An unusual way to start a game. (advice requested)

[Phyrrus]

So, I'm a fairly inexperienced DM; that task usually falls to those in my group more creative and ambitious than I. It's been long enough since we've played any 3.5/PF/d20, that the urge has become to great for me to ignore, and so, here I am.

Now, I find myself in a situation where one or more of my players are, while not min-maxers exactly, but skilled optimizers at the least. I, however, am not. Additionally, I have observed a trend of bringing to the table, things that are less characters than they are builds. (and yes, I admit to doing it too)

I want to attempt something that will try to curb that habit, and try to bring out more character. And so I propose this, and ask for thoughts, opinions and suggestions on the matter. (and while it could be many systems, this is specifically for Pathfinder)

-------------------------------------

I will ask my players to conceive the character first and foremost, they will have race and stats here, but will be a commoner, for all intents and purpose. They key of course is what they do, and personality and so forth. (although, I may consider the other npc classes as an option)

From this point, we will play the first session (which of course will take into mind the weaker nature of the PC's at this point), where I will observe the behavior of the characters, both before and after the initiating event, say a raid on the city or something similar.

Assuming I can set it up well enough, once the event is complete, the PC's actions should have presented a course towards one or more classes. Obvious options being;

- the character who takes up sword and charges into the fray could be a fighter (or barbarian, or paladin, depending on the approach).
- the one who hides and makes sneak ambushes could be a rouge or ranger.
- spellcasters are much tougher to pick out, although someone like a wizard would of course have to have some study time under their belt, you don't just spontaneously become one.

And so on, and so forth. I have to yet go through and establish guidelines for each of the many classes in Pathfinder, but I think you get the drift.

Then at the end of the session, each player will be presented with the options I feel they've played themselves to, and can then take their first real level of character class (which may just add to the npc class).

From there, as the game continues, I will be keeping track of their behaviours and use of skills and so forth. If a player has not demonstrated that, for example, they have not been studying in order to expand their arcane knowledge, or taking a dip to practice swimming, then, there's no reason to increase their corresponding skill. (unless they've had reasonable cause to use it in the course of adventuring). If they begin to act in manner more in keeping with another class, or if perhaps RP events force them to do so for a time, then perhaps a little multiclassing is in order. (see Elminster's time as a rouge for example)

--------------------------------------------

Now, I realize that I propose an enourmous task of note-taking for myself, above and beyond the usual GM duties, but does this sound like something feasable, or am I setting myself up for a table of frustrated players?

I also realize that this will discourage by its very nature many unusual variations of classes and concepts, but considering what my group has been playing of late, I feel something a little more classic is in order.

Again, any and all suggestions and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[Sir_Thaddeus]

This sounds like an excellent, novel idea; however, your players may not appreciate it. I've considered doing something similar at one point of another, but I've always thought the idea would hold best for a group of inexperienced players. With the more experienced, optimizer-type players, they may be used to creating their own characters, and enjoy that enough to resent what they may see as an attempt to take that away from them. So, to sum up, I think it's a great idea and I love the flavour, but don't count on it going well.

[ArcturusV]

Well, if the goal is to stop people just Optimizing and Random Builds instead of Characters, there's a simple house rule I used to use that puts a kibosh on a lot of the Power Building and such.

When you level up, you can only advance in something related to what you did for a decent amount of time on your last level, or provide an IC reason to have picked up what you want to level into.

What this means is a lot of "one off dips" and such for the sake of optimization usually get crushed. You have to try and act a certain way, use certain skills, research certain ideas, etc, to get it. It also means if your build is something where you can't actually do anything your build is geared to until you hit a magic number (often seems the case), then you'd never actually finish your build. Because as you level you'd have to rely on completely different skill sets limiting your Leveling options to that path.

So lets give a For Instance. A wizard is adventuring. Most of his spells are Conjuration. He's a specialist conjurer. He summons monsters for most of his issues, almost never casts a Non-Conjuration spell, doesn't really use his skills, etc. When he levels up, he has to pick some class (Wizard, maybe a Summoner style PrC) that has to do with his frequent use of Conjuration to solve all his issues. His spells he learns for leveling up are limited to the conjuration school (He never cast anything else, so why would he develop new ideas or theories about Necromancy, or Abjuration?).

[Surfnerd]

Long ago I had a DM do something very similar to what you suggest. It wasn't pathfinder(I don't even think 3rd edition existed yet), I remember feeling powerless, but had a ton of fun while we were weak ol' commoners. There were only two players during that session, but the two of us were the strongest roleplayers out of the group of people we normally played with so I am sure that helped.

Personally I don't think Pathfinder works nor is designed for this type of play. Any system that has volume as large as Paizo's Pathfinders core rulebook is designed to take into account min maxers, optimizers and rule savvy individuals. Not to mention lots of players enjoy this part of the game, which if you take it away they are going to be annoyed more than likely. It sounds like your GM style would be better suited to a less rules intensive system where you can focus on the story without worrying that player X is going to derail anything with optimized characters.

In our current game we had an initial shortage of players so I optimized my half-orc druid based off of internet suggestions. I was afraid if I went to story oriented the whole party would suffer. But I still wrote a very detailed history, bought a lil fig from reaper and gave him personality traits.

[Phyrrus]

I've given this a tenative run by my players, and while there was one or two who initially viewed it as 'throwing of the gauntlet' of sorts, they aren't what you might think of as your typical optimizers, so I think they'll come around by the time the games ready.

And no, the primary goal isn't to stop the optimizing/builds thing, the primary goal is to cause the players to give more thought to their actions, and hopefully feel the impact on their characters decisions. A happy side effect should be to downplay the aspect of nailing the right build.

And thats almost exactly what i was thinking in respect to the ongoing game, ArcturusV. I think the more challanging part might be in justifying feat selections in many cases.

I'm still working on it, but I have to compile a list of rough guidelines of things to look for when presenting initial class options. I mean, how does one act when you might be a sorcerer but don't know it yet? Or a summoner? (to dip outside the core classes)

[Pickford]

Interesting, but if they're all commoners how would you get any of the innate casters like Sorcerors or Psions?

I'd be inclined to suggest you just set some simply ground rules: i.e. These are all generic adventurers from your setting and so no bizarre racial combos that would only exist once in a blue moon, if that.

Or just have them develop a backstory that is reasonable, then have the character match (which I think is what you're trying to do)

[ArcturusV]

Well, sorcerer (Presuming PF didn't change the fluff so much from DnD) should be easy enough if the guy is willing to work with you. Should be someone who stands out from the crowd for some reason. Doesn't need to be "hated and reviled" or "loved and worshiped" but should be something where you can TELL he's in a room because he stands out from everyone else around.

Then have the guy work with you for random "mishaps" to happen when he's around. His power is growing unchecked because he's not channeling it as a sorcerer. Things like random use of cantrips like Magehand, Prestidigitation, etc, "going off" throughout his day when he's around. Shouldn't be clear that he's the source necessarily. Just things like "Huh... that book just fell off the shelf... weird..." (Mage hand) or, "I could swear I left my keys right here... *looks elsewhere* Oh wait... they're back here... huh... how did I miss them?" (Prestidigitation)

[Pickford]

Another fun concept (for a lark)

Have the players build 'people' then assign them jobs. Those jobs are their starting classes.

[ACSherman]

I've always wanted to do something similar to this using the Generic Character classes set up in Uneaerthed Arcana. Have your characters come to the table with character ideas and build the chasis of who that character is from those, then after a certain level (3? 5?) invite them to start using some other classes.

[Arbane]

I was actually in a campaign where the GM did this - with a small detour for a year of being tortured horribly by the drow before we escaped via Deus Ex Machina (no, I'm not still bitter about that AT ALL). We started with nothing and worked our way up to extreme poverty, and I have to say that getting our first levels (similar to how you describe) seemed kind of contrived.

This could work fine in a lot of game systems, especially ones like GURPS or RuneQuest where a non-adventurer can still have basic competence and some ability to Not Die, but I'm not sure it'll work too well in D&D, given how TERRIBLE Commoners are at everything but chicken-generation.

[ArcturusV]

Eh. Good point. Should always ask beforehand.

I'm not in favor of typically stripping characters of everything to start something off. Probably the way I would have run it is let them tell me what they are thinking about being in general (Arcane, Skills, Warrior, Priest), give them appropriate HP (4, 6, 10, 8). Let them acquire weapons as fits ASAP. Maybe give the spellcaster types a random level 0 spell, etc. Level them up pretty fast.

[killem2]

Stuff


As a once new dm myself (only just over a year old now), I would highly advise against DMing certain ways because you -think- someone might -overdo it-.

Instead, used your compelling story to introduce them to each other, let them create their own characters, and use the many tools (such as these boards) for way to create challenging encounters if you have trouble.

Its what I did, and when we start up again, we'll have 9 players with nearly 14 bodies (characters/minons/animals ect) on the board.

It's handful but I manage. :smallsmile:

[DaTedinator]

Now, this probably won't be helpful for you given your self-professed inexperience; plus, my campaign hasn't started yet, so I can't actually tell you if this has worked for me or not.

But basically, I have a similar situation, with players who are very good at the system - so good, in fact, that their proficiency with the system hinders their creativity at times. For example, even if you were to come up with a fantastic idea for, say, an Ogre Wizard, no fool would be ridiculous enough to actually build that as a character. And so the idea goes to the wayside.

Additionally, I have some other players who are not very good at building characters - such that they'll often get left by the wayside, due to their characters just not being as good as the others.

In order to combat both of those things, I'm trying something different for this upcoming campaign. I'm asking my players for in-depth character descriptions - no limits, but I'm recommending at least like three pages. Then, I'm building their characters based off of their descriptions. I'll be choosing the classes, feats, skills, everything. And because I'm the DM, I can do weird stuff if I want - if someone wants to play an Ogre Wizard, for instance, I can fudge/remove the LA, set the stats to whatever I think will make it playable, etc..

This way, because they all trust my character building skills and my sense of balance, they can feel free to try whatever they want, without fear of accidentally screwing themselves.

Everyone has been totally on board with the idea, but like I said, the campaign hasn't actually started yet, so unfortunately I can't tell you how it worked.

[Shining Wrath]

Seed of an idea there, but not likely to work as you've laid it out. There's no way to turn a commoner into a Wizard without some serious DM fiddling. And where a commoner is in the town when stuff goes down may determine their response as much as their personality - someone who might prefer to avoid combat sees that the goblins (or whatever) are about to spear a child, and grabs a weapon and charges. Now they get dubbed Fighter-type when their true nature is Rogue-type.

You could try something like the Final Fantasy trope where "We all grew up together and you could always tell who was going to be the wizard, the fighter, etc".

[Shining Wrath]

Here's an idea. You'll want to discuss it with your table first.

You, as DM, create a number of race / class pairs, and generate the ability scores. The ability scores are 28 or 32 point buy, and you won't be super optimal. No wizards with INT=20 and everything else dumped, for example. And the race / class pairs are not optimal, either; dwarf wizards and elf clerics and so on.

The number of characters you pre-generate is larger than the number of seats at your table by 2 or 3.

Session 0, the players choose one of your characters, and "flesh it out". Given a less than perfect start, what can they do with it? Encourage them to come up with a back story for how their dwarf became a wizard.

Then in the first encounter, those who really worked at developing a character rather than a build get better swag.

[hoverfrog]

One of the players in my Isle of the Small Folk game chose to roll his character up using a randomiser. It picked his ability scores, race, class, skills, feats, even his animal companion. He then changed the glaring inconsistencies to fit (I think he dropped a few ranks in one skill for another so he could ride his animal companion horse or something similar) and built the fluff around it. They've just advanced to second and he's proceeding as any other character would.

There are a couple of advantages to introducing new PCs this way, I think.

It's less contrived and a lot less work on the DM's part.
It may give a player a PC class or race that they would otherwise never have chosen.
It allows for feats that may never normally be chosen by an optimiser.
It allows the player to explore why they've got odd skills or feats in their background (Why has the Human Druid got the Stealthy and Track feats?) that make for a more three dimensional character.


Of course you have to get players on side first or the guy who usually plays wizards will take one look at his gnome barbarian and get pissed at the DM for lumping him with a dud PC. You need to have a background for the PCs to use in their character creation though.

Another way to go is to limit the character choices severely at start up. One game I was in had everyone begin as a first level elven warrior. We lived on an island with other elves and had no knowledge or other races or way of life. One day men came to the island and they were like us but had this strange growth on their faces (beards) and wore metal clothing (chain mail or breastplate armour) and carried weapons unsuited to hunting (swords) or strange contraptions that shot metal arrows (crossbows). They were slavers and the elves had to defend their home.

The players got to advance after the third session and choose a class to replace Warrior and then character progression proceeded normally.

Both of these essentially remove the character creation choices from the players so you really have to get their consent to do so but they can be fun.

[Greenish]

From there, as the game continues, I will be keeping track of their behaviours and use of skills and so forth. If a player has not demonstrated that, for example, they have not been studying in order to expand their arcane knowledge, or taking a dip to practice swimming, then, there's no reason to increase their corresponding skill. (unless they've had reasonable cause to use it in the course of adventuring). If they begin to act in manner more in keeping with another class, or if perhaps RP events force them to do so for a time, then perhaps a little multiclassing is in order.I'm not sure that's the best way to help your players play the character, not the class. :smallamused:


As for players optimizing beyond your comfort zone, well, you could ask them to tone it down.

[Story]

If your players enjoy optimizing, shouldn't you let them do it? There's more than one way to play the game.

[killem2]

There are many great ideas here, I want to ask though. The person who you say is the one who might over optimize, do you have examples of how badly he/she over did it last time?


There is optimizing and trying to push luck on shady R.A.I instances.


If your players enjoy optimizing, shouldn't you let them do it? There's more than one way to play the game.

I agree, optimizing doesn't always gaurentee 110% success!

[hewhosaysfish]

And where a commoner is in the town when stuff goes down may determine their response as much as their personality - someone who might prefer to avoid combat sees that the goblins (or whatever) are about to spear a child, and grabs a weapon and charges. Now they get dubbed Fighter-type when their true nature is Rogue-type.


I'm not sure that's the best way to help your players play the character, not the class. :smallamused:

This is the same sort of thing I was thinking.

The guy who wanted to play a Fighter-type will be happy to fight things but will refuse to even try sneaking anywhere or talking to anyone in case you decide thay he should be a Rogue.
The guy who does want to be a Rogue will steal everything just to make sure.
They guy who wanted to be a Wizard will not want to do anything. He'll just stand at the back of the group and... I dunno what he'll do. Think of ideas, maybe.

[Phyrrus]

Some good responses here, gives me a fair bit to consider. Of course I wasn't going to go ahead with it if my players weren't willing to give it a go; the last thing I might want is a rebellious player who feels picked on by the GM. This is all just something I was hoping to try to counter the habit if character 'builds', which I'm sure we can all agree rarely make sense outside the vaccuum of theorycrafting.


As for this;


The guy who wanted to play a Fighter-type will be happy to fight things but will refuse to even try sneaking anywhere or talking to anyone in case you decide thay he should be a Rogue.
The guy who does want to be a Rogue will steal everything just to make sure.
They guy who wanted to be a Wizard will not want to do anything. He'll just stand at the back of the group and... I dunno what he'll do. Think of ideas, maybe.

While I see your point, this is a bit extreme. The only way I might disallow the continued progression in a class is if they hadn't done anything class relevant sicne their last level. And what do you think the odds of that are? More to the point, my intent would be to allow their actions to open up other avenues. See your fighter example lets say; if sneaking is something he wants to do, by all means, go ahead. If it becomes habitual enough, then maybe progression in rouge might be appropriate if the player thinks thats the way the character is progressing.


There are many great ideas here, I want to ask though. The person who you say is the one who might over optimize, do you have examples of how badly he/she over did it last time?

I actually don't have specifics, as we technically have not played Pathfinder yet with this group. We've been playing a great many other systems, as the player in question and I have for some time been in disagreement about 3.5/pathfinder. The disagreement regarding the inherently broken nature of the system as they perceive it, and how one would be foolish to not use the imbalances to your advantage.

And of course, I'm well aware of the fine balance of keeping the optimizer happy vs. the rest of the group. (and the lovely 'arms' race of encounters that can occur if left unchecked).:smallwink:

[Greenish]

This is all just something I was hoping to try to counter the habit if character 'builds', which I'm sure we can all agree rarely make sense outside the vaccuum of theorycrafting.I don't know what you mean, but out of habit disagree.

[Story]

This is all just something I was hoping to try to counter the habit if character 'builds', which I'm sure we can all agree rarely make sense outside the vaccuum of theorycrafting.


I also disagree. Classes and levels are an abstraction anyway.

[Acanous]

So lets give a For Instance. A wizard is adventuring. Most of his spells are Conjuration. He's a specialist conjurer. He summons monsters for most of his issues, almost never casts a Non-Conjuration spell, doesn't really use his skills, etc. When he levels up, he has to pick some class (Wizard, maybe a Summoner style PrC) that has to do with his frequent use of Conjuration to solve all his issues. His spells he learns for leveling up are limited to the conjuration school (He never cast anything else, so why would he develop new ideas or theories about Necromancy, or Abjuration?).

You say that like a Wizard needs a school that isn't conjuration.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I have done this before.
Don't use commoners.
When we first tried this we did all commoners, played about 45 minutes till (i can't remember why it was a while ago) we where roll init against a "rabid" dog. Our group of 5 Died in 6 rounds... Literally the dog took out a person a turn.

So after that we still wanted to try a game like this so we limited it to NPC classes. It was still hard trust me. But it makes it playable.

[Phyrrus]

I also disagree. Classes and levels are an abstraction anyway.

Ah, well what I meant is that it never made sense to me that the nice, clean progression of your build rarely makes sense once you find yourself in the context of a game. As though the character would inevitably make the decisions leading along that build, no matter what he/she is faced with inside the game.

[ArcturusV]

True enough Arcanous. Though sometimes when I ask a wizard player a "for instance" example, how they handle it usually involves non-conjuration.

"How do you handle a dragon?" "Use a necromancy spell to drain it's nearly nonexistant Dex so it is helpless. Whale away as needed against the helpless target."

Even though a conjurer could use straight Conjuration as well.

[Dust]

If I was my character and not the player, and I understood the very meta idea that whatever I put my mind to improving would see positive results almost immediately, then in a perfect world I'd start improving whatever was MOST BENEFICIAL TO ME. Note that this doesn't hold true for real life because humans aren't that detached from their needs/wants to be objective, but we can assume that it's still a safe assumption in general.

If you're in a campaign where you're always fightin' monsters, then logically a character should probably pick up combat feats so that they don't get killed. If you're in a campaign where the threat of drowning is a very real and very constant possibility, then it would be wisest get out of the heavily encumbered armor, start focusing on alternatives, and put points in swim.


Ah, well what I meant is that it never made sense to me that the nice, clean progression of your build rarely makes sense once you find yourself in the context of a game. As though the character would inevitably make the decisions leading along that build, no matter what he/she is faced with inside the game.
Characters who don't adapt to the environment they're presented with are ultimately LESS optimized than those who do. Focusing on combat-ready fighter in a skill-heavy campaign means you'll be less useful much more of the time, defeating the entire idea of a min(imized weaknesses) max(imized usefulness) character.

In pathfinder and D&D especially, 'prerequisites' are ideally supposed to represent a progression of in-character experience - You can't Go Unnoticed unless you're nimble AND small, and you can't take Ironguts unless you're tough as nails AND a member of a species where nibbling on poison would be biologically acceptable.
And in the above examples, it still remains easy enough to justify most options - if you realize water = dangerous, then you simply mention that you've started to go for a lap or two around the boat every day in preparation for your next level-up.

Not exactly relevant to finding a solution, mind you, but still something worth pondering. It sounds like you just want more roleplaying and less meta, am I right?

[Toy Killer]

I find the easiest way to handle 'Roll'-players (as opposed to 'Role' Players) is to give them something outside of the rules to work with. The trick is to make it have recursive to the story at hand.

Diplomancer Bard? Have a kid dropped off with him, while she claims it was his. Oh, sure, he can chat his way to infinity about how much she loves him, but that just affirms her belief that he would be a better father then she is a mother. And... the kid is a constant threat to the party, because no one wants to have an unbridled ball of chaos running around a dangerous dungeon. So, He's going to have to work out deals for people to baby sit for him.

Batman Wizard? Give him an artifact thousands of scholars and archivist are dying for. Have him deal with it's safe keeping and find means around them (You can easily find numerous ways in campaign that a wizard can counter another wizard.) For extra credit, make it's significance mundane. For example, the Vase of Alimia, which could provide Proof that St. Cuthbert had an illegitimate child in his days as a mortal. Horrific consequences for the church, and it's allies, but a great boon for the enemies of the church.

What this does for the campaign is it gives your players a legitimate reason to flex their core skills, be the best around of what they do best. At first, it seems kinda cheesy, but it builds the way out of character sheet and into character profile. Plus, whenever you need a spare second to work something out in the game, you always have a spare tire to pull out on the characters. "The Innkeepers of Uldum are getting frustrated with your toddler pulling out the hair of their prize Boar mount." "Temple thieves of Oli have been caught in one of your preset traps." Eventually, your characters are going to recognize themselves beyond the trials of dungeons and for who they are in the world they live in.


Seriously, how often do we have to tell people no one lives in a vacuum?

[Barsoom]

It's not your players' fault. The system naturally pushes you toward playing builds over characters. Sounds like you need some time away from 3.5 or any 3.5-clone system.

[lsfreak]

Ah, well what I meant is that it never made sense to me that the nice, clean progression of your build rarely makes sense once you find yourself in the context of a game. As though the character would inevitably make the decisions leading along that build, no matter what he/she is faced with inside the game.

I would argue you're viewing this backwards. It has nothing to do with "working towards being such-and-such PrC." It's instead, the character is continuing to build and shape himself, and along the way learns or discovers new abilities. A wizard doesn't sit down and say, "I'm gunna be an archmage." From the in-character perspective, they say, "I want to learn how to shape my AoEs so they don't affect my allies. I think the best way to go about that is <these prereqs for the archmage class>." The rogue doesn't say, "I'm going to take the Craven feat and take a dip in swordsage," it's that they're so focused on dealing damage they are vulnerable to mental attacks, and over time they take their self-taught fighting style and codify parts into very specific set of attacks.

This assumes that classes and the vast majority of classes and PrC's are not something present in the world. A paladin/sorcerer/spellsword/abjurant champion/sacred exorcist would never, ever describe themselves as such a set of classes. To the character, there is no solid dividing line between being a sorcerer and a paladin, even though to the player their is. Adding a single level of spellsword, the full levels of abjurant champion, and sacred exorcist are nothing new and different to the character - they're simply a natural progression of what the character enjoys or is focused on. While this isn't the only way to play, I'd argue it's both the most believable and the most encouraging to roleplay.

I'd say as a DM, you should emphasize these things - encouraging rather than arbitrating the characters' develop. Get why's and how's and what if's out of the characters during gameplay, rather than deciding for them. Use the builds they set up from the start as opportunities for bringing depth to the character.

On a different note, I think starting out as commoners is the wrong way to start out. Adventurers live extremely dangerous lives; they will have been training in one way or another since they were mid-teens, possibly earlier. For me, it would break immersion if a bunch of commoners just started picking up these skills - the first character level represents a long history of working with these skills, years and possibly decades of practice, with the character continually choosing this pursuit. It is not a decision based off their actions in a single day's events.

[DonEsteban]

It's an interesting and intriguing idea. However, what I don't like much about it is this part:

Then at the end of the session, each player will be presented with the options I feel they've played themselves to, and can then take their first real level of character class (which may just add to the npc class).

It's just... too much power (or responsibility) for one person (you!). It would make me feel unconfortable as a player -- even if I generally trust you.

What I would suggest is something more along the following lines (I just made this up, never tried it, mind you):

- Roll 3d6 six times for your stats. In order (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0536.html)*
- Do this once for every player, let everybody choose one of those arrays.
- Randomly choose a race.
- Pick a class, add 5 levels of that class
- Pick a second class randomly. Add 5 levels of this class or 5 levels of the first class. Repeat.
- Pick every other feat (semi-)randomly (excluding power attack for a wizard und such)
- Finish the build. Do all of this together an in at most one session.
- See what you've got. Take a look at each character in turn and brainstorm what kind of person this could be and we he would have and design a backstory. Do this in a secon session or in the second half of the first session.
- If you're lucky, your players might be interested enough that they want to explore further what they just created.
- If it all fails, you're doomed. (But you will have lost just one session or two.)

I don't know if this is the right thing to do for you players, but I would certainly be interested.

* (http://www.lulu.com/shop/richard-tongue/3d6-in-order/paperback/product-18954562.html)

[lsfreak]

It's just... too much power (or responsibility) for one person (you!). It would make me feel unconfortable as a player -- even if I generally trust you.

Ah, that's another point. As the DM, the situations you provide limit the actions a player can take. That is, if you have to negotiate with a merchant, stabbing them in a weak spot is not an available action (barring Chaotic Stupid characters). If a city is occupied, the characters pretty much have to use stealth and subterfuge to do their stuff. Fighting one or two characters at a time limits the usefulness of battlefield control. The players can only take certain actions given a certain scenario.

Now you're not only choosing the scenario, thus indirectly choosing which actions can and can't be taken, but also using those same actions you indirectly chose to choose the classes the players can play. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

[DrDeth]

This idea is not new or novel. 2nd ED had it with their 0 level characters module. I played it. It sucked, big time. We got clerics with a WIS of 9, and so forth.

Why not try this. Roll race randomly.
Roll stats in order: (old school!)
4D6 drop one, reroll 1’s.
Plus one extra roll. Players can sub the seventh roll for any other roll or switch any two rolls.

Players now get to pick any NPC class. Those who pick any class other than Adept get +1 to any two of their rolls. (not +2 to one roll)
After that first level, PC’s can take any class. They also get to count the NPC class as favored.

[Story]

Wouldn't everyone just go Expert and grab some skills in preparation for their real first level?

[Dr Bwaa]

I've done a similar thing, albeit for slightly different reasons, and it worked wonderfully. Here's how I ran it:

Character generation:
Roll stats (I used a pretty high-average technique, 5d6v2 or something)
You are now a level 1 Commoner with those stats
Write me a backstory.
You have -500 xp (if and when you reach 0 xp, you gain level 1 in a class of your choice)

That's all. The first few sessions (until they hit 0xp) were honestly some of my favorites in any campaign (and theirs too, so they tell me). Commoners with no resources can't really fight so they can only gain xp through roleplay*. To advance a level, you just had to discuss your choice with me before you take the level in the class and convince me (if I need convincing) that you've earned that class level in-character (fighting lots, following the town shaman around, sneaking, you get the idea). Other than that, I didn't tell them what classes to take or anything (then again, this was a group in which a couple players actually suggested NPC classes as their level 1 advancement, because they didn't think they'd earned a "real" class yet). It has resulted in (what I think is) a really great campaign, with complex, interesting characters.

The trick is in requiring roleplay in order to advance, because Commoners frankly cannot fight. Once you do that, you may find even the crunchiest of players beginning to care about his character by the time he actually gets a class level.



*The one exception in my game was that I rolled 100 on a d% when they were fishing, so they ended up having a "combat" with a Dire Trout :smallbiggrin:

[Phyrrus]

Some great responses here, especially the last few. Its good to see some fairly varied opinions, and some good suggestions. Gives me a lot to dwell upon, and of course, I have to sit my players down and gauge their level of willingness to try something a little different. :smalltongue: