the game as much as the other players.
It can be mentally and emotionally harrowing for people to be disciplined or punished for something that is completely out of their control - some professionals refer to this as gaslighting (there's more to gaslighting than this, but this is one version of it). I strongly discourage you from 'punishing' your players for getting bad stat rolls by simply saying "Well, I guess your character is just going to have a harder time than the others." That is an unkind thing for a friend to do.
One last thought: there's a lot of ways to play a game. Action-adventure games tend to be about having the joy of having giant guns with unlimited ammunition, cutting through waves of enemies. Survival-horror games tend to be about cleverly rationing resources and making the best out of a dreadful situation. It sounds like you prefer the second style. I just want to make it clear that this is an entirely valid way of playing. If it makes your players' skin crawl to think of adapting their play style to the style you would like to run, it might just be that this isn't the group for them. Hopefully you can still be friends even if you don't play DND together.
I tried to run a campaign for a group of good friends of mine. We quickly realized that my style (roleplaying, intrigue, serious, and problem-solving focused) did not match well with their style (silly and combat-focused). We figured out how to make it work, but I started feeling like I was babysitting and trying to pander to a group, like I was serving customers and not playing a game with friends. We are still friends, still hang out, and still talk about DND. We just don't play together. Worst case scenario, I hope you and your group can find a solution like this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi fellow DMs.
I am a very harsh DM, and I really want to punish players for loosing their characters, mainly because i don't want players stop caring about their characters. I want them to take put effort in keeping them alive and I want to avoid them the thought of "well, this character is week, if I can start with a new one with the same level he will be much more awesome".
Still, the DM's guide tells you explicitly to introduce the new character with the same level as the lowest character of the party (wich will be the same than the rest of the party in 90% of the cases).
So, I don't know well what to do. How would you guys handle introducing a new character in the party because the player's last character died. How would you make sure than loosing a character is a bad thing from a metagame point of view and not only from an emotional (in some cases) point of view, without ending party balance.
This might not be a major set back level 1-3, but how on Earth has it worked in your games at higher levels? I want my players to love their characters but I don’t want death to ruin the game for them (or the rest of the party, who would have to really go out of their way to defend a level 1 character).
I would imagine any new character would also be very quick to die again and again as levels get more disparate.
A character dying is punishment in itself, no further punishment is needed and I think new characters should be of an equal level.
Always start them at the same level as the party. Otherwise they stand in the back, useless and hoping they don't get one-shot by an AoE (cause then they're making yet another level 1 character). And if you are trying to make people care about their characters, forcing them to be lower level than everyone else surely won't do it.
And I really don't understand your motivation. If a player stops caring about their character, that's their business. Sometimes people get bored of a concept, or it doesn't work out like they thought. It's not up to you to tell someone else what they like or don't like anymore, or if they should care about something. Now if someone just decides they don't want to play a character anymore, and they randomly show up with a new one every week, that's a different issue because it can really screw with you plot and preparation for the session. But punishing someone because their character dies really falls into an insult to injury situation.
My experience is that you will lose players if they are stuck playing a useless character, and at higher levels you have the problem that the low level character is likely to be accidentally killed as collateral damage from an area effect; you can't start a character at level 1 when the party might get hit with a fireball because that character just instantly dies. That said, it's fair to leave a character relatively weaker for a few sessions.
I mean, maybe i missexplained myself.
The problem is that I have players that are like "o my randomly generated statistics are really bad, I hope my character dies soon to get to play a powerfull character".
And i don't want to have that logic in my tables but I don't know how to counter it.
Any ideas to counter that?
Sure. Don't use randomly generated statistics. New characters get point build or standard array.
Might go with the less harsh loose one level like back in the 3.5 days, still has cost to a powergamer but doesn't force the kind of work on your end of balancing for 3 level 7 chars and one lvl 1. If it's issues with random generated stats it may be worth exploring pointbuy for your games so they can't fish for higher stats.
Let them re-roll if they have bad numbers. Why make them stick with something crappy-to-mediocre? It’s just a game, and a game no one really wins, so why Not let them try again and again?
This makes no sense.
1. Use Unearthed Arcana 2nd Edition for an idea on how to get players stats they want if they are finicky... (basics is throwaway stat is 4d6 drop low, primary stat is 9d6 drop low 6, one step between each.)
2. Roll two sets of 4d6, pick one set.
3. Roll 4d6, use standard array as a baseline, starting with highest roll, pick between the roll and the highest available number in the array. Cross out numbers not used.
4. Point buy system, if 27 points with a 15 max doesn't float the boat, increase to a 16 max (+3 points) and up to 30-33 points
5. Let them roll characters until they get what they want. Or just give them all 20's and no ASI/Feat options until level 12. (Fighters exception, take away their first two)
Eventually your players will find the "joy" in running suboptimal characters. Or you up the encounters to match up with your very heroic characters. One of the best campaigns I was ever involved in was everyone started with three 10's and three 11's at 1st level...
I think the heart of this issue is that your not wanting characters to suicide out just to reroll. If your games are all about combat and attributes are the major focus you will always get players wanting to reroll a new character, not saying your games are I have obviously never played with you. My suggestion is to make things personal for the character, give them npcs to befriend, contacts, love interests, a family dynamic. Make them feel no matter the stats their characters are a part of the world.
As others have said... if randomly rolling stats is giving them weak characters then stop having them randomly roll stats. I use a "generous" standard array rather than the regular one (17-15-13-12-10-8, as suggested by the Dungeon Dudes on YouTube). The thing about using a standard array is, they can toss out the current character all they want -- they ain't getting any better stats by re-doing it.
Also, are your players rather new? With new players I tell them, if they don't like how they allocated their stats at first, until 3rd level, they can change them around. Sometimes you have to see it in action to know you want that higher WIS rather than INT or what have you. And since my new player is doing that, I extended the same offer to even vet players (who shouldn't really need it). The point is, there's no need to play a character whose stats are making you miserable.
The real question I have is, why aren't any of them becoming attached to their characters? Most players in my experience fall in love with their characters and like to keep playing them.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I let players change anything they want to for their character until they hit 4th level, after that they’re locked in. If they replace their character for any reason, they start at the lowest level in the party, at the minimum XP. If there are 2 characters who just hit 5th level (say 6,600 XP),and two about to hit 5th (say 6,400 XP) , the player who makes the new character starts at the lowest possible XP to be 4th level (2,700 XP).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, I like random points and so do most of my player so I will discard that option.
I will also don't let any players to re-roll their random hit points, my players would have to force me at gun point to re-roll their character statistics.
Still, I heard your feedback, every new character will have the same level as the lowest level of the party (wich will be likely less xp than the party).
And BioWizard, most of my players love their characters, but there are some that don't, still, even between those who love them, many tend to think "my next character is going to be awesome", instead of focusing on the current.
Did that in the 3.x days as well. thing is what is being used as leveling system. if it is xp based not much of an issue. the lvl 1 scrub can lean back and be careful. after several encounters they'll be within level range that they can contribute meaningful again. if you use something milestone based... then this is a shit houserule.
Well, that is your preference but then you are asking for the behavior you say you want to stop. If you are going to say they have to keep whatever they roll up to start with, no changing, no making a different character, no re-trying till you get nice rolls, then stats-focused players will want to keep dying until by luck they roll up a bunch of 18s and 16s on their dice.
There's nothing particularly wrong with any of that except YOU said you wanted to change it. What you're enforcing is not going to help change it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
They are the reason you have this problem. Demonstrated behavior from the players is "They like the option, as long as they roll well", which is like saying "I like gambling as long as I win". If you only like winning, you don't actually like randomness.
There are methods of doing randomness that don't amount to "a chance to create a superpowered character", but they don't resemble any of the systems in the player's handbook.
Sure.
Option1: Point-buy stats
Option 2: Standard Array (which is really just a common set of numbers you can get through point-buy)
Option 3a: Roll up stats, 4d6 drop lowest, BUT if your total is below 70, reroll the whole set (the Matt Mercer)
Option 3b: Roll up stats, 4d6 drop lowest, BUT if you don't have two scores of 15+, reroll the whole set (the Matt Colville)
Option 4: Roll up stats, if they look janky say "this character stays home, becomes a farmer, and never goes adventuring" and try again until you get a non-janky set of stats
Option 5: Just let them pick whatever the heck stats they want.
But again, the way they're playing, in that "my stats are bad, I hope they die fast so I can roll a new one" is a playstyle *caused by* the way you force them to make characters. If you aren't open to considering other methods, you're not going to fix your problem.
If your players think their characters are not fun to play, why do you want to force them to play characters they don’t think are fun? It seems to me that the easiest way to make sure your players are focused on “this character” instead of “next character” is to do everything in your power as DM to make sure that “this character” is fun. If that means changing characters, why not?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm an old-school DM, so I'm with you on starting characters at 1st level. As long as you're awarding XP, after a session or two of being careful, the PC will level up quickly. Death becomes much less likely once you get to higher levels, so it's unlikely you're going to have to deal with introducing a 1st level player with a high level party. If it did happen, perhaps have them start at the lowest XP for the tier instead.
As for players not liking their character rolls, if they are the type of player who complains about running low stat characters, then offer them the option to use the standard array. But honestly, I much prefer players who view low stats as a challenge, not a a source of suck.
I'm a political scientist and game designer. I find it absolutely fascinating to see how rules affect outcomes like behavior, voting patterns, crime rates, or the amount of fun being had among friends. I agree with what many people have already said, that to get a certain outcome you need to change the rules they're functioning under.
Partially.
I don't completely agree with what they've said. Rules affect human behavior certainly (I would know!) but so do other things. Story can be a huge driver of behavior. Here's an interesting video from Game Maker's Toolkit about how different video games address morality in games, and how some encourage good morals via mechanics (e.g. Bioshock gives you better rewards if you do the 'right' thing) and others reward you via story (e.g. Undertale gives you a much more interesting storyline if you do the 'right' thing, plus also some extra gameplay). He explains pretty well how mechanics certainly affect behavior and how a player will feel about a game, video or otherwise, but how many other things also factor into experience.
If someone feels trapped in a situation they don't like, they tend to try to break free. That's just how people (usually) work. If your players are feeling trapped in a character, that might be because of bad stats. If I were in your shoes, I would let them fudge their stats within reason. Personally, I usually have my players choose between whatever they rolled with the 4d6 drop one method, and an array of my own design (7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16). They seem to like this method - my array isn't stellar, but it gets you a good variety of abilities and most find it satisfying. However, you've made it clear you don't want to do something like that, so we'd need to find another method of helping people not feel trapped by bad stats. Consider making the challenges your characters face not be dependent on stats, but more on roleplaying. Or perhaps when a character has bad stats, consider secretly lowering the DC you require them to make to succeed on a roll. Make it so a character may be better off when they have better stats, but make it so you don't have to have good stats to feel like you're succeeding in the game as much as the other players.
It can be mentally and emotionally harrowing for people to be disciplined or punished for something that is completely out of their control - some professionals refer to this as gaslighting (there's more to gaslighting than this, but this is one version of it). I strongly discourage you from 'punishing' your players for getting bad stat rolls by simply saying "Well, I guess your character is just going to have a harder time than the others." That is an unkind thing for a friend to do.
One last thought: there's a lot of ways to play a game. Action-adventure games tend to be about having the joy of having giant guns with unlimited ammunition, cutting through waves of enemies. Survival-horror games tend to be about cleverly rationing resources and making the best out of a dreadful situation. It sounds like you prefer the second style. I just want to make it clear that this is an entirely valid way of playing. If it makes your players' skin crawl to think of adapting their play style to the style you would like to run, it might just be that this isn't the group for them. Hopefully you can still be friends even if you don't play DND together.
I tried to run a campaign for a group of good friends of mine. We quickly realized that my style (roleplaying, intrigue, serious, and problem-solving focused) did not match well with their style (silly and combat-focused). We figured out how to make it work, but I started feeling like I was babysitting and trying to pander to a group, like I was serving customers and not playing a game with friends. We are still friends, still hang out, and still talk about DND. We just don't play together. Worst case scenario, I hope you and your group can find a solution like this.