PDA

View Full Version : How much do you play the pre-game metagame?



Tanarii
2018-02-20, 11:22 AM
To start with, I'm not using the term metagame to mean "failing to social interactions roleplay properly". Nor am I using it to mean "using ooc knowledge while playing the game" or "talking in rules terms vs non-rules actions".

I'm specifically referring to the metagame in the more traditional sense, using other-than-rules knowledge as opposed to rules knowledge.

In this case, specifically prior to the start of the game influencing your character building. Any GM has character building allowed options. But DMs vary on how much info they will give you on what you'll be facing, and their expectations that you will make characters that 'fit' either the campaign theme, adventure path, or specific group of heroes you'll be running with. And nowadays all the rage is to session 0 to discuss the pre-game metagame.

Almost all decent rule sets provide characters that fit the theme of what they expect you to be able to make characters to do. Some are fairly narrow, like horror investigators, dungeon delving & wilderness exploration adventurers, or pawns of the computer. Others are very generic, sometimes intentionally so.

Even so, the GM can give more specific information, such as what adventure path you're going to be running. To use 5e as an example, if you know you're playing an Underdark adventure path vs a Ravenloft adventure path, it will affect the character you make.

So as a player how much do you like to play the metagame when designing a character? As a GM, how much info do you like to give players, or what strict guidelines do you set, affecting the way they will play the metagame?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-20, 11:35 AM
As a GM, my games don't have strong pre-set themes (more open-world), so I work with whatever they bring me. I want them to play what they want to play (as long as it fits the setting).

As a player, I prefer to work with the party on characters. I'll be playing in Princes of the Apocalypse real soon. I already know (since it's a module) that I'll need to have decent combat capabilities. I'll probably do something vaguely elemental themed, but only vaguely.

So I guess the answer is not very much. I don't mind if people (including myself) do, however.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-20, 11:36 AM
I generally don't worry about my character until I know the gist of how the campaign is going to begin - both the world and what the rest of the party is going to play since I usually try to fill in any gaps.

Tanarii
2018-02-20, 11:43 AM
I generally don't worry about my character until I know the gist of how the campaign is going to begin - both the world and what the rest of the party is going to play since I usually try to fill in any gaps.
Oh yeah, that's an important part of the pre-game metagame that's often not an explicit part of the rules: party roles.

I'm interested how GMs and players tend to approach filling (or not filling) those too. Especially since in my current game that's often something players intentionally do themselves when scheduling sessions for higher level characters. They think about not just which of their characters is interested in whatever session goal they'll be approaching (which is in-universe) but also which party roles they expect to be needed, based on information gleaned about the mission.

I meant to include mention of that but got sidetracked in my rambling.

Pleh
2018-02-20, 11:45 AM
I generally avoid restricting character build options. Games that offer such choices are commonly built around using those choices long term as a central game. I don't remove such options except as a last resort, as it can deflate player investment in the game.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-20, 11:48 AM
Oh yeah, that's an important part of the pre-game metagame that's often not an explicit part of the rules: party roles.

I'm interested how GMs and players tend to approach filling (or not filling) those too. Especially since in my current game that's often something players intentionally do themselves when scheduling sessions for higher level characters. They think about not just which of their characters is interested in whatever session goal they'll be approaching (which is in-universe) but also which party roles they expect to be needed, based on information gleaned about the mission.

I meant to include mention of that but got sidetracked in my rambling.

It largely depends upon the system. Some systems are more forgiving than others about having separate roles and characters being able to fill more than one, or being able to halfway fill another slot in a pinch.

BWR
2018-02-20, 11:52 AM
While I'm of the opinion that the final say of how much metagame knowledge is OK to use is up to the GM, I generally like to give and receive a rough guideline about what sort of game it will be (e.g. no paladins if we are playing crooks), what sort of general power level, and what the rest of the players are making to avoid incompatible characters. A GM should, for the smooth running of a game, either point out any problems a character or group of characters will have with the game s/he's running, or failing that alter the game to suit the characters. If one is going to run a game where some powerful magic is pretty much necessary to succeed, either tell your players this before they start with their entirely-mundane-but-for-the-bard party or run a different game where an entirely-mundane-but-for-the-bard group has a chance of succeeding.

2D8HP
2018-02-20, 12:00 PM
I generally make PC's t o get me to when the GM asks "What do you do?", and I no longer much enjoy the "mini-game" of character creation, so when I make PC's my goals are:


A PC that's likely to survive so I don't have to make another one soon.

A PC that's likely to be accepted by random GM's (nothing too snowflake or too bland, so it's a guessing game).

A PC that I may hopefully quickly modify to fit a GM's game.

Tanarii
2018-02-20, 12:10 PM
I generally make PC's t o get me to when the GM asks "What do you do?", and I no longer much enjoy the "mini-game" of character creation, so when I make PC's my goals are:


A PC that's likely to survive so I don't have to make another one soon.

A PC that's likely to be accepted by random GM's (nothing too snowflake or too bland, so it's a guessing game).

A PC that I may hopefully quickly modify to fit a GM's game.Okay. But if the DM tells you the game is going to be about political intrigue and murder mystery, do you then go make a hard-bitten warrior who stabs first and asks questions later? Do you at least discuss how that will fit the party and campaign before doing so? (Assuming here that the system can handle both sufficiently.)


While I'm of the opinion that the final say of how much metagame knowledge is OK to use is up to the GM, I generally like to give and receive a rough guideline about what sort of game it will be (e.g. no paladins if we are playing crooks), what sort of general power level, and what the rest of the players are making to avoid incompatible characters.
What are your thoughts on making characters to fit a campaign theme, or an adventure path campaign? No Paladins is one thing, but actively making crooks in a crook game, or Clerics in an undead hunter game, is strongly playing the metagame.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-20, 12:45 PM
To start with, I'm not using the term metagame to mean "failing to talky-time roleplay properly". Nor am I using it to mean "using ooc knowledge while playing the game" or "talking in rules terms vs non-rules actions".

I'm specifically referring to the metagame in the more traditional sense, using other-than-rules knowledge as opposed to rules knowledge.


First, for someone who gets really touchy about how other people misrepresent what you do or care about when gaming, you sometimes fall back on some pretty dismissive -- even belittling -- terms for what other people do or care about when they're gaming. Example, "talky-time roleplay". (Which is usually seen in the longer form "who cares about that talky-time crap" or similar, in reference to in-character RP.)

I don't see how this is any different from the insulting practice some others of referring to certain aspects of gaming as "playing with barbies" or "toy time".


Second, I'm not sure when what you describe as "metagaming" was the "traditional sense" in RPG discussion -- if it ever was, it had to be before 1985 or so (when I really got into gaming). A little investigation would seem to indicate that the term comes from outside of RPGs entirely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games))
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/33995/who-first-decided-that-metagaming-is-bad (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/33995/who-first-decided-that-metagaming-is-bad)
http://rpgmuseum.wikia.com/wiki/Meta-gaming (http://rpgmuseum.wikia.com/wiki/Meta-gaming)





In this case, specifically prior to the start of the game influencing your character building. Any GM has character building allowed options. But DMs vary on how much info they will give you on what you'll be facing, and their expectations that you will make characters that 'fit' either the campaign theme, adventure path, or specific group of heroes you'll be running with. And nowadays all the rage is to session 0 to discuss the pre-game metagame.

Almost all decent rule sets provide characters that fit the theme of what they expect you to be able to make characters to do. Some are fairly narrow, like horror investigators, dungeon delving & wilderness exploration adventurers, or pawns of the computer. Others are very generic, sometimes intentionally so.

Even so, the GM can give more specific information, such as what adventure path you're going to be running. To use 5e as an example, if you know you're playing an Underdark adventure path vs a Ravenloft adventure path, it will affect the character you make.

So as a player how much do you like to play the metagame when designing a character? As a GM, how much info do you like to give players, or what strict guidelines do you set, affecting the way they will play the metagame?


Regardless of whether I'd call that "metagame" to begin with (and I wouldn't), the actual intent of the question can be addressed.

If a GM refused or evaded discussion of what sort of campaign they were running, what general sort of things would be going on, what sort of abilities and skills would be more or less "engaged", I'd seriously reconsider playing in that campaign.

First, it comes across as deceptive, and I've no interest in playing with a deceptive GM.

Second, some people like playing "fish out of water" or "someone out of their depth" or "the total newbie" or whatever, but I really, really do not.

I don't have the patience to play "go fish" regarding what sort of character would fit into a particular campaign.

Tanarii
2018-02-20, 12:53 PM
Example, "talky-time roleplay". I don't see how this is any different from the insulting practice some others of referring to certain aspects of gaming as "playing with barbies" or "toy time".Fair enough. It originally came from me being actively dismissive of people claiming Roleplaying was only the parts of the game where PCs interacting with NPCs/other PCs. It's a response to people trying to draw false elitist lines around a specific subset of Roleplaying and call just that sub-set "Roleplaying".

Later on I kept on using it to distinguish between that part of roleplaying, and the more generic "make decisions for my character" roleplaying. I actually really enjoy social interactions Roleplaying, so being dismissive of the activity itself isn't really appropriate. Just the elitists who think that's what Roleplaying is. I'll think up a new more neutral and less dismissive term to describe that subset of Roleplaying. (I just re read that, and "social interactions Roleplaying" is probably good enough. :smallbiggrin:)

Quertus
2018-02-20, 12:55 PM
This is a funny question for me. I generally prefer the "how do we make this random collection of characters work?" minigame over metagaming the perfect party, unless it would somehow be unrealistic for the party to be imperfect.

I believe in playing the metagame with regard to range of acceptable power level, and types of character that would be acceptable. As the most blatant example, I don't bring someone who would think in terms of PvP to a non-PvP table.

On the flip side, if someone tries to bring a diplomancer or DPS SA build on Necrophilia on Bone Hill, I'll warn them that this might not be the right module for that build. I expect the same consideration when I'm a player.

2D8HP
2018-02-20, 01:07 PM
Okay. But if the DM tells you the game is going to be about political intrigue and murder mystery, do you then go make a hard-bitten warrior who stabs first and asks questions later? Do you at least discuss how that will fit the party and campaign before doing so? (Assuming here that the system can handle both sufficiently.)....

If I have a PC pre-made that seems close to fitting the GM's game that I may quickly modify then I have a chance to get to "What do you do", and I'm good.

If I don't have a PC pre-made that's close to fitting, chances are that another player does and by the time I will have made an appropriate PC from scratch a place at the table is gone, if it seems like another GM may have an opening for a similar PC I'll bother, but if it's popular rules (D&D/Pathfinder) and a special snowflake set-up I probably won't bother, unless the GM says their holding a place for me (and doesn't seem to be a flake).

For unpopular rules it depends on how much of a hassle it looks to learn and how helpful the GM will be (a cool setting and pre-gen PC has me wanting to play ASAP, but I haven't seen that in decades).

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-20, 01:13 PM
If I have a PC pre-made that seems close to fitting the GM's game that I may quickly modify then I have a chance to get to "What do you do", and I'm good.

If I don't have a PC pre-made that's close to fitting, chances are that another player does and by the time I will have made an appropriate PC from scratch a place at the table is gone, if it seems like another GM may have an opening for a similar PC I'll bother, but if it's popular rules (D&D/Pathfinder) and a special snowflake set-up I probably won't bother, unless the GM says their holding a place for me (and doesn't seem to be a flake).


This seems to be hitting on a divide between games with random or semi-random groups you happen to be a part of for a while, and games with regular groups that stick together for long spans of time.

Most of my experience is with regular groups where "you need a character right now or you'll lose the spot" isn't even remotely a concern.

Tanarii
2018-02-20, 01:18 PM
Most of my experience is with games I'm familiar enough with I can knock out a playable character in 15-30 minutes before the game begins. So not making a character specific to the game or even session isn't something that would have occurred to me. So that's an interesting perspective. As well as totally in character for 2D8HP and his dislike of ... anything complicated. :smallbiggrin:

Some exceptions of course. If I'm walking into a Gurps game or a high level D&D 3e game, I'll want to know a bit more in advance.

Astofel
2018-02-20, 01:40 PM
If the GM gives me a theme to work towards then I'll absolutely build a character based around it. On the other hand, I love it when a GM says "you can play x, but for various in-universe reasons you'll have a tougher time because people won't like you", since there's a good chance I'll go straight for x. Like the one time a GM said "Elves are disliked in my world" and half of the players made half-elves while I made a drow. Or the time another GM said "half of my world is ruled by chromatic dragonborn who are kinda tyrannical" so four of the 5-man party played dragonborn of different colours, while the last of course bucked the trend and played a tiefling.

Quertus
2018-02-20, 01:52 PM
(a cool setting and pre-gen PC has me wanting to play ASAP, but I haven't seen that in decades).

There are people who specifically prefer pre-gen characters? Huh. Learn something new every day.


This seems to be hitting on a divide between games with random or semi-random groups you happen to be a part of for a while, and games with regular groups that stick together for long spans of time.

Most of my experience is with regular groups where "you need a character right now or you'll lose the spot" isn't even remotely a concern.

A lot of my existing groups would really rather play now, than allowing 6-8 weeks for delivery of my new character concept. So, it can be a concern, IME.

BWR
2018-02-20, 02:12 PM
What are your thoughts on making characters to fit a campaign theme, or an adventure path campaign? No Paladins is one thing, but actively making crooks in a crook game, or Clerics in an undead hunter game, is strongly playing the metagame.

Making appropriate characters is a good thing. Making characters that don't fit in the game or the group is a bad thing. The whole idea that characters have to be unique and stand-out to be special, and plot and adventure must be subservient to them is a load of nonsense.
In the first case, it may be intensely metagame but it is entirely appropriate. If the GM says "Guys, y'all are gonna be playing crooks this game" then you make a crook. Or even "this game is going to feature a lot of skullduggery and illegalities, so very good and very lawful characters are inappropriate". It's not in any way bad metagaming if you do what the GM tells you to. In the second case, is playing a cleric something that is unusual or restricted to anti-undead games? If so, it is 'intensely metagaming'. If clerics are a typical class choice which are appropriate, useful and popular for almost any game, it isn't 'intensely metagaming' in the slightest, not until you make one specialized in killing undead.

BWR
2018-02-20, 02:13 PM
A lot of my existing groups would really rather play now, than allowing 6-8 weeks for delivery of my new character concept. So, it can be a concern, IME.

You usually spend 6-8 weeks on character creation?

RazorChain
2018-02-20, 02:15 PM
As i gather what you're asking is how much information do you give the players what is useful before they start making characters?


All my games traditionally involve combat, talking, information gathering and skullduggery. I will discuss with my players in session zero what the focus of the campaign will be and what skills are useful. Having a combat monster in a intrigue game can be useful just to beat the living crap out of people that oppose you but if everyone shows up with a combat character then there clearly has been some miscommunication.

But ultimately how the players will solve problems depends on their character skills. If they are really good at talking then they will solve their problems that way, if they are good at stealth and subterfuge then that will have focus. Usually the group tries to have their bases covered but if everyone is decent at sneaking then that opens up a lot of option for the whole party just as if everyone can be part of the Con game.

Tanarii
2018-02-20, 03:54 PM
As i gather what you're asking is how much information do you give the players what is useful before they start making characters?No fair summarizing all my rambling, asides, and vague or confusing statements in such a concise way. :smallbiggrin:


In the second case, is playing a cleric something that is unusual or restricted to anti-undead games? If so, it is 'intensely metagaming'. If clerics are a typical class choice which are appropriate, useful and popular for almost any game, it isn't 'intensely metagaming' in the slightest, not until you make one specialized in killing undead.
I said "intensely playing the metagame" not "intensely metagaming". I've only ever heard or read the word used that way(as a verb) used like that in the RPG specific meaning of "ooc instead of ic".

Clearly I shouldn't have used the word. But I wanted to cover all considerations and decisions during the pre-game process outside just the rules.

And in no way am I implied "good" or "bad". I'm wondering "how much" and "what kind" and "how does it affect your thinking". For example, if you know you're playing a game of undead hunters, the choice to play or not play a D&D Cleric is affected by that.

Quertus
2018-02-20, 04:27 PM
You usually spend 6-8 weeks on character creation?

I mean, I'd love to spend years and decades fully developing the background and history of a single character, and then play that character forever and ever. Kinda like, you know, the characters I've played before long-term. The decades of play for Quertus? That's a good background for a character. That's something I can work with.

But, yes, I'll take as long as I can working through the details of what made the character the being that they are today, both to help me roleplay them, and to have an interesting psychological experiment to work on.


For example, if you know you're playing a game of undead hunters, the choice to play or not play a D&D Cleric is affected by that.

I mean, I look at my roster of characters, and ask which one(s) would be interested in being an undead hunter. For example,

Quertus? Meh, not really. Unless you need help performing experiments on them.
Armus? Why, are they causing problems for the civilians?
Raymond? Pass.
Amalak? I'd say "count me in", but, honestly, the others will likely need to catch up.
K'Tamair? K'Tamair am be no fun with dumb dead talls. Zzzz
Winx? By the power of Bendeth, I'll smite that foe.
Ikou? Similar to Armus, are they an active threat? If so, one valiant hero to the rescue!
Khan? Sure, I'll gladly sell them into slavery. Oh, not what you had in mind? Never mind.
Darius? Can I not?
Glixxon? Live and let... be undead.

So, me, I just look at the characters I'd enjoy playing, and pick the one that best matches the hook see how they would interact with the hook / what I know of the adventure - and the party, the players, and the GM. Then I pick the one I think would be the most fun, all around.

EDIT: So, perhaps the interesting part is not "how much", but "how" I play the pre-game metagame?

Tanarii
2018-02-20, 04:32 PM
What if you're playing a game where you need to make a new character? Or do you only play games where you can import an existing character now?

Edit: how, how much, what you consider, what information you like to have from the GM, what you don't want to have, how much you like to discuss what the other players are making, all that jazz.

And even though I'm not quoting everyone, I'm reading you all and it's interesting. Thanks for all responses so far.

Quertus
2018-02-20, 04:42 PM
What if you're playing a game where you need to make a new character? Or do you only play games where you can import an existing character now?

Fair question. ... similar process, I suppose. I take my roster of "character ideas I've been toying around with", look at how close to finished they are, how they'd respond to the plot hook, and how they'd mesh with the party, the players, and the GM. But, as they are a bit less... "defined" than existing characters, it's a much more error-prone process. (EDIT: this is one of the reasons why I prefer to play new characters in one-shots, and only bring existing characters for longer commitments)

For a system I've never heard of before, and have no character concepts for ("trans-humanity? WTF does that mean?"), well, it's still a similar process, but even more vague and error-prone: I try to come up with a bunch of different concepts, run them through that same heuristic, attempt to account for error of "I have no idea what any of these players will try to run in this kind of game (no matter how much they say, they'll only hit it from one PoV of many), what the gameplay of this system is like, etc", lament the lack of 6-8 weeks of time to come up with a real "character", then pick the one that best matches "what I think I might have a chance of enjoying, might work with the party, and either can work as a playing piece rather than a character, or might be a statistically-appropriate meat-sack an existing god can puppet (so I don't actually have to fail at building a whole new personality in the ½ hour to 2 days before we play)". But I also add in "what will work best as a learning experience in this new system", to help me improve the odds of my next character being playable. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or... you get the idea.

EDIT:
Edit: how, how much, what you consider, what information you like to have from the GM, what you don't want to have, how much you like to discuss what the other players are making, all that jazz.

And even though I'm not quoting everyone, I'm reading you all and it's interesting. Thanks for all responses so far.

I rely much more on my Knowledge: GM and Knowledge: The Players than anything they actually say. Rarely does what the players say really matter much, compared to what I know about them. Now, if the players had actually said that they were planning on bringing a Paladin, an Assassin, an Undead Hunter, and an Undead Master, that might have been actionable information. But, for purpose of stories I get to tell, I'm glad that they didn't. :smallwink:

I like to have the high-level, non-spoiler "what my character will know in the first 15 minutes" version of the plot hook (or the "combat/political sandbox" label). If, for some reason, I can't know that, because spoilers, I'd like the GM to sanity-check "I don't think you'll enjoy playing this character in this game" for at least the rest of the group, and probably me, too, so that no-one is unexpectedly useless.

If stuff like this is helpful, I'll try to babble more stuff like this later. If it isn't, let me know what would be.

Mike_G
2018-02-20, 05:18 PM
I think it matters a lot.

There are many types of game, and some characters will fit well into some games but poorly in others. Political intrigue or kick in the door hack and slash, exploring the wild frontier vs playing competing crime families in a corrupt major city, paranormal investigators preventing the cultists from summoning the Great Old ones vs a group of seafaring adventurers out to raid and trade their way to wealth, these require different approaches.

I've played all of these scenarios, and they are a lot of fun when you build your character to work well with the scenario and the party. I dislike games where most of the party is trying to pull off a heist and That One Guy only ever plays Paladins insists on doing so. No pacifists in The Dirty Dozen, no Paladins in Oceans Eleven, no pyromaniac cannibal serial killers in crew of the Enterprise.

RazorChain
2018-02-20, 05:47 PM
I don't find it strange that Quertus will use 6-8 weeks on his character. My groups will often use weeks or months prepping for a new campaign. Usually it goes something like 2-3 months before I announce that I'm running a campaign untill actual play start.

My session zero lasts this whole time while I feed the players info, answer questions and they discuss what they want to play and bounce ideas. This we do online even though we dont play online.

So when we enter play everyone is familiar with the setting, each others characters and why they are a group or how they will become group.

I do not adhere to Quertus' train of thought on
"how do we make this random collection of characters work?"

Because frankly some of the time it wont work and I've taken part in campaigns that died because of this. For a GM that might be dozens of hours of prep time wasted and I am not going to gamble my time like an idiot.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-20, 06:03 PM
I will say that one thing I demand to know before character creation is what major houserules or alternate rules are in play. If we're playing with variant encumbrance, let us know that before we make characters! (Why, yes, I'm still a bit annoyed by finding out that my character concept of an academic dwarven cleric wouldn't work, as just his basic gear was more than his regular carrying capacity, let alone the 3-4 books he habitually carried everywhere. Especially finding out about this in the middle of a dungeon, days and days away from any kind of store where I could switch out my armor.).

Quertus
2018-02-20, 06:21 PM
I do not adhere to Quertus' train of thought on
"how do we make this random collection of characters work?"

Because frankly some of the time it wont work and I've taken part in campaigns that died because of this. For a GM that might be dozens of hours of prep time wasted and I am not going to gamble my time like an idiot.

Hmmm... Interesting point.

For the personalities, mindset, and just "character" of the character, you certainly can reach a situation where things won't work (see "the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, and the Undead Master"). And this is mostly where I rely on knowledge: players to pick someone who will work with the group. And knowledge: GM, plus hook or sandbox label to pick someone who will work with the game. As an added bonus, if the character is known to the group, I get free error checking just by saying, "I'm thinking of bringing Armus".

But statistics are another matter. The "all fighter" party may roflstomp the module, or may need to retreat from supposedly easy encounters, to come back more prepared. This puzzle is only a problem if you insist on one play style, and insist that beer and pretzles kick in the door, or Combat as Sport "appropriate level of challenge" is the only way to play the game.

That came across wrong. Let me try again. Party + adventure + play style together can result in a fail state, yes. I, personally, allow much more flex on the "play style" portion, and, thus, don't hit your "wasted prep time" fail state on abnormal / suboptimal statistical groupings. But, yes, if your group wants to play a certain way, and that's what you find fun, you can't really enjoy the "wtf do we do now?" minigame. That makes perfect sense.

Me, I enjoy looking back at things like the party that struggled, the character that struggled in the party that took names, and the party of BDHs, let alone the many parties that unexpectedly struggled with or breezed through various individual encounters. That helps give the party / the characters more identity, at least for me. And makes the game fell more real, rather than a series of encounters unrealistically designed for this exact party.

But, then, I cut my teeth in an era where "ancient red dragon as a random encounter for a first level party" was seem as the height of realism, so ymmv.

RazorChain
2018-02-20, 06:54 PM
@Quertus

Yes I'm talking about personalities, mindset, ideals and goals not the mechanical side of the characters.

Working toghether on character creation minimizes this kind of failures and avoids duplicates like two players showing up with Drow Rangers dual wielding scimitars.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-20, 07:03 PM
@Quertus

Yes I'm talking about personalities, mindset, ideals and goals not the mechanical side of the characters.

Working together on character creation minimizes this kind of failures and avoids duplicates like two players showing up with Drow Rangers dual wielding scimitars.

Optimal number of said would be zero, right? :smallwink:

RazorChain
2018-02-20, 07:17 PM
Optimal number of said would be zero, right? :smallwink:

:biggrin: I don't really play D&D anymore and nobody in my group would show up with a Drizzt clone anyway, we tried our best to off as many Mary Sue characters while playing FR 25 years ago. My proudest moment in gaming was killing Elminster twice in the same campaign. I dont care about Drizzt that much but I'll happily remove as many Greenwood's characters I get my hands on.

But it is uncanny how often my players show up with the same character concept or at least couple of them

2D8HP
2018-02-20, 07:55 PM
...as totally in character for 2D8HP and his dislike of ... anything complicated. :smallbiggrin:...


'tis a fair cop.


There are people who specifically prefer pre-gen characters?...


Maybe not "people" could just be "person" (me) as I are me, and me is slow and lazy.


...how, how much, what you consider, what information you like to have from the GM, what you don't want to have, how much you like to discuss what the other players are making, all that jazz....


The GM's?

Sure some guidance on what sorts of PC's will fit the game would be nice, but when I ask they usually start on "10,000 years ago a great meeting was held on the continent of...." and I'm zzzzzz.

As for other players it's "If you take Feat blah blah you increase DPR by 0.02%...." also zzzzzz.

Really until they start saying something that isn't sleep inducing like "A shadow passes over you, as you look up you see a Dragon passing overhead", it's hard for me to listen.

Algeh
2018-02-20, 11:41 PM
I think this is one of those things where system really matters. Back when I had time for lots of gaming, I usually both played and GM'ed GURPS, and I can't think of a single time when a new campaign wasn't introduced with some sort of explanation of what we were going to be doing and what kind of characters might make sense. (This could be pretty basic, like "TL 9 space mercenaries starting at 150 points, no magic/psionics/supers/aliens" or something more elaborate, but it's always going to at least narrow down a bit what kind of character you're supposed to bring.) Of course, with GURPS, if you didn't do some kind of metagame character planning you'd get an incoherent mess of a 15th century peasant, a space mercenary, and a talking dog trying to fight crime in Victorian England, so you probably only want to do that once or twice.

Personally, while I'm perfectly happy to build a character that "makes sense" for the game I'm pitched (centered around "why would [character name] be here doing this?" as something I want to have a good reason for), I have less interest in building a character that's perfectly optimized to "beat" the proposed scenario. I would have no problem with playing an undead-hating D&D cleric in a game pitched as being about going somewhere to fight undead (it makes sense that such a character would be interested in traveling to wherever the adventure was to take part in such a thing), but I wouldn't try to pump the DM for information about every little thing along the way to make sure that I had every possible useful skill that might come up to solve specific challenges in that game if they didn't fit with "things it seems like my character would have picked up along the way".

Tanarii
2018-02-21, 12:08 AM
The GM's?

Sure some guidance on what sorts of PC's will fit the game would be nice, but when I ask they usually start on "10,000 years ago a great meeting was held on the continent of...." and I'm zzzzzz.

As for other players it's "If you take Feat blah blah you increase DPR by 0.02%...." also zzzzzz.

Really until they start saying something that isn't sleep inducing like "A shadow passes over you, as you look up you see a Dragon passing overhead", it's hard for me to listen.Are you sure you're not one of my players?

Of course, I'm usually hopped up on coffee for games. So my DM style is short on long-winded introductions, exposition and monologues anyway. So my mostly caffeine fueled no attention span college kid players and I get along just fine. :smallamused:

The long winded encounter/room descriptions are the first things I cut from later-era TSR modules (late BECMI/1e and all 2e), where they had clearly forgotten the important thing is to describe the stuff that the players are interested in, not paint a scene. Namely stuff that will kill them, stuff they can loot, and stuff that they can poke at to see if it will kill them or hides loot, and stuff they can talk to to find out if it knows where they can get loot. In that order.


Of course, with GURPS, if you didn't do some kind of metagame character planning you'd get an incoherent mess of a 15th century peasant, a space mercenary, and a talking dog trying to fight crime in Victorian England, so you probably only want to do that once or twice.Sounds like a comic book mashup. Or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen on steroids. :smallbiggrin:

Darth Ultron
2018-02-21, 12:12 AM
I'm not sure metagaming is really the right word here....

For a short term casual game it does not matter much: people make random characters based on the vague game idea. Then you sort of half play the game for an hour or two, until someone pulls out a You tube video to watch or something dumb like that.

For the more serious long term game, I like to keep things vague. So the players can make any character they want to, but they don't ''need'' to fit into the game. I'm generally opposed to the ''this will be an undead murderhobo game'' so ''make a dedicated one trick pony murderhobo undead slaying character''.

2D8HP
2018-02-21, 12:38 AM
Are you sure you're not one of my players?


Do you have many middle-aged and somnolent players?


...the important thing is to describe the stuff that the players are interested in, not paint a scene. Namely stuff that will kill them, stuff they can loot, and stuff that they can poke at to see if it will kill them or hides loot, and stuff they can talk to to find out if it knows where they can get loot. In that order....


:confused:

Why the bluetext? You'd be describing what loot hungry murderous hobo's experienced adventurers would notice! The players who only pay attention to what they may kill, or loot, or may kill or loot their PC's, are practicing immersive role-playing, which is right and proper, as it is a role-playing game, isn't it?

Now since people seem to have this idea that "optimizing" is an antonym for "role-playing", and since I'm lousy at optimizing (because it looks like work), I MUST THEREFORE BE AN EXPERT ROLE-PLAYER!!!

So you may believe me when I say that not paying much attention and forgetting what your told is the very summit of role-playing.

Quertus
2018-02-21, 12:45 AM
@Quertus

Yes I'm talking about personalities, mindset, ideals and goals not the mechanical side of the characters.

Working toghether on character creation minimizes this kind of failures and avoids duplicates like two players showing up with Drow Rangers dual wielding scimitars.

Ah. I prefer to play the "what do we do with this random collection of stats" minigame. As opposed to the "every party must have exactly one fighter, one tank, and 2.5 children" prescribed paint by numbers style of party building. Like you, I'm not generally interested in incompatible personalities ruining a game.

Now, that having been said, getting personalities that work together is actually a much harder problem. Because most anybody with any kind of personality is going to have something that they care about, some hill that they're willing to die on, be it the definition of railroading, the murder of innocents, Kirito x Asuna, setting fire to the corpses of children as a distraction, or just their own enlightened self interest. And, IME, players can rarely express or predict how their characters will react to and evolve with the unknown. So, when the things the characters care about clash unexpectedly, well, you've got problems.

That's not to say that planning doesn't have value. When the party is a Paladin, an Assassin, an Undead Hunter, and his childhood friend, an Undead Master, plus my character, well, maybe better (any) planning of personalities could have helped reduce infighting.

Tanarii
2018-02-21, 12:55 AM
:confused:

Why the bluetext? You'd be describing what loot hungry murderous hobo's experienced adventurers would notice! The players who only pay attention to what they may kill, or loot, or may kill or loot their PC's, are practicing immersive role-playing, which is right and proper, as it is a role-playing game, isn't it?
Because despite my experience with players showing me otherwise, there are people out there who swear up and down that there are players that are interested in stuff other than that. So you need to describe what they ARE interested in. Which may actually be painting a picture. Although I'm not sure any are interested in a 10 paragraph 1/2 page plus monologues by the quest giver. See TSR's Warth of the Immortals Book II p12 & 32 for two gems like that. Although that product is full of them.

----------

Although we seem to have seriously danced away from pre-game considerations. How can we can tie it back in? How about ... required reading?

How much background information on the world do we need to feel comfortable designing a character?

My players get a total of two pages of session 0 document, which includes character creation rules, as well as a little basic info on the setting, and guidelines for where their character may have come from.

Conversely, I used to run games in forgotten realms. The first thing I told players whenever I would do that is "forget specific lore you know, but general knowledge is okay." It wasn't a problem for players to already know there were Harpers and Red Wizards of Thay and Sembia was a trade nation or the like. But events from the books or detailed location lore I was just going to ignore or trample on or not know anyway, so that would clash. As such I actually preferred players with very little setting knowledge, as opposed to a lot.

2D8HP
2018-02-21, 01:21 AM
...How about ... required reading?

How much background information on the world do we need to feel comfortable designing a character?

My players get a total of two pages of session 0 document, which includes character creation rules, as well as a little basic info on the setting, and guidelines for where their character may have come from.

Conversely, I used to run games in forgotten realms.... .


Required reading?

If it's World of Greyhawk from 1980, Lankhmar City of Adventure from 1985, or even the recent 7th Sea RPG setting books, than those are AWESOME and well worth assigning.

But if it's The Sword Coast Adventurers Guide, which admittedly has the Swashbuckler subclass which is AWESOME!, then most of the type is too hard for me to read without a magnifying glass, and gives me a headache, plus it has those stupid Factions, including the Harper's, which bug me, so no.

Quertus
2018-02-21, 02:04 AM
How about ... required reading?

How much background information on the world do we need to feel comfortable designing a character?

I prefer to be "not from around here", and learn that info in character. What I do care about are balance considerations (rarely actually placed in a document), personality compatibility considerations (never encapsulated in a document), house rules (which had better be covered in a document), and plot hooks / sandbox labels.

Florian
2018-02-21, 02:50 AM
I only gm or play thematically very tight and interconnected campaigns that incorporate specific aspects of the setting and put them front and center.

Basically, I hand the players a document including house rules, theme and mood of the campaign, hints of favored enemy and favored terrain, list of fitting archetypes and what races are generally around, list of campaign-specific traits to pick one from, a map and overview to the starting location and surrounding area.

Session zero is talk about expectations, working out some details like handling WBL abstract or not, possibility of crafting, group roles and rough character generation (rough is enough, everybody should have the time to review the rules without pressure and come up with a decent build).

Black Jester
2018-02-21, 03:57 AM
The distribution of mechanics is the least important aspect of the chracter creation. A character's background, attire and personality ayre all more important for the creation of a memorable character that is not only fun to play, but also fun to play with; your fellow players might never get a look on your character sheet and probably won't remember that you were able to do something slightly better than expected, but they will sure remember your character despises clowns and mimes, for instance.

I personally think that the character creation in itslef should be a game, with random elelemnts, interesting decisions and at least to some extent an open outcome. I specifically wrote one of the most elaborate character creation systems for this purpose and it fulfills the dual purpose of entertainment and the creation of characters with multiple facets, and pretty unique (but non-snowflaky) backstories well anchored in their own specific world. And yes, this is pretty much the ideal solution in my opinion, especially because it also guarantees that the mechanical aspects of the character creation are an organic expansion of the character's background and previous experiences, as formed by the player's decisions and a bit of random chance.

Faily
2018-02-21, 10:10 AM
I like having some knowledge of what the game is going to be about, so that I can create a person who has a reason to be there (plot: you're going to colonize a new place on the other side of the ocean, so everyone needs to be able to contribute some way. Good to know so I don't make someone who is dependant on having a bustling metropolis around them to contact their spies or network of allies), as well as make a character that I will feel can contribute in a meaningful way to the party (like... not making an enchanter if the campaign is going to be all about constructs and undeads).

In adventures set in new or homebrewed worlds, I will probably ask a lot about the setting itself so that I can make my character fit into the setting, as I'm usually always interested in trying to connect to the setting itself - and for me, that means to make my character fit the idea of the world, rather than me going "but I want to play a Tiefling even if this world doesn't have Planetouched!".

My groups rarely don't think about balancing party-roles, as people usually just roll up what they feel like playing. Some of my players are in another group right now playing Pathfinder's Skulls & Shackles, and the GM actually enforced a "no sharing character sheet knowledge with other players", because they wanted to try and angle of not knowing what the other characters in the group are capable of. Sounds like they're having lots of fun with it too. :smallsmile:

Tanarii
2018-02-21, 10:50 AM
The distribution of mechanics is the least important aspect of the chracter creation.
While I personally agree that character personality is important to put sufficient thought into to make a character that's not just me, this is a personal preference.

Whereas for most game systems the mechanics of the character are always important. But for many, you can just play an avatar of your own personality if you really want. And many players choose to do that, and are quite happy doing so. They are not doing anything wrong.

Of course, for some systems you cannot just play an avatar of yourself under the base rules. Burning Wheel/Tocherbearer and D&D 5e are examples. In both you must, under the base rules, create specific aspects of your character personality before playing. For BW/TB you are required to create Beliefs and Instincts. For D&D 5e you are required to pick Personality Traits (Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw). Unless you pick ones that match yourself, or just house rule away / ignore the rules, you won't be playing an avatar of yourself.

TL;DR I agree that players often focus too much on creating the mechanical aspects of their characters. But it's important to remember that's just like, our opinion, man.

2D8HP
2018-02-21, 11:56 AM
I prefer to be "not from around here", and learn that info in character. .


More thoughts on required reading:

Like Quertus I prefer exploring the setting in game (I've also found that it's a red flag when GM's give you lots of setting background homework to read, because they often don't bother to run the game much after you read it, I suspect they're just trying to get people to read their fiction).

If I have some idea about the setting, I try to make PC's somewhat unfamiliar with it.

If it's 5e D&D and the setting is urban, I often have Folk Hero and Outlander Background PC's, when the setting is Wilderness I usually have an Urchin Background PC, and I never have PC's explore the Underdark who are from the Underdark.

In general some reading is nice but please don't make it hard for me to read (like the SCAG) with small type low contrast paper (no yellowed "ancient documents") with long run on sentences without spaces between paragraphs.

Instead please use large print, and with spaces between paragraphs.

You know how it oft said that most Americans can't find most nations on a map, or even other states?

Don't give "macro" details.

Instead tell of the village where the PC came from, the name of the fishmonger that the PC's fisherman family sold their catch to, not the name of the freaking ocean they got the fish from!

Small details help me build a character, big grand "5,000 years ago the armies of Argle-Bargle invaded the lands of Generica" don't help me much

MintyNinja
2018-02-21, 02:25 PM
I, too, might have a 2D8HP Clone at my table, but he's a wonderful counter-balance to my brand new players.

As for the topic on hand, I've tried various amounts as a GM and as a Player over the years so I'll split it up accordingly.

As a Player, I've tried to find that sweet balance of not being useless and not being overpowered. I wouldn't play an Underdark Ranger in Out of the Abyss, but I would play a race with darkvision. There's always some discussion with the other players about who wants to try some new combination or another so we dance around each other's toes in that regard. Some classes are relatively evergreen, too. You can almost always find room for a Fighter or a Rogue in a party, as opposed to a group full of Sorcerers. I would really enjoy for any of my GMs to provide information handouts before the game, but that seems to not be their school of thought. I also happen to be the kind of player that takes notes. Copious notes. I write all the notes. Always.

As a GM, I'm a fan of working within limitations. I've run a no-Magic campaign on these forums and it was a lot of fun. It took considerable buy-in from the players and Game Balance was defenestrated for the sake of story, but it was a great time and I learned a lot about working with more natural threats. In my home game that's been running for a couple months now, I wrote a short booklet of information on my homebrew setting and how the races are different from the PHB. I think I specifically got away with all the changes because two of my three players are brand new to D&D and don't realize how wildly different I'm making it, while the third is a long-time veteran who is happy to sit back and let others drive the story. Part of the reason for the changes in the first place is to show these new players how different and engaging D&D can be while they're new to it. I created a different system for languages, changed to a Silver Standard, and wrote a short blurb on how each class fits into the setting. I also excluded a large amount of the Races and Lore. For example, there is no Underdark and instead all Underdark Races are now Shadowfell Races. High Elves are from the Feywild and are known as Planewalkers, so players can't really choose them for their Level 1 Fishing Village Character.

In short, I'm one of those people that likes playing within limitations.

Jay R
2018-02-22, 03:25 PM
As a GM, I tend to provide 4-6 pages of background, so people know enough about the world background to design characters that fit in, and know what character options are available. For instance, in my last game, all PCs had to come from a single isolated village, hidden deep in a cursed forest. This enabled me to create a world that they needed to explore during the game. I also told them that only human PCs were allowed. The reasons for this are that neither elves nor dwarves existed in the known world at the time. The dwarves were believed to be destroyed in the dwarf / giant wars. In truth, the remaining dwarves are all currently enslaved in the Giant city in the north. And the elves, when they showed up, would be elves from Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies. Here's the introduction I started with.

I am planning to run a D&D campaign fairly soon.

The current plan is to use the 2E rules, but I could be talked out of that. I originally wrote some of it with a Fantasy Hero rules in mind. I’m prepared to switch to original D&D, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, or Fantasy Hero if that’s what the players want. (I don’t know any later version well enough to run a game.)

Note: I have a basic idea for PCs, but I urge people to ask for exceptions. Some exceptions I won’t grant because they don’t fit the world, others because they would make a character too powerful. But I am quite comfortable with the idea that every character is an exception to the basic idea.

You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.

The world is basically early medieval. You all speak a single language for which you (reasonably) have no name. If you learn another language, you’ll know more about what that means.

It’s a really small village. There are fewer than 100 people living there, which is smaller than it used to be. There are chickens, goats, sheep, a couple of oxen, but no horses or cows.

The village has a single road going out of town to the north and south, and you’ve never been on it. The only travel on it occurs when a few wagons go off to take food to market – and even that hasn’t happened in the last few seasons. Very rarely, a traveler may come through, and spend the night with the priest. You have all greedily listened to any stories these travelers tell. Your parents say this isn’t good for you – what’s here in the village is good enough for you, and all travelers are always liars, anyway.

A stream runs through the village. (This is primarily so you can learn fishing if you desire.) There are also a few wells.

The village is surrounded by a haunted forest nearby. You have occasionally gone a few hundred feet into it on a dare, but no further, and never at night. I will modify this (slightly) for any character who wishes to start as a Druid or Ranger. Nobody gets to know the modification unless they choose one of those classes.

Three times in your lifetime the village has been raided at night from the forest. You were children, and were kept safe in a cellar. Some villagers have died, but by the time you were let out, whatever the attackers were had fled or been buried.

There is very little overlap between the D&D adventurer class “Cleric” and the average priest. Most priests will have about as much magical ability as seen in medieval stories, i.e. no more than anyone else. (If you want to play a cleric, let me know. There’s a way we will handle it, but no player except one with a cleric PC will know about it.)

Similarly, not all thieves are in the Thief class, not all bards are in the Bard class, etc. Most fighters are “0th level”. There might be a fair number of 1st level Fighters; anybody else with levels will be uncommon. If you meet a bard on your travels, he will probably be a singer/harpist with no adventurer skills or class.

There is an old witch at the edge of the village. Your parents disapprove of her, call her a fraud, and are afraid of her. Everybody knows that the crop blight three years ago was because she was mad at the village.

The old folks in the village sometimes talk about how much better it was long ago. There was real travel, and real trade. Nobody knows what happened since.

You have heard many mutually conflicting tales of all kinds of marvelous heroes. You may assume that you have heard of any story of any hero you like – Gilgamesh, Oddysseus, Sigurd, Taliesin, Charlemagne, Lancelot, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Prester John, Baba Yaga, Prince Ōkuninushi, Br’er Rabbit, anyone. The old stories seem to imply that occasionally there have been several Ages of Heroes. Your parents don’t think these tales are good for you. Takes your mind off farming.

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)

You will create your characters by allocating 80 points, with the following conditions.
1. Each stat must be between 3 and 18.
2. Any points over 16 will cost double. (So a 17 costs 18 points, and an 18 costs 20 points.)
3. You may only have one 18, and only two 17+.
4. I strongly urge you not to have a “dump stat”. An extremely low stat will affect what you can do.

I do not object to henchmen. Since they must be a lower level than the characters, it won’t come up immediately, but if the party eventually has henchmen, there will be reasonable opportunities for them to help. Finding a henchman who isn’t a bland fighter will be pretty rare. Finding a spellcaster will be extremely unlikely.

Your character is way behind the average starting D&D character in knowledge of the world. I am making up for that by giving each PC one 3E Feat (see below), and one unusual starting item you would normally not have at the start of a game. This item must be justified by the character, and must be acceptable to me. For instance, a Wizard could start the game with a familiar. A Bard could have a well-made harp. Somebody with Animal Training could have a trained dog already (but not a horse or bird of prey.) A fighter might have a boomerang as one weapon. Come up with something fun, useful, and unusual, but not outrageous. It won’t be a magic item, but it could be something rare. [It is not armor. Your village can produce leather, studded leather, brigandine, or scale armor, but not chain or plate.]

Your first hit die will have its maximum value, but after that, you will roll. You will never have less than the average value for hit points overall. A first level fighter will start with 10 points. At 2nd level, he will roll a d10, and add that to the total. If the total is ever less than the average for that character, it will be moved up to the average. So a fourth level fighter, for instance, will not have fewer than 22 hit points.

Specific rules. Reasonable exceptions to these rules are allowed, within certain bounds. I won’t necessarily explain the bounds to you. (If I plan to have you carried off by Vikings, I won’t tell you why your character can’t speak Old Norse, for instance.) Ask for exceptions. Your character should be an exception to the general rules in some way, and I’m prepared to modify PC rules to let you play something unique. I want you to have a character you will enjoy, but who won’t mess up my plans or overshadow the other characters.

1. All characters are human. If you want an exception, talk to me. We have to find a way for the non-human to fit into my plans for the start of the campaign, which I will not tell you. (For instance, you don’t know what races exist.) To reduce the negative impact of this rule, if your real goal is to multi-class, your human character may do so.
2. It will be possible for your character to get started within the village, so if you wish to be, for instance, a druid, there will be an older druid of some sort nearby. Tell me your plans, and I will arrange any necessary mentor or other resource.
3. You may choose any 2E class. If you want a class from another version, let me know, and we’ll try to work it out. (You can’t be a barbarian, because you grew up in a village. But if you wish to be a sorcerer, I will create a 2E-compliant sorcerer class.) If you want something that’s consistent with medieval fantasy but isn’t a standard D&D class, let’s talk. I want you to play the unusual (human) character that you’ve never been able to play before.
4. Whatever the character class you choose, your teachers or mentors weren’t high level, and can only get you started.
5. Spellcasters will start with only four spells, of which you will choose two and I will choose two. The two I choose for wizards will be Read Magic and Detect Magic. The two for Clerics will be Cure Light Wounds and Detect Evil. Initial spells must come from the Players Handbook. Unusual spells from other sources may be available later, but you didn’t learn them in your village. Necromantic spells are also not allowed at the start of the game.
6. Wizards will learn three new spells at each level, and will have other ways to develop them. Clerics will learn a new spell each adventure, and will have other ways to learn them. (Yes, they come from your god. But you have to know what to ask for, and how to use it. It’s a much easier process than for wizards, who must learn them from scratch.)
7. A cleric must choose a deity. This will be the deity who grants you spells. It will have a minor effect on the spells you get, but not much. The deity can be chosen from any pantheon. (Except Lovecraft!) Any other player may opt to choose a deity as well. A druid must choose a nature god. I’ll be loose in the definition of a nature god.
8. A Priest or Druid can choose to be a standard Priest or Druid, or you can ask for specific differences based on your god. I will be quite lenient here, as long as it makes sense. If you do this, however, I reserve the right to make some other specific strictures which you might or might not know about at the start.
9. None of you know anything about what happens to high-level characters. For instance, Druids may ignore everything in the PHB about the Druid Organization. There just aren’t that many high-level people in the world. We will use most of what the rulebooks say about followers and strongholds, but some of it will be modified. For one thing, not all creatures on the Ranger follower chart even exist. The thief follower table is also inconsistent with the world. Player desires will be encouraged. When we get to that point, be prepared to negotiate for something you would prefer.
10. All starting equipment will be things that can be produced in a small isolated village. You may have a spear, axe, sword or bow, but not an atl-atl, fancy crossbow, etc., unless it’s your unusual item. There may be exceptions. Ask for something you want.
11. Your character has (at least) one specific food-producing Non-Weapon Proficiency – farmer, swineherd, shepherd, etc.
12. Men and women are different in this period. All women will have at least one Non-Weapon Proficiency of sewing, cooking or embroidery, or some such, and all men will have leatherwork, woodwork, smith, or some equivalent. You don’t have to care about it, but that’s life in a small village. I urge the party as a whole to have sewing, leatherwork, and blacksmithing, just to repair clothes and armor. Otherwise, I’ll have to track any damage done. Similarly, if you don’t have a fletcher, I will count arrows.
13. All non-weapon proficiencies must be learnable in an isolated village, or from travelers’ tales. If you want an exception, come up with a justification. I respect good rationalizations. (Obvious examples include learning Latin from the village priest, astrology from a traveler, or herbalism from the witch.)
14. If you want a non-weapon proficiency that cannot be learned in the village, you may allocate the slot for it, and you will have a very rudimentary version of it, that will grow to the standard level with experience. That slot indicates that it’s a skill your character cares about, and pursues whenever possible. For instance, if you take Etiquette, then you will know how to behave in a village. If you get to an army garrison, you will quickly observe and learn military etiquette. Spend much time in a market, and you will learn how to behave in trade. If a noblewoman goes by, you will learn a little about how she acts, and about how people treat her. Skills for which this would be necessary include Spellcraft, Riding, Survival, Etiquette, etc. Feel free to take the skills you want. I’ll see that you learn them soon. This is to allow your characters to learn and grow quickly, and to have the full range of NWPs available. I urge each player to have one or two of these.
15. You grew up in a small village surrounded by an unexplored forest. There are wild animals and worse in the forest, and you have trained with at least one simple weapon. For this reason, your character can use your choice of a spear, short bow or short sword, regardless of character class. (You must choose one. Your character cannot use more than one of them unless both are allowed to his or her class.)
16. I intend to give each character a single 3E Feat. It will be chosen to be one that will make a first level character more usable and unique. If you aren’t interested in learning the 3E Feats – don’t worry. I’ll assign one that will be useful, and explain how it works. If you are interested in the rules, feel free to make a request. If it’s reasonable and doesn’t interfere with plans that you don’t know about, I’ll allow it. Toughness is not available. The goal of the Feat is not to make your character more generally competent, but to make him or her more competent in one specific area, to improve specific skills, or to have a unique option most people don’t have.

I repeat – ask for exceptions to these rules. I want you to play what you want, and to have an unusual character. For instance, if you have a character idea that can’t work if you grew up in a small village, talk to me, and we’ll try to make it fit in – but it might mean that you miss the first half of the first adventure. If you have some cool idea for something your character wants to start off with, let’s discuss it. I might say no, or have it replace the Feat or the unusual item, or just grant the exception.

This introduction is written for 2E. If enough people would prefer to play 1E, original D&D, or Fantasy Hero, I’m willing to switch.

A bit later, I added the following:

I’m trying to keep a lot of information about the world hidden, to preserve the mystery. But I think I’ve left you too much in the dark.

So here is some more information about the world in general.

The history of the world has included more than one Great Age of Heroes, when there are lots of monsters, and heroes appear to defend mankind. But when there are no monsters around, it's hard to get much in the way of experience points. Adventurers can't reach high levels unless there are experience points to be found. Sure, you can do well in a war, but how many 0-th level fighters have to die to take one 1st level to second level? Thieves can steal, but I don't give xps for gold unless it was gained during an adventure.

Whatever makes monsters interfere with humans has been pretty inactive lately. So there are no high-level characters in the known world, except a few very old ones, because there's been no way to get experience.

One of the effects of this is that there aren’t that many magic items, and no magic shops. You’ll be able to find some long-hidden ones, and eventually make your own, but you will never buy a magic item.

But the threats are returning (I'm being deliberately vague), and heroes may return as well. (Or would-be heroes may die like bugs on a windshield - we'll see.) No matter what class you wind up with, you'll mostly be making your own way. You'll be blazing a trail through the unknown wilderness, not following a paved road.

You few PCs are head and shoulders above everyone in the village. They care about potatoes, and never look out into the forest, wondering what's out there. You grew up there and have no cosmopolitan education, but you don't really fit in.

A Fighter PC has learned fighting skills from practice with the town guard - and has surpassed most of them a little, since they are mostly zero-th level. A thief PC has been working things out on his own.

You are untutored farmers from an isolated village, and have no experience beyond that. Your character is mostly ignorant of what the class means. If you play a Mage or Illusionist, you'll discover that you can't cast spells while wearing armor, and will therefore not wear it, but you won't really know why. You'll be able to use the weapon you grew up with (short sword, shortbow, or spear), and won't know that that's unusual. If you attempted to learn other weapons, you'll have figured out that you can't use the other two, just dagger or staff or the like.

If your PC needs a mentor (spellcasters, mostly), then he or she will have a low-level one, who will teach you how to start. And that's all you get. There won't be any opportunities for a long time to find a higher level mentor.

For instance, because Diane chose to run a cleric, the village priest is an old 3rd level Cleric, who retired to this village long ago. For any other spellcaster, I will invent a mentor to get you started. Spells will be easier to develop than in Dirk's world, but mostly, you will develop them yourself.

You have heard many stories about heroes, and that's where your dreams come from. Whatever class you come up with, I will provide the bare minimum mentor to get you started as a first level when you leave the village. And that will happen as soon as I know what your character class and build are, before we get to the table.

It's not that you haven't found your mentor yet, and will soon meet somebody who will tell you all about your class later on. There are no mentors to learn from, and you will work it out on your own. What's out there to find is adventures, not school.

After Diane built her character, I gave her some more information that would be available to a cleric. I will do the same for you - once I know what information your character would have.

I'm still trying to work out the right balance between giving the players enough information, and leaving the world a mysterious place. And I’m aware that if I give out too little information, I can easily fix that, but if I give out too much, that mistake is unsolvable.

I often have other information sheets for players whose characters have specific knowledge. For instance, all players were told that they could have any god from any pantheon (except Lovecraft). The cleric was told this:

There are two gods called together The Uncreated. Separately, they are The Lord and The Lady, and nothing is known about them.

Their first children were the sun, the earth, the oceans, and the winds. These four are either the creators of our world, or the stuff of which it was created - it's not clear which. They are, of course, the essence of the four earthly elements, the embodiment of the elemental planes, and the structure of the world. There is a fifth one, representing the quintessence, but since that cannot exist on our changeable and imperfect world, he/she has no influence here.

They have an abundance of names. The Sun God, for instance, is known as Apollo, Aten, Ra, Tonatiuh, Surya, Helios and many others. Similarly, every earth goddess is known to be the true earth, born of The Lord and The Lady - even those with known other parents, or those with no parents, like Gaea. Attempts to question the logic of this are met with the sacred chant, "Hakuna heigh-ho fragilistic bibbidy chim-cheree," which has been variously translated as, "It is not wise to question these mysteries, which are beyond the knowledge of our world," or "Die, you heathen scum, die!" In practice, there is no significant difference between the two translations.

The children/creations of these four are the only gods who will answer prayers or interact with the world directly. They include all the pantheons that have ever existed.

Except Lovecraft.

The Lord and The Lady have been identified as the embodiments of Good and Evil, or Law and Chaos, or Male and Female, or Light and Darkness, or any other opposing concepts.

Wars have been fought between those who believe they represent Good and Evil, and those who insist on Law and Chaos.

Wars have been fought between those who believe The Lord and The Lady hate each other with a hatred surpassing any passion on earth, and those who believe that they love each other with a love more true than any mortal could ever know.

Wars have been fought between those who know beyond all doubt that The Lord is Good and The Lady is Evil, and those who know beyond all doubt that The Lord is Evil and The Lady is Good.

No player knew this from the start:

No arcane or divine magic will successfully find out any fact about The Lord and The Lady. I have three answers, all completely true, and mutually incompatible.

1. The Lord is Fate, and The Lady is Luck. Neither can exist without the other, and each action in the world, from a sneeze to the fall of an empire, is a victory of one of them over the other.
2. They are Yin and Yang, and the heart of each beats in the breast of the other. They represent complementary, not opposing, forces. Each is in fact all of the universe except the other, but neither one represents any specific principle (not even male and female), and whichever one represents goodness in one situation might be the evil in another. Together, they represent wholeness and balance
3. They are the Creators - the mother and father of the world, which they birthed and/or created for some great purpose which is not yet fulfilled.

No mortal can comprehend the true nature of any god. Therefore the image, history, and culture of any god are the simple stories people tell themselves about the gods, to comfort themselves into believing they know something.

Do you believe that your god is a Norse, hammer-throwing warlike thunder god with a red beard? Then that's what you see in your visualizations, and those are the aspects that your god shows to you.

So do you create the gods by your belief, or does the god who most closely resembles your belief respond to your prayers in the form you expect, or are they merely your own hallucinations that always occur as a side effect when invoking divine magic? One wise sage, Chicxulub the Philosophical, actually asked this question. He is said to have discovered the true answer after sixty years of study, prayer, and meditation, on March 23, in the year 643.

Incidentally, the largest impact crater ever discovered is the Chicxulub crater, which appeared on March 23, in the year 643. (Many have entered this crater to explore it. None have returned.)

Oh yes, and the fifth child of The Lord and The Lady, representing the Fifth Element? It turns out that he's not the stuff of the heavens, but of the hells. His children and descendants are all the demons, devils, and daemons. His creations are the evil spirits of the underworld. No, he's not out to conquer the world or destroy it or anything of that sort. He just likes to see war, strife, and pain.

FreddyNoNose
2018-02-22, 05:07 PM
I generally don't worry about my character until I know the gist of how the campaign is going to begin - both the world and what the rest of the party is going to play since I usually try to fill in any gaps.

Same here. I don't like to make major background details before the game. I prefer to organically figure things out in a game. Unless the GM insists on background.

Tanarii
2018-02-22, 08:05 PM
Same here. I don't like to make major background details before the game. I prefer to organically figure things out in a game. Unless the GM insists on background.
I like that style too. I want to know my characters basic 'what is she', which in most games is a combination of some mechanical constructs and what you did and/or do for a living. And 'who is she', which is a few personality motivations for what makes her tick while I'm making decisions, instead of purely playing myself.

That said, I do like the first of those to fit on multiple levels. So knowing generally where she's from is nice, since that can affect 'what is she' fitting quite strongly. I don't need to know my hometown and family, unless it's very unusual.

I mean, it might come out in a side comment during planning that's she's such a deadeye shot because she grew up in backwoods Alabama hunting wombats from her pickup truck.

Personally, I don't feel the need to write a pre-game story with that stuff.

NomGarret
2018-02-22, 10:04 PM
Groups I play in tend to do a little bit on all those fronts, and it goes pretty well. On the mechanics side, it rarely gets too heavy. Asking around the table what others are playing gives you a chance to narrow down which of the half-formed concepts you’ve been kicking around would fill a role. I’ve had better luck, on both sides of the screen, when the premise of the game is stated up front so characters can be made that would naturally take the hook. Setting details are usually limited to a few key elements that would be different from archetypal norm. These usually get grouped in with pregame house rules. So “no Dwarves,” “Dwarves exist but are almost always slaves,” and “Dwarven stonecunning works differently” would generally get lumped into a 1-2 page doc.

Florian
2018-02-23, 02:48 AM
Small details help me build a character, big grand "5,000 years ago the armies of Argle-Bargle invaded the lands of Generica" don't help me much

Sometimes, that can´t be avoided when it´s a big part of the setting and will play a major role in gaming within it.

The Lost Coast region of Varisia is defined by being the former outskirts of Azlant/Xin-Shalast, which was sunk when the Starstone struck. People living there nowadays are either nomadic tribes or "squatters" in ancient ruins and cities that no-one dared to explore to the fullest, deeming it to risky to stir up some ancient evil, even if ancient knowledge and magic could be unearthed <--- strong hint.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-23, 07:54 AM
My preference is for characters to start with with a random back story and I then Terry to build the mechanical aspects based on that. But my build process these days goes rough background -> mechanics -> background details.

So my current character began as a noble (third daughter of a count in the original version) who had run away from their family due to being transgender, fights with a sabre, and very much does not have access to family wealth or connections. Discussions with my GM also established that my character's a foreigner to the region, and that people used to his family would view him as a woman rather than a man.

Then I picked a class, and wanted a magic using warrior. So, depending on what the GM party's it's going to be either a homebrew Spellsword class I found, Eldritch Knight, or Paladin. Race was half elf because I wanted extra skills (so now my character's parents are a political marriage between two neighbouring regions), and then I placed my skull choices for more of a scholar investigator character. This spawned of the idea that my character was essentially a member of the secret police before they ran away.

Then different choices made different bits of my background change. I picked Bahamut as my patron deity, did a bit of research into the mythological version, and decided my character follows a pantheistic faith revolving around the sky and the sea (which means he's now from a coastal region). So on and so forth keeping in context to the group the entire time to make sure my character well be useful.

Cluedrew
2018-02-23, 08:27 AM
Characters are created as session one after we have decided on the starting point for the campaign. So there is no pre-game really, we have already started. You could show up with a pre-made character, but if you do it is just an idea and you might have to put it aside or tweak it to fit the campaign.

On 5000: That is a long time ago for something to be immediately important to the setting. Sure some important thing may have started back then, but if it hasn't undergone massive change since then, you are probably stretching the years.

Quertus
2018-02-23, 02:35 PM
Asking around the table what others are playing gives you a chance to narrow down which of the half-formed concepts you’ve been kicking around would fill a role.

Most of the (2e D&D) parties I've been in look like they are trying to recreate The Hobbit, with their up to double digit Fighters, one Thief, and me playing a Wizard, so I've rarely had to worry about stepping on anyone's toes / having a role to play. However, even I have found this advice useful in some groups, in some games, with some concepts. For example, competitive player has this new 2e D&D combat build he's really proud of? Bad time for me to run Alak Akhabban of the 200 attacks.


Sometimes, that can´t be avoided when it´s a big part of the setting and will play a major role in gaming within it.

<--- strong hint.

This gets to the very related question of, "when is the appropriate time to deliver information to the PCs?". IMO, if the PCs couldn't possibly not relate the current events to current/ancient history, then there's no reason not to wait and tell them when it happens. Otoh, if it's questionable if/when they'll connect the dots, then emulating that via player skills is certainly a reasonable approach. Problem is, the guy with no memory or who didn't do the reading, who is running the wise historian, gets shown up by the int 3 illiterate barbarian, if that character's player is more attentive. Or, to look at that from another PoV, IME, the same player will always steal the spotlight, always putting the puzzle together, no matter what they run.

Thus, another reason I prefer to be "not from around here". I don't have to get involved in that drama, and can share the spotlight. :smalltongue:


Characters are created as session one after we have decided on the starting point for the campaign. So there is no pre-game really, we have already started. You could show up with a pre-made character, but if you do it is just an idea and you might have to put it aside or tweak it to fit the campaign.

So... you get the hooks, then you build / pick your character. That sounds normal. But what makes your games different - why would pre-built characters definitely need to be reworked, even if chosen for the specific plot given in session 1?

Psyren
2018-02-23, 02:39 PM
I generally don't worry about my character until I know the gist of how the campaign is going to begin - both the world and what the rest of the party is going to play since I usually try to fill in any gaps.

This - but I'm generally also tinkering with a dozen concepts at any given time so that I can get the ball rolling with something I've always wanted to try, in the event that either nobody can decide or nothing specific is needed because all the primary bases (e.g. loremonkey, skillmonkey, tank, healer etc) are already covered.

Cluedrew
2018-02-24, 08:06 AM
So... you get the hooks, then you build / pick your character. That sounds normal. But what makes your games different - why would pre-built characters definitely need to be reworked, even if chosen for the specific plot given in session 1?Degree I guess. Plus some of the games we play have "linking phases" of character creation, like FATE or Apocalypse World, were people through out hooks to your character and you have to work with them.

... It is pretty far from the 6-8 weeks character creation ideal you have. Mind you I have pretty much the opposite approach to a lot of character creation as you do.

johnnnrussel
2018-04-11, 05:16 AM
My groups rarely don't think about balancing party-roles, as people usually just roll up what they feel like playing. Some of my players are in another group right now playing Pathfinder's Skulls & Shackles, and the GM actually enforced a "no sharing character sheet knowledge with other players", because they wanted to try and angle of not knowing what the other characters in the group are capable of. Sounds like they're having lots of fun with it too.

Knaight
2018-04-11, 05:38 AM
The way new campaigns tend to get started in my groups is pretty weird - the player group generally collectively selects genre, I either use a setting I have on hand that fits or whip one up quickly (enough to get one session in, with further detail developed after that), and in the process a fairly specific party composition is established. The PCs are all nomads of the windplains, or members of the alchemists' guild in Port Alhabri, or the crew of the Shrodinger's Hummingbird, or the members of Atlantean Surface Expedition Force IV, or even the four robots that all woke up for the first time on the same assembly line and ran away from the factory. I've applied a similar strategy to the one shots I've been running more recently, although in this case the GM picks the setting and sometimes brings pre-gens, and again you get more specific teams. There's the ace pilots of a fighter squadron, the wizard familiars transformed to people by a death contingency, the actresses and crew of a movie that get caught up in a search for mystic artifacts, the high profile criminals and enemies of a state thrown through a portal to fantasy Australia, and most notably a group composed of people who could conceivably be found on a zeppelin.

These structures can still have some strange characters - Atlantean Surface Expedition Force IV had a baby kraken, the party united by medical debt to a dubious megacorporation involved an eclectic mix of weirdos, most of whom were cybernetic to some degree or other (hence the medical debt), the animal familiars transformed to people kept some skills from animal form and involved almost exclusively weird animals (with an unusually heavy focus on marine invertebrates), but parties are built around an understanding of what this campaign, specifically, is about.

Then there's the larger group of more ordinary characters. Various imperial investigators, military fireteams, the crew of a fishing boat, shipwrecked travelers, etc. Characters were very much built for these groups, and the only reason it wouldn't qualify as a pre-game metagame is that the whole model of the character creation minigame fundamentally doesn't fit the sorts of games I run.

Tanarii
2018-04-11, 11:16 AM
, and most notably a group composed of people who could conceivably be found on a zeppelin.did some get thrown out the cabin window as it was taking off?
*No ticket* :smallbiggrin:

Knaight
2018-04-11, 02:10 PM
did some get thrown out the cabin window as it was taking off?
*No ticket* :smallbiggrin:

Tragically no. I was running a pulp game, and the one shot started when the zeppelin was traveling over a remote island, and was suddenly attacked by a bunch of pterodactyls hypnotized by a mad Nazi scientist. This meant no takeoff shenanigans.

This particular example is also a good one of where restrictions can drive interest in a game. The player group immediately perked up when given "make a character who could conceivably be on a zeppelin", because that just turns out to be fun.

Tanarii
2018-04-11, 03:35 PM
This particular example is also a good one of where restrictions can drive interest in a game. The player group immediately perked up when given "make a character who could conceivably be on a zeppelin", because that just turns out to be fun.That's what made it really jump out at me too. Your way of kicking off campaigns sounds like a lot of fun. And campaigns you run too.

IIRC you use a variety of game systems? Do you select genre then game system, vice versa, it varies, or they go hand in hand?

JoeJ
2018-04-11, 04:12 PM
When I GM I always let the players know in advance what, in general terms, I expect the campaign to be about and what kinds of characters will fit. I make it a point to divide campaign information into the categories of Need to Know, Good to Know, and Nice to Know, and then give it to the players in that order.

Following that pattern, I put a short "elevator speech" summary of what the campaign is all about right at the beginning of the player handout so everybody knows right off the bat whether they'll be noble knights errant, security personnel at a space station orbiting a colony world, the crew of a tramp starship trying to make ends meet while staying at least one jump ahead of the authorities, superheroes during World War II, members of the thieve's guild in some wretched hive of scum and villainy, or whatever.

After that come the house rules, and then a breakdown of what of character options are recommended/allowed but not recommended/not allowed, along with examples of appropriate names.

Only after all that do I set out common knowledge about the history, politics, etc. of the game world.


As a player I want the know what my character is likely to be doing so I won't, for example, create an interstellar pop star when the game is about commando operations with the space marines. If I'm not sure what works, I'll often come up with several different character concepts and ask the GM which one would likely work the best for their game.

Knaight
2018-04-11, 04:41 PM
That's what made it really jump out at me too. Your way of kicking off campaigns sounds like a lot of fun. And campaigns you run too.

IIRC you use a variety of game systems? Do you select genre then game system, vice versa, it varies, or they go hand in hand?
There's some variety. The systems I know best are generics, but I do have a few systems that I can pull for other circumstances. Generally I present the systems with settings when talking options at the beginning of a campaign, and my players have some idea of what's in my library - so there are settings that end up getting picked because it lets us break out a particular system, along with systems that stick around precisely because they're generics that can handle all sorts of bizarre stuff.

That particular example was system first - I'd just picked up Hollow Earth Expedition because it looked interesting and I hadn't really run much pulp, got the players on board with the genre, and kicked off One Shot Club with that game. Any mention of ace pilots is also usually system first, as it almost always means Warbirds (though there have been exceptions there). Most of the rest are genre first, with Fudge being the standard fit.

icefractal
2018-04-11, 07:01 PM
As a player I want the know what my character is likely to be doing so I won't, for example, create an interstellar pop star when the game is about commando operations with the space marines. If I'm not sure what works, I'll often come up with several different character concepts and ask the GM which one would likely work the best for their game.Exactly. And even if I /wanted/ to play a fish out of water, I'd prepare differently than if the game were going to be about concerts and record deal rivalries.

Also, personally speaking, once I put a lot of thought into a character then I strongly want to play /that/ character, even if I would have been equally happy with a different one before that. Hence why I hate bait-n-switch type games.

Poiuytrewq
2018-04-11, 08:01 PM
I mean, I look at my roster of characters, and ask which one(s) would be interested in being an undead hunter.

That's what I do as well, I have a bunch of character concepts and ideas and I try to fit them in the setting the Dm created to see if I can put these ideas and concepts in practice.

It's like a mix of the idea for a potential interesting character meets the setting created to make a whole different character.

D+1
2018-04-11, 08:57 PM
Never had a DM reveal anything more about a campaign other than which published setting we would be in (if it WERE a published setting). Never anything about one type of adventure over another, one particular region of the game world over another, etc. Depending on edition there may have been some restrictions on allowed races and classes but nothing particular I can recall.

I generally have at least one idea for a PC in mind. I do pay attention to what other classes are being chosen for other PC's and may alter my choices based on that, so as not to overload a party with too many of a particular type of character or not enough of another. Otherwise, no metagaming during pre-game of any consequence. I would do so to SOME degree when such metagame information would be supplied by the DM, but how much would depend on the amount and type of that information.

Tanarii
2018-04-11, 10:06 PM
Exactly. And even if I /wanted/ to play a fish out of water, I'd prepare differently than if the game were going to be about concerts and record deal rivalries.
It doesn't even need to be extreme to make a fish out of water character. I've run robotech games where all the players made Destroid capable combatants, and the other a veritech pilot. Just one guy having hyper fast flight made the game wonky, regularly turning it into a two simultaneous scenario game. Quite a few times I've had a bunch of guys make sneaky D&D characters, while one or two made heavily armored clunker. It was the "scout sneaks ahead" thing in reverse.

Some games almost demand you plan your characters in advance with the GM so they can work out spotlight focus. Shadowrun for example.