PDA

View Full Version : [Chargen] Do you groupgen?



Kiero
2007-03-12, 08:15 AM
I see a number of instances of people coming to games with characters pre-made (especially in crunchier systems where it takes a lot of time), rather than everyone hashing it out together. Possibly with some communication beforehand (by email/conversation/whatever) to help guide things. But essentially everyone turns up on the day and you then have to somehow work these characters together.

My own preference nowadays is for groupgen - no one comes with a statted out character (though they might have an idea) and you do it with everyone present all at once. It might even take a whole session, but I tend to find its more than worth it to get a cohesive group. Means you don't end up with jarring mismatches down the line that might be caused by someone not being present then having to be slotted in.

Its something I feel strongly should involve everyone, thus if people can't make it I'd happily postpone (replacing with a one-shot, say) until they all could.

So do other people tend to groupgen, or are they happy to let people turn up with characters, or some mixture?

Attilargh
2007-03-12, 09:42 AM
In the group I game in we usually generate characters on our own and I don't mind, but if I ever get a game running, I swear I will do everything I can to get the players sit at a table and make the characters together. I really want to see a party with that kind of cohesion.

I guess that puts me in the "Depends" group.

clarkvalentine
2007-03-12, 09:44 AM
Every single time. Groupgen is the only way to go with my game group.

PnP Fan
2007-03-12, 10:09 AM
*sigh* I wish we could get group gen going. In most of my groups we find the person willing to run a game, and then folks scatter for a couple of weeks (between sessions), put together characters, and then we figure out how they can be put together in a group. So, what we wind up with is a very organic group of characters that each make sense on their own, that wind up getting put together in one fashion or another "in game". Many of my players like this, and it's hardly the bane of my existence, but as a group we've come to accept (and have fun with) the "meeting the PC's" scene of the game.
We do try to arrange "roles" prior to the first game (spellcasters particularly, so we don't double and triple up on classes/niches).

adanedhel9
2007-03-12, 11:14 AM
I always devote the first session of a new campaign to generating characters. I think it helps a lot, especially with a group with mixed experience (the more experienced help the less). And, while I can't guarantee that every character will fit perfectly into the party and the campaign, that session helps me ensure that everybody is at least close.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-03-12, 11:23 AM
I tried to meet with every player individually and make their characters then. Anything else ether wastes time or is open to abuse.

Wolf53226
2007-03-12, 11:28 AM
We do sort of both, while I allow and am allowed to create characters on my own along with certain other people, we also assume certain people are unable to do that so the all get together a little early the first day and group gen characters. All of us we pregened ones help out.

Telonius
2007-03-12, 11:47 AM
We have elements of both. We usually tell the DM beforehand what sort of character we're wanting to play. If there's some incompatibility (paladin and blackguard in the same team) or gaping hole (no arcane caster), we'll hash that out before the first session. We buy equipment and generally plan out feats before the first session. Then, at the first session, we roll up stats and fill out the rest of the character sheet (attack scores, saves, intelligence scores, etc).

rollfrenzy
2007-03-12, 11:54 AM
We have a combined method. We always make characters together, but that in NO WAY implies that the group thinks about or discusses thier charcaters as they are making them. We do usually have an alignment restriction (good or Evil) but all are encouraged to play whatever they want. If the group ends with 3 druids and a monk well the Dm has his hands full trying to make it work. We tend to make characters alot, and try different campaigns before one'll stick. ( I wonder if there is any correlation?)

Tobaselly
2007-03-12, 12:04 PM
I really really like it when the whole group builds characters and the like together. This way the group works out what kind of game is going to be run together. No one gets their toes stepped on, everyone has an idea of what their role in the group and the game is going to be. This way when the game starts no has to sit on the sides cause their skills or character concept aren't going to be of much use. It builds a much better gaming experience for everyone at the table.

Silvershadow
2007-03-12, 12:21 PM
We never groupgen. I see character creation as a very personal thing. The players will speak to the DM/GM ahead of time and let him know what type of character they're thinking of playing (so we don't end up with 3 rogues), and the DM will let them know if that's okay... Everything that needs to be discussed is done strictly with the DM. Some people show up with pre-made characters, others create them day of, but the details of what actually goes on the sheet doesn't generally get discussed with the players, short of sometimes mentioning the character's class (after it's already been decided). The DM looks the sheets over before the game and if he has any issues, they're addressed at that time.

Honestly, I don't really see why other players should have a say in what my character's going to be like, seeing as I'm the one who's going to be playing it.

Besides, groupgen would make things a tad difficult if one of the players was trying to hide their race/class/alignment from any of the other players for whatever reason. In fact, we have a strictly enforced "Don't look at other players' character sheets" rule due to this. I find that not knowing what's on other people's sheets adds a bit of realism to the game and minimalizes metagaming. When you meet people in real life, you don't automatically know how many "ranks" that person has in "bluff".

Kiero
2007-03-12, 12:31 PM
Honestly, I don't really see why other players should have a say in what my character's going to be like, seeing as I'm the one who's going to be playing it.

Because you (the general "you") are not the only person at the table, and your character choices do not only impact you. Some concepts directly clash with others, some step on the toes (not just niche-wise) of others, some make no sense going together and so on.

Not only that, it's the first chance to actually hash out explicitly what your expectations for the game are, collectively. Without any discussion before you sit down to play, it's far too easy to find out what people thought they agreed on, was nothing of the sort. So many problems down the line come from mismatches in expectation because everyone assumed, without checking, that they were on the same page.


Besides, groupgen would make things a tad difficult if one of the players was trying to hide their race/class/alignment from any of the other players for whatever reason. In fact, we have a strictly enforced "Don't look at other players' character sheets" rule due to this. I find that not knowing what's on other people's sheets adds a bit of realism to the game and minimalizes metagaming. When you meet people in real life, you don't automatically know how many "ranks" that person has in "bluff".

Play preference, I guess. I can't stand "secrets" at the table, all too often seems to have a root in pointless intraparty conflict and antagonism. I play with people who have no difficulty separating player from character knowledge.

I don't find "real life" terribly analogous in these discussions.

Silvershadow
2007-03-12, 12:55 PM
*shrug*

I guess whatever works for your group is fine, then. We haven't had any major issues come up in our games. This is just how we like to do it. As I said, it's not like we all blindly create our characters and end up with a completely mismatched party comprised of CE and LG characters. The DM knows what everyone is planning on playing, so if he thinks there might be issues, he brings it up. For instance, we're going to have a new player join one of our existing games in a couple weeks. The party is made up of all N and CG characters, some with slightly evil tendencies, so he was informed that playing a paladin would likely cause in-party bickering, so he won't be allowed to play one. But other than that, he can do whatever he wants...

Characters in my group still go through some sort of approval process... it's just that it's not the players that get to approve or reject character concepts for other players. My DM's been gaming for the past 15+ years, so he's got a pretty good idea of what will work and what won't.

I dunno, I personally prefer not to know what people are going to play ahead of time, unless I'm having a really hard time deciding what I'm going to play and I'm looking for inspiration. I prefer getting to know their characters as we're playing rather than finding out ahead of time, and then pretending I don't know. I find it more fun this way. But then again, it's just a personal preference.

Gerrtt
2007-03-12, 01:25 PM
I like it, but it never happens with the people I've been gaming with.

Tallis
2007-03-12, 02:04 PM
Players come and go a lot in my group (usually due to school), so it's not really feasible to do groupgen most of the time. Plus it occassionally makes for interesting group dynamics.
That said, it has also caused some problems at times and in the future I have considered doing groupgen when I start a new campaign.
As far as keeping secrets about characters, whether it's good or bad really depends on the players. I usually like to have some surprises built into my characters just for fun. On the other hand we had a player at one time whose goal was to destroy the party, he does not play with us anymore.

LotharBot
2007-03-12, 02:16 PM
We agreed on roles as a group -- "I'll play a fighter type." "I want to play a cleric." "uh, I'm new, I don't know what to play" "since we've already got a figther, maybe try a rogue." "OK." Then I e-mailed everyone chargen instructions (how many dice to roll, what books were allowed, etc.)

Once that was done, the new players had the old players help them generate characters on their own time. One new player came to the first session about half an hour early so I could help him work up his character.

I think that's a good way to go. You don't have to fully generate your character in front of the rest of the group, but at least make sure your party is diverse enough by selecting roles as a group. Then everyone can create whatever mystery they want to create on their own time.

Galathir
2007-03-12, 02:20 PM
Our group gets together for a character generation session where we all make our characters under the eye of the DM. This way we can share advice, ask questions, and generally make sure the DM approves of everything. For higher level characters, we generally have a week to think over our character, write a backstory, and come up with a personality.

Silvershadow
2007-03-12, 02:55 PM
I usually like to have some surprises built into my characters just for fun. On the other hand we had a player at one time whose goal was to destroy the party, he does not play with us anymore.Wow. Yeah, that would never fly with our group either. Anyone who has a character surprise runs it past the DM for approval first, prior to character creation. Adding stuff for flavour is cool, as it sometimes inspires the DM to create side quests or sub plots and whatnot... but if one of the party members' goal is just to destroy everyone else for no apparent reason, then... no.

Dairun Cates
2007-03-12, 03:08 PM
We usually sit down and get the majority of character ideas out for the first session. Then, the players sit down and iron out the details. This allows me to help the players who have trouble with character gen in every step while leaving some freedom to the people that have generated a lot of characters in multiple systems. Also, I can avoid any nasty balancing issues ahead of time since houseruling some of the systems I run would take like 10 pages of rules just to cover the sheer number of infinite power and broken point gen things I won't allow. Also, one of the best characters I ever played was a result of collaboration with other players. There's something about playing identical twin spellcasters with insanely polar charisma scores.

Druid
2007-03-12, 03:20 PM
My group almost always comunicates well enough to make sure we have as many bases covered as possible. Beyond that we don't really build our characters with teamwork in mind.

tbarrie
2007-03-12, 03:44 PM
In my experience, generating characters at a session together results in a lot of people sitting around waiting to see the rulebook. We don't do it any more.

Talyn
2007-03-12, 04:35 PM
I'd LOVE to groupgen more, but players are, as a rule, very independent, and they want to play THEIR characters, not characters that make sense from a plot-development standpoint. Ironically, it's easier with non-D&D games - we groupgen'd our Firefly game with no complaints.

I blame splatbooks, which usually are filled with very cool character concepts that simply don't fit into the campaign the DM (me) built.

Portent
2007-03-12, 05:08 PM
My group initially did group-gen, though once our schedules began to diverge, it was generally just expected that people would come to the table with their characters already made (though more often than not, only the GM would know what everyone was playing, and the players would be pretty well ignorant of one another's choices).

Bryn
2007-03-12, 05:29 PM
Since my group are all pretty new, before a new adventure begins I (as well as my brother) help them all make characters. They generally come up with the concept (although I often help them with that, too), and we (me and my brother) give them advice on making semi-effective characters.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-12, 05:32 PM
As a DM, I avoid groupgen except when a couple players want to be brothers, have a history of working together, or something similar. I prefer adventurers to be well-rounded competent individuals who work together rather than cogs called Tank, Healer, Wizard and Skillmonkey in a machine called Party. With good communication before the session, setting aside the first hour of the first session to iron out last-minute details works well. The first adventure is like the pilot of a TV series. Somebody or something that doesn't work can be replaced and someone or something missing can be added.

As a player, my character's abilities and motivations are his own business. How much of either he shares depends upon what in-game circumstance dictates and his relationship to other members of the party.

Kiero
2007-03-12, 06:12 PM
My group almost always comunicates well enough to make sure we have as many bases covered as possible. Beyond that we don't really build our characters with teamwork in mind.

This isn't simply about having "teamwork in mind". It's about making sure everyone is on the same page, and considering whether or not they're trying to have compatible kinds of fun. It's about people getting all their expectations and issues out before anything happens, rather than discovering that kind of thing down the line.

All too often I read stories of group breakdown which have their roots in everyone thinking they're playing a different game to the one the person next to them thinks they're playing. Communication in this respect can only be a good thing.

Quietus
2007-03-12, 09:09 PM
I tend not to do groupgen, partially from time/distance constraints (my players span four cities), and partially because several of my players prefer to draw things up and have their characters be a big surprise to everyone. That said, I do have them run stuff past me so that I can be sure that everything will mesh together well - it's one thing to have a blackguard and a paladin in the same party, I actually have no problems with that, so long as the blackguard isn't OPENLY evil. Yes, it can lead to in-party conflict, but if that's roleplayed well, it can add more than it takes away.

Plus, it removes the idea of "Well, no one else is playing XXXXX, so I guess I have to..."


My favorite thing about this - Once, during a game, I created a wererat rogue that (originally, anyway) had sticky fingers. One of the other players was a town guard, part of a VERY lawful town - if someone is found to have sticky fingers, the common solution is to cut them off. Perfect recipe for in-party conflict.

Turns out, the two of them got along quite well together, once they'd been in a fight or two. Eventually the guard learned of my character's theiving skills, but since he has never seen me break into something illegally (Not to say I haven't, but he hasn't seen me), he has no problems with me using my talents to get us into places. Lock picks are illegal, you see... but given the circumstances, he's accepted the fact that I own them, and in turn, I make sure that we can get wherever we need to be. Now, the two characters commonly watch one another's backs in battle, and despite their differences (less so lately, my char's becoming more of a scout-rogue than a theif-rogue), I have no doubt in my mind that either of the characters would trust the other with their life.

RandomNPC
2007-03-12, 09:18 PM
we do a mish mash group/solo. ill try to make sense out of it.

we have a new game coming up, so everyone needs a new character, right? yeay. so when everyones over i go over any restrictions, and i usually toss the cover "if it's blatantly silly, don't do it" that everyone knows means don't min/max to badly. everyone tosses out ideas, and if i notice there's not going to be a healer, i ask if anyone has plans for healing, or skill monkeying, or meat shielding, or whatnot. i try to get them to cover the caster/meatshield/healer/skill monkey spread, but if they don't thats thier own fault. from there each person works on the character as they have time, seeing as i hold all the rulebooks (only one other person has bought a PHB and we've been playing about three years.) so if someone comes over for something, and they have time before they have to go, they work on the character, if not they do it on the first day.

Nahal
2007-03-12, 09:39 PM
I did this with my T20 campaign, and usually when I join a group I ask if an archetype is needed to keep things balanced. But sometimes I just want to play a wizard.

Wild_Chinchilla
2007-03-12, 11:39 PM
Our group characters are pretty much always group created. We usually just give our character ideas, plans for PRCs, specifications and such, to my hsuband, who knows all the little obscure rules or options from all the books, and he comes back a day or so later with characters for us all, we sit down, discuss and edit them to our liking or to fill in group resource gaps, and then play like that.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-03-12, 11:45 PM
Usually people make their own, but of course there are times a few certain people are too lazy so I make the character for them. Even if I'm NOT the DM. But of course I can make a character of almost any level in a half hour or less. Rockin'

Silvershadow
2007-03-13, 09:15 AM
Usually people make their own, but of course there are times a few certain people are too lazy so I make the character for them.I can never understand how anyone would want to have someone create their character for them. I played once with a character I didn't make and I was so confused because I just didn't know what the character could do. I hated the experience.

This one guy we sometimes game with brings his wife to games he runs, but he'll create all her characters for her (she doesn't even get any input... not that she really bothers learning the system in the first place). She then proceeds to spend most of the game on her cell phone and not paying attention to the game. Fun for all. :smallannoyed:

Hoggmaster
2007-03-13, 10:11 AM
I haven't done this before but I like the idea....

Dark Tira
2007-03-13, 10:57 AM
My group almost never groupgens simply because it takes too long. Character creation can take hours especially if you don't have an idea. Usually the DM will give us the character guidelines and a week to finish them. This has led to some unusual parties, and we often travel without a divine or arcane caster, but the strength of individual characters make up for the lack of team synergy.

Thrawn183
2007-03-13, 12:26 PM
We have a few players who are dead set on what they want to play and refuse to play anything else, period. So I and generally one other person (on average) usually come up with a few different concepts so that we can play ones that will create a mostly balanced party. My DM's too lazy to design encounters for an unbalanced party. If you don't have a cleric, you're going to get level drained into the dust. This isn't groupgen, this is us scouting the playing field and making character choices accordingly.

slapdash
2007-03-13, 12:39 PM
We always char-gen in both groups I play in; sure, backstories and ideas are worked on beforehand, but personally I think it's a lot of fun. People have to wait for the rulebook, but we can ask questions if we're using an unfamiliar system (we actually never play D&D; rather we play a variety of systems), we can bounce ideas off each other, and we'll snack, joke around, and play a movie or two in the background that relates to the upcoming game. (Bladerunner for Shadowrun, for example.)

I suppose not all gaming groups are also friends, but this works out very well for us, and the group dynamic gets us energized for a game before we even begin.

Matthew
2007-03-13, 07:12 PM
For long term campaigns we pretty much always generate characters as a group.