"Sorry, but you'll have to play..." DM Fiats on characters

[Katana_Geldar]

A spin off from the polite players thread, had no idea that people were so passionate about this.

As a DM, I always tell my players that their character is their character and any restrictions are usually going to be what NOT to do, like particular books. But every so often I have to go one step further...

There are times when I will as a player to fill a particular spot in the party or even just hand them a character sheet, but even then it's not without choices.

And the above situations are justified, at least I think so. Think about if an integral party member (the tank, the cleric) has to take an extended break and you have a player wanting to join. Of course, the best solution is for that player to fill that particular spot as it saves everyone else rolling up new characters. And after all, this player did come in late.

For the second scenario, I only use it in three cases: a new system, a new player who has never roleplayed, or when we play Paranoia. For the first two, they're not without choice either.

Any thoughts? Comments?

[GoatToucher]

I have typically approached player in this situation by saying "We need a tank/cleric/rogue..." rather than outright telling them what they have to play. Any player worth his salt will fill the party need,and if he doesn't, well, that tells you a lot about them right off the bat.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Conversely it says a lot about the group if they "need" a particular character class. If someone told me "we need a Cleric" I'd ask "why not a UMD Rogue?" If "we need a tank," why not a Malconvoker?

[Katana_Geldar]

Not a particular class, but that the party was designed around having a person in that particular role, and that person has now left.

"Needing a cleric" basically says "we need someone who can heal, buff and rez us" and that could be a few classes.

[Xefas]

I would say any system that requires a player to make certain specific mechanical choices related to progressing in combat, while sacrificing the wishes of the player insofar as choice of character is concerned, should take a good hard look into whether it wants to be a Roleplaying Game or a Tactical Skirmish-Based Man-to-Man Fighting Simulator that has merely had its fan base tack roleplaying onto it, because it would be leaning towards the latter in this case.

Which is fine, so long as the player was expecting the latter and not the former.

[Scow2]

D&D has always been about diverse parties with different specializations. It's not fun to have a party of 6 Fighters.

[Zaydos]

I can accept being handed a sheet and told "we can't work in a new character right now take over this NPC till we can"; I can even stand being told "we need a tank, mind playing one." Now I would not like being told "Here's your character I've already made them" as anything more than a temporary thing.

[Katana_Geldar]

Now I would not like being told "Here's your character I've already made them" as anything more than a temporary thing.

And I can understand that, which is why I tell the player they are under no obligation to play that character after the first session. As that character is designed to teach them how to play, with the help of other players at the table (usually I'll assign them a few buddies to help with dicerolls).

As it's a chicken and egg question, how can a player build a character until they have some idea of what's important for what they want to do?

[Xefas]

D&D has always been about diverse parties with different specializations. It's not fun to have a party of 6 Fighters.
"Fun" is a bad word to use because of it's subjectivity.

However, I will agree that "D&D has always been about diverse parties with difference specializations (insofar as combat is concerned, because not succeeding at combat causes the system not to function, and success at combat is designed to require different specializations)". I will also state that this makes it lean towards the latter of my previous example, rather than the former.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

As it's a chicken and egg question, how can a player build a character until they have some idea of what's important for what they want to do?That's only a mechanical problem. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the genre can have a cogent character concept; then the only road block is making the mechanics support that concept. If a player wants to be a mighty warrior from the north and is handed a wizard character sheet because "we need fireballs," that's a whole different issue.

[LordBlades]

Whereas I'd really dislike if a DM tried to make me play a certain character, I do however think the following 'rules' should be pretty much common sense (especially when you are a late comer to the campaign):

1. Try and complement the party. If they need a certain ability (healing, trafinding etc.), try and fit it into your build if possible.

2. Never, ever bring a character to the table that steps on the toes of another character and/or overshadows him at what he does best(unless it's a roleplay thing that you've already discussed with the other player), such as bringing an evil necromancer in a party that already has a paladin, or bringing something like unarmed swordsage in a party with a monk.

[AslanCross]

I think a good way to circumvent the feeling of being forced to play a certain character is to gather all the players who have expressed interest in the game and let them know what kind of party you're expecting. That way they can think of what role they'd like to play and the DM also help them prepare for the campaign such that they don't get screwed over completely just because they didn't bring one class or another.

This way, it's more of a group effort, with not just the players in on it, but the DM as well.

[Totally Guy]

I have had the best weekend of gaming ever with playing pregenerated characters in one shot scenarios.

One scenario was about a being snowed in in an inn.
I played a lovestruck knight, an old pal of the innkeeper. My guy had a crush on the Marchesa who was secretly a death cultist.
The innkeeper had debts to a criminal gang. One of their members was staying at the inn to oversee payment.
The barmaid was personally indebted to the mobster, he knew of an affair she'd had and didn't want made public. The barmaid was the only character permitted to change the clothes of the Marchesa before bed and meals. :smallwink:
The Marchesa was a noblewoman who was secretly a canibal death cultist. She wanted to eat the barmaid, keep hold of her box of treasure and leave.
The gangster wanted to get the box of treasure from the Marchesa and was owed protection money from the innkeeper.

So from there with the 5 player characters we roleplayed out the greatest, funniest and most dramatic session I have ever played in. My guy was manipulated by every other character on some level, but I was the one with the armour and the combat abilities. My motivations were constrained to love and honour, but I still made the character my own and all the choices mattered.

[dsmiles]

IMO, if you're the latecomer, you get what's left. Beggars can't be choosers, and we can't wait forever to get started.

Well, you do have a choice, you could always go home. :smalltongue:

EDIT: On the flip side of that coin (or maybe the same side), I, personally, would never balk at playing a missing role. If I'm the latecomer, the first words out of my mouth are, "What do you need me to play?"

Of course, 26 years of gaming has left me with a pretty good stock of character concepts on the ol' 'mental rolodex', so I never lack for a fun character, no matter what role the party needs.

[Kurald Galain]

I think that a good DM can compensate for any missing "role" in the group. If nobody in the group wants to play a wizard, fine, then I'll tweak the adventure so that there is more focus on things a fighter or rogue could do, and vice versa.

The only place where this gets tricky is when nobody wants to play a healer (and "nobody wants to play healbot" is a stereotypical complaint that I've heard quite a lot of times). Even this can almost always be fixed by (1) an NPC that does nothing but heal, (2) magical items that heal, or (3) a non-healbot PC with healing ability.

[Shademan]

as a DM I don't think I ever would say "you need to play a X" I MIGHT say "the party could really need a X, but you can play whatever the hell you want"
really, if the players show up and everyone generated a rogue (or no one took a arcane class)... I see it as a opportunity!

[Aotrs Commander]

Me, I'm really not that fussed. Maybe because I DM so much, when I'm a player I tend to be very accomodating. I would not really mind if the DM said "I need you to play this character". I am fortunate enough to be someone who can roll up a random character and play with it. (Okay, so my characters may not be massively deep all the time, but then again, I'm not really deep either, so...!)

At the end of the day, I've realised in my old age that I'm ultimately more interested in the "story" than the "characters" (with regard to pretty much everything), so I'll quite happily chug along with whatever's going. By which I mean, the "what" is happeneing has a higher priority to me than the "who" is is happening to. (I'm not, overall, then, a sandbox-game kind of guy.)

Heck, one of the character I've taken a shine to was one handed to me. Our Monday group is small, and one of the players was going to be out of it for a while. So one of the guys volenteered to DM. He was running a party for our then-Thursday group, who contained five warriors of prophesy, the Good Five to set against the Evil Five. The good crowd had already encountered the evil five as basically boss battles. The DM said he'd run a game that was basically a prequal of the Evil Five, three of which we would play. (The other two were not really suitable, being templated or higher LA). This was ideal. So I got to play Tanavark, the psychic warrior, who now ranks among my favourite characters. (My DM now calls him samurai flapjack, owing to the fact psionics on that world came from an eastern-anologue country and I played it up a bit.)

Now, all that is of course with some moderation. If the DM said "I need to you to play this character with this personality" I would object if it were for a long period and it wasn't one that particularly interested me. (Even I need some latitude somewhere!) On the whole, though, I tend to be quite happy to play anything handed to me, and I'll play anything mechanically. Even if you're mechanically crap you can still have a giggle.

(We played one the Fighting Fantasy games (not Dungeoneer, but a slightly less advanced version). Now, thsoe games have you roll for your stats two on D6+6 and one on 2D6+12. As you can imagine, your luck on three dice rolls does make a big difference, especially on the first roll, which is Skill (which determines stuff like combat ability). Naturally, I rolled crap! Low skill, relatively poor stamina, though I think my Luck was okay. So, this began the tale of the scholar of sh**, who literally carried a bag of fecal matter around with him. My goal was to add as much rubbish to his title as possible. As I recall, before I finished the adventure, I was the monkey-pirate scholar of sh**... It was, as they say, a bit of a laugh, even though I was hopelessly useless in combat!)

[Ravens_cry]

Just because the party really needs a certain role (healer, smasher, magic) doesn't really pigeon whole to a certain class generally unless your playing SRD only. And even then, there is some nice stuff in Unearthed Arcana that can add some flavourful variety. DM and player should work together to find something that fits what the party needs and what the player wants. Player wants to play Ssmashy and Party needs a healer? Druid could work very well as can a Cleric.

[Solarn]

Just because the party really needs a certain role (healer, smasher, magic) doesn't really pigeon whole
Pigeonhole. The word you are looking for is pigeonhole. As in, a narrow hole in which a pigeon nests and which doesn't really have any space for moving around. How does "pigeon whole" even make sense?

[Psyx]

Mmm... roast pigeon. Makes perfect sense to me, especially with bacon draped over the back.

[Psyx]

IMO, if you're the latecomer, you get what's left. Beggars can't be choosers, and we can't wait forever to get started.

This.

I tend not to care what I play, and don't mind being the last to 'choose' normally. I wouldn't like to be told 'play a Knight', but 'play a meat-shield' is fine.
In fact, I'm normally the one who will simply slip into 'the missing slot' [skirt-wearer, sneaky one, meat shield, et cetera] without being even asked, for the sake of party dynamics.

My only rule is 'no clerics'; but that's a matter of ethics in that I really don't like religious extremists of any ilk, and simply don't want to play someone whose life is centred around religion. Plus: Healing is as dull as ditch-water.

[Prime32]

My only rule is 'no clerics'; but that's a matter of ethics in that I really don't like religious extremists of any ilk, and simply don't want to play someone whose life is centred around religion. Plus: Healing is as dull as ditch-water.If you're using a cleric to heal, ur doing it wrong. :smalltongue:

Rather than choosing a god the god might have chosen them. And why does a cleric have to be an extremist? :smallconfused: Paladins are usually the ones with that reputation. They can be devoted to an ideal anyway - you could quite reasonably have a cleric who draws power from their belief in non-extremism. :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Pigeonhole. The word you are looking for is pigeonhole. As in, a narrow hole in which a pigeon nests and which doesn't really have any space for moving around. How does "pigeon whole" even make sense?
I have noticed this myself that I tend to use homonyms in those kinds of mistakes.

[Emongnome777]

I tend not to care what I play, and don't mind being the last to 'choose' normally. I wouldn't like to be told 'play a Knight', but 'play a meat-shield' is fine.
In fact, I'm normally the one who will simply slip into 'the missing slot' [skirt-wearer, sneaky one, meat shield, et cetera] without being even asked, for the sake of party dynamics.


That sums up my thoughts as well. When playing, I tend to have a "good idea" for about any role that needs filling (like dsmiles mentioned above). I'll often choose to be the last one to pick a character. It's got less to do with being noble and selfless than with my desire to have a "balanced" party (as in all roles covered, not same tiers). I also like diversity, so I generally won't play a race or class that's already picked. Back in the 2e day, we'd normally have a 7+ character party in games, so there had to be some overlap. If one rogue was better than the other, then it seemed that the lesser PC's player didn't have as much fun.

As a DM, I want to encourage diversity in my group, but that's all I'll do; encourage. Well, maybe request. But I won't force someone to play a role if they don't want to. Being the DM doesn't mean I can trample on everyone else's fun to maximize mine. Latecomers and one-shot games may be different, but for campaigns, I want the players to have the freedom to develop a character they fell will be enjoyed for a long time. As a player, that's what I want, and mamma din't raise no hypocrite.

[Amphetryon]

I usually just list roles that I'd like to see filled in the group in one way or another rather than specific classes, based on the group, game, and particular adventure ideas I had in mind. "You guys, in all likelihood, will want someone who can somehow fill the tank, sneak, face, archer, debuffer, and healer roles for this one. Talk amongst yourselves." If the group then puts together a party that is light on the debuffer and archer aspects, I'll encourage any late-comers to consider something like a Warlock or DFA, which can shore up both roles at once.

[Tyndmyr]

Conversely it says a lot about the group if they "need" a particular character class. If someone told me "we need a Cleric" I'd ask "why not a UMD Rogue?" If "we need a tank," why not a Malconvoker?

This. I'll generally feel out their flexibility on having a given role filled first. If they mean "we need some form of healing", yeah, I can do that. If they mean "no, you have to be a healbot cleric", I'll decline. That role can be filled by an NPC.

I also invariably avoid making duplicates of existing characters. What happens if that player returns, and the situation is such that we both can play? You don't want to have something almost the same as them then, and I prefer to avoid swapping characters for such reasons.

The exception is one-shot games that are for an event. Premade characters for that are usually a necessity to reduce chargen time. Still, a selection is much appreciated.

[Psyx]

Rather than choosing a god the god might have chosen them. And why does a cleric have to be an extremist? :smallconfused: Paladins are usually the ones with that reputation. They can be devoted to an ideal anyway - you could quite reasonably have a cleric who draws power from their belief in non-extremism. :smalltongue:

The cleric has to be fairly extreme in his faith that he KNOWS his god exists, in that he gets spells from him every day. {Scrubbed} I don't really want to be drawn into my own views on religion any more than that, really. After nearly three decades of gaming, I'm not about to be suddenly talked round on the subject.

I have less problems with paladins. Holy warriors of good are something I'm something a little more tolerant of playing. Paladins are not really reliant on their deities. I'd rather 'serve good' than serve a personification of it, any day. Deeds over dogma.

Given that I'm very flexible and accommodating in every other way (hmm... aside from not liking evil characters, either. I'd rather not play than play evil campaigns), I figure I'm allowed one veto.

**

As someone else said: I'd rather have a balanced party than have 'first dibs' on character. It also means that I don't over-play my favourite types of character too often. Tales of 'I only play wizards' make me kind of shudder.

It also means that I have to sometimes play something I hadn't considered before, and come up with a new concept. Which is cool.

[Quietus]

The cleric has to be fairly extreme in his faith that he KNOWS his god exists, in that he gets spells from him every day. {scrub the original, scrub the quote} I don't really want to be drawn into my own views on religion any more than that, really. After nearly three decades of gaming, I'm not about to be suddenly talked round on the subject.

I have less problems with paladins. Holy warriors of good are something I'm something a little more tolerant of playing. Paladins are not really reliant on their deities. I'd rather 'serve good' than serve a personification of it, any day. Deeds over dogma.

Curiosity - would you play a Cleric if you could fluff it as instead being Druid-like in its "drawing on the ambient positive energy", and could represent it mechanically in whatever way you chose? No connection to Gods, just "I get power from the air, like a druid or wizard".

[Skjaldbakka]

My thoughts on this:

For a long running campaign, the players should make their characters together, so that there isn't a big hole in the party that will get them killed (such as no healers, for example).

If a new player comes in, I have them make a character (before the game), and let them know when I can work in a new player, which may or may not be the next session. I don't like having them run an NPC until then, but that works for some people.

For one-shots, pre-gens are the way to go. Not quite as simple as "here, run this", since it is more "here, pick one of these."

When I write a one-shot, I put a lot of work into balancing the adventure with the pre-gens, so don't expect to make your own character for that.

[Mastikator]

You can't compare D&D clerics to real priests, and D&D "knowing that god(s) exist" to real life "knowing that my god exists". Being an atheist in D&D is like looking at Earth from space and still thinking it's flat. Deities are abundantly obvious in D&D, unless you're playing Ebberon setting.

[Seatbelt]

My group pretty much always needs a cleric. The cleric doesn't have to be optimized to heal but he does need to have the ability to heal. We've tried running with wands of CLW (wands of vigor do not exist as far as the DM is concerned). Nobody is forced to play a cleric and actually 2 of us like to play Clerics. But the group has to go pretty far out of its way to deal with the lack of available healing without one. So there is more or less the unwritten rule amongst us that the last person to pick a character is playing a Cleric, or a druid that prepares healing spells, or a favored soul with healing spells as spells know. or etc.

[dsmiles]

You can't compare D&D clerics to real priests, and D&D "knowing that god(s) exist" to real life "knowing that my god exists". Being an atheist in D&D is like looking at Earth from space and still thinking it's flat. Deities are abundantly obvious in D&D, unless you're playing Ebberon setting.

IT'S NOT FLAT!?!?!?! :smalleek:

Seriously, though. Doesn't the PHB clearly state that not all clerics worship deities? Some are followers of an ideal instead, so...? :smallconfused:

[Boci]

IT'S NOT FLAT!?!?!?! :smalleek:

Seriously, though. Doesn't the PHB clearly state that not all clerics worship deities? Some are followers of an ideal instead, so...? :smallconfused:

Yes but even if they do not worship a deity they would acknowledge the existence of such beings.

[Mastikator]

True, but even worshipping deities doesn't necessitate prostration, much less oppressing others based on them not being of the same faith.
It'd only occur if the religion specifically commanded it, which I don't think most do in D&D, or if the cleric is lawful evil, which most PC clerics aren't (since evil clerics can't spontaneously heal :smallwink:).

[Telonius]

I only use the "You must play X" when a player is going to join an existing campaign, and not for very long even then. I typically draw up a few helpful NPCs and have the new guy choose one of them to play for a couple sessions. The idea is that it gives the new person an opportunity to see how the group dynamic works, and won't have lost a character that they're emotionally involved with if they decide to quit. He also gets to see where the team's strengths and weaknesses are, and that can help in how they design their regular character.

EDIT: Regarding Clerics, I tend to think of them as very enthusiastic sports fans. "My team is the best!"

[oxybe]

i've never fiat-ed a player to force him to play a particular character, and truthfully if a GM forced a PC onto me for anything other then that one session or until i finish my PC, i would probably leave the game.

the PC is the only real aspect of the game i have control over. removing that control almost entirely distances me from the game and turns my interest to nil.

if i wanted to read bad fanfiction, i'd go online and read bad fanfiction on my PC. at least i would be in the comfort of my home rather then a wooden bench in the FLGS. listening to the GM tell his story with his PCs, one of which that i just happen to be in "control" of.

[kestrel404]

As a GM, I feel it is perfectly within my rights to say "You have to be of race X" or "from region Y" or (very rarely) "able to do z".

I will also occasionally state that a specific role is strongly advised.

I will never require a player to play a specific class except in a one-shot where I've got all the characters ready beforehand, and even then I'll make sure I've got more characters than players so everyone gets a choice.

As a player, the only thing I refuse to do is play a PERSONALITY determined by the GM. I'm fine with pregenerated characters - if it is a campaign, then I will insist on retraining being available and that my advancement be left up to me, but I can play any PC handed to me.

But the first time a GM tells me, "You can't do that, your character wouldn't do that", I get up and leave the table.

[Esser-Z]

Yes but even if they do not worship a deity they would acknowledge the existence of such beings.

As would everyone else in the world. Standard D&D has VERY OBVIOUS GODS.

[Lord Raziere]

hmmm....

"sorry, you'll have to play (Role)"

"Ok. I've got a bunch of pre-made characters that are (Role)"

so that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

[Quietus]

I only use the "You must play X" when a player is going to join an existing campaign, and not for very long even then. I typically draw up a few helpful NPCs and have the new guy choose one of them to play for a couple sessions. The idea is that it gives the new person an opportunity to see how the group dynamic works, and won't have lost a character that they're emotionally involved with if they decide to quit. He also gets to see where the team's strengths and weaknesses are, and that can help in how they design their regular character.

EDIT: Regarding Clerics, I tend to think of them as very enthusiastic sports fans. "My team is the best!"

... Damn you, now I have the seed of an idea in my head for a Cleric who is essentially one of those crazy-into-it football fanatics who paint their body and dance stupidly while watching the game. Even if they're at home. And if they really shouldn't be painting/showing off their body.

"WOOO, PELOR! WHO THE BEST? PELOR THE BEST! YEAH BABY, GIVE UP NOW, YOU'RE JUST EXPERIENCE WAITING TO HAPPEN!"

[Psyx]

EDIT: Regarding Clerics, I tend to think of them as very enthusiastic sports fans. "My team is the best!"

A good idea, but that doesn't work for me, either. Blinkered lack of an objective viewpoint isn't something I want to roleplay. The only popular sport I follow is F1, and that's more about watching a race than cheering for anyone in particular.



Curiosity - would you play a Cleric if you could fluff it as instead being Druid-like in its "drawing on the ambient positive energy", and could represent it mechanically in whatever way you chose? No connection to Gods, just "I get power from the air, like a druid or wizard".

Mmmm.... 'it depends', is the answer to that. It would depend on my inspiration levels. I'm actually playing an orc druid in a game at present. Although he doesn't even 'worship' nature as such, either. He goes and smokes some of his 'herbs' and has a good commune with nature daily, and likes trees, but doesn't specifically worship or follow an ethos, aside from generally being an environmentalist.

Also: I can't be bothered to have the option of every cleric spell every day. Too much tedious spell-planning. At least a wizard has a limited number to draw upon. Playing a druid has been fun, but I really hate spell selection and gimped my casting a bit (splashed Nature's Warrior, Warshaper) to decrease the problem and balance myself with the rest of the party.



You can't compare D&D clerics to real priests, and D&D "knowing that god(s) exist" to real life "knowing that my god exists".

Err... yes I can. They're my ethics.
There really is no room for doubt and IS an afterlife in D&D. That's likely to lead to even more fanatical behaviour than we already get.
I struggle to identify and role-play someone who is utterly and totally devout, and wouldn't want to participate in roleplaying that.

Some people don't like roleplaying thieves, cowards or evil characters. I don't like roleplaying priests.

[Kurald Galain]

You can't compare D&D clerics to real priests, and D&D "knowing that god(s) exist" to real life "knowing that my god exists". Being an atheist in D&D is like looking at Earth from space and still thinking it's flat.
...or not. In Terry Pratchett's Discworld, the wizards know very well that the gods on the Disc exist. Yet the wizards don't see any need to believe in them, just like they don't believe in tables. :smalltongue:

[Tavar]

On one hand, it can be necessary; a newcomer comes in late, and doesn't have a character. Well, you're getting whatever the DM has available. And if you're just joining a game, playing a premade character for 1 session or so can give you a good idea of the general level and feel of the campaign.

On the other, nothing's more annoying to me than being forced to play a specific type of character when one would rather do something different. I've had groups essentially demand I play a heal-bot. All the more irksome since they didn't have a heal-bot to begin with because no one wanted to have a boring character.

[dsmiles]

...or not. In Terry Pratchett's Discworld, the wizards know very well that the gods on the Disc exist. Yet the wizards don't see any need to believe in them, just like they don't believe in tables. :smalltongue:

Tables?!? We don't need no stinkin' TABLES!!

[valadil]

Party balance is overrated. My first four games had no dedicated healer. It meant I couldn't be quite as mean as I would have liked, but the games went fine. Personally I think it's more interesting to see something that isn't caster, healer, fighter, skillmonkey.

Where I will make suggestions to new players is with plot hooks. When a new PC is ready to join up with the party, they can't just show up. There should be a good reason for them to want to aid the PCs. Maybe they know a common NPC or they're pursuing the PC's plot, but from a different angle. If something like this is available I'll suggest it to the player and tell them that if they can work that into their character, they'll make my job easier when it comes time to introduce them to the party. It's not a requirement, just an offer.

[Crow]

Roles...

Who gives a damn?

Our group has two fighters, a paladin, and a wizard.

[Quietus]

Mmmm.... 'it depends', is the answer to that. It would depend on my inspiration levels. I'm actually playing an orc druid in a game at present. Although he doesn't even 'worship' nature as such, either. He goes and smokes some of his 'herbs' and has a good commune with nature daily, and likes trees, but doesn't specifically worship or follow an ethos, aside from generally being an environmentalist.

Also: I can't be bothered to have the option of every cleric spell every day. Too much tedious spell-planning. At least a wizard has a limited number to draw upon. Playing a druid has been fun, but I really hate spell selection and gimped my casting a bit (splashed Nature's Warrior, Warshaper) to decrease the problem and balance myself with the rest of the party.

Fair enough. Just wanted to throw out there that flavor is, as always, mutable - a cleric doesn't need to have any more fanaticism, really, than that druid does. But I agree with regard to preparing spells from a huge list, it's just straight up annoying. 'course, there's always the option of limiting yourself to "I'll only prepare X type of spells", or "I'll keep a prayer book in theme with my schtick, as a Wizard's spellbook, and only prepare those spells". It's a bit more work, though, and edges back into the territory you don't like.

Hope I haven't given you the opinion that I'm trying to convince you - it was purely a curiosity thing, though I admit there was a little bit of "Are you aware of this option?" in it as well, in case you decided you wanted to play something with Cleric-like mechanics at a later point. Then again, I guess there's always the Favored Soul.. :smalltongue:

[The Big Dice]

A good idea, but that doesn't work for me, either. Blinkered lack of an objective viewpoint isn't something I want to roleplay. The only popular sport I follow is F1, and that's more about watching a race than cheering for anyone in particular.
Watching a race and hoping Alonso gets a DNF is what F1 is all about :smallwink:

Seriously though, I have three widely disparate approaches to character making in my group. One player hates making new characters. Really, really despises it. To the point where it's easier to just sound her out about what she wants to play, then make the character for her.

Another takes forever. He wants to check out all his options before committing to anything. I've literally seen him take days over making a character before now. Spending five hour going through books, looking at different books and then going back to the books he started with. And still not getting finished.

And finally there's the ones that just whip out a character in a reasonable amount of time. They have a solid idea of what they want to play and how to make it work.

With my current game, I took a slightly different approach. I made three possible characters for each player, then let them pick which one they wanted to play. But by drawing randomly rather than letting them see in advance what they'd get. Two session later, it seems like a winning method for getting a bit of interest into the tedious startup phase of a campaign.

[dsmiles]

Party balance is overrated. My first four games had no dedicated healer. It meant I couldn't be quite as mean as I would have liked, but the games went fine.

Really? I'm just as mean. It's not my fault they didn't bring a healer.

[obliged_salmon]

It seems to me that it can be good for a DM to have pre-made characters available, so newcomers can jump right in without having to slog through the relevant character creation process while everyone else is playing. However, there should always be a choice, and there are always ways to introduce new characters, regardless of what's happening in game.

Also, a party of 6 fighters? Sounds great! A band of mercenaries, or a military unit. One can be the surly captain, trying to keep everyone alive and from killing each other. One is the taciturn bookworm, who secretly resents the others' teasing. One is the prodigy (rolled really well on his strength?) who is vainglorious and pushes everyone else around. Etc.

[kyoryu]

Doesn't bug me too much, frankly. The backstory is one thing, but the real 'character' is what happens during the game.

One (very long-running) game I played in had all characters randomly generated. down to their names, history, personality, etc. Yet it had some very, very good roleplaying.

[Raimun]

Hmm... I guess a right kind of imbalance in a party could make an interesting campaign.

For example a party without clerics/wizards/ could be fun. Players would have to sometimes solve things in an other way than simply "I cast alter world."

The combat would be more deadly and they just couldn't do the same things as the standard party. DM should remember this too and not send them off to "kill the tarrasque to death".

[valadil]

Really? I'm just as mean. It's not my fault they didn't bring a healer.

Eh, I'd rather let them play the characters they want to play than have someone suck it up and play a character they didn't find fun. I wasn't pulling many punches, I just didn't ramp the difficulty up as far as I otherwise would have.

[Susano-wo]

Personally, I'm a big believer in adapt to their party. Story is story, and I don't think you should say"the big bad is a cleric, but that's not fair to the 6fighter party, so I won't use his spells." But you should try to adjust things, within realism/versimilitude toward party composition.

That being said, I have no problem with:
*campaign based restrictions: no race X, come from culture Y, etc

*Asking me to fulfil a role. I would much rather play what comes to mind, but if the GM has a hard time adjusting to odd parties, or if the story structre disctates that we're gonna need a caster/trapfinder/whatever, then I'll play the role needed.

*giving me the option of playing an NPC until the actual character is able to be worked in

If I was given a premade character permanently, or told you have to play X class(without good reason. I wouldn't join a ToB campaign without an Initiaor class prominently featured, or an all caster campaign with a Fighter), I would take my leave of that group, at least for that campaign

[Notreallyhere77]

I have had the best weekend of gaming ever with playing pregenerated characters in one shot scenarios.

One scenario was about a being snowed in in an inn.
I played a lovestruck knight, an old pal of the innkeeper. My guy had a crush on the Marchesa who was secretly a death cultist.
The innkeeper had debts to a criminal gang. One of their members was staying at the inn to oversee payment.
The barmaid was personally indebted to the mobster, he knew of an affair she'd had and didn't want made public. The barmaid was the only character permitted to change the clothes of the Marchesa before bed and meals. :smallwink:
The Marchesa was a noblewoman who was secretly a canibal death cultist. She wanted to eat the barmaid, keep hold of her box of treasure and leave.
The gangster wanted to get the box of treasure from the Marchesa and was owed protection money from the innkeeper.

So from there with the 5 player characters we roleplayed out the greatest, funniest and most dramatic session I have ever played in. My guy was manipulated by every other character on some level, but I was the one with the armour and the combat abilities. My motivations were constrained to love and honour, but I still made the character my own and all the choices mattered.

This is the adventure I dream of one day running.
In practice, this can work for a one-shot, but to start a campaign this way (but with less inevitable conflict) would be a rewarding challenge, I think. For instance, if one character was a criminal in another character's custody, but they have to work together to get to wherever the criminal needs to be taken. This is a concept I've been considering for one of my next campaigns, I just hope I can get the two players to go for it.

[randomhero00]

I think if a party NEEDS a certain class its both a failure on the players part (for not thinking creatively) and the DMs for not working around their party and giving them the fights they want.

[Otherworld Odd]

My group is a group based more around roleplay than efficiency and we work just fine together. Even if we have slots that are unfulfilled in the party, we usually go through the campaign and still have fun and don't have a lot of casualties at all.

I look at it this way: Let the players play what they want to play. I've actually played in campaigns where the DM says "None of you tell each other what you're playing." (The campaign I'm playing in now actually.)


If a DnD was real-life, what's the chances of in your travels you meet a healer, a tank, a rogue, and blah blah blah and no duplicates of abilities? Very small, in my eyes. If every player plays a character that they want to play, everybody will have fun because they're doing something they want to do. At least that's how it works in my group.

[Mordaenor]

Actually, I played a game once where we all rolled at the beginning of the campaign, and were thus randomly assigned a character. The catch: we all started with amnesia and had to learn who we were as the game developed. It's still probably my most favorite campaign to date.


I think it really boils down to what kind of game YOU want to run and what kind of game the PLAYERS want to be in. I think a DM pre-building characters is fine as long as the Players understand before hand that this is how you want to run the game. And if its a new player filling for an old, its definitely okay, although you should probably create an opportunity to write out the old character and introduce a new one if the player really doesn't like the character.

[Killer Angel]

i've never fiat-ed a player to force him to play a particular character, and truthfully if a GM forced a PC onto me for anything other then that one session or until i finish my PC, i would probably leave the game.

the PC is the only real aspect of the game i have control over. removing that control almost entirely distances me from the game and turns my interest to nil.


It depends on the circumstances, but I don't see it a so big problem.
It happened to me to enter in a Faerun's campaign already started, with a formed group.
My intention was to play a druid, but my DM said "the group desperately needs an arcane caster".
Where's the problem? I can play a druid the next time, I can have fun also playing a Spellguard of Silverymoon, it was one of the character I've always wanted to play but cannot for the setting.
Really, it's not a problem to find some interesting and new (for you) PC's concept, if this helps the DM and the adventure.

[Aotrs Commander]

Actually, I played a game once where we all rolled at the beginning of the campaign, and were thus randomly assigned a character. The catch: we all started with amnesia and had to learn who we were as the game developed. It's still probably my most favorite campaign to date.

I ran something similar. I generated all the PCs, handed them all out partial character sheets and had them all wake up in the sight of a flyer crash. Not only did they have to work out who they were, and what their abilites were, but the players didn't even know what genera they were in. (Which turned out to be, basically setting based around a He-Man/She-Ra Saturday morning cartoon sort of vibe.) It was awesome fun, but a bugger to set up (since I had all sorts of set-pieces, including a couple made out of Lego!)


I think it really boils down to what kind of game YOU want to run and what kind of game the PLAYERS want to be in. I think a DM pre-building characters is fine as long as the Players understand before hand that this is how you want to run the game. And if its a new player filling for an old, its definitely okay, although you should probably create an opportunity to write out the old character and introduce a new one if the player really doesn't like the character.

This, absolutely this, especially that first sentence. That's probably one of the biggest things to think about when considering DMing.

[Hague]

Erm... If the party cannot adapt with the aid of NPCs and items to the personal choices of the each of the players then they aren't thinking hard enough. There's always an NPC that will be willing to fill particular character roles in the party. If the party doesn't feel like splitting their xp and loot with the NPC, then they can feel free to not allow that NPC to tag along and suffer the consequences. Frankly, I'd rather my party bring along enough help to get the job done than simply die for the sake of keeping it a PC-only party.

[big teej]

just my lil bit,

the only restrictions I place on character generation are
'don't break my party'
and....

well, thats normally it,

using my current campus group as an example, my restrictions are...
- certain classes require specific alignments (paladins ARE lawful good)
- evil is okay, with the one stipulation that you don't break the party
- no psionics
- no LA

thats typically it, and heck, after they learn, I'll probably waive the LA restriction.

the only time I would ever say anything along the lines of 'here play this' is if the party is in a location where I simply can't come up with a plausible explanation for a new character to be introduced. barring that, I don't think I"d ever say 'you have to play this'

however, occaisionally I will remind a player of party composition. (if everyone wants to play fighters, I am OKAY with that, but I feel they should be informed that everyone is playing a fighter.)

this actually came up the other day, I've been working on 'backup characters' with my group, and the druid player expressed interest in playing a ranger, I told her that was totally fine BUT she needed to be aware of the fact we already had 2 rangers.

....
she ended up going with 'NE Halfling fighter' with the stipulations "don't break my party" and "don't make the paladin smite you/fall" and "don't tell the paladin your evil"

tl;dr - outside of an implausable addition, I will never say 'here, play this' and even then I"m much more liable to ask them to wait till they can be inserted

[Ormur]

I'd really be more concerned that a new character would be able to contribute and wouldn't differ to much in power from the others. I've played in a group with no trapfinding abilities for 15 levels and I ran a game with no healer for a few (solved by a cohort at level 6). When a new player came into the group I suggested a character to buff the party, like a bard, and the player completely ignored it and it worked out great.

Roles don't matter too much with the options available in D&D even though they're an okay guideline. If some particular function no one wants to take is really necessary it can be solved with a cohort or an NPC.

More valid in my opinion are worries over characters that wouldn't mesh well with the group role-play wise, although even then there should be scope for pretty different characters in a mature group. A NE assassin worked all right with an exalted swordsage with low sense motive whereas an overt NE necromancer in a "necromancy is EVIL" setting didn't work out so well with the Paladins.

[Ossian]

D&D has always been about diverse parties with different specializations. It's not fun to have a party of 6 Fighters.

Yes, it is...

http://1412love4869.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/power_rangers_4.jpg
...I mean, it works with monks....

[Katana_Geldar]

It's interesting that someone said that party composition is more important when the DM is pitching the game. Usually my group plays whatever they like, with only restrictions on books. But it's only since we started playing the 4E Tomb of Horrors superadventure that we realise how important party composition is, and how critical certain people are in the party.

For instance, they all love to send in the power pally with the AC of 30 into the room first.

But the player who is the cleric, who has saved everyone's skins in every session, isn't around so much. So I had to go back to my players and tell them they needed a leader who could heal and would prefer if one of the strikers stepped into the role.

What pre-genning for new players or new systems?

[Kaldrin]

I haven't flat out told anyone what they have to play yet. Most of my campaigns are flexible enough that some instability in the group dynamic isn't going to cripple them. However, I have told people "Yeah, we need a front line sort of guy and there's already a couple of mages." Each time the player has said, "Oh, how about I play [able fighting character] instead then?"

I've been lucky with the groups I DM that way.

[Cerlis]

I'm reminded of how for the ...whatever it is the official DnD orginization is (being in texas we are in Desert kingdom) how i picked a cleric, and had all the stats and feats and all that pregenerated, but i still made the motivation for the character and other decisions, i leveled to 2 and decided to pick up rogue since as a cleric of Pelor i'd need an eclipse to stay hidden in the evil kingdom

I'm also reminded of the episode of freaks and geeks, where the punk was convinced to play a dwarf even though he scoffed at the idea of first, and he really enjoyed it.

really i think what a player wants is control of his actions and choice. the cases of people not minding playing a certian thing forcibly often have it that they decide their character's character and all that. while the exact opposite scenario would be choosing a persons character, have all their stats picked out and telling them "No yo cant do that, Jared wouldnt do that" The player has no choice.

Most people can probably be convinced to play anything expessially if you act excited about it, "But look , if you do this and this, you can do this, and do totally better than if you picked that". Further, i'm a little worried about the professionality I'm hearing some people say. Being respectful to your gaming group is important and all, but thats common courtesy. I'm just given this vague impression that some people here might as well conduct interviews of players and hire them for the benefit of completing the Job(session).

[Dralnu]

From my experiences, I'd say that non-diverse parties are actually more enjoyable than walking swiss army knives. Without an auto-win ability for the obstacle, the party will find out clever and more dramatic methods of accomplishing their goals. It feels much more dramatic / epic / movie-like that way, rather than rock-paper-scissors monotony.

Also as a DM, I build my campaign around my players, not force my players to build around me. I'd happily welcome an all-Fighter party. Some things will probably be harder, but I consider that a good thing, not bad.

You absolutely don't "need" a healer in any group. If they are dying for some ways to restore hp, let them find some items that anyone can use, like potions or healing belts. If you plan on debuffing them, let them find stuff that can cure it. Walking away from a victorious battle broken and bloodied, terrified of fighting another vicious monster around the corner because there isn't anyone around to poke your wounds and make them disappear, believe it or not this type of atmosphere might be enjoyable for your players!

EDIT: Note that I'm talking from a 3.5 perspective. I've never played 4th ed. Maybe it's different in that system, who knows.

[Susano-wo]

I would give new players, whether to the group or system whatever support they wanted. I would tell them that I/we would be happy to help them generate a character, or even generate one for them with their input, based on what they want to play.

If they had a hard time deciding what to play, I would start pitching archtypes, etc. Basically, offer total support, but scale back to whatever support they want.

I would give new players to a group the support of explaining the style and tone, as well as what sort of characters we had already, to try to mesh things together

[Dust]

In our group, a character known for loading up on flaws to min/max realized he wasn't having fun with this, and decided the next campaign he'd tone it down.
Simultaneously, our GM decided he would be putting his foot down and not allowing the player to get away with any shenanigans this time around.

So the player pitched a humble librarian, ponders the character for a bit, and decides that the only flaw he'll be taking is nearsightedness, making his intellectual fellow require glasses. The GM freaks out and says no, demanding his character have flawless 20-20 vision instead.

It was hilarious at the time but in retrospect, there's a lesson to be learned there. I just have no idea what it is.

[Winter_Wolf]

I hate being forced into playing a cleric. And that's always the class that everyone in my groups try to avoid playing. So if you don't speak up and lay claim to a different class first, you end up playing one. Basically it comes down to the DM saying something along the lines of, "these are the character classes you're going to need to survive," then letting the players vie for their choice.

That might say a lot about our DMs. Personally I don't have the inclination to master the fine art of picking spells for situations and tactical casting. So I avoid all full casters and tend to ignore or swap out casting on partial casters when I have the option.

Then again, if hte DM said, "you're playing the rogue" I might bristle just because I dislike being told what to do, even if it's actually what I was planning on. I'm contrary. :smallannoyed:

[Hague]

Reminds me of beating Final Fantasy Tactics by just using Knights...

[Knaight]

As a GM, I have 3 main restrictions.
1) Use one of the approved character generation systems.
2) Fit the setting.
3) Make sure the party can work together.

1 should be pretty obvious, and the only reason its one of is because I tend to play games that are balanced via simplicity. 2 is similarly obvious, you can't have a mage in a realistic modern setting for instance, though I will tweak fantasy to accommodate characters if the characters will be tweaked to accommodate the setting. As for number 3, most party dynamics work, it just runs into issues when you have one character who works well if the campaign stays in one city and you have another who has to go all over the place, or characters with completely opposite goals.

[Dsurion]

The only time I've ever forced anyone to play pre-generated characters is when our group had people new to D&D coming to play. We'd always use the same starter box adventure just for the heck of it and let the new person pick a class, then everyone else rolled for the others.


Reminds me of beating Final Fantasy Tactics by just using Knights...

Best comment in the thread. And a viable (and fun!) strategy for that particular game.

[Fitz10019]

I had a DM who told me what personality my character has, because Begilers all have the same personality, in his mind.
The David Spade character in the movie Cloneheads. Stupid me, I actually watched the flick to see what he meant. Please don't watch it.

[Knaight]

That is just complete BS. I'd have left as soon as I heard.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, it is...

http://1412love4869.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/power_rangers_4.jpg
...I mean, it works with monks....

It is awesome with wizards, too. Try playing in an all-wizard party sometime. Combat is amazingly tactical, and crazy stuff is happening non-stop. For bonus fun, fight other groups of wizards.

[bokodasu]

Huh. It never occurred to me to be unhappy about whatever the DM picked for chargen. I've played assigned characters, picked from premade characters, rolled random characters... oh, right, and rolled my own. In some ways, I think working within narrower limitations can open up more interesting roleplay opportunities than anything-goes, because you have to think harder about "what would x do" rather than just assuming you know because you created it.

I'm also willing to believe that's just me; obviously people do get attached to their character concepts. And as a DM, I only make characters for one-shots; players seem to be generally happier when they're playing what they want (within reason. When I was running the campaign where they were all siblings, I didn't allow nonhumans, for pretty obvious reasons.)

As far as balance goes, meh. There are ways around everything. I mean, right now I'm really wishing we had a bard in the campaign I'm playing in... but it's not like he would have had any fun in the last half-dozen sessions, so fair enough that nobody wants to play one.

Also, this thread is really making me want to run an all-x campaign. (I just can't decide what 'x' should be...)

[Democratus]

I must admit that one of the strengths of 4th Edition D&D is that you don't really need to worry about roles. The party I'm running is at 10th level now and they have no healer at all. Healing surges and potions can pretty much do it all if your party is clever in combat.

For my group, the story is king. Whatever each player wants to play is fine, because the campaign is the story of how this strange group of people survived (or didn't) despite the odds.

[Volthawk]

It is awesome with wizards, too. Try playing in an all-wizard party sometime. Combat is amazingly tactical, and crazy stuff is happening non-stop. For bonus fun, fight other groups of wizards.

Artificers would seem to be fun to make up a whole group. Especially with the 'fight other groups' part. Robot Wars!

[Tyndmyr]

Artificers would seem to be fun to make up a whole group. Especially with the 'fight other groups' part. Robot Wars!

Oh, hell yeah. Warforged should be encouraged.

Warforged druids are also awesome. However, it is necessary that they make sound effects when shapeshifting, and refer to a companion as "Witwicky".

[cardboardbox!]

I'll never tell a player " oh we don't have a cleric you have to play that one" I've ran games where the majority of the group was assassins(wh40k). As a player I was forced to take levels in aristocrat (for story reasons) with no compensation and I was constantly told all my character choices were too op And was constantly nerfed!, I was playing a rogue. A bit off topic but I'm still heAted about that campaign.

[cardboardbox!]

{Scrubbed}

[Zhalath]

I tend to encourage my players to communicate to coordinate their characters. If one joins later, I tend to nudge him in the direction of contrast with other members, but if he's really insistent (and they are), I just let him play what he wants and modify my plans to accommodate that. My players are usually understanding people and try to help each other out.
I tend to be a story-emphasizing DM, so it means more that the characters fit into the game world than fitting into the party. Strange bedfellows make for interesting stories.

[Kaldrin]

It is awesome with wizards, too. Try playing in an all-wizard party sometime. Combat is amazingly tactical, and crazy stuff is happening non-stop. For bonus fun, fight other groups of wizards.

With the right people playing I don't care about the whole unbalanced party thing. I've dealt with it before, but the thing to remember is some people suck at tactical decisions. Thanks to years of wargaming I am at least capable and have in the past actually unbalanced my group dynamic by being more tactically able.

Mind you, I've also had groups that should have been perfectly able to deal with a situation completely self-destruct at critical times.

[Dimers]

this thread is really making me want to run an all-x campaign. (I just can't decide what 'x' should be...)

x = swashbuckler! Watch your paladin player running a LG, honor-focused swashbuckler, watch the wizard player figuring out the rules for throwing tanglefoot bags and alchemist's fire, see the fighter player pump his Int up for extra damage and the Combat Expertise feats ...

[Tvtyrant]

To be honest I got stuck as a cleric the first time I played and have been playing it by choice ever since. I had an evil cleric who had to wear mummy wrappings in the sun and was blind in day light (it was DM's way of letting me play a Duergar without LA).

But I can totally see doing it if you need a role filled. I spent weeks trying to work with one player to make a role that suited him, and ended up just having him play barbarian.

[dsmiles]

x = swashbuckler! Watch your paladin player running a LG, honor-focused swashbuckler, watch the wizard player figuring out the rules for throwing tanglefoot bags and alchemist's fire, see the fighter player pump his Int up for extra damage and the Combat Expertise feats ...

:smalleek:
:eek:
:biggrin:
I think I just campaign-gasmed.

[Aotrs Commander]

Aside from the aforementioned occasional special event, generally I expect the players to come up with a balanced party, which in D&D ought to include at least someone with some healing ability. (Hit points are not so much the issue; the issue tends to be stuff Restoration and such). The enemy will inevitably be (at least when I've taken a hand in writing the encounter) a well-rounded group of mixed foes, so the PCs tend to need to match to survive. Fortunately, everyone in both groups is very mature and amenable about it, and the roles get swapped around by different players a lot. We all take in turns being cleric, for example.

(Well, okay, I went Archivist this time, but my last character is a cleric/monk and after two, massive converted AD&D modules where clerics are pretty much the most common enemy character class, I'm kinda clericed out!)

The only party we have exceptional to this rule consits of an Elf Psion (which is as rare as a Dwarf Wizard in AD&D terms), an Ardent, a unicorn Dragon Shaman, a Dark Elf Swordsage (sometimes), a Psionic Warrior, a Warlock and a Dusk Blade. And they are absolute buggers to write for, since they are more-or-less utterly useless outside of combat! A fact compounded by the rest of the Arbent's ruddy contubernum not managing to get killed off...) Still, they are part of the army fighting in the Dark War, so it's not exactly traditional dungeon-crawling/social adventuring.