I have seen all types. Some people are fickle and switch often, others get attached and stick with playing the same character, ithers again set out with an idea where they want their character to go and once they reach are ready to move on. Other characters die or get detained or something else happens that gets them retired. Players move, have children, get swamped at work.

All the more reason to not hand out too much xp at chargen (for me) some characters have been around the block while others have not.

Additionally I have had players that were attached to their character roll up a new one only to completely reappreciate the game (this was in dd though) but they had such a different outlook on progress and filling a certain role in the group that they breezed to said role in 3 sessions.

And in regard to

Also, instead of waiting for the player to start feeling like a third wheel, I'd start by asking them if they think the new player should have the same xp as them or maby just a bit of a boost.

You know, being proactive instead of reactive.

I really dislike having to be this literal in a forum all the live long day and I don't just mean in this specific topic. You seem to be looking for things that aren't there and jump on everything that can be interpreted negatively and immediately try to 'outsmart' those you are conversing with. This is a forum, I don't feel like having to type out complete essays everytime I engage in a conversation with someone.

I have been a gm for over 25 years, I understand RPg's, I know my players, I don't wait for them to get annoyed or bored or feel inadequat. I am proactive and make sure everyone is included. Thanks for the advice. It was bot necessary though.

Well you did say "Now, should you come to find the player is not enjoying himself and might feel like the proverbial third wheel you could chiose to cross that bridge when you find it", which certainly doesn't seem very proactive.

And I've been a GM for over 25 years too, so there's no need to try and pull rank on me.

I was just pointing out that it might be prudent to ask the players when you are creating the new character instead of waiting to see if they start feeling like a third wheel at a later stage (when the damage has already started, so to speak).

But to each their own.

(as for your comment about me trying to jump on people and trying to "outsmart" them, I get the same vibe from you, so it just might be that we don't mesh very well. I mean, I did put you on my ignore list for a while for a reason, after all.)

I think it's a wee bit off to put the ball entirely in the GM's court. There is only so much you can do as one person. It's really up to everyone involved to make the new guy feel welcome and an important part of the team.

I think it's a wee bit off to put the ball entirely in the GM's court. There is only so much you can do as one person. It's really up to everyone involved to make the new guy feel welcome and an important part of the team.

Yes. And I would say it depends on what kind of campaign you play, if the new guy or gal feels important and useful on the team.

If everyone has focused all their skills and talents on one thing, like combat, and almost everything you do is combat encounters, then a new character in an optimized party wouldn`t feel too usefull. Or if everyone are diplomats, charmers and traders and social encounters is all you do, same thing.

But if the campaign is more varied, everyone has their own skills or spreads out their strengths, no min/maxing (or just min/maxing in each their own aerea), then a new character wouldn`t feel so useless.

Also, in games where you don`t roll the dice as much and there are more talking and interaction and rp, xp wouldn`t matter much, if anything at all.

And if players think the challenging and fun part of this system is to find interesting interpretations of both Sucesses and Failures, Advantages and Threats, and not "winning" the game, then it wouldn`t matter if some had a lot of xp and some had few.

And in this system I would think it`s common to have varied groups of characters. As I said before, the guy with the absolute most xp in the game I am running, is the most worthless guy in combat of the bunch. Sure is smart though...

Wow... Asking you to not be so literal makes you even more literal...

Yeah, we don't mesh well at all. The fact that you frel that when I tell you I have been a GM for 25 years would be "pulling rank" when all it was was me telling you that I understood your advice but it was not necessary. Let's start afresh. No need for fights, There is enough bs in this galaxy already. I will try not to see your posts as negatively as I have.

Who needs a hug?

I think it's a wee bit off to put the ball entirely in the GM's court. There is only so much you can do as one person. It's really up to everyone involved to make the new guy feel welcome and an important part of the team.

Yes. And I would say it depends on what kind of campaign you play, if the new guy or gal feels important and useful on the team.

If everyone has focused all their skills and talents on one thing, like combat, and almost everything you do is combat encounters, then a new character in an optimized party wouldn`t feel too usefull. Or if everyone are diplomats, charmers and traders and social encounters is all you do, same thing.

But if the campaign is more varied, everyone has their own skills or spreads out their strengths, no min/maxing (or just min/maxing in each their own aerea), then a new character wouldn`t feel so useless.

Also, in games where you don`t roll the dice as much and there are more talking and interaction and rp, xp wouldn`t matter much, if anything at all.

And if players think the challenging and fun part of this system is to find interesting interpretations of both Sucesses and Failures, Advantages and Threats, and not "winning" the game, then it wouldn`t matter if some had a lot of xp and some had few.

And in this system I would think it`s common to have varied groups of characters. As I said before, the guy with the absolute most xp in the game I am running, is the most worthless guy in combat of the bunch. Sure is smart though...

Usually, the main problem will come with groups that have played for a while and spread out their skills to cover all the "basics".

Then the new character will have to either niche himself somehow or be kind of superfluous to the group.

Sure, he'll be useful, but he'll always play second fiddle to the guy with better skills than him.

At least that's how it has played out in my groups over the years.

I've usually let the new character have a bit extra XP to be able to niche himself without having to give up everything else.

This isn't so much a problem when the new character is replacing a dead one, but more when entering a "complete" group.

One of the things I like about FFG star wars system is that the power curve of characters rises quite slowly. A new character can join an existing party with little disadvantage and still contribute well. I wouldn't give any extra starting XP. If the other PCs were very far ahead (many 100s of XP) I might give the new characters some bonus XP later on.

Yup, the power curve is quite gentle, especially compared to Pathfinder, where a 2 level difference can mean life or death in an encounter. My campaign didn't give extra xp for quite awhile, but after several PCs exceeded the 1,000xp mark, as a group we felt that new characters could use a boost. We always reserve a guest spot in our games and the extra 150xp helps cement a core concept for new PCs.