DMs - Anyone hand out characters for a campaign?

[pbdr]

So, does anyone have experience with a DM rolling characters and handing them out to players? Not just as a one-off, but campaign wise.

I have a group of players that are getting pretty good, but tend to limit themselves with their class choices. For the next campaign (a ways off), I'm kind-of toying with this idea, but it's a low percentage chance.

Background, details, future progression, etc..... would all be up to the player, but they would get a pre-made character. We have 4 PCs and they'd get a fighter type, arcane caster, divine, and skill monkey.

Alternatively, it might be even better to just hand out roles and stats (fighter, arcane, divine, skilled) and let them go at it....

Again, all just an idea i'm toying with and want to see what the gestalt thinks....

[ArcturusV]

I've had some experience with it.

How I did it:

It was a verge of the mystical apocalypse sort of campaign, where things were about to irrevocably go wrong for the mortal world. I rolled up a character for each player who was going to be a major player in the events going on. Legendary heroes, leaders, etc, who would shape what was about to happen. I also let them roll up their own characters to be the various left hand men/women of these heroes they were going to play. Weaker, more like a personal Cohort and behind a few levels.

Results:

They were excited about the campaign. Until they realized two things that were going on. And that ruined the game for two players, who in turn basically killed off the group. Which you can chalk up to bad DMing on my part.

1) I did not alter events as I wrote them just because it was going to hose people.

example: I had written a part where a meeting everyone was in was going to be crashed by a Dragon Fight. In the process of their fight, part of the building was going to collapse. It was near the entrance, but I figured most everyone would move inside, sit at the tables, etc, so it's more dramatic than anything... everyone stood by the door. So they got buried under some rubble, took damage, knocked prone, etc. And were in the blast radii of some of the breath weapons. Not lethally so. But it irked two of the players.

2) The campaign was one where Avoidance was the highest survival skill.

Basically the Heroes, even the premade ones for them, were not at a level where they were going to go and kill everything they ran into. It was more of a thing where the players had to choose their moments to strike, and avoid bad situations. The characters the rolled up on their own, being a few levels weaker, were designed to be Bodyguards. If you were going to sacrifice someone for the good of the group, you sacrifice Squire McExpendible the III, not Lord Thelon, Grand Marshal of the Elvish Empire. Things just weren't geared for them to kill everything in sight. Dragons were a big thing in it, and I was not just using "The random hatchling with no sign of the mother around who doesn't know sorcery or how to fly yet and is conveniently in your HD range", I was using high level Dragons who were gonna mess them up.

With all those factors, they quit on it. Like I said, bad DMing as I didn't communicate the campaign well enough to them and make sure they were on board.

Other problem being the two who initially quit on me also were more invested in their own made characters than the ones I handed out to them. Wasn't the case for everyone else. But it was something I noticed. They seemed kinda irked that their characters weren't the big kid on campus.

Then again they were so poorly built that a handful of Commoners might have killed their characters off... but I don't remind my friends of the Vampire Incident... :smallwink:

[Malroth]

if i was given a melee guy my first action would be to attempt to get myself killed in an alignment appropiate manner so i could roll up somebody who gets spellcasting.

[Mcdt2]

Not since I last played a AD&D 1e game, so about 2 years I think. I personally HATED it. To be fair, I got stuck as the Druid, and it sucks to play Druid in 1e (seriously, 3.5 is the best thing to ever happen to them.) So, I would say this:

Ask your players what concepts they want to play. If they are more inclined to the MMO party ideas (roles, etc. I get that, big on MMO's myself) then ask what party role they want. If they say "Front-line, DPS" instead of fighter/barb/pally suggest duskblade, Warblade or crusader (if you have Tome of Battle, but Warblade is available online), knight, et cetera.

You can do something less drastic with those who like casters. Instead of recommending new classes, suggest new roles to fill with those classes. Recommend the wizard focuses on control instead of blasting. Suggest clerics go crazy with buffs instead of healbotting.

A bit of disclosure here: The above sounds very much like "Optimize better" in a few spots. Sorry. The group might be low or high op, but it does sound like low op to me, if only because they seem to lack creativity within the system (which is exactly how my group is). Personally, I'm big on optimization, but if only because that which is different from the obvious is many time better (or far worse, but who want to intentionally cripple themselves?). That being said, don't take this the wrong way. Low OP is fun too, and don't be too pushy with your players, unless they are fine with that.

TL;DR: Ask your players how they feel about it. I don't like it, but I love making characters. Others hate it. YMMV.

[ericp65]

From time to time, my first D&D DM would tell me to think of such-and-such a class, and sometimes character level as well (but we mostly started new characters at 1st level), as he'd be writing an adventure or series of quests with that class in mind. I've never had a DM hand me a pre-gen character, and we nearly always used our own creations for published modules, rather than use the pre-made PCs, if any were included. I think the only series for which I ran a campaign with all pre-gen characters was Dragonlance.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by pbdr
So, does anyone have experience with a DM rolling characters and handing them out to players?

As it happens, I used this approach several years ago for a prior campaign--initially a one-shot, which evolved into the most successful campaign I've ever run. That said, the circumstances were extremely unusual and I wouldn't recommend it for everyone.

I'd originally worked up the characters as a low-level team of followers I wanted to use in a different campaign, where I was playing a druid with Leadership. I put a lot of work into my followers, but I never did get to use them as originally intended.

Instead, I used them as a ready-made party in what started out as a playtest of a scenario I'd worked up, and which quickly developed into a full campaign. I'd developed the followers in some detail, with distinct personalities and relationships, and one of the best aspects of that campaign was seeing them come to life at the table, thanks to some excellent roleplaying and a harmonious game vibe.

However, that situation involved some experienced roleplayers who were willing to take what I'd written and run with it. Not sure if it would work well for everyone. As ArcturusV describes in detail, players can become extremely attached to their characters, especially if they're new to roleplaying, and it's only natural they'd want to try out the concepts they've been dreaming of.

[Sylthia]

I wouldn't do that unless they were new to the game, and even then, I'd likely help them with character creation, rather then doing it completely for them. If the entire party is new, then I might make an entire party for a one-shot session, then have everyone roll up characters for the next game.

[HunterOfJello]

Step 1 for ideas like this: Ask them how they feel about this idea.

There are some players who would quit a game over things like this, some who would just dislike it, some who would be fine with it, and some who would hate it. All of this is completely ignoring what the pre-made characters even actually are.

Find out how your players feel before getting too hung up on an idea like this one.

[cerin616]

Actually, I did this once and the players loved it. It was a whole new experience of role playing. rather than make a character off an idea you have, you need to come up with "who would this person really be given this skill set and background?"

If your players enjoy RP, then they might enjoy it.

[angry_bear]

If a player asked me to, I'd make their character for them. As it is though, I've only ever given a rough outline of suggestions about what I'll allow or feel best fits the setting/campaign. So if someone wants to play a monster race for example, I might disallow it since it's primarily a human campaign or something similar to that. I also run more liberal campaigns than that, but if I want something more focused, I'll try to let my players know that without railroading them. Basically I try to be involved in character creation, and tell them what I expect; but the final choice is still up to them for the most part.

[CaladanMoonblad]

My group's Alternative Campaign (when we can only get half the group together due to real life scheduling conflicts) uses Pre-Gen characters exclusively.

How this works; I created a series of generic and specific versions of the base classes (so, a generic Fighter, a specialist Fighter Archer, a Mounted Fighter, etc.) and for someone who hasn't played in the Alternative Campaign, I ask what general type do they want to play- Caster, Face, or Combat. Then I show the 1st level builds (the Alternative Campaign is really low level). I encourage them to "try something new."

Of my players who have played in the Alternative Campaign, they've expressed appreciation simply because they were forced to play something outside of their normal character type. For some of my newer players, it really opens their eyes and helps them appreciate what other players do in the normal campaign.

[00dlez]

Given the very basic class roles you intend to assign the players, I'm curious as to what roles they have been limiting themselves to that has you thinking that a forced change might be in order?

[dysprosium]

I had a similiar experience DMing an alternate campaign. It was for when the regular group could not all be together.

These characters were all created by me but there was a literal TON of them. It was supposed to be an ecclectic adventuring group that I would use as a playtest for different classes/races/items to see how thing would work in actual game situations.

The idea was that the group could mix and match different characters to try new things. And I could see what things I could add to the "regular" game. They had fun with it.

[big teej]

So, does anyone have experience with a DM rolling characters and handing them out to players? Not just as a one-off, but campaign wise.

I have a group of players that are getting pretty good, but tend to limit themselves with their class choices. For the next campaign (a ways off), I'm kind-of toying with this idea, but it's a low percentage chance.

Background, details, future progression, etc..... would all be up to the player, but they would get a pre-made character. We have 4 PCs and they'd get a fighter type, arcane caster, divine, and skill monkey.

Alternatively, it might be even better to just hand out roles and stats (fighter, arcane, divine, skilled) and let them go at it....

Again, all just an idea i'm toying with and want to see what the gestalt thinks....


personally, I'm given to understand this is only kosher in two circumstances
1) convention/game-store/one-off games.
2) an entirely brand new group of players that you don't want to risk losing through the chargen process.

those are the only times I would do it at least.

and cohorts...

[nedz]

personally, I'm given to understand this is only kosher in two circumstances
1) convention/game-store/one-off games.
2) an entirely brand new group of players that you don't want to risk losing through the chargen process.

those are the only times I would do it at least.

and cohorts...

this, basically — well maybe not cohorts; any friendly NPCs though obviously.

A better idea, which does work, is to give them a party theme. E.G. Everyone play a Dwarf, Everyone play a Bard, etc. This allows them to be creative, subverting the theme even, without making decisions for them.

The golden rule here is: Players own their characters and this includes creating them.

[Fouredged Sword]

I have done this, and I found it works better if you do this for low level characters. It lets the player still feel like they can grow the character as they see fit.

Also, allow retraining in case the player wants to tweak the baseline.

Another thing I have done is truly random stats, and then letting players pick the class they play. This is really fun for skilled players.

[Zombimode]

So, does anyone have experience with a DM rolling characters and handing them out to players? Not just as a one-off, but campaign wise.

I have a group of players that are getting pretty good, but tend to limit themselves with their class choices. For the next campaign (a ways off), I'm kind-of toying with this idea, but it's a low percentage chance.

Background, details, future progression, etc..... would all be up to the player, but they would get a pre-made character. We have 4 PCs and they'd get a fighter type, arcane caster, divine, and skill monkey.

Alternatively, it might be even better to just hand out roles and stats (fighter, arcane, divine, skilled) and let them go at it....

Again, all just an idea i'm toying with and want to see what the gestalt thinks....


I have a file of sample character.
For my last three campaigns I told my players: "Show up with a third level character. There is a file called 'sample character'. You can use the characters detailed in there in any way or form, or make your own."

Worked pretty well. Some player like that they have a range of mechanically interesting and reasonably powerful characters to choose from, while others enjoy creating their own. If someone would choose one of the sample characters, but doesn't like some aspects of it, they are free to change it to their liking.