3
\$\begingroup\$

I found myself in a predicament. One of my players told me that he wants to change his PC to play a different one mid-campaign. I would generally just say yes if there's a good reason, but that's the problem; I'm guessing that he wants to do this just because he rolled bad stats.

I wouldn't want any player stuck with a PC that he doesn't want to play but on the other hand, I see that he hasn't even given a chance to his PC. Now he's continuously asking about this change, and repeatedly "joking" about killing his own character (attacking the guard, for example) to make this change regardless.

I probably will allow this change for the sake of keeping a good experience for every player; however, I just don't feel this change is right, as doing this breaks the immersion and also forces the story just to fit another character.

Is there a better approach to this situation?

\$\endgroup\$

closed as primarily opinion-based by SevenSidedDie Mar 9 at 17:40

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Related: A player rolled very bad stats, how to make sure they still enjoy the game? \$\endgroup\$ – BobTheAverage Mar 9 at 17:37
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ You're saying "mid-campaign" but also "hasn't given the charaacter a chance" - how many sessions has this campaign been going on? \$\endgroup\$ – Erik Mar 9 at 17:38
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Sorry, you wrap up by phrasing your question as any tips, and what each reader would individually do, after saying what you’ve decided to do. That’s a survey question, or a prompt for discussion, which are both off topic. We can help if you have a question that can have a best or right answer (instead of every answer being equally valid simply because it is correct that it’s what the reader would do). Do you have a problem that needs solving, other than what you’ve decided you’re already going to do? Is the problem just that you’re dissatisfied with the compromise you’ve chosen? \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 9 at 17:44
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Survey questions like this aren't suited for the question-and-answer StackExchange format. However you're welcome to discuss your concerns in the chat room. \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ Mar 9 at 17:50
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I still wouldn’t cast an unhold vote on the current version. It’s still asking for what people think is good to do, without giving a clear problem to solve / goal to satisfy. That will result in readers projecting their own opinions of what the goal should be, then answering that with their opinion of what you should do. To fix that (if you want to), you can start from the top: what is the situation (check) and what do you want it to be instead (currently missing)? For example, is “How can I integrate a PC into the story mid-campaign without hurting immersion?” what you want? \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 9 at 18:54
3
\$\begingroup\$

Let him change

Attachment to a character is like love, you can't force it

When characters are kept

During my 26 years with DnD, I have seen many many marred characters still kept by the player:

  • Wisdom reduced by 6, failed most Will saves
  • Left hand (and consequently shield) lost
  • All items lost (major setback in high level 4e games)
  • Spellcasting ability lost (crippling on a 17th level Wizard)

These characters were kept for several months1 before they were replaced or they recovered. However, all had two things in common:

  1. There was hope the character would recover (not all did even after several levels)
  2. The player was already attached to the character

In this case you have neither, the character was (perceived) crippled2 from the start, before attachment could be formed, and there is no hope it will just find some of the missing ability points.

Not kept

I have also seen many cases where the player disliked the character from the beginning.3 There were only 3 outcomes:

  • The DM let the player replace the character (most cases)
  • The character died (sometimes with some help from the player), and was replaced (few cases)
  • The player left the game (not letting him change turned him against the DM, one case)

I have never seen a player learning to like a character later on.

If he doesn't like it now, it is unlikely he will change his mind

Don't make him dislike you too, just let him change his character.


1) or sessions, or levels, however you want to count game time
2) How strong it actually is does not matter much, if the player thinks it suboptimal, confirmation bias will not let him see otherwise
3) Most of them were because of low abilities. This is the main reason I prefer point-buy

\$\endgroup\$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.