World Hopping, Character Conversion, and Tying Characters into Adventures

[Quertus]

There is always going to be some degree of retconning, where something used to work one way and now everyone needs to pretend it has always worked in the new manner.

Not only strongly disagree (in terms of this being an acceptable outcome), but demonstrably false (as my own conversations demonstrate). If anyone felt that something didn't fit, we kept grinding and polishing until it did.

Playing parallel versions of a character, starting at level one, in different campaigns is no issue at all.

Sure it is. The campaign is starting at level 15! Do you really expect someone to bring a level one character?

Also - and this was the crux of my gripe in the other thread - do you really believe that a brand new level 15 character is really better than one that has actually seen play for those first 14 levels? Because I've got plenty of reasons why I believe that an actual 15th level character is better than one made whole-cloth.

Bringing a character with all experience, abilities and equipment from one campaign to another is only possible if specific conditions are met- playing something like D&D official adventure league. At very least it will need to be the same game system and the same setting or one that is similar enough to facilitate a visitor (no or little homebrew regarding character abilities and equipment.)

That is entirely table-dependent. Some GMs can't be bothered to make any homebrew; others will happily brew every single component of the character.

That said, the idea of a D&D character that has lived through all the edition changes as though they were metaphysical events in the fictional universe, getting sucked through portals or hopping across dimensions, each time finding that his abilities and equipment works differently or outright disappears, and remembers a series of past timelines that have now disappeared is sort of amusing. But it could definitely be disruptive or annoying to the other players if that player insisted in always going on about their past exploits and trying to get their old defunct spells and items to work.

I'm pretty sure Realms cannon (and definitely novels) has edition changes be a real thing that happen in universe, that don't erase history. I find your confusing baffling.

Works quite well if the game is about a party of worldwalkers, though. Or if the setting is explicitly one in which worldwalking has a place.

True. If you were playing as planewalkers from M:tG, it works great. In just about any other game, it's a recipe for hurt feelings unless handled very carefully.

I know human feelings are rather fragile things, but why in the world should anyone care?

I don't have any problem with someone importing an old character's starting point--build, starting equipment, attitudes, beliefs, even whatever backstory components (minus setting-specific names and places) can fit. I find it boring if they want to force the gameplay to reproduce the old character's end-state--why retread old ground? Do something new.

See "it's a level 15 campaign" line, above.

Also, unlike myself, some gamers do want to aim for a specific end state, and want to work with the GM to metagame this. And you are going on record as having a problem with this?

I have a huge problem with wanting to remain unattached to the setting and the party. Tourists who have little stake in events (or who just meddle safely from their "I'm untouchable" standpoint) have no place in my games, or in any game I want to be in. Everyone should find a reason for that character to be there and be involved. If they can't without damaging the character, retire them and make a new one.

Good thing that I want the game to be about forming connections (rather than about learning who my character is) then, eh?

Also, I can't agree strongly enough with the idea that every character should have a reason to be involved. Hopefully, I'll get to circle back to that soon.

I've said it before--I want characters to grow and change as a result of the events of play. Having ones that are locked into a rigid, pre-determined framework that's independent of events disrespects the setting, the DM's work in creating events, the play of the game, everything. This includes both mechanics and personality.

Unless I've missed something, unless you're playing Calvin Ball, your comment about mechanics is... either ill-conceived, or worthy of pejoratives.

However, do see my questions to a previous later poster (I'll copy them here, unless my senility wins another round) regarding why you want this. I find this sub-topic quite fascinating.

Frankly, I even consider someone remaking a character they've already played to be a fairly big warning sign in and of itself, outside of exceptions like the campaign they were originally designed for collapsing after a few sessions or the character dying immediately in the first session. Reusing literally the same character is on a whole different level from that.

Presumably, you don't reinvent yourself daily - presumably, you use the same you every day for a lifetime. Yes, you get changed over time by your environment, or suddenly in character-defining moments, but you keep reusing the same you, don't you? And you keep learning and growing and exploring new places, new lessons, new experiences, right? Is this a warning sign that you are somehow mentally unhealthy?

Why should desiring depth on a character from play time be a warning sign of lack of role-playing? I can honestly only comprehend the opposite - that either not caring or actively desiring a new blank piece would correlate to a lack of role-playing.