D&D by Round Robin

[Catullus64]

I've had this loose idea for a game rattling around in my head for a day or two. I think I should just put it out there and gather people's general thoughts about how it might work, or not work.

The group sits down to the game. They each build a character there on the spot, without filling in any more characterization than can be written in the Personal Characteristics section of the sheet. With these characters, they play the first short session of an adventure. Next week, they come back with the same characters, sit in the same places around the table, and pass their character sheets one place to the left (excluding the DM). This continues session by session until the end of the adventure.

The continuity and events of the story remain the same; anything that a character has said or done, anything that's been established about them, remains the same from player to player.

Does this sound like a kind of game you would want to play in? Has this been done before? Are there ground rules you would want established? Is there a way this formula could be refined? Are there implications specific to doing this in 5e?

[nickl_2000]

Take from this what you will...

I would never play this way, I wouldn't enjoy it and I wouldn't want to do it. When I create a character, I like to think on the possibilities and the history of that character. I like the character to grow through the adventure as they are levelling. This character becomes Mine and he (because I am and identify as male and don't feel comfortable playing female characters) is part of me.

I wouldn't want someone else playing "my" character and making roleplaying choices and OOC character levelling choices that don't match how I imagine the character. I also feel that this would ruin any immersion since there isn't continuity of act in the character since my definition of Chaotic Good and someone else's may be slightly different and therefore the character will act differently depending on which person is in charge of it.




Given a group that changes players often and has people who can't make it often I could see this working. Not in my group though.

[JNAProductions]

Take from this what you will...

I would never play this way, I wouldn't enjoy it and I wouldn't want to do it. When I create a character, I like to think on the possibilities and the history of that character. I like the character to grow through the adventure as they are levelling. This character becomes Mine and he (because I am and identify as male and don't feel comfortable playing female characters) is part of me.

I wouldn't want someone else playing "my" character and making roleplaying choices and OOC character levelling choices that don't match how I imagine the character. I also feel that this would ruin any immersion since there isn't continuity of act in the character since my definition of Chaotic Good and someone else's may be slightly different and therefore the character will act differently depending on which person is in charge of it.

I'll have a different viewpoint. I think the concept is cool, though I don't think it's a fit for a very serious campaign. Due to the fact that different players will have different characterizations, the campaign should be light-hearted, so inconsistencies don't derail things. Which is, of course, not so say Nickl's opinion is wrong-just that their dislike of the concept shouldn't be the final word.

Nickl does, though, bring up an excellent point. He does not like playing ladies. Other players might not like playing scumbags (even if they have a heart of gold). You'd need a table where everyone is cool playing all the PCs-which I don't think is impossible, by any means, but might be a bit tricky to pull together.

I'd also ask, why doesn't the DM switch too?

[Unoriginal]

I wouldn't want to play in this game.

Not only having to play a different character every session is a pain if you want any continuity in what you're playing, if I select a class/race/subclass for a character it's because I want to play that for a while, and I wouldn't enjoy having to play a Cleric, a Ranger and a Barbarian three weeks before I can go back to playing Fighter, for example.


I can imagine a fun one-shot where everyone create one character then someone else play them. I can also imagine a fun one-shot where you shuffle who plays who every X even (ex: every time you change locations, or the like). But anything longer than a one-shot or two-shot would be beyond tedious IMO.

[nickl_2000]

I'll have a different viewpoint. I think the concept is cool, though I don't think it's a fit for a very serious campaign. Due to the fact that different players will have different characterizations, the campaign should be light-hearted, so inconsistencies don't derail things. Which is, of course, not so say Nickl's opinion is wrong-just that their dislike of the concept shouldn't be the final word.

Nickl does, though, bring up an excellent point. He does not like playing ladies. Other players might not like playing scumbags (even if they have a heart of gold). You'd need a table where everyone is cool playing all the PCs-which I don't think is impossible, by any means, but might be a bit tricky to pull together.

I'd also ask, why doesn't the DM switch too?

I think a DM switching would be hard to have long term surprises. However, if you are going with the more light-hearted campaign that allows for characters to switch, I don't see why the world can't change some as well. You would need to have good communication between people "Please don't use this particular character, I have plans for her to do something specific later on), and you would need a table where everyone is good at improv and DMing.

Also note from my response. I wouldn't play at this table. I wouldn't enjoy it and I wouldn't want it. However, I'm very much into you have your own joy. If you have a group of people who are into the idea then do it and embrace it!

[Waterdeep Merch]

It really depends on a lot of factors.

Your first major hurdle, does everyone at the table enjoy playing all of the different classes? This can sink your idea real quick, since I find it rare that everyone at a table enjoys each distinct role. Personally? I don't like druids and I'm not jazzed about monks. One or two of those characters get made, I'll have a bad time when they get to me.

Problem the next, is everyone at the same level of optimization at the table? If you have the sort of person that, say, frequents these forums and a more casual player in this same group, you're going to annoy the former very badly as they're forced to give up their finely-tuned hexlock to play the highly intelligent ranger investigator the next guy made. And they'll be even more wroth if this player makes a destructive leveling choice, like branching their hexlock into barbarian levels because they just didn't like all the moving parts. I suppose your optimizer can just yell at your casual player, but I figure you'd want to curtail that sort of behavior, not encourage it.

Your third issue stems from what I'm sure you were most interested in encouraging, roleplay. Fact is, no one will care about their characters all that much here. Besides never sitting with one for very long and not getting back to them for weeks or even months, they'll only ever be able to get skin deep on characterization, if that. There's just no time for anything beyond the generic, and no incentive to try any harder. And you run the risk of someone being passed a character archetype they despise, even more strongly than your issues with someone getting gameplay elements they hate. I have a player that likes being the buttmonkey comic relief. That's an acquired taste, to put it lightly. Now imagine if everyone else is required to play that.

So- if you have a set of players with extremely similar playstyles, expectations, and fantasy taste in general, this could work. But I wouldn't bother with anything more complicated than dungeon crawling, your players will fundamentally lack depth and there's no cure for it beyond also being a group of remarkably gifted thespians, able to infuse their performances with subtly and nuance even with very little to work with.

[Hytheter]

I definitely wouldn't want to do this in a game that is supposed to be at all serious or long-lasting. Players won't be able to get as invested in their characters and may find themselves playing characters they dislike, but it could be a fun exercise if everyone calibrates their expectations accordingly.

[Demonslayer666]

I like the idea that it would get the players to become familiar with the other PC's personalities and be a roleplaying challenge, but I don't think it would be much fun for me. I like playing my character and advancing that character.

I once was in a Cthulhu campaign where the GM collected character sheets at the end of every session and at the start of a session you'd open your folder and be playing a different character. The anticipation of opening up your folder at the start of each session was quite intense, but we never really liked having our characters taken away and a new one thrust upon us. Even though it was temporary, we half dreaded the dream sequences into the past. I have to admit though, that was a very memorable campaign.

[Catullus64]

Take from this what you will...

I would never play this way, I wouldn't enjoy it and I wouldn't want to do it. When I create a character, I like to think on the possibilities and the history of that character. I like the character to grow through the adventure as they are levelling. This character becomes Mine and he (because I am and identify as male and don't feel comfortable playing female characters) is part of me.

I wouldn't want someone else playing "my" character and making roleplaying choices and OOC character levelling choices that don't match how I imagine the character. I also feel that this would ruin any immersion since there isn't continuity of act in the character since my definition of Chaotic Good and someone else's may be slightly different and therefore the character will act differently depending on which person is in charge of it.

Given a group that changes players often and has people who can't make it often I could see this working. Not in my group though.

Maybe it would be a good idea to do the first hand-off before the first session of play. Or maybe have four pre-generated characters, or collectively created characters, which people draw by lot for the first game. Something in place to lessen the sense that there's "my" character in the mix; there's only our party.

As for personal barriers like the one you mention, they can be negotiated, but only so much. It would be a good idea for everyone to get at least one hard barrier to impose when these characters are being created. Not everyone's barriers are few or permissible enough to allow this format to work ("no ladies" is the kind of barrier that it's fine to impose on oneself, but is hard to accommodate for a whole group), and I have sympathy for that.

I'm not trying to convince you to like the idea, Nickl_2000, so much as I am trying to use your criticisms to make this sort of game work for a hypothetical person who shares your concerns.

As for a rotating DM, JNAProductions, I think that a stable element is necessary in all of these chaos, especially if you purport to have actual continuity of events and adventures from session to session.

[Waterdeep Merch]

A recommendation? You could have some sort of bizarre body switching element in the plot. Each player is the same character, but their abilities and stats swap every session as they're polymorphed into other members of the party. Now players can explore characters that have to adapt to living as different people. There can be some depth here.

You can also use this as an excuse for moments when a switch happens mid session. Or a final boss controlling all the switching that causes it to happen at the end of every combat round.

[KorvinStarmast]

(1) Does this sound like a kind of game you would want to play in?
(2) Has this been done before? (3) Are there ground rules you would want established? (4) Is there a way this formula could be refined? (5) Are there implications specific to doing this in 5e? I added numbers to address each point.
(1) Yes. I don't overidentify with my character, and I am used to playing someone else's when they can't make the session. Sounds like a fun way to play.
(2) Yes, a long time ago for about three sessions in an AD&D 1e game. It began with "I never got to play a ranger, and I'd like to but I don't want to have to start all over" voiced by a player. We came up with "we all swap characters for three sessions" with no change in the campaign. It was fun, and we had good trust between players. But we all went back to our original characters after three sessions.
(3) Yes, no suicide moves, and don't be a D.
(4) I suggest that each evening's session is one adventure, kind of like a West Marches style. Begin and end "in town" so that the next rotation a person begins with a full up character, not one who is out of spell slots.
(5) No, 5e isn't special in this way. The players need to trust each other.

Grief players could ruin this. Know Your Players before you try this.

[nickl_2000]

Yes. I don't overidentify with my character, and I am used to playing someone else's when they can't make the session. Sounds like a fun way to play.

I'm curious since you have done it, what kinds of problems have you run into doing this?

[da newt]

I think it would be a blast! With the right group of Players who also think it would be a fun twist, it could be great.

As a summer camp counselor one of our go to evening entertainments was siting around the camp fire with the campers and one of us would start an ad lib story and then pass it to the next guy, round robin. It was always a great time. 'Yes and' improv at it's simplest and fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm curious since you have done it, what kinds of problems have you run into doing this? At our tables, no problems at all. None. Zero, zip, nada. We take care of each other. I play with friends. We talk to each other.

As I encountered people on line who could not comprehend what I was used to doing for years of gaming, I sketched out a rough idea for a 'best practices' that I call Passive Presence. I'll go and find where I posted it and drop it into this post.

Hmm, this isn't the final form, it's an early draft of what we do.

Passive presence describes the condition of a PC whose player has not been able to show up, or is running late, and we begin to adventure. The PC who is "not here yet" or "can't be here this week" is, in-world, still with the party, but for the moment is in a purely supporting role. Their actions, reactions, and responses can only be requested/suggested by a party consensus with DM approval to assist (as needed) the players who are "in-play" at the time. Nobody can be "passively present" as a meat shield. That isn't how it works.

Why do I like to use this? To get play begun, and to in a small way reward timely arrival in our shared fantasy world by getting play to start for the players who can make it on time.

How does it work?

Let us suppose four PCs - Schneezo, Zippy, Bezo, and Thrash. One player is running late. The three players play as three, with a consensus/requestable assistance option of a capability that the passively present player has if something particular is needed.

Example: Henry plays Schneezo, the party wizard, but will be a half hour late due to a business meeting. Play begins where we left off from the previous adventure, having found a staff that, thanks to Bezo the Cleric's Detect Magic casting as a ritual as we open the session, is known to be magic. The party is in a dungeon and needs to get moving since the two groups of ogres that they bypassed to tackle this evil cult leader probably heard the fight that just finished. Schneezo's ability to cast "Identify" (as ritual or regular casting) is requested so that the party can put that staff to good use as they vacate the premisise and hopefully avoid, or find better terrain to fight, the ogres who will soon be investigating this racket.

Group consensus: is this a good use of a level 1 spell at this time? Discuss, come to consensus. If no consensus, then the answer is no. If yes ...

DM: Is there any reason that this would hose the absent player? If no, then cast Identify and go on. If yes - "Hey, do you realize that doing this hoses Schneezo because of that being his last spell slot, and he can't cast Shield in the next battle ...) Then review request or just don't cast the spell.

Example II. Zippy the Rogue will be missing tonight. The other three go deeper into the old crumbling tower, and come across a chest that is locked. Consensus is that Zippy can probably pick that lock, and would check for traps before doing so. Nobody else is proficient with thieve's tools. Group consensus is "Hey, Zippy, can you pick that lock?"
DM asks: what precautions are you taking to protect Zippy in case that is poison, a trap, whatever?"
Party provides answer, like "Bezo casts Resistance cantrip before lock picking begins" or something like that.
The absent player's interests are covered, so a lock picking can be tried.
Or, the party just shrugs and smashes the chest, rather than worry about that, and accepts the risk that a monster or NPC will hear the noise ...

Example 3: Thrash's player, Jolene, is running late. The other three have encountered an NPC who has been avoiding them. The NPC tries to get away, but after initiative is rolled, the NPC's is the lowest. One of party asks "can we have Thrash try to grapple the NPC?" Big strong fighter grappling would likely be on the table if Thrash's player were present. DM looks at the encounter, and sees nothing that will hose Thrash's player on this, so a grapple check can be rolled by any of the players.

The other thing a Passively Present PC does, as of 5e, is provide a Passive Perception check as the rear guard for all cases where the party is moving, camping, or resting. This is a 5e wrinkle that I've added since Passive Perception is so simple to implement. In Example 3 above, Thrash is in the rear, and is as alert as his char sheet allows. The DM may either state, or whisper, that "Thrash just noticed that he heard something and he taps Bezo on the shoulder, pointing ..."

As the group got used to doing this there was less and less input from the DM as various players would make a suggestion and the others would either nod or ask "wait, does that hoze Schneezo?" or something similar. The players have each others' backs. Almost no DM input as of now, two years into that group playing together.

[Foolwise]

Another twist to this concept that you can incorporate into a single session of a larger campaign is to create a dungeon/funhouse/whatever that gives each character in the party a Hat of Many Disguises (perhaps make a special case that it only works inside said location). In order to advance to the next room, the players must figure out that each room is tailored to one player in particular and everyone must become that player. They still use their own abilities though.

Ideally, you get to play a session where everyone shows how they would play X character in their own class. This session would be best played in later stages of a campaign when players have developed good lore between themselves and can be used as a comedic relief for a nice change of pace from prior sessions.

[Mastikator]

I think this depends more on who I am playing with. I see two problems with this, one is that every session I have to learn how a character works. That's extra effort for probably little benefit. The second is that some players won't be able to learn and it's gonna be a huge drag when every combat encounter people will sit for 10 minutes straight trying to figure out how their spells work, who to use them on, etc.

This is a cool idea, just not for D&D. Do it for something extremely simple.

[Zhorn]

I would very much love to be in this sort of game, but as others have pointed out above with it not being for everyone, I would be very cautious about who I was playing with.
It's the kind of game best suited for the collaborative sorts that are able to ,or at least comfortable with, wearing many different hats.
I've been the default pilot of many other player characters when their owners were unable to make a session. Usually with a text less than an hour before the game...
"Hey Zhorn, I won't make it to Bobby's DnD tonight. Could you play my Sorcerer for me so I don't missing out on xp/treasure?"
... so I'm used to bouncing between characters. It's actually what got me started with DMing, as it was good practice for juggling personas.

[Catullus64]

Another twist to this concept that you can incorporate into a single session of a larger campaign is to create a dungeon/funhouse/whatever that gives each character in the party a Hat of Many Disguises (perhaps make a special case that it only works inside said location). In order to advance to the next room, the players must figure out that each room is tailored to one player in particular and everyone must become that player. They still use their own abilities though.

Ideally, you get to play a session where everyone shows how they would play X character in their own class. This session would be best played in later stages of a campaign when players have developed good lore between themselves and can be used as a comedic relief for a nice change of pace from prior sessions.

That sounds like wicked fun, but isn't quite what I want out of the exercise. What I'm really after is having to think about story and roleplaying outside the limits of playing one very personal character; of having to inhabit different characters, think about an adventure from multiple perspectives, and build off the contributions of others. Diegetic elements somewhat negate the roleplaying nature of the switch, as they make it such that you're really only playing one character all along.

(Partly a response to the quote, partly a response to an earlier post by Waterdeep Merch, who suggested a body-switching plot device.)

[Imbalance]

This sounds like Being John Malkovich but with dice.

[Amechra]

I think this could be pretty fun! I do, however, feel like it will clash with the "normal" playstyle that 5e promotes. You'd definitely need a group that signed up for a more troupe style (http://www.redcap.org/page/Troupe_style) campaign, where the narrative focus is less... JRPG-y.

That's the best description I can come up with for the kinds of characters that D&D tends to want you to make — characters tend to be strongly defined by a singular gimmick, there is minimal overlap between characters thematically or aesthetically, and each individual character isn't terribly deep. After all, character exploration isn't really the point — the point is to go out and solve problems by stabbing them in the face and setting them on fire.

If you wanted to use this idea in a more serious campaign, I think you'd have to start off by nailing down a "campaign aesthetic" for the group, and then make sure that all the characters fit with that. It'd de-emphasize each individual character, but that's kinda the point in this kind of game — they're usually the kind of game where the "main character" is the group itself.

[MrStabby]

So this could work if:

The other players are better at creating a character that you will enjoy playing than you are.

You are better at creating a character that they will enjoy playing than they are.

Your vision for character development compliments theirs and vice versa.

If anyone makes and big choices or momentus decisions for a character then it will match well enough what another person would chose.


I usually play with close friends, but even I don't have a group that this would work with.

[Person_Man]

This is close to a common acting/improv exercise. You write something about a character down on a note card. You hand it to the person next to you. They add something, which can’t contradict what’s already on the card. You repeat this 5 or six times. Then whoever is directing/teaching tells the players what the scene is, which always includes a problem or conflict. Then you improv lines until the director calls an end to the scene.

Note this rarely actually creates a good scene/story. (Unless you’re all aiming for pure comedy, and then its hit or miss). Its just an acting exercise for new students that forces everyone to play different parts.