PlanetADnD.com

I got an email late last night from one of my players mentioning that

After last session, I was thinking that it might be a good place to end the current cast of characters (leaving them all on the island) and a chance to start fresh with everyone making brand new characters on the main land. We've had quite the change in players over the past year and a fresh start would allow everyone to make a cohesive group of characters, take a vote on what campaign rules we wanted to use, and a chance to choose what direction the characters want to go without being stuck with choices that were made by people who are no longer part of the group.

To which another, one of the newer gang, replied

I'm OK with whatever the group decides. Your reasoning makes sense to me however. I do think David should have a large say in this. I also think people should have the option of keeping their current character even if we have to modify existing characters to get everyone to the same "starting point." For example, Valen just made level 4. I wouldn't have a problem giving up his found gear and going back to Level 3 if that's what everyone decides. Hope that makes sense. It also makes sense to me to design a group with more even levels. For example, it seems a little odd to me for a 6th level fighter going out with a level 1-2 guy. There's a pretty big disparity in fighting ability and ability to "take a punch."

Followed by a third

thomas morrison

8:55 AM (7 hours ago)

to Bill, me, Patrick, Jason, Graham
I would like to re-roll and create new. I would like a more cohesive type group that makes some rational sense. Why are we together? back stories and more character development for the role playing aspect. Part of that is a better understanding of the rules and choices available. Which books are in use, which ones are not...etc...

Rules to know - You note in the Realms of Kervasis document that Bard Kits are available but you've also said the book is not in use. Can a Bard be multi-class? -rules don't allow it but the Book of Bards does...

Also in the Realms document is that some things from Combat and Tactics is in use but you've said some things are not.

Chromatic Orb spell - you stated not available as a spell - not an issue - just pointing out that is something to know.

Mages- Can they take Signature Spells as a proficiency? - From Spells and Magic book..

It would be good to know that a fighter cannot take both weapon specialization and style specialization at 1st level...

these are all good things to know. To me the rules you have in place are fine.. There is no complaint on my end on what they are - I just do not know what all of them are.

There is so much that we could potentially choose to have as character skill/development but you do not allow (and rightfully so) but we do not know what you allow or not....

I think if we do re-roll characters - we take a session to create new ones together as a group. I mean - if Graham is set on playing a Dwarven Battlerager, I'm not likely to want to play Paladin of Laranni or an Elven Undead Slayer...
I know that I can play pretty much anything and enjoy the character but I need to know what my choices are and have the time to create it with some forethought or how I want to develop my character. I know that I retired "Lukian" (Elf F/M) because I was not happy with my character skills and choices. I feel that I made them hastily without full knowledge of what my choices were or could have been.

I am for anything the group wants to do. But feel that because of the new player dynamics - it would be a great time to recreate our party of characters.

Now, i am kind of torn here. I like the dynamic the group actually has, even with all the non-cohesion they have. Plus, its taken quite a lot of time/effort and the like on my part, making the character sheets, missions, RE charts and the like. To reset it all back to 0, seems a lot of work.
BUT i do understand their concerns, with 'everyone being all over the place, and playing characters, when they didn't understand as much..

So would YOU do a hard reset? If so, what would you do with the existing characters?

If it were me, I'd allow a hard reset. Let the current characters move somewhere, semi-retired, who can be called on as NPCs or fill-in PCs in the future. If I understand it, some of the people "inherited" characters that were previously played by other players? I can see wanting to make a character totally your own. I get that the dynamic is good, but it sounds like the players prefer a more personalized, cohesive group of characters that belong to them originally. It can only make the game better giving them what they want in a case like this.

G,
This is a pretty big decision but it sounds like most of the players are on board with it. I believe my first consideration would be to ask yourself if the current group appears to be a reliable fit going forward. If you are convinced that everyone will be together for a while, I suppose you could leave it up to all the players to decide, as a group. Maybe by secret ballot. It sounds like at least the first & third guys would like to try something different. Has any of them indicated they might like to try their hand at DMing and maybe giving you a break? In that case pretty much everyone gets what they want. You get a break but keep your current campaign on track in the future. The others get a chance to roll up new PCs and get a fresh start in a new campaign. Sometimes, playing the same PC for long periods of time can be tiresome,especially if the player isn't especially fond of their PC. Everyone likes a change of pace at times.
If, OTOH, your group looks kind of fragile, cohesive-wise, you should explain your thinking to all and see if they can be mature enough to press forward with the campaign as-is.
BITD, this was how everyone kept things fresh in my groups; shared DM responsibilities and a rotating cast of viable PCs. It worked well enough for us but I'll be honest when I say that it made keeping campaigns straight in everyone's minds difficult at at times.

Good luck with your decision. Let us know how things work out.

Another question to consider--do you believe that a hard reset would actually help any? I assume you're talking about the game you have a campaign journal for. I've glanced through it, and it looks like you have players coming and going rather constantly, with some showing up sometimes but not others, and others who show up once or twice and then vanish. So your game has had a lot of turnover, and I can see the appeal of starting fresh. But that assumes the turnover has stopped or at least slowed down considerably. Otherwise, won't the same thing just happen again?

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:If it were me, I'd allow a hard reset. Let the current characters move somewhere, semi-retired, who can be called on as NPCs or fill-in PCs in the future. If I understand it, some of the people "inherited" characters that were previously played by other players? I can see wanting to make a character totally your own. I get that the dynamic is good, but it sounds like the players prefer a more personalized, cohesive group of characters that belong to them originally. It can only make the game better giving them what they want in a case like this.

Well, of the players we have
Thomas playing his 2 generated PCs, Acerus, and Lukian. He's yet to make up a New back up PC.
Patrick has his two, that he made (Aethlred and Tostig)
Graham has his 2 he made (Celedain and Marbor)
Bill has his two, Velen and Adrik.
Really, only Sha'shu is 'unassigned' and taken by whom ever. Falondiel, was an ASSIGNED DMNPC from the prior week, where only Bill and Graham showed up. SO i can't really see how people are having issues with "being lumpped' with a character.. When as shown, only 2 are NOT the ones they made (one is a DMNPC for now, the other is a floater for whom shows up and needs someone). So if i retied OUT sha'shu fully, and turned Falondiel into inactive, that would mean all active PCs are made by the players currently in the group (Minus Beronaa in the B-team of characters)..

On the more cohesive side of house, i understand that it may make them feel better, however, that's on THem for making poor choices. Plus since i put so much effort INTO keeping all the sheets printed out and up to date, using a lot of tracker docs, as well as giving each player his own folder for said character(s), along with spell cards for mages 'spell books', it would create a LOT more work for me, to do a hard reset. AND a lot of wasted paper to boot.

Billy_Buttcheese wrote:G,
This is a pretty big decision but it sounds like most of the players are on board with it. I believe my first consideration would be to ask yourself if the current group appears to be a reliable fit going forward. If you are convinced that everyone will be together for a while, I suppose you could leave it up to all the players to decide, as a group. Maybe by secret ballot. It sounds like at least the first & third guys would like to try something different.

Well, with 3 other players to chime in, i'd have 2 yes, 1 "leave it to my call", and 3 as yet not said anything.

Billy_Buttcheese wrote: Has any of them indicated they might like to try their hand at DMing and maybe giving you a break? In that case pretty much everyone gets what they want. You get a break but keep your current campaign on track in the future. The others get a chance to roll up new PCs and get a fresh start in a new campaign. Sometimes, playing the same PC for long periods of time can be tiresome,especially if the player isn't especially fond of their PC. Everyone likes a change of pace at times.

Yes, Patrick has offered to others, to run some other game system (i know not anything off), while iirc Thomas mentioned he'd be ok running a 5e game for everyone to give ME a gming break. However, as i don't play 5e, and had a good 13 year hiatus from my last real big gaming group, till now, (minus my gaming at conventions), i feel a little anxious about taking "a break"..

Billy_Buttcheese wrote: If, OTOH, your group looks kind of fragile, cohesive-wise, you should explain your thinking to all and see if they can be mature enough to press forward with the campaign as-is.
BITD, this was how everyone kept things fresh in my groups; shared DM responsibilities and a rotating cast of viable PCs. It worked well enough for us but I'll be honest when I say that it made keeping campaigns straight in everyone's minds difficult at at times.

I am waiting to find out more on what everyone's thoughts are, as for 'why some may think there's not much cohesion. OTHER than the priest PC's are all over the place on what god they have..
Some of the other concerns got addressed this afternoon, where one of the players (pat) mentioned that "I understand Grahams question about rules, since he was asking about XYZ, but you said No, as that was a 'group call' a # of months ago. BUT that was with a different group, that only me and Thomas are still from, so i can see re-opening that question to a group concensus now.."
Those 3 rules being (full group yay to allow)
A) do psionics get used, if so expect psionic monsters, but players can now make psionic characters, OR try to have wild psionics.
B) do we use level limits, OR go with each demi-race pays an XP penalty from the get go. (FOR NOTE< twice the group's voted on these two, and both times the vote went 4 nay, 1 yay).
and C) do we use the base Nat-20/Nat-1 rules in this HR document, OR do we use the more expanded info from the Players option - Combat and Tactics charts. Both votes on this, were 5 NAY!!!

JadedDM wrote:Another question to consider--do you believe that a hard reset would actually help any? I assume you're talking about the game you have a campaign journal for. I've glanced through it, and it looks like you have players coming and going rather constantly, with some showing up sometimes but not others, and others who show up once or twice and then vanish. So your game has had a lot of turnover, and I can see the appeal of starting fresh. But that assumes the turnover has stopped or at least slowed down considerably. Otherwise, won't the same thing just happen again?

That's a great point.
The initial group started WAY into last year (May), had David R, Kevin S, Whit M, and Matt H.
After a while, i got in Alex. But work took him out of the group for a long time. He only came back it seems for 3 sessions, then dropped back out.

So that gave me 5 in my initial core group. Kevin moved up to Michigan for work. David R who does truck driving, got more weekend routes, but still lives in town. Matt you know of, and Whit moved out of state (iirc to CA) for his work and his wife's work.

Then we got in Zach, who after a few sessions dropped out due to a family issue
Ross, who played a little longer than Zach, but due to working iirc in the prison system (guard) he got shifted to working nights for a long time. Have not heard from HIM in over 4 months, when i did a poll of him and some others..
Then Pat joined while those 2 were still in the group along with Kevin.
After Zack left, Pat brought in Thomas. Then when Ross left, it was just him Pat and Kevin with the occasional Alex.

Earlier this year, we got in Robin W, who showed up, played 1 game, but left 'disgusted AT US', because we used level limits, and HE KNEW IT. BUT at least he GAVE US A CHANCE unlike one guy who showed up, asked what game system we were running (EVEN With me telling him via Email), and just walked away, without even sitting down..

During the spring-summer time, i had 2 guys who showed up for a little. Mike K, who had to drop out from a family death after a few sessions. He brought in Michael H, who dropped out after 1 session but UNLIKE Robin W, thanked us for a great game, but said he prefers Pathfinder, so unfortunately won't stay. I give HIm a lot more props than i ever will Robin Or that other guy..

Then Came Jordan V, who much like Mike H, prefers 5e.

Then Andrew (the older gentleman) who made Ashton Skyes up.

Earlier in Autum we had Graham who showed up bringing in Aaron, Jason and Darrel. Jason's shown up once since (and he is the one initially playing Celedain, who Techically would have been Graham's back up, but since Jason claimed him for his primary, Graham gets to Make a back up). Aaron, was the one who made that Mage-priest, half elf. BUT only has been here the once. Graham has not said anything on him, so i don't really consider him part of the 'current main group'.
And Darrel's in the same boat (the one who made the bard).

Bill came the session later, and has enjoyed playing.

Then most recently we had Jermaine. However since he joined via the Meet up group, where he has BLOCKED people sending him messages, and declined to leave me his Email addy, so he can receive group emails, i have NO damn clue on him..

So in effect, i am back down to a 3 player core - Thomas, Pat and Graham. Bill shows up periodically, and i am unsure on Alex, Aaron, Jason, Darrel and Jermaine. BUT if they all show up that pushes me up to 8 players... Hence i am hesitant of doing the fresh start with everyone, because i am unsure if everyone here is going to hang around for a while...

garhkal wrote: Well, with 3 other players to chime in, i'd have 2 yes, 1 "leave it to my call", and 3 as yet not said anything.

I think I'd wait until you hear from the other three players. Unless there is a majority, after every voice has been heard (and counting the 1 'leave it to your call" as a no), that wants to restart, don't even entertain doing it.