World Hopping, Character Conversion, and Tying Characters into Adventures

[Jay R]

But it's not an inherently unsolvable problem.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I believe that this is a solvable problem.

OK, you said it twice, so I have to ask: what problem?

My games run well. Your games run well.
I enjoy the games I enjoy. You enjoy the games you enjoy.

So what is the problem you're trying to solve?

[kyoryu]

Just in case you somehow missed it, existing characters are easier to roleplay, because you don't have to divide your attention to include things like learning their mechanics, or learning the intricacies of their personality.

Protip: Instead of stating things as objective fact, state them as personal experiences. "I find existing characters easier to play" comes off entirely differently than "existing characters are easier to play."

Me? I tend to want to complete the "portrait" of a character. Consider it the difference between someone whose focus is on completing a level in a video game, and someone who wants to find 100% of the secrets on the level first.

You're doing a very good job of explaining what you like.

You're doing a very poor job of understanding or even accepting what others like. Learning to accept the preferences or statements of others even when you don't understand them is super pro.

OK, you said it twice, so I have to ask: what problem?

My games run well. Your games run well.
I enjoy the games I enjoy. You enjoy the games you enjoy.

So what is the problem you're trying to solve?

That people won't let him do what he wants in their games.

[kitanas]

@querquertus find especially revealing is the reaction of a gm wanting any degree of control over your character is "control freak gm is bad gm". Yes, as a gm I expect some small degree over your character. In exchange, you receive a proportionate amount of control over the setting. This is to ensure a better fit, on both sides.

[Darth Ultron]

Different people have different personalities, different things they care about, different attention spans.

For example: Some people only have enough 'head space' to keep one single well rounded character in their head.

Some have the ability and 'head space' to keep several well rounded characters in their head.

So what is the problem you're trying to solve?

Any chance the problem is how to deal with the Closed World style DMs? Like you have some friends that get together to play a whole bunch of different games, with each player, of course, being a making a different character for each game.

Except you, as every single time in ever single game, you pull out the character Qbert...again. And the more closed world style DM is like, sigh..Qbert, again?

[CantigThimble]

Clearly, you haven't been stalking my post history. It's because - probably more than anyone I've ever gamed with - I want to learn about the GM's world. In character. Exploration is my favorite aesthetic (seriously, what did Angry rename those to?), my favorite / greatest source of fun in a game.

Actually I brought that up because I (kinda) have. You repeatedly mentioned previously how you believed it wasn't reasonable to be expected to build a character from a certain world because you would need a masters in "their world" in order to do so. I interpreted that to mean that you didn't think it was reasonable to learn enough about the setting to make a character from that setting.

The second reason, though, as I tried to explain in the whole "forged in flame" bit is that well-played characters are known quantities. When you commit to playing a med school game, and have a good session zero where the GM and you tie the character to the campaign via one of their established character traits, then, unless the GM is incompetent or a ****, and throws a character-defining moment at your character designed to change that trait, you can be confident that the character will have the optimal chance to remain appropriate to the adventure.

Here, I would just say that I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a DM to want their characters to have the possibility of developing in play. You say that's a risk, and you're right, it is, but I think sometimes the risk is worth it. I'd rather have one campaign with great character development and 4 crash-and-burn campaigns than 5 increasingly stale, by-the-numbers campaigns with the same interactions between the same characters and no development. I seriously enjoy character development in play to that high of a degree. (Although I find the idea of a DM specifically targeting a certain character's trait to try to force one kind of development to be pretty repugnant. Character development can be induced much more naturally and easily without such brute force.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

(Although I find the idea of a DM specifically targeting a certain character's trait to try to force one kind of development to be pretty repugnant. Character development can be induced much more naturally and easily without such brute force.)

I find character development best when the DM gives opportunities to choose in ways that lead to development, but not when they try to force it down any particular path. Most of my good development has arisen naturally out of the interplay of characters--

* Spending a session playing with goblin children for a stereotypical "racist" high elf character. Totally unplanned, but led to nice growth.
* A naive "let's do the right thing guys!" cleric getting soured by some fellow characters who acted like total jerks; when she tried to do the right thing, she ended up taking all the blame and suffering a bit for it.
* A hippy nature cleric (ie stoner) getting converted into a bit of a fire-breathing zealot due to a run-in with a cult.

Things like this.

[CantigThimble]

I find character development best when the DM gives opportunities to choose in ways that lead to development, but not when they try to force it down any particular path. Most of my good development has arisen naturally out of the interplay of characters--

* Spending a session playing with goblin children for a stereotypical "racist" high elf character. Totally unplanned, but led to nice growth.
* A naive "let's do the right thing guys!" cleric getting soured by some fellow characters who acted like total jerks; when she tried to do the right thing, she ended up taking all the blame and suffering a bit for it.
* A hippy nature cleric (ie stoner) getting converted into a bit of a fire-breathing zealot due to a run-in with a cult.

Things like this.

Exactly. One of my favorite moments of character development was when a freedom-loving cleric/rogue was taken prisoner, along with the rest of the party. The paladin negotiated with the person holding them and at the end of it my pathetic, fragile 7 str 6 con cleric/rogue somehow got signed up for single combat in an anti-magic field with a powerful fighter, then the paladin thwarted his first escape attempt. He felt so betrayed went from a pretty positive, freedom-lover to a cynical burn-authority-to-the-ground anarchist overnight.

When the paladin died suicide-bombing a demon later, I didn't cry over him.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Exactly. One of my favorite moments of character development was when a freedom-loving cleric/rogue was taken prisoner, along with the rest of the party. The paladin negotiated with the person holding them and at the end of it my pathetic, fragile 7 str 6 con cleric/rogue somehow got signed up for single combat in an anti-magic field with a powerful fighter, then the paladin thwarted his first escape attempt. He felt so betrayed went from a pretty positive, freedom-lover to a cynical burn-authority-to-the-ground anarchist overnight.

When the paladin died suicide-bombing a demon later, I didn't cry over him.

Exactly. If I saw a character who underwent things like this and didn't change significantly, I'd be highly unimpressed. Even if it's just some moments of questioning and then a steeled resolve. But there should be some change. And due to inertia, this change becomes harder the longer the character is in play.

A character that's been played for years will often become fixed (and only available for epic level adventures, but that's a separate thing). Further growth and change are almost entirely precluded--after all, they've seen a dozen events like this, what's one more?

[JoeJ]

A character that's been played for years will often become fixed (and only available for epic level adventures, but that's a separate thing). Further growth and change are almost entirely precluded--after all, they've seen a dozen events like this, what's one more?

Apocalypse? We've all been there.
The same old trips. Why should we care?

...It's do or die.
Hey, I've died twice!

[NichG]

Nope, now you've lost me.

The only time I see this sentiment is when I try to run a character from their world, and get told that no-one from that region of their world could possibly hold that opinion on slavery, distribution of wealth, mercy to prisoners, whatever.

So, um, that's a reason why I'm "not from around here"?

I don't remember the exact details, but you've often told various stories about Quertus in other forum threads, that go beyond the beliefs or attitudes that Quertus holds. Specific things in his history - stuff he did, for example.
If Quertus is in a campaign, then either those things are factual events which happened, or Quertus is just imagining, making up, or lying about his past. The former places an imposition upon the GM, while the latter distorts your character. If the idea of being told that 'Quertus is just a delusional madman and that stuff didn't happen' holds any upset for you, consider it as the exact mirror equivalent as the GM being told 'no, in your setting things aren't the way you say, because Quertus did such and such in the past'.

There are settings where the very idea of a concrete validation of the existence of the divine would totally upend things - has Quertus interacted with gods before? Well, sorry, he hasn't.
There are settings which would be turned on their head by the concrete demonstration that a specific empire or city is not the center of the universe - Quertus came from another world? There are other worlds with people in them? No, Quertus just had an overactive imagination when he was 15 and all of those adventures are made up stories.
Quertus is an academician mage, so surely he must understand the common laws that have been discovered to restrict all magic across all worlds. Like, if he's in a Dragon Age campaign and all magic comes from the Fade and makes you vulnerable to demon possession and when you're born you either have it or you don't. So he'd better give up those 30 years of speculation about the commonalities between magic systems across various worlds, because they're provably wrong and this is how magic works - all those times in the past that his magic violated those laws obviously didn't happen.

I'm assuming these things would annoy you if they happened, otherwise I'm barking up the wrong tree here. So now lets flip them and restate them from how the GM might see things.

Setting: there are no such things as gods, angels, or demons. Quertus: Well, I've spoken to a few gods in my time, this is how they work, they're just elsewhere in the multiverse; not sure why this little plane doesn't have them, since they're usually drawn to sufficient concentrations of belief.
Setting: Creation began in the Golden City of Rua, where the gods toiled to construct the world piece by piece. In order to accelerate their task, they created the Three Races - each assigned to a different part of the job. Finally, after painting the stars upon the heavens, they declared their work done, and left to explore their creation. Now the Races inhabit Rua, the Seat of Creation, and administer over it as their sacred duty. Quertus: Well, maybe something like that happened here, but generally the stars are other worlds and there are lots more than three races out there.
Setting: Magic is dangerous, costly, is a curse you're born with, and will eventually consume all you love and everything around you unless it's kept in check. Quertus: That's only if you do it the stupid way by letting dream demons reach into your head to grant you spells. Here, let me tell you about a safe, versatile, and stable form of magic that anyone can learn so long as they put in enough time studying.

Granted, that's probably not how Quertus actually behaves, but even without explicitly saying it, a GM who doesn't want to no-sell Quertus' backstory and experiences has to take into account that those counter-statements are implied by his existence in the setting. If Quertus used magic safely in the past, it must be possible for magic to be used safely (even if that just means going off-world for a bit to get your plastic surgery done before coming back). If Quertus has met a god, then gods are a possibility - their absence from the setting doesn't mean that gods aren't a thing that can be, it at best just means that gods don't exist 'here'.

Can you say this in a way that doesn't make me respond, "control freak GM is bad GM"?

I could just as easily say 'control freak player is bad player', but both are unhelpful statements. Deciding that you don't like someone's GM preferences or style is a legitimate reason to not play with them, but it doesn't actually make it okay for you to browbeat them into accepting your preferences instead.

Yes and no. Anne's Toril is not Bob's Toril, unless they are running a shared world. Completely with you there. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, has wondered at the meaning of the proliferation of copies of certain worlds.

erm, that's only about half right. Imagine who you'd be if you had me for a father, or how insulting it would be for me to try to roleplay your mother after talking to you about her for a few minutes, then continue that thought.

Yeah, just.... what?

Over half the stiff you wrote doesn't make any sense to me, unless the GM took epic ranks in "being a ****", allowed the character, then went "backsies ", as though that was normal. But, since that can't be what you're saying... just... what?

I'm trying to demonstrate by example what the stuff you're saying sounds like to someone from the point of view of a GM who is invested in their setting detail, and to that extent I'm using more extreme examples to make it less liable to be misunderstood that in fact it can feel unpleasant. The fact that you are reacting to these things as 'wow, what a jerk GM' is the point - I just want you to connect that feeling to what you're making others feel when you give their campaigns and GMing style the same degree of consideration.

You are failing to obtain traction with others about the potential positives of bringing an existing character into their campaigns because rather than actually engaging with their concerns, you're telling them 'nah, you're wrong to have them, I'm just going to do what I feel like'. If Quertus (or whichever character) 'educates the myopically closeminded characters', that is disruptive to the setting the GM is trying to construct, and your failure to understand how that would feel isn't going to fill people here with confidence when you say 'no, its okay, I always carefully mesh my character choice to the setting to make zero disruption'.

Since this entire post might be a bit misleading as to my point of view, I just want to restate: I am not against bringing in characters from other worlds or game systems - but that is because I've felt this kind of disruption from such characters and decided that it's something I'm willing to deal with since my general preferences are actually for world-hopping types of games. What I am trying to do is to clarify what that disruption feels like by finding the closest analogy in what you've said, since I think the root of your confusion with respect to other posters positions in this thread is that you just don't have any awareness of this as being disruptive at all.

[JoeJ]

The idea that there are other worlds with people who can and sometimes do come to this one is a fascinating one. That's true whether those other worlds are parallel universes, alien planets, or even hidden places like Atlantis or Fairyland. It's an extremely cool idea. And that's why allowing characters with that origin is a problem.

If deliberate travel to and from other worlds is a thing, then it's one of the most interesting features of the setting. It's something that should absolutely be in the "elevator speech" that describes the world. It's not something I can just add as a footnote; once I've opened that door, Infinite Worlds becomes a major theme of the rest of the campaign. PCs should meet visitors from other world, travel to other worlds, deal with invasions from other worlds, etc. Which is fine, if I bake that into the campaign from the beginning. It's extremely jarring otherwise.

An accidental world hopper is a different matter, and in many ways much easier to deal with. But it does mean that the story now is all about the world hopper and either their search for a way home, or their struggle to adapt to a new home with new and unfamiliar rules. (And the rules have to be new and unfamiliar, because otherwise there's no good reason to have a world hopper in the party at all.) If all the other players agree to this, then I'm happy to let you go for it. If not, then it's only fair for you to create a character whose story won't overshadow theirs.

[Knaight]

I find it difficult to believe that that isn't just the external manifestation of some other core issue.

The most obvious one is that the GM is running a closed world. Well, duh, that makes sense then. However, IME, very few GMs actually have good reasons to require their worlds to be closed.

So, given that, for the reasons I've posted earlier in this thread, it is demonstrably advantageous to have open worlds to allow existing characters in from other tables, I am also poking at why GMs run closed worlds.

I run closed worlds because I like the cohesiveness that comes from them, the vastly larger allowed space that comes with getting to do things other than portal fantasy, and the general phenomena of running a lot of settings and not particularly liking the idea of being obligated to include certain things in all of them (e.g. access points that make it an open world).

Also the GM doesn't need good reason to require their worlds to be closed. Open worlds aren't some sort of default that you have to justify going against. Allowing in existing characters from other tables isn't demonstrably advantageous, given all the ways that doing so can break setting cohesion - it's a stylistic preference.

That said, after this thread I've slightly changed positions. All of the previous reasons I run closed worlds still hold, but I've now added one: keeping out a certain class of disruptive problem player, marked by their tendency to show up and hijack games with their preexisting characters.

[Koo Rehtorb]

After thinking this over, I think a world hopping character might not be terrible in a specific style of old school game in which a collection of random strangers meet in a bar and then go knock over a dungeon together for ill-defined reasons. Does it really matter if there's a character from another dimension in on that? Not really, character backgrounds are basically irrelevant fluff anyway that will never come up in the game. If I'm playing Torchbearer do I really care where another character is from, so long as they were made in the Torchbearer ruleset and hold true to basic setting expectations such as the Immortal Lords being a thing? Not really.

However, this is an extremely narrow subset of games and most people, most of the time, want something more involved and serious than this, frankly, inherently silly concept. Even D&D, which invented this whole random dungeon crawl style, has moved away from it. And for good reason. Wanting to show up to random games with a preexisting character, do a quest together, and then leave and move on to another DM is like watching someone who plays all their music on records. It's kind of neat, in a quaint sort of way that makes you smile fondly at them. But there's better options and those people need to realize that they have a weird fringe hobby and not walk around proselytizing the virtues of vinyl to everyone in earshot and tell people who went digital that they're doing it wrong.

[Satinavian]

Well, no. I may be interrogating people as to why they have such preferences, and whether it is because it actually adds something to the game. But, as you say, that's a different ball of wax.

I find it difficult to believe that that isn't just the external manifestation of some other core issue.

The most obvious one is that the GM is running a closed world. Well, duh, that makes sense then. However, IME, very few GMs actually have good reasons to require their worlds to be closed.

So, given that, for the reasons I've posted earlier in this thread, it is demonstrably advantageous to have open worlds to allow existing characters in from other tables, I am also poking at why GMs run closed worlds.

In a closed world, the things that are part of that particular world are all the things that exist. It gives them more relevance. And it makes sure that the particularities of the setting actually matter and are not just a local effect.

Most fictional settings are such closed worlds. Most RPG settings are such closed worlds. Of those that are not closed, many are only connected to some specific kind of other planes but not to a multiversum of alternative realities D&D style. Because that is a bothersome setup weakening all setting construction by introducing reachable places where they don't work.

And that are the reason why i stronly prefer closed worlds. In fact i would never use an open setup if not world hopping was the intended main game.



Aside from that i do like table hopping and established characters. Tablehopping does not equal world hopping. There are so many official established settings in use that transfer of a character from table to table is not really a problem if the setting is the same. That is also true if people use popular fictional non-RPG settings like e.g. Star Trek.
Might table hopping or system hopping without world hopping lead to small canon discontinuities ? Sure, a different GM might have a different take on something but that is usually less of a problem than the stuff that gets handwaved away on other occassions (Star Trek, Star Wars, Comic continuities, basically every setting with a lot of contributions)

[Darth Ultron]

I don't remember the exact details, but you've often told various stories about Quertus in other forum threads, that go beyond the beliefs or attitudes that Quertus holds. Specific things in his history - stuff he did, for example.

This is a huge one right here and this is a great reason why not to 'hop' characters.

When you let a character world hop, you have to go through the characters history line by line...and chances are change and delete a lot of stuff. And this is on top of the Mechanics Conversion too, as DM A let the character have a Ring of Infinite True Strike +40 or five feats for free or used some 3rd party rules.

Just take D&D, for one example. I am a very 'hard fun' type of DM, so for example Dragons are very powerful opponents that are a huge challenge to beat in any way. Other DM's make it easy, the PCs can kill anything in the book in like two rounds. So it's bad enough like a 'game hopping character' would say ''yea, I have killed 10 great wyrm dragons'', when such a feat would be near impossible in my game....but it's just beyond worse when the character is a 7th level pixie monk that killed each dragon with the 'flying kick feat'.

And if you have a 'hopping' character, and like half or more of their actions or history is useless...why even be that character.

[Jay R]

Let's not go too far in the other direction, either. World-hopping characters are a perfectly reasonable approach for players and DMs who want that kind of story, and worlds designed to allow it.

They don't fit what I'm usually after, but that's no reason for me to disapprove of them for the people who enjoy them.

[Floret]

There was a quote in the thread that spawned this one, that never fully went answered, and that somehow deselected itself from being quoted. Apologies for the necessary rough transscription.

It was basically about "Why care about worldhopping", and iirc, also "can't you just pretend the character is lying, what difference does it make".

And from my experience, as someone who loves closed settings: A big giant difference.

Now, I Larp. And in German Fantasy Larp, the tradition is actually pretty much your ideal state, Quertus - characters come and go, from event to event, with little worry about what world they started in, are currently in or ended up as. Some events (Such as Drachenfest, the second biggest one) even have it explicitly, some have it handwaved how we got from Aventuria via the middenlands to the Forgotten Realms. I actually played an explicit (and unintentional) worldhopper myself, I realised, despite my initial reaction to your posts being "the **** are you on about". It can be fun, I'll admit. And to be fair, the whole "permutations of reality" does sound like an interesting philosophical debate.

But. There are also other, closed settings and I love them to bits.
Because they bring cohesion. They bring the ability to say "metaphysics work this way and no other", making it possible for a character to actually learn the truth about the world in that regard.
They make it possible to play a character that is wrong about things, and demonstrably so, without needing to tell everyone that (In Open world stuff? Might as well be from somewhere where metaphysics work that way and those gods are really gods.).
Because they make it possible to have shared expectations about power level, about what is possible within the world, baked in - less important for TRPGs, maybe, but more important in free-form Larp.
They make it possible for your character to know the world, be well-travelled, and have that mean something. When you meet some Russian-inspired character it isn't one of dozens of faux-Russias from all settings that have one, it is one from the Bornland (Or insert setting specific version).
I can tell a charlatan from the real thing, cause I can know what things can be true.

And now, I have a setting like this. And then a worldhopper comes along. And then talks about their worldhopping, and my immersion is instantly dead. Because much as my character had no ability to know, I as the player knew instantly what Drachenfest was and that they were saying the truth, despite that not being possible in the setting I was playing. And now I am thinking about stuff that doesn't fit the setting, and am out of the game. Really not nice.

It's the same when anyone (Even in Open world Fantasy) starts singing songs with real world places. Suddenly you are reminded of things outside the game. And nothing kills immersion as quickly as that.

And yes. I do realise that pretty much all of my points you, Quertus, will probably answer "so what" to. But other people won't. And that's the point.

Sure, I guess. I put in things, I don't get "humans", I realize that that must not be how humans work, wash, rinse, repeat.

Thing is, though, humans... possibly do work that way. Some, at least. Humans are incredibly varied creatures, and to act as if a simulation that is, to a large part, informed by your own biases can accurately judge that feels... presumptuous.

Every RPG character, no matter how intentionally far from yourself you make them, still is, on a fundamental level, you playing someone. That doesn't mean you agree with the character on everything, or even anything, but some bits of you will always creep in and inform the character.

Your experiment seems inherently tainted and compromised. Yes, RPGs can widen your perspective, but they cannot, ime, give you fully foreign ones through the character you're playing.

As much as it seems unfair to say, your statements on "real" characters, and the depth you see in them, to the point that the GM would be playing NPCs wrong cause you'd never have formed that relationship (I am assuming they honored character traits and events you ascribed those NPCs, so the "good dad is a drunkard instead" wouldn't have come up, except if intentional plot)... It seems to be a bit of illusionism you are playing on yourself, from all of my experience.

And yeah, I do treat my characters as separate people. Sometimes I almost feel like they help me out, Sense8-style. But they are still, inherently, through being characters played by me, part of myself. They aren't seperate, fully formed people. Pretending they can be feels... Almost delusional. Maybe you are doing something special, that I have, in all my years, never experienced in myself, nor anyone I have gamed with. I'd love to find that, it seems really interesting. But somehow, for me, after a short initial period, characters seem to be... formed. Further experience can be fun, if I enjoy playing that character, and interesting, to see where they'll still go, but not still form them beyond actual character development.

(So basically, this thread made me agree with Darth Ultron. ...)

I apologize for the wall of text. Those are thoughts gathered over two topics? Is that an excuse?

[JoeJ]

If you've got a character that's fun to play and that fits in a new campaign, a better idea than world hopping IMO is to keep the essentials of the character the same but retcon their backstory so that they were born in the new campaign world.