No interaction while choosing Class - Will it work.

[XnOs]

First off, i am very green in these fora, with that in mind, please don't be too hard on me!:smallsmile:

This is all happening in DnD 3.5!

I am not extremely experienced in DnD either, but i would love to try and DM! I have a good basic knowledge of the rules, so that shouldn't be a problem! What i lack is experience as a DM! :smallredface:

My thought is:
Asking the members of my scenario to chose class and race, without interacting! The idea is to make a random party that might lack some of the "essentials". As the skill monkey, healer, tank or caster! :)
If the group missed a healer, i would throw in a healing belt er two, change it up a bit, so that it fits level 1!

If any of the other roles where missing, I'd call it manageable, and have them find a way to make it work! :smallbiggrin: Maybe consider giving them an NPC stationary somewhere who could Semi-fill in the roll, when they where in town.

So i guess my questions are:
1. Would you enjoy such a mix-up in the role-pattern that is dominant in 3.5?
- This seen from a players perspective.
2. Would i be makeing it too hard for myself as a DM, being forced to make minor adjustments, to make the scenario manageable?
3. Is there a better, perhaps more used and accepted, way to mix up the roles?

And that's it for my first thread!:smallsmile: I hope that my post is acceptable.

Also i hope that the fact that i am green on these fora, wont give the entire thread a green-noobish glow!:smallbiggrin:

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

X's n O's - XnOs! :smallsmile:

[Namfuak]

First off, i am very green in these fora, with that in mind, please don't be too hard on me!:smallsmile:

This is all happening in DnD 3.5!

I am not extremely experienced in DnD either, but i would love to try and DM! I have a good basic knowledge of the rules, so that shouldn't be a problem! What i lack is experience as a DM! :smallredface:

My thought is:
Asking the members of my scenario to chose class and race, without interacting! The idea is to make a random party that might lack some of the "essentials". As the skill monkey, healer, tank or caster! :)
If the group missed a healer, i would throw in a healing belt er two, change it up a bit, so that it fits level 1!

If any of the other roles where missing, I'd call it manageable, and have them find a way to make it work! :smallbiggrin: Maybe consider giving them an NPC stationary somewhere who could Semi-fill in the roll, when they where in town.

So i guess my questions are:
1. Would you enjoy such a mix-up in the role-pattern that is dominant in 3.5?
- This seen from a players perspective.
2. Would i be makeing it too hard for myself as a DM, being forced to make minor adjustments, to make the scenario manageable?
3. Is there a better, perhaps more used and accepted, way to mix up the roles?

And that's it for my first thread!:smallsmile: I hope that my post is acceptable.

Also i hope that the fact that i am green on these fora, wont give the entire thread a green-noobish glow!:smallbiggrin:

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

X's n O's - XnOs! :smallsmile:

The problem you will likely run into with a totally random mix of classes is not that they will be lacking a role (which is something that can be rectified through magic items, DMPCs or simply leaving it out of the campaign), but rather that two people will have the same role. While having two melee-oriented characters would probably be fine, two people rolling up skillmonkeys are going to step on each others' toes. On the other hand, if everyone in the party rolls up a wizard/sorcerer, either they will get stomped or they will stomp everything you throw at them (short of, you know, optimized sorcerer/wizards).

Of course, none of this is to say that your idea won't work. Even if you have two skillmonkeys, you can make traps that require two simultaneous disable devices, or otherwise create situations where they are both using skills at the same time. Most other combinations would be fine, since usually a campaign can be altered to fit - if everyone is a fighter, avoid fighting spellcasters, for example.

[Yukitsu]

It would depend on the type of campaign, and what the players generally like.

In reality, you don't absolutely have to have all the supposed archetypes the game offers. You don't need to have a trap finder. You don't need to have a healer. You don't need to have a tough melee fighter. In that sense, the party will be fine without coordinating to fill in every role.

It would be a good way to insure that everyone is playing the character they want to. Some players don't like having overlapping roles, and doing it this way means no one feels obligated to play something they don't want just to avoid the overlap.

On the other hand, when there are overlapping roles, you will have to keep an eye on the relative optimization levels of all the players. When everyone has completely different roles, someone being way better at what they do isn't a problem, but it's fairly obvious when say, a really good rogue player and optimizer is standing alongside a guy who doesn't really know how to play a rogue effectively. This problem is more likely when the group can't coordinate the group to avoid overlapping roles.

[Vladislav]

It's a nice gimmick to try once, or for a short campaign. For a long game, the gimmick might get old, and you're stuck with a party that doesn't really play well together.

[XnOs]

Of course, none of this is to say that your idea won't work. Even if you have two skillmonkeys, you can make traps that require two simultaneous disable devices, or otherwise create situations where they are both using skills at the same time.
This is great! Very nice feedback! :)


The problem you will likely run into with a totally random mix of classes is not that they will be lacking a role (which is something that can be rectified through magic items, DMPCs or simply leaving it out of the campaign), but rather that two people will have the same role.
Good that you mention it! :)
My old GM told me "It's important that everyone feel useful! meaning that two people having the exact same role will be likely to fight over the assignments that they are specified, and the one losing a majority of the times, won't get to feel useful."
To this my thoughts are: When the characters start from lvl 1, they could easily change their characters progression! Choosing different skills! or two clerics where one go healing and the other go summoning / battle control! :)

I will also be focusing on role playing! This being another great opportunity for the players to go different ways with their characters! :)

Thanks for your thoughts!! I truly appreciate it!

The fact that you think it is manage- and doable means a lot to me! I met loads of negative critic from my fellow gamers!

@Yukitsu, i will be responding to your feedback in a new post!:) I cant figure out how to quote two posts in the same post! (being green :smallbiggrin:)

[XnOs]

It would be a good way to insure that everyone is playing the character they want to.

This is also one of the reasons to why i considered this group-creation type!:smallsmile:
(I was once "forced" to play a healer! I didn't like being "forced"! A cleric was a good starter class though, and being brand new it worked out!)


On the other hand, when there are overlapping roles, you will have to keep an eye on the relative optimization levels of all the players.

- This is a good point! I will take it into consideration! :smallsmile:

Thank you so much for taking time to help a newbie! Much appreciated:smallwink:

X's n O's - XnOs.

[Namfuak]

This is great! Very nice feedback! :)
To this my thoughts are: When the characters start from lvl 1, they could easily change their characters progression! Choosing different skills! or two clerics where one go healing and the other go summoning / battle control! :)

Funny enough, I considered posting about having two clerics, but to be frank a party of 4 clerics could fill every role just fine if everyone was OK with changing their character concept to fit the game. And I've heard of groups who run with four rogues and have fun (though of course the game has to tend to shy away from straight combat and focus on stealth/trap-based encounters).

And of course those examples are extreme. Not everyone will necessarily even choose the same class, let alone all go for the same niche.

[Engine]

It could work. But the times my groups used this method, most of the times it didn't work.
Why?
Well, when you have two Wizard they could just prepare different spells. Same for Clerics. No problem here. Unfortunately, when a class has fewer options being mechanically different could prove more difficult. And asking someone to change her concept because there is already one similar character in the party isn't so nice, IMHO.
This happened to me a number of times and now I always ask to discuss which class\race we will do. Of course I wish you luck for your game, and I hope you will not incur in the same problems as me.

[XnOs]

It could work. But the times my groups used this method, most of the times it didn't work.
Why?
Well, when you have two Wizard they could just prepare different spells. Same for Clerics. No problem here. Unfortunately, when a class has fewer options being mechanically different could prove more difficult. And asking someone to change her concept because there is already one similar character in the party isn't so nice, IMHO.
This happened to me a number of times and now I always ask to discuss which class\race we will do. Of course I wish you luck for your game, and I hope you will not incur in the same problems as me.

I agree that it isn't nice to ask players to change their concept! But I wouldn't be doing that directly. I am thinking they could sort it out as a group. starting from level 1 most classes has the ability to branch out into different versions of the class.
I am hoping that this makes it possible for the players to create their very own character that they desired (maybe with minor adjustments).
Also, sorting this out as a group could help shake them together and also open up for some enjoyable role playing! :)

these are my thoughts to your much appreciated feedback! - Thanks a bunch! :)

@Namfuak - That encourages me to try this! If pure rogues can survive, then a random bunch should be able to manage as well!^^ This seems to be demanding of the DM though, maybe i should seek experience in a more common scenario before i start working on such complex and different scenario!? :)

@Vladislav I guess one could get lucky and get a group that would work! :) Otherwise one would be forced to adjust every encounter which of cause would be very demanding of the GM!

A thought on the matter:
Has this group-forming style been seen often before?

I appreciate the quick responses I've gotten!! Far exceeds my expectations! :) Being new here i had no idea the forum where so active!
- My genius plan was to write a thread, go to bed and take a look in the morning! meaning i will be going to bed now. (It's pretty late where i am at^^)

I wish you all a good night/day and thank yee for the kindness I've been exposed to this evening!! :smallsmile:

I will be in here once again tomorrow, when i get home from work!:)

X's n O's - XnOs.

[Invader]

Yes it will work fine as long as you work with your players to make sure they can handle whatever you throw at them with the classes they have.

A good DM will change his game to suit his players before he forces his players to change their class to suit him. That being said if you're planning on DM'ing a campaign that focuses on undead and everyone picked a ranger you shouldn't have to change your entire campaign just because they're going to have a hard time killing everything.

[thunderzach]

i wanted to do this one time but i opted for something slightly different. I premade characters with unique builds but realitively equal power. i made a bunch of them so there were tons of options and i let the players pick from the pool without knowledge of what others had chosen. so everyone got to play something to thier flavor, no one was overpowered, and most of the roles were filled because i kinda led the last few to pick towards good roles. it actually went really really well. everyone got to play fun characters and no one was extremely over optimized relative to the other until a good 6 levels or so after they initially started playing. If someone hated thier character (no one did) i would have just given more options.

[Andorax]

Actually, I'm a lot more leery of this idea than some of the other posters. You say you're fairly new to D&D. I'm presuming your players are much the same.

I would strongly recommend you get your feet wet with a more traditional party, and encourage your players to work together with their character creation, rather than give them free reign and no contact.

What you're talking about certainly can be done, but it's far better handled by an experienced DM who knows how to adjust for the party's unusual characteristics.

Also...if you have access to it...the DMG II has a section on this very topic. Recommended reading if you're going through with this plan.

I thought it was in DMG II, but I'm not finding it. Anybody know of the published section where it goes into scenarios of "if you're missing X"?

[Salanmander]

One question that's worth asking is, how much source material are you allowing, and how much do you expect your players to use? If it's core-only, your chances of serious overlap are pretty high. On the other hand, if you have access to a lot of extra material, you might have two skill-monkeys, but one is playing a factotum, and one a rogue. They may both feel similar in skill encounters, but at least they'll feel different in combat.

That being said, I would recommend you at least do a little bit of puppet mastery. Ask players to keep you aware of what they're doing, and if two people look like they're going to step on each others' toes, see if you can get some differentiation in.

[ThiagoMartell]

Looks like a fine idea. My players mostly do this.

[Urpriest]

Mechanically, it isn't a huge problem. It's going to be an enormous problem in-game though. If you've never DMed before, you may be underestimating just how hard it is to get an adventuring party to work together. Without linked backstories or motivations that line up your party will have a very hard time justifying why they are working together, and you're liable to get two characters with opposed motivations.

[XnOs]

Actually, I'm a lot more leery of this idea than some of the other posters. You say you're fairly new to D&D. I'm presuming your players are much the same.
This should have been specified! My players are all VERY experienced, so this should not be a problem!:)

Also, something that should be noted by the posters in this thread:
I Have gotten another experienced player to assist me in writing this scenario of mine!:) We will in fact be working side by side equally.

- I will indeed consider making a traditional party! But no matter what i have a lot of work in front of me, since i am going to write my very own scenario!:)

@Urpriest - I was most certainly going to write a back-story for the players as soon as i knew the Class and race of the party members! :) They would be choosing their class build and race, but they would have no saying in their back stories! :)

@Salanmander - I am not sure what is considered Core rules! :) But i will be allowing everything from PHB PHBII And most of what we have in the COMPLETE series! :) - Thoughts on that?

@thunderzach - Interesting, but not quite what i was looking for! Thanks for your input! :)

Thanks for all the feedback! Much appreciated.


X's n O's - XnOs! :smallbiggrin:

[Theroc]

Core is generally considered the DMG, Player's handbook, and MM I, I think.

Sometimes this is expanded to the PHBII. I don't think CORE gets expanded anymore than that. However, I also believes MOST DMs allow the Complete series as well.

Your book selection seems fine to me.

[Kish]

My question is: Why do you want to do this?

[Oscredwin]

So in a game where they're going to spend a several hours a week inhabiting a role, they're going to have no say in the starting point of the character's personality? I have a factotum that I want to play tabletop, if I ever get a game again. The build is mostly worked out, but what I'm interested in is his backstory.

He's cynical because he's from a long line of adventurers. His great grandmother on his mother's side was the archmage who sealed away the demon lord, his great uncle was the high priest of Pelor who led the quest to stop the unnatural blight. He married the gladiator champion who eventually took down the orc king. He's been raised on these stories of grand adventure, now he is level 1 and setting out on his own. There's a prophecy the foretells a great doom in a few years and he needs to stop it. So he hangs out outside the dungeon waiting for a group of adventures to come along so he can quest with them. He knows it's the only real way to take down the big bad in time.

If I was at your table I'd hand you a human factotum and you'd give me back something completely different. I wouldn't be playing the character I want, just the build. They know you're making the backstories and are ok with that?

[Eiko]

Which part of that backstory required him to be a factotum?

By the sounds of it his diverse ancestry could lead him down many paths, individually as well as collectively.

[ericgrau]

Sure, as long as the players are fine with it I think it will work well. I think it's very unlikely that they won't be able to work around anything missing. Sure you might have 2 of the same thing, but probably not 3 or 4. Even 3 matches might be manageable depending on what they are and what the 4th is. And it gives everyone a chance to play their favorite thing.

[XnOs]

So in a game where they're going to spend a several hours a week inhabiting a role, they're going to have no say in the starting point of the character's personality? I have a factotum that I want to play tabletop, if I ever get a game again. The build is mostly worked out, but what I'm interested in is his backstory.

He's cynical because he's from a long line of adventurers. His great grandmother on his mother's side was the archmage who sealed away the demon lord, his great uncle was the high priest of Pelor who led the quest to stop the unnatural blight. He married the gladiator champion who eventually took down the orc king. He's been raised on these stories of grand adventure, now he is level 1 and setting out on his own. There's a prophecy the foretells a great doom in a few years and he needs to stop it. So he hangs out outside the dungeon waiting for a group of adventures to come along so he can quest with them. He knows it's the only real way to take down the big bad in time.

If I was at your table I'd hand you a human factotum and you'd give me back something completely different. I wouldn't be playing the character I want, just the build. They know you're making the backstories and are ok with that?

Well, being new i might be wrong in this, but i am thinking: The back story is not what makes the person! It is the choices that they take and their actions that makes the person.
A not thought through example: You grew up in the same orphanage and had a strong tie. You where split up in different families and have had different paths! However, you have recently met up and have chosen to go on adventures together! :)

@Kish - This would ideally make a random group, and also people would make characters that they wanted to pay, rather than what they needed to play! (If the group needed a healer, someone would be "forced" to go healer) :)

@Theroc - Okay! Great:) Thnx! I've actually thought of this! :smallamused:

X's n O's! : )

[Kish]

Sure, as long as the players are fine with it I think it will work well. I think it's very unlikely that they won't be able to work around anything missing. Sure you might have 2 of the same thing, but probably not 3 or 4. Even 3 matches might be manageable depending on what they are and what the 4th is. And it gives everyone a chance to play their favorite thing.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just say, "You shouldn't worry about fitting into group roles, just create the character you'd want to play in a vacuum," rather than trying to block them from having knowledge of what the others are doing?

Some people might balk at the idea. But those people are likely to try to guess what other people are playing anyway ("Hm, I know Elizabeth loves wizards and Tom likes sneaky types, so..."). They'll just be more stressed about it, and upset about the ways in which they turn out to have guessed wrong.


@Kish - This would ideally make a random group,

And, see, this part is begging the question. Why is a random group "ideal"?

[Answerer]

A group needs reasons to journey together; wildly disparate characters may not have a good reason to do that.

Moreover, on a mechanical level, the power level of various classes are also wildly variant. If you lack clear rules or guidelines on what power level you're going for, some people might think they should be balancing around Tier 4-ish while others balance around Tier 2-ish - not impossible but could get ugly. Or wose, Tier 5 and Tier 1 - that almost is impossible to make everyone relevant (see Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit or any superhero group that included Aquaman).

However, the "role" worry is largely unfounded. 3.5 isn't big on roles. Most (decent) classes are reasonably versatile, most weak classes aren't good even at their supposed role, and there aren't really specific things that a group needs (healing can be gotten trivially a variety of ways, trapfinding is mostly unnecessary, etc.).

[XnOs]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say, "You shouldn't worry about fitting into group roles, just create the character you'd want to play in a vacuum," rather than trying to block them from having knowledge of what the others are doing?

Some people might balk at the idea. But those people are likely to try to guess what other people are playing anyway ("Hm, I know Elizabeth loves wizards and Tom likes sneaky types, so..."). They'll just be more stressed about it, and upset about the ways in which they turn out to have guessed wrong.

You are assuming that the players know each other! :)
- You are correct!
But if that's the way some of the players wants to do, rather than going for a character they would enjoy the most, that's their own damn fault imho! :D
- Also if everyone thinks like that, it could be just as random! ^^

The fact that they don't know what each other will play will make it random! And if they talk about it, someone could be, more or less, forced to play a role they didn't like, as explained above! :)
If they where choosing while interacting they could chose what the gap would be in the group! :) Or even chose to create no gap.

I feel like i have explained this a few times, am i understanding the question correct? :)

X's n O's! :smallbiggrin:

[XnOs]

And, see, this part is begging the question. Why is a random group "ideal"?
You have misunderstood me!
Ideally the group would be random! As in, if the group-creation-idea is executed, the ideal outcome is a random group.
So the group wouldn't be ideal!:smallwink:

I hope this clarify!:)

[ericgrau]

@Kish: Yes you could and it could work well, but some players still feel like filling holes anyway. Forcing it, with player permission, creates more of a surprise factor and makes their head start spinning about how they're going to work around it after characters are made rather than before.

If you lack healing give out a wand of cure light wounds. A ranger, paladin or bard can use it too. If you lack magic, give out more potions and similar cheap wondrous items. Especially oil of magic weapon or ghost touch (for incorporeal, low levels), see invisibility (mid levels) and fly (high levels). Permanent flight items too. If the party lacks a skillmonkey you can usually have the tank run through the trap and eat the effect or break down the door or have a caster summon something to eat the trap or cast something to open the door.

If the party lacks melee... you're fairly screwed at low levels without high optimization. MiC has some items that give temporary HP I think. Run-away items like potions or scrolls of invisibility might be handy. Potions of displacement are handy for a designated "tank" if he can clog the hallway. But otherwise (a) early in the fight leave the drinker's allies more open to damage when the drinker didn't go boom or (b) later in the fight aren't as reliable for escape as invisibility. At mid & high levels encouraging defensive spells makes it easier and easier to manage, but those with hour/level durations are better than shorter ones which run into the same issues as displacement.

Starting at level 5 like a lot of games do provides the spells or magic items that work around nearly all of the above.

[killem2]

I didn't even realize that it was common practice to balance the party out based on needs. My group created characters they wanted, I told them all to not base any choices on anything they know out side of the game of each other, and it worked out really well.

We're doing fine, I as the DM build around their characters fine as well.

/shrug :smallconfused:

[Terazul]

Well, being new i might be wrong in this, but i am thinking: The back story is not what makes the person! It is the choices that they take and their actions that makes the person.

But it's generally the backstory that shapes the initial character and how they approach and make those choices. Everyone might not want to come from an orphanage. I mean, if they're ok with you writing them, that's fine. But make sure of that first.


You are assuming that the players know each other! :)
- You are correct!
But if that's the way some of the players wants to do, rather than going for a character they would enjoy the most, that's their own damn fault imho! :D
- Also if everyone thinks like that, it could be just as random! ^^

The fact that they don't know what each other will play will make it random! And if they talk about it, someone could be, more or less, forced to play a role they didn't like, as explained above! :)
If they where choosing while interacting they could chose what the gap would be in the group! :) Or even chose to create no gap.


See this doesn't make any sense to me. I still don't get how "random!" is any better than just letting them talk about what they want. The problem with the whole "forced to play a role they don't like" is alleviated by explaining they don't have to. The problem of "everyone rolling up a rogue and then trouble with overlap" is easily alleviated by just letting everyone talk about things in the first place.

Like, seriously. What are you trying to accomplish besides "random group", and what does having a "random group" really contribute to the gaming experience of everyone involved? That's kind of the point, isn't it?

[XnOs]

@Kish: Yes you could, but some players still feel like filling holes anyway. Forcing it, with player permission, creates more of a surprise factor and makes their head start spinning about how they're going to work around it after characters are made rather than before.

This is very well explained!! And also my exact idea and thoughts!
I couldn't quite get it down this precise! Thanks mate!:)

Big X's n O's! :smallwink:

[Ormur]

My first campaign had just two characters, a wizard and a cleric. Of course things weren't very optimized but there were no big problems really, the DM just couldn't throw a lot of traps at us.

The traditional roles aren't necessary at all, not even for new players. But similar concepts might be a problem, especially if one is more competent than the other. Even then it should be possible to help them out.

[XnOs]

But it's generally the backstory that shapes the initial character and how they approach and make those choices. Everyone might not want to come from an orphanage. I mean, if they're ok with you writing them, that's fine. But make sure of that first.



See this doesn't make any sense to me. I still don't get how "random!" is any better than just letting them talk about what they want. The problem with the whole "forced to play a role they don't like" is alleviated by explaining they don't have to. The problem of "everyone rolling up a rogue and then trouble with overlap" is easily alleviated by just letting everyone talk about things in the first place.

Like, seriously. What are you trying to accomplish besides "random group", and what does having a "random group" really contribute to the gaming experience of everyone involved? That's kind of the point, isn't it?
ericgrau explained it pretty well!
And having a random party forces people to have a different approach, rather than what you see in most scenarios!:)

Also, people can chose their character to have acted EXACTLY as they please after they've left the Orphanage!
- No one decides where to be born, or end up as a newborn!
You are right! If my players wont accept that they cant chose where they where born, they might not agree! But my answer would be:
No one chooses where to be born, and this is important for the group to work together! Doing it like this even leaves A LOT of space for you to fill in your characters chooses in life! - Actually it allows you to chose them ALL!! :)
- Note! This was written in 10 seconds, and not thought through! I do see the obvious flaws like very different lifespans! :)

[Kish]

You have misunderstood me!
Ideally the group would be random! As in, if the group-creation-idea is executed, the ideal outcome is a random group.
So the group wouldn't be ideal!:smallwink:

I hope this clarify!:)
No, it only clarifies that you think I misunderstood you in some way. Let me rephrase.

Why is a random group better than a non-random group?

Why is "This would ideally make a random group" being presented as a reason to do it?

[XnOs]

No, it only clarifies that you think I misunderstood you in some way. Let me rephrase.

Why is a random group better than a non-random group?

Why is "This would ideally make a random group" being presented as a reason to do it?

Your question was: Why do you want to do this?
My answer: To make a random group.

Assuming that "this" - Is the way of forming the group! - As described in the thread. I now understand that my assumption was incorrect!

"this" was making a random group.

To answer your question, im going to quote
"ericgrau
@Kish: Yes you could, but some players still feel like filling holes anyway. Forcing it, with player permission, creates more of a surprise factor and makes their head start spinning about how they're going to work around it after characters are made rather than before."

That sums it up! :)

[Terazul]

:smallconfused:


@Kish: Yes you could and it could work well, but some players still feel like filling holes anyway. Forcing it, with player permission, creates more of a surprise factor and makes their head start spinning about how they're going to work around it after characters are made rather than before.


I'm still not seeing how players who fit this archetype freaking out about party composition after character creation is any better than them just solving it before. If they're the type to throw themselves into a role anyway it just means you kinda gimped them 1 level. But again if they're ok with this, then by all means. I haven't really seen any indication of this is the big thing. Just "I'm gonna do this!" without any regard so far as to what the players think about it. Which is the important part.

Yeah, people don't choose where to be born. In real life. Sure, given a campaign setting there's likely to be certain liberties taken in that you all come from a certain area. Saying "I'm not letting them choose how they grew up so they have the freedom to choose what they're going to do later!" sounds like a load of bollocks though. They have that freedom anyway. Sorry if you take offense, but this really doesn't jive well with me.

[XnOs]

:smallconfused:



I'm still not seeing how players who fit this archetype freaking out about party composition after character creation is any better than them just solving it before. If they're the type to throw themselves into a role anyway it just means you kinda gimped them 1 level. But again if they're ok with this, then by all means. I haven't really seen any indication of this is the big thing. Just "I'm gonna do this!" without any regard so far as to what the players think about it. Which is the important part.

Yeah, people don't choose where to be born. In real life. Sure, given a campaign setting there's likely to be certain liberties taken in that you all come from a certain area. Saying "I'm not letting them choose how they grew up so they have the freedom to choose what they're going to do later!" sounds like a load of bollocks though. They have that freedom anyway. Sorry if you take offense, but this really doesn't jive well with me.

I am not offended! Your feedback is much appreciated and for that i thank you! :)

A little side note: Please don't use quotation marks without quoting correctly!:) It gives a false impression of what i am actually saying!

This part: "I'm not letting them choose how they grew up so they have the freedom to choose what they're going to do later!" Is also misunderstood!
I would, in this case, let them do what ever they want from the moment they gain the ability to do so! If one of them wanted to run away from home at the age of 5 and become a shoe-salesmen, i would accept it! ( I made a strange example to show that anything is possible, not to offend in any way!) :)

So to sum up: I would not be taking away ANY free will what so ever!:)

And if you tell them "you can group up and talk about your character creation" It would not be a truly random group, and the group would, most likely, not miss out on any vital roles!:)

I hope this helps with the understanding of my thoughts! :)
And please, if i forget to make smilys, i am not mad, offended or angry but merely focused on getting my point out understandable and clear! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

X's n O's - XnOs! :)

[Endarire]

My experience is thus: Especially with a new GM, you'd better have the basics covered.

Why?

1: The Tier System (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293) states that the higher your tier, in general, the more flexibility you have. A party of all Fighters has little flexibility. A party of all Druids or Wizards has tons!

2: Traditional adventures rely on parties of traditional adventurers. The game assumes the party of Healy Cleric/Blasty Wizard/Tanky Fighter/Minesweeper Rogue. The CR system, as finicky as it is, relies on this setup, too!

3: In my experience, the Wizard is the most valuable party member. Why? He has a very big spell list that can cover the roles of every party member. Sinfire Titan (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1570.0) and Treantmonk (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0) have very nice guides on the subject. (Wizards, not soloing D&D.) With some ingenuity and patience, your Wizard can eclipse all other party members in usefulness. (I'm not saying he'll even try, and the best party Wizards rely on buffing party members, controlling crowds, and managing minions, all in the name of support.)

For example, an unseen servant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unseenServant.htm) can drag 100 pounds. Make a scarecrow weighing about 100 pounds and have the servant pull it to detect and possibly disarm traps. It should activate most weight-based and proximity-based traps.

Need to heal? Cast a summon monster spell with the Vivacious template applied. (The template is in the Planar Handbook.) Or hire a healing hireling, but that's being less self-reliant.

Need to melee? Summon or charm or dominate something to do it for you. Or even polymorph or alter self yourself into something durable or/and potent. Hydras are a favorite offensive form and will-o-wisps are a favorite defensive form. Troglodytes give AC for alter self. There are more potent options outside core.

Need to be in location X or turn Y into Z? There are spells for that. Teleport, dimension door, plane shift, polymorph any object, transmute Y to Z... They're core and meant for Wizards.

(Side note: In Baldur's Gate II, a second edition game, a Sorcerer is one of the only classes that can solo the game. It's the only class that can solo the game on the highest difficulty without magic items or padding a spellbook. And yes, aside from some minor differences, Sorcerers and Wizards/Mages cast the same spells.)

4: See my signature for Challenging 3.5 and Pathfinder Parties in Practice. It helps!

(PS: I'm well aware of that quote and how 8 Bit Theatre turned out, and how even a solo White Mage can handle Final Fantasy I.)

[Killer Angel]

My thought is:
Asking the members of my scenario to chose class and race, without interacting! The idea is to make a random party that might lack some of the "essentials". As the skill monkey, healer, tank or caster! :)


It's the method I use as standard, and it works.
But must be said that, usually, the last player joining the game, asks to other players if there is need of something specific... but only to be sure to have a group with at least a meleer or a caster.

[Gimur]

This is actually what my group did for the game I am in currently, but the 3 of us were starting at level 10 (Pathfinder). We didn't discuss it at all with one another as we made our characters, and it actually worked out brilliantly.

I rolled up a Priest, and the others picked Wizard (Enchantment specialized) and Fighter. There was going to be a 4th, who was only able to play one session before he had to back out, but he picked Rogue. It really couldn't have worked out better.

Though, this is a low power campaign. Even if we had overlapped, I think we would have been fine.

[eggs]

I'd be pretty bummed if I brought a sword and board fighter to the table alongside a DMM Cleric and RKV.

I'd feel pretty awkward if I brought an action economy abuse Wilder into a game with a Monk and Soulborn.

And I really don't see an upside (recognizing a lack of healing doesn't mean that someone has to take up the role; it just means the players have the opportunity to stock up on wands ahead of time; before their characters die to nicks and bruises).

[Lonely Tylenol]

It requires a fair deal of engineering on behalf of the DM, but it can work. I myself did this with a group of twelve, but went a step further and didn't even ask them to pick out races or classes; I asked them what they wanted to do. I could give a more complete write-up of the results at another time, as I am at work, but the long and short of it is that we are still going strong with ten of the original twelve (the other two were more casual and just weren't in it for the long haul), with more people clamoring to join in spite of the size. :smallsmile:

[LordBlades]

IMO, the biggest problem that could occur is not the lack of a given role, but rather overlapping roles at different levels of power and/or optimization.

Let's say two players think about the same archetype, let's say unarmed warrior. One of them shows up with a Monk, the other one with a Talashtora Psiwar or unarmed Swordsage. Now you have a problem, because one of these characters is most likely better than the other at almost everything. So it's either the strong character barely tries, or the weak character feels useless.

[Honest Tiefling]

I agree with the people speaking about tiers. Even if you do not agree on tiers, you'd probably agree that people can still come to the table with characters with vastly different power levels. I think you said that your players were experienced, but not if they were hardcore optimizers, hardcore roleplayers, both or some sort of mix.

I understand that you were miffed to play the big ol' box of bandaids, but I think a better solution is to say that as a DM, you will adjust the situation and story as best you can, to accommodate a lack of a role. You're new, but everyone sorta ends up doing this from my experience. This way, you could have a party without a healbot and be just fine.

The shared backstories is I think a more taste thing. Personally, I'd hate it. I don't like control of my character yoinked away, nor of the circumstances that shaped my character. The character that is a ends justify the means and is gruff in personal dealings is far different if they came from a cozy wee orphanage then from a plague infested town. One is more justified, the other is more likely to just be an emo gooberhead.

There is also the case that you cannot reference events without getting the approval of everyone. I do not know about your games, but getting people to discuss it out of game is hard for me, so trying to establish interpersonal relationships, past events and remarkable people can be daunting. I usually only do that when I play with my sister for this reason.

I also find that it is a problem to have a shared backstory and the characters end up hating each other and at each other's throats once play starts because someone made a lawful my way or my fist in your face type, and the other made a rebel who can't stand laws and doesn't listen to the MAN. Neither is correct, but it is quite strange that people who hate each other decide to stick around each other. I much prefer more situational and survival based ways to get the group to stay together, such as a zombie eating the barkeep ten feet away.

EDIT: I suggest asking your party, and noting their first reaction. If they say okay, go for it. If there is any hem or hawing or rolling of the eyes, reconsider or compromise.

[Kerilstrasz]

well... if you want to have a surprise/random touch on the group asembly just make some "tickets" with races you allow and classes... 1 of each... then let your players blind pick a race and a class... or only class so you avoid mishaps like dwarf or orc sorcerer...
this way no1 gets the same class and it kinda random for them... you may decide that you want to let them swap their tickets with each other...
in this way you can left out some races or classes you dont like or you think that would be kinda unecessary for your campaign...
or you could add 2 times a cleric to be sure you provide em a healer...
think about it

[XnOs]

well... if you want to have a surprise/random touch on the group asembly just make some "tickets" with races you allow and classes... 1 of each... then let your players blind pick a race and a class... or only class so you avoid mishaps like dwarf or orc sorcerer...
this way no1 gets the same class and it kinda random for them... you may decide that you want to let them swap their tickets with each other...
in this way you can left out some races or classes you dont like or you think that would be kinda unecessary for your campaign...
or you could add 2 times a cleric to be sure you provide em a healer...
think about it

That sounds interesting and fun, but it would not let the players play whatever they felt like!:) Which was one of the points! ^^

Thnx for all the inputs guys! <3:smallbiggrin:

X's n O's!

[Slipperychicken]

I think it would be better to let people write their own backstories, and if some players really don't want to, you can write it for them. If you need them all to come from the same orphanage for the plot to work, just say "Write backstories, but you all need to come from the same orphanage. Feel free to make yourselves friends with other party members."

For "random" classes, you can easily just ask your players to make characters without worrying about party balance. Since these guys are experienced, and most likely mature, this should work just fine. You'd be surprised how easy it is to just ask players to do these kinds of things. I assume that the intent is for everyone to play what they want to play, rather than necessity forcing them into certain roles, but players (especially experienced ones) can usually take care of this themselves.

[XnOs]

I think it would be better to let people write their own backstories, and if some players really don't want to, you can write it for them. If you need them all to come from the same orphanage for the plot to work, just say "Write backstories, but you all need to come from the same orphanage. Feel free to make yourselves friends with other party members."

For "random" classes, you can easily just ask your players to make characters without worrying about party balance. Since these guys are experienced, and most likely mature, this should work just fine. You'd be surprised how easy it is to just ask players to do these kinds of things. I assume that the intent is for everyone to play what they want to play, rather than necessity forcing them into certain roles, but players (especially experienced ones) can usually take care of this themselves.

I would indeed let them write their own backstories! :smallsmile:
If they where allowed to talk and discuss, they would have the ability to close any role-gaps there might be. This was also one of the reasons why i considered this method of role-creation.
My question about this role-creation method was meant in general, and not specifically for this group! But yes, they are mature and in the other scenario we are playing, we hare working our way without a healer! One was recently assigned, but he is an NPC.
What i might've done in this case would be to let my players manage without, instead of a NPC babysitter! :p
I am not saying that it is a bad idea, but that's just my thoughts on the matter!

X's n O's! :)