Pregen for new players - yay or nay, what was your experience?

[Kaibis]

Coming off another thread asking for pregen characters, reminded me of my first homegame as a GM. We played two mammoth sessions before I realised at least a few of my mistakes and put them all off until I got a bit better.

There were 5 players, two really keen players but the rest were partners/friends dragged along (including mine). They all asked to play, but they had no idea about how big a job it is making a character (even with the help of DNDBeyond, which I think is a better way to go than pregen, but for the purpose of this conversation it was effectively the same).

The two keen players made their own characters, the remaining three required me to do it entirely for them, even as far as leveling them up, choosing spells, and printing out spell sheets for them. I asked them for input on what type of character they wanted to play, but that was as far as their investment went, the rest was me.

The result was that they just were not invested in their character. They hadn't spent hours mulling over exactly which race they wanted, or what spells to choose, or how to spend their ability points. I made it clear that they would need about a one minute introduction to their character, I even gave them a great little proforma to help them make it concise and interesting... but one player actually googled for one (while other players were introducing themselves) and read it off the phone.

After the second game I told them I would not be levelling them, if they didn't level their own characters then they would simply play a low level character. I should have done that from the start of course, I just didn't recognise the lack of investment until the start of the second game.

[SleepIncarnate]

My answer to this is a question: how new of players are they?

If they've never played any kind of RPG before, then a pregen might help. I'd do a couple one shots at that point. After they get the basics, let them build their own characters for the actual campaign.

If they've played other games and are just new to D&D 5e or just to your table, I'd suggest letting them make their own characters with help when needed and dive right into the main campaign.

[Greywander]

The purpose of pregenning is to create a character for a player that is so new to the rules that they can't make one for themselves.

So you hand them a character, you give them an ideally short list of what they can do, and you throw them into a one-shot or short campaign. Hopefully by the end of it, they're starting to get a grip on the basics of the rules and are eager to try creating a character themselves with their newfound understanding.

The problem is that asking a new player to build a character is essentially asking them to make a bunch of choices whose outcomes they don't yet understand. Some people will rise to the occasion and actually read the rules first, but some people find it easier to learn by playing.

It sounds like in your case, those players with the pregens just didn't want to be there for some reason. Did you have a session 0 with them to find out what they wanted out of the game? It could also be that they weren't invested in the game, but just wanted to hang out with their friends. Champion fighters were basically made for those kinds of people.

If I did give someone a pregen, I'd encourage them to build their own character somewhere between levels 3 and 5. Possibly time the short campaign to end around that level, and start a new one with fresh 1st level characters now that they have a feel for things.

[Pelle]

You could try pregenerating all the mechanical stats etc, but leave the personality traits (possibly also background entirely) for the new player to decide. That way they get invested into the character, who it is, without having to learn all the fiddly stuff first.

[Knaight]

The two keen players made their own characters, the remaining three required me to do it entirely for them, even as far as leveling them up, choosing spells, and printing out spell sheets for them. I asked them for input on what type of character they wanted to play, but that was as far as their investment went, the rest was me.

Alternate hypothesis: After going through the tedious process of you making three characters in a system they didn't particularly understand they were too bored to continue with any engagement.


The result was that they just were not invested in their character. They hadn't spent hours mulling over exactly which race they wanted, or what spells to choose, or how to spend their ability points. I made it clear that they would need about a one minute introduction to their character, I even gave them a great little proforma to help them make it concise and interesting... but one player actually googled for one (while other players were introducing themselves) and read it off the phone.
Not spending hours over the tedium of character creation doesn't mean you can't be invested. You're also throwing new players way too far into the deep end here - demanding a one minute solo performance right off the bat about some character they have yet to get the feel of is ridiculous. Let them learn the ropes first.

[Greywander]

You could try pregenerating all the mechanical stats etc, but leave the personality traits (possibly also background entirely) for the new player to decide. That way they get invested into the character, who it is, without having to learn all the fiddly stuff first.
I mean, you can do a non-mechanical character creation, where they describe the kind of character they want, and you, as best you can, try to make a character that mechanically matches that. It's tricky, though, as they'll inevitably describe something more powerful than a 1st level character, but that can work in your favor as you let them build toward the concept they had, instead of having it from the start and not knowing where to go from there.

[Kaibis]

It sounds like in your case, those players with the pregens just didn't want to be there for some reason. Did you have a session 0 with them to find out what they wanted out of the game? It could also be that they weren't invested in the game, but just wanted to hang out with their friends. Champion fighters were basically made for those kinds of people.

That's a good point, maybe it was just because they were the husband/husband/and BFF who asked to come along (both sessions) even though I assured them that I would not at all be offended if they didn't want to continue (and that I would still love them - the husband and bff at least :D ).

I was only use my session as an example of a spectacular failure in building a character for a person. I don't need advice fixing it (maybe in 2 months when our now-annual game is due to recur), just curious as to other experiences with lack of investment in characters made by the GM.

My first ever game the DM pregen a character for me and my hubby and played a tiny one-shot thing. I don't remember much except that I had no idea what was going on. He roped us into that and we had no idea (but now I am sidebar-ing my own discussion).

[Pelle]

I mean, you can do a non-mechanical character creation, where they describe the kind of character they want, and you, as best you can, try to make a character that mechanically matches that. It's tricky, though, as they'll inevitably describe something more powerful than a 1st level character, but that can work in your favor as you let them build toward the concept they had, instead of having it from the start and not knowing where to go from there.

I just think building the character for them as they sit there trying to describe it has some issues. First, it takes almost just as long time as if the player doing it themselves. Secondly, for a new player it can be hard to spontanously come up with a character concept without any boundaries or starting point.

So I think it works better for the DM to prepare some archetypical characters, like the elven ranger, hobbit burglar, strong warrior etc. For other games, say CoC, it's the tough PI, the charming journalist, the smart professor etc. Then the player get to quickly pick an archetype that appeals to them, and has a starting point from where to be creative and develop the character.

Depends on the players what works best. I think the above is smart for new players without any preconcieved ideas of what to play. If you notice they have something specific in mind, help them out to make that, but it's probably a bad default expectation to have.

[Pex]

In my experience published pregens are bad builds. I'll accept some power gaming bias on my part, but knowing how the game works the character has wasted material. A wizard should have an attack cantrip, not be firing a crossbow. No, the fighter should not have 11 CO and 14 CH and not even proficient in any CH skills. They all need to be tweaked. There can still be choices I wouldn't have made, but accepting the theme they were going for they need work.

In my opinion it's best to help the new player make his own character. Either he can read the book, do it on his own, then go over it to fix mistakes or improve it, or work with him step by step asking him what he wants to play and do, tell him the options to achieve it, and let him decide. Sometimes you describe the options first then let him decide which one he likes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've used pregens only for short-format one-shots (like when I did a 2-hour game with new players for a charity event). There, everyone had pregens. That worked well.

For new players in ongoing events I do question-based character generation--I ask a series of questions and describe the possibilities step by step. I made a bunch of "class cards" with a picture, an archetypal description (barbarians are strong and sturdy!) and a couple highlights of the class. I don't go into mechanics at all at this stage. Once everyone has a chance to look at the classes, we distribute them around (for very new players I don't allow duplication).

Typical questions:
After describing the valid races for the setting in thematic terms:
* Do any of those stand out?
For subraces:
* Legolas elf or Elrond elf? (etc).

For background and skills:
* What did you do before you were an adventurer? Where/how did you learn your skills?
* What are you good at?
* What kind of a person are you? What do you care about? What gets you in trouble?
All of these together give a custom background. Sometimes it fits one of the pre-written one, other times not.

For ability scores I use the standard array (15/14/13/12/10/8) and recommend that they put their highest into the class's "primary"/attack stat. From there, we talk through the others.

Numbers we fill in as we go.

[jdolch]

I am fan of new players playing Premade Characters in a shortish (few sessions) one shot, so they can see how it all works together in practice and then they make their own characters for the actual campaign.

[RedMage125]

I've used pre gens for new-to-system players. I typically allow a complete "respec", to include changing race, after they've gotten a handle on the basics, with all subsequent changes just being retconned. "Oh, my rogue has ALWAYS been a Wood Elf".

The more experienced players know what's going on, and it's never been a problem. There is, sometimes, the occasional joke about it or out of character reference, however.
"The Rogue is Small, let's tie a rope to him and hurl him over the wall"
"Dude, I'm not a halfling anymore, I'm a Wood Elf"
"Man, growth spurts be crazy"

[Sigreid]

My answer is nay. Generating the character gives the opportunity to explain how different character decisions can affect the game as well as making the character feel more theirs. Those benefits are worth spending a session just making characters and maybe doing one very easy fight to let them kick the tires.

[strangebloke]

Yay.

Here's my method:

"Name a fictional character you'd like to emulate."
"Aragorn."
"Easy. Give me five minutes." *builds a Human Fighter* "What about you, Player 2?"
"Edward Elric"
"Based on his punching skill or his alchemy?"
"The second."
*builds a transmutation wizard.*

If you want people to get into it, you have to let them get started quick. So just tell them in broad terms what they can do. "You can cast these spells. When in doubt, cast firebolt since you can do that an unlimited number of times. You've got these skills, so you're better at these things."

Bam, done. I can currently get a group that's never played before ready for a one-shot in about half an hour.

[jdolch]

My answer is nay. Generating the character gives the opportunity to explain how different character decisions can affect the game as well as making the character feel more theirs. Those benefits are worth spending a session just making characters and maybe doing one very easy fight to let them kick the tires.

Correct. But it is still worth doing a one shot with pre-mades first to give the players an idea on how the game actually works. So they can see the different Characters in action so to speak. Then they can far better judge what they want in their own character rather then you telling them what is good. In my experience: "Helping" players, who are that clueless make characters is almost the same as making them yourself. They just take what you tell them is good, instead of making their own choices. Best Case you ask them what they want but even then options you give them are strongly colored with your ideas.

[Nifft]

Here's my thinking:


Can we do a whole Session Zero where the PCs and significant bits of the setting are collaboratively built?

Yes Session Zero -> no pregens.

No Session Zero -> sure, pregens are a fine solution.


This seems to fit in with people saying that one-shot / event / total noob joining established group / etc. is a good match for pregens.

[MagneticKitty]

My advice, play a 1-3 session one shot with pregens.

Put each sheet in an envelope with the one sentence class summary on the outside and let them pick their pregen that way. I'd use the ones made by wizards for ease of setup.
Put a female and male name let them pick which to use.
At the end of each session they can choose to swap envelopes with the pile or eachother if desired.

Optional: they end each session in a hub where they can pick a new pregen If they want to continue the story instead of new story per session

This lets them try something without commitment to a class. This makes sure they actually want to play before you elaborately weave them unto your world. Maybe they see another player and are jealous of that class and want to try it. Its better to get this feeling in one shot then actual campaign. They can get a handle on rules and get their crazy ideas out (they learn consequences persist and their actions effect the world.)

Then tell them to make a permanent character. And give them time to do so. Help them if they don't understand how to make one. If they're interested in playing they probably will learn to build characters. By now they should know what class they like.

[StickyZ]

Just to add my two cents in, For my LMoP run I gave everyone the pregen characters. Before the 1st session the fighter wanted to be a barb because he did his own research and the "archer" changed to ranger after the second session because he wanted a beast companion. The rest seem really happy with their characters. Tho I will say that when you build your own, you probably have a better remembrance of what your character can do. I'm constantly reminding the other three of their options. So it goes both ways. For my new players, I told them if they wanted to change things/classes/races/paths at/before 3rd level they were welcome to it, hoping they do their own research.

[GlenSmash!]

Just to add my two cents in, For my LMoP run I gave everyone the pregen characters. Before the 1st session the fighter wanted to be a barb because he did his own research and the "archer" changed to ranger after the second session because he wanted a beast companion. The rest seem really happy with their characters. Tho I will say that when you build your own, you probably have a better remembrance of what your character can do. I'm constantly reminding the other three of their options. So it goes both ways. For my new players, I told them if they wanted to change things/classes/races/paths at/before 3rd level they were welcome to it, hoping they do their own research.

I pretty much did this. Played a pregen fighter in my first session of LMoP. Session 2 I should up with a Barbarian.

[McSkrag]

The important thing is to have the players be invested emotionally in their character. This means they need to relate to it as an avatar of themselves in the D&D world.

Players new to D&D are not going to have a a good understanding of the mechanics of character building. But they will have an idea of what kind of character they want to play based on cultural archetypes.

My advice is to have a variety characters partially built out in terms of class, abilities, and skills that represent these archetypes but leave room for customization by each new player.

For example, if a player wanted to be a "big burly warrior", you could hand them a barbarian character sheet but then have them choose what kind of barbarian, their weapons, and backstory.

[Anonymouswizard]

Pregens have their place. They're great for one shots, and GM generated characters can be great with player buy-in and no GM favouritism.

Now for new players I'd generally not run D&D. If players want fantasy I'd generally run Lamentations of the Flame Princess, where charade generation goes as follows:
-Roll 3d6 for your stats and assign in the order Charisma, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Strength
-Pick your class from Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Specialist (each genetic enough to be easily described). While the system has demihuman classes I'd most likely leave them out.
-Roll 3d6 and times by ten to determine your number of silver pieces and buy equipment. Theoretically hard, in practice you can probably leave most new players after armour/weapons/ammunition/rations and they'll be happy.