So I just created my first campaign as a GM. My group used to be myself as the GM and 3 of my close friends, but one of them moved away and is no longer available for sessions. I decided that the best thing to do was start a new campaign and invite some new players to join us. Everything started off really well and we expanded to 5 players. I made 2 of the player's characters because I knew them well and it saved time so we could start playing right away. They both loved their characters and we agreed on a couple of small adjustments to fit their personal preferences. However, the other new player (who made his own character from the core book creation chapter) decided midway through our first session that he wanted to change his character to fit a drawing he saw online. I tried talking to him about it, but he won't listen and is getting a little out of hand. We just added 2 new players and now they both think they can change their stats whenever they want. The other players and I tried talking to them but they didn't listen. Is there a way to fix this situation?

Yep,

Remove the new players and find 3 new ones.

Its your game your rules. Lay down the law and if they don't like it they can make thier own house rule game.

I have personally had to remove two players from different games i GMed because they wanted to use house rules they used under prior GM's and constantly bitched about how i would not allow it when the situation arose.. after the third time happening in the middle of a game i stopped and asked if they wanted to play under my GM rules or not.. Needles to say my games were much better after...

Other than minor tweaks early on in a character's life, the players should stick with what they got. Usually the point where I draw the line is asking "has your character used this yet in the game?" I don't mind letting them switch a Talent or something if they haven't used it in a session...maybe a new sourcebook came out and instead of 20XP on a Talent they haven't used they might want to start a new spec...no problem. But if they're super skilled at Computers, and use it to great effect in a session, and then decide they don't want that, but would rather be awesome with a blaster...forget it. And if they really don't like their characters, they should create new ones at 1/2 the XP of the old.

But really this isn't a gaming question, it's a social dynamic question. You can just say no, and if it bothers them they can decide whether to stay and not bring it up anymore, or move on.

I'd suggest he work on his/her new character and let you know when its ready so you can introduce it the next session after you've been able to check it.

Meanwhile he continue running his old character and stop altering that one unless he/she got your permission first after all you've gone to all that trouble to get a game up and running the least he can do is appreciate the difficulties you went through... and if they ignore you I am assuming you have a copy of his character prior to alterations?

Keep a couple of spare copies and dock them any xp because he's not running the same character is he?

So I just created my first campaign as a GM. My group used to be myself as the GM and 3 of my close friends, but one of them moved away and is no longer available for sessions. I decided that the best thing to do was start a new campaign and invite some new players to join us. Everything started off really well and we expanded to 5 players. I made 2 of the player's characters because I knew them well and it saved time so we could start playing right away. They both loved their characters and we agreed on a couple of small adjustments to fit their personal preferences. However, the other new player (who made his own character from the core book creation chapter) decided midway through our first session that he wanted to change his character to fit a drawing he saw online. I tried talking to him about it, but he won't listen and is getting a little out of hand. We just added 2 new players and now they both think they can change their stats whenever they want. The other players and I tried talking to them but they didn't listen. Is there a way to fix this situation?

I think that there are definitely cases where a player gets 'buyer's remorse' early on in a campaign, especially if they're using a new system that they aren't familiar with. That doesn't make the player a problem player, necessarily.

What about offering a one-time respec to all of your players within the first 1-3 sessions of play? That way you aren't showing any particular player special treatment, but you're also letting the players make the changes they want (and enforcing a limit ).

I usually allow players, especially if it is a new game system, to fiddle a little with their stats in the beginning. In extreme cases even change their class/career etc. But after a couple of sessions (I'd draw the line at 5, it all depends how often you play) I stomp my foot. For example now, a year after our campaign began one player (around 600xp) is considering a new career. He can't decide between medic or scholar. Eventually he takes the medic and a couple of talents, uses them in game. And then in a conversation with me he says something like "well, if I don't like being a medic, I'll just reset my stats". Well - no you don't!

Making decisions is a big part of RPG, decisions involving how the xp are spent included.

It is amazing how many people are so used to trainers, and save/restore in online or computer RPGs that they have no concept of what it means to develop a character. even if it has flaws or weaknesses it is still your character which you have developed for x number of sessions.

The only time this happened to me was running Traveller and one player asked to swap his Dexterity score for Intelligence which I allowed because it was the start of the first game.

Had it occurred later I would have refused since he now has the reason to spend the experience on the character to gain what he didn't plan for from the beginning.

There are some characters I've run that I later wish I could have changed but I didn't automatically change my character mid game!

Otherwise an interesting situation.

If it's beyond the point where you feel comfortable letting them alter the character, talk to them about it. See if you can convince them to make that something the character wants or believes. To use Skie's example, I would ask the player if perhaps their medic character thinks of himself as a scholar, or wishes he was a scholar. Let them work toward it in the game, and eventually buy the spec if that's the route they want to go--but they don't get to "trade in" Medic. It could ultimately be a cool character--a medic who always talks about how they could have gone to Coruscant University and been a scholar, if things had just worked out differently...

My thoughts exactly, Enoch52! Spending xp and making these choices, especially involving careers/classes builds the character's history and develops him. However, there I remembered another case - a player in L5R was playing a Dragon Samurai (an ascetic/monkish type of samurais) his 'class' was Bushi, or Warrior. After some time a new splatbook came out offering other bushi classes for Dragons. The player was considering changing into a new class, he still would be a bushi though. I was inclined to agree for him to 'swap' the classes instead of 'multiclassing' - it wouldn't change much, he would still be a formidable fighter, still ascetic etc. In the end he decided to stay with the first class anyway.

I allowed much the same thing when Dangerous Covenants came out--one of my players felt that Enforcer fit his character concept a lot better than Gadgeteer. There wasn't much mechanical change at that point--most of the changes were in future Talents.

So I'm going to be the disenting voice - I say let em!

Every time me and my table start a brand new game, we have a rule (well, guideline) that says if the character is really not working out for you, you can respec it. And then in the first handful of games, even if they've used every single skill under the sun on that character, that can go "You know, I really see her more as a Big Game Hunter than a Archologist" and swap around as nessassary.

It takes a while for a player to get to know a character - especially if it's a brand new system. That way it takes the risk out of being scared to buy talents or being stuck with something that's just not fun. And thats the important thing - if something is standing in the way of the game being fun for everyone, then that something has got to go.

Now, if the game has been running for a while, I would be more reluctant to let them swap talent trees and whatnot around*, but in the first 4 or 5 games? Sure. Let them get the character they REALLY want.

*At least in this genre. If we were playing a superhero game like Champions, it's much easier to justify a complete reworking of a character. The Skulls have taken over the Paragon City Reactor? Well, you and your heroes were able to save the day, but you were exposed to experimental and dangerous Autron Radiation giving you all new superpowers! You could do the same - sort of - in Star Wars. One could argue that Post-Mustifar Vader was a respec of Anakin - but that's an extreme example that should happen pretty rarely.

Now, lets say that these new players get the respec. It's unfair to say that your older players shouldn't be allowed to tweak their characters also. So I would say "Now that we know the system and we're familiar with the characters, everyone gets ONE pass at remaking their characters. Choose wisely. . . ."

I allowed much the same thing when Dangerous Covenants came out--one of my players felt that Enforcer fit his character concept a lot better than Gadgeteer. There wasn't much mechanical change at that point--most of the changes were in future Talents.

Actually, that's a good point. My politico began dipping her toe into the Quartermaster class as she started to grow as a Tramp Freighter Captain and shrewd businessman. And then the Colonist book with the entrepreneur class came out - a MUCH better fit with what I had in mind. While the game fell apart shortly after the book came out and I rebooted the character, I'm certain that everyone at the table would have been fine with me dropping Q and picking up the Trump.

For new players, I like to let them get a feel for the character. If after a few sessions they decide they don't like the character fit or the career choices then to start from scratch again. If they still don't like their new character then they have to get over it.

No changing stats on your characters after creation! (well except for xp, levels, and multiclassing etc, you know what I mean)

If you want a new character retire (get it killed) the old one and start a new one. easy.

In general, I give new players leeway with their characters for the first few sessions. After the end of the first major arc of the campaign, I give everyone the chance to respec, rework, or completely throw away their characters and start anew. After that, if they want to make new characters, they may do so but with an XP penalty. Reworking their current characters at that point is forbidden.

For something like a new source book coming out with better specializations, I take those on a case-by-case basis. If the player made a persuasive argument, I'd probably let them switch for the cost of a session's XP.

I'd let them change things but let them do it after the session.

If the players want to tweak some things here or there, let them.

If the new character is a complete rewrite, say changing from an assassin to a smuggler then come up with a reason why one character exits and another enters.

Mid session is a touch rude, but could be a sign of inexperience in pen and paper gaming. Explain that to them.

If they insist on doing it mid session then change the stats on the blaster that shoots them mid session.

Players should be happy with their characters. Sometimes the initial "view" of their character doesn't quite mesh with the rules or the setting or the themes of the game. I think, as a GM, it is perfectly reasonable to let players rework their numbers a bit, even so far as choosing different specs or careers, early on in the campaign. It's okay. Once a certain "grace period" is over, however, things are set in stone.

I ran a solo game recently where my only player created a Human Hired Gun: Enforcer, Marauder. His character concept was solid, but he was new to these rules and the outcome was just an average eh. A few sessions in of him struggling through some basic fights, I offered him the opportunity to respec his character from the ground up. He opted not to do that and told me he would "correct" things with XP. (Unfortunately, he's grown very frustrated with being lackluster, and I fear it's time to suggest starting a new story with a new character. I'm positive part of that frustration is that it is a solo game, but a pool of players we do not have.)

Lots of good advice.

I just want to add, if they are coming from online gaming then they will have certain preconceptions as to that, so you may be able to play into that expectation. Perhaps up until they get 10xp they can freely change any talent, skill or specialisation, after that they can change at 50, 100 chaning talents and skills and at 200xp they can change their talents only.

Thanks for all the advice and help guys! Last night I ran our 4th session, but before we started I told all my players that they have a one time respec. A few of my players moved some talents around and we started the game within 10 minutes, no big deal. About 90 minutes into the session my players were attacked in space. The player that I was having problems with became enraged when I wouldn't let him rearrange his skills so he could be a better gunner. The group already had a pilot and 2 skilled gunners, so there was no need for him to change his skills. I asked him to leave and all of my players backed me 100%. The rest of the night lead to the best session we have had so far.

Okay, dude sounds like a tool. You gave him a chance and he blew it - you were wise to kick him to the curb.

I don't knownhow someone gets enraged like that. Probably helps (or hurts?) that they're strangers. Seeing as all the players in my game are friends, if one of us seems to be getting put of line, a simple, "Stop being a tool." is enough to deal wth just about any problem.

Thanks for all the advice and help guys! Last night I ran our 4th session, but before we started I told all my players that they have a one time respec. A few of my players moved some talents around and we started the game within 10 minutes, no big deal. About 90 minutes into the session my players were attacked in space. The player that I was having problems with became enraged when I wouldn't let him rearrange his skills so he could be a better gunner. The group already had a pilot and 2 skilled gunners, so there was no need for him to change his skills. I asked him to leave and all of my players backed me 100%. The rest of the night lead to the best session we have had so far.

good grief, how old is he?

Thanks for all the advice and help guys! Last night I ran our 4th session, but before we started I told all my players that they have a one time respec. A few of my players moved some talents around and we started the game within 10 minutes, no big deal. About 90 minutes into the session my players were attacked in space. The player that I was having problems with became enraged when I wouldn't let him rearrange his skills so he could be a better gunner. The group already had a pilot and 2 skilled gunners, so there was no need for him to change his skills. I asked him to leave and all of my players backed me 100%. The rest of the night lead to the best session we have had so far.

The guy sounds pretty entitled - sorry you had to deal with that at your table, but at least your players had your back on ejecting him. Seems like it was the right move.

Thanks for all the advice and help guys! Last night I ran our 4th session, but before we started I told all my players that they have a one time respec. A few of my players moved some talents around and we started the game within 10 minutes, no big deal. About 90 minutes into the session my players were attacked in space. The player that I was having problems with became enraged when I wouldn't let him rearrange his skills so he could be a better gunner. The group already had a pilot and 2 skilled gunners, so there was no need for him to change his skills. I asked him to leave and all of my players backed me 100%. The rest of the night lead to the best session we have had so far.

Sorry to hear that this had to happen, but I'd say you handled it well. Sounds like that guy just wanted to "win Star Wars", instead of having a fun and exciting adventure, which requires a chance of failure to be interesting. Keep up the good work!