View source for Talk:Trading-In Player Characters (3.5e Variant Rule)

== Ratings ==
{{Rating |rater=Ghostwheel
|rating=dislike
|reason=I don't feel as though this requires codified rules, and that a DM can simply say, "Great, you're now playing that character," or whatever.
}}
Once '''can''' let players take over NPCs without rules for such, just as one '''can''' let players create characters and have their characters fight and/or cast spells without rules for such. This article was written for D&D. Part of the appeal of D&D is that is has rules for stuff. [[User:Ideasmith|Ideasmith]] ([[User talk:Ideasmith|talk]]) 19:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

: Slippery slope fallacy much? :-P --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 20:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

::Since I didn’t see how the slippery slope fallacy would relate, I googled up a dictionary. I found an uncommon sense of the word “required” that seems relevant (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/require). You seem to be saying that you don’t see the point of this rule. If I am still misunderstanding your stated reason, I hope you will clarify. For now I will attempt to explain what this rule is for:
::The default assumption is that an NPC will always be an NPC. Most players will therefore not even think to ask permission to take over an NPC. A DM who wishes to encourage taking over NPCs will therefore want to spell out how it is allowed. [[User:Ideasmith|Ideasmith]] ([[User talk:Ideasmith|talk]]) 23:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


{{Rating |rater=Undead Knave
|rating=dislike
|reason=You're putting rules in place to make it so that if someone isn't enjoying themselves in game and wants to play something they'd enjoy more, they get penalized to do so.  Additionally, most of the requirements are obvious (although still things that need to pointed out sometimes, I am aware) for any new PC.

Also, the exception for descendants is weird and honestly doesn't make a lot of sense in most cases.
}}

“penalized”: Penalized how? As far as I can see, this adds options without subtracting any.

“obvious…for any new PC”: But more likely to happen by accident (or even intentionally) if this rule is being applied.

“exception for descendants”: This is actually my reason for writing this rule. A game that spans centuries of game-time (This will be part of Scroll of Generations. [https://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/User:Ideasmith#Scroll_of_Generations]) will have more continuity if some players are playing their previous character’s descendants. Writing rules for encouraging this called for general rules for taking over NPCs. [[User:Ideasmith|Ideasmith]] ([[User talk:Ideasmith|talk]]) 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

:1) You require the new character to be of a lower level.  That sounds like a mechanical penalty.

:2) I don't think that the addition of this rule makes it any more likely that the players will choose a character that won't join the party.  We all know that happens, and we've probably all  made a character that has  resisted joining the party for some reason or other (accidentally or otherwise), but that just means the character isn't suitable for a character in the first place.  This is just as true for an initial character as a replacement character.  I don't think I initially saw the rule about strong emotional attachment, and don't particularly care for it, but whatever.

:3) I understand that this was intended to incentivize the use of descendants, and realized it was probably intended for games that have long periods of time in game terms, but honestly for the purposes of what you're looking for, it's probably just better to have people make new characters whenever you do a time skip and if someone is playing the same character, have them rebuild.  There are potentially reasons for trying to add incentives for having the same family, but that's really a very setting specific thing (and I don't know if your setting meets them, I haven't read through it and probably won't) and not something that I think really needs to be put in the rules.  

:As much as anything else, this is kind of a personal choice.  I'll admit I pretty well hate games that have the PCs at different levels, and this is really affecting my opinions on this, but that's really neither here nor there.  I don't think this is really something that needs to be codified either beyond maybe "If you don't like your character, don't play them.  Discuss stuff with your DM before changing, get their okay, etc."  That being said, I know that it can be a real pain if a player changes a character every game.  That's really more of a meta problem than a rules problem, though.  --[[User:Undead Knave|Undead_Knave]] ([[User talk:Undead Knave|talk]]) 00:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

::'''1)''' I’m not “putting” that penalty “in place”; I’m refraining from adding a massive loophole to it. I want players to feel allowed to use this option, even encouraged, but not pressured.
::Thank you for getting me to review the relevant section of the rulebook: There were some nuances I’d missed, that called for some revision. 

::'''2)''' I’m wondering if you also missed:
:::”The NPC may not have an established personality which the player is unable or unwilling to play appropriately.

:::The NPC may not be privy to information which the DM wants the player’s to work to acquire.”

::'''3)''' “the purposes of what you're looking for”''':''' These purposes, in point of fact, do not include enforcing 'constant adventuring syndrome'. Constant adventuring syndrome prevents game time from passing, making descendents are unlikely to even be born, let alone reach adventuring age.

::Even if I wanted to enforce constant adventuring syndrome, the standard D&D XP system is far less obnoxious, and enforces constant adventuring system just fine. So why force players - every time their characters take a break from adventuring - to choose between dumping or heavily revising them?

::My actual purpose is to encourage players to play their character’s descendants, in part by making it obviously rules-legal. (With a secondary goal that a bit of blurring of the PC/NPC divide makes for a more plausible sequence of events.)

::3) “setting specific thing”''':''' Less setting specific than every magic system I’ve ever come across. Did you perhaps mean playstyle specific?

::3) “I haven't read through it”''':''' If you somehow get a chance to, don’t bother. I’m not a setting person.[[User:Ideasmith|Ideasmith]] ([[User talk:Ideasmith|talk]]) 19:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)