Pre-Gen Characters

[Easy e]

Since Free RPG Day is here, many starter adventures and similar One-shot adventures that are set up to introduce players to a game use Pre-Gen characters. This practice led me to a couple of questions:

1. Have you used Pre-Gens as a player/GM?
2. If yes, what was the experience like?
3. How "deep" should a pre-gen character be? Just mechanics, some basic backstory, more?
4. Other than starting adventures and One-Shots, have you used Pre-Gens in other ways?
5. If yes to the above, what was the experience like?

Basically, a thread to talk about the concept of Pre-Gens, swap some stories and share advice.

[Satinavian]

1. Yes to both
2. They are reasonable for one-shots to test out a system. Especially at conventions where you know you won't ever play in the same constellation again. I don't recommend them for beginners who intend to play that system in that group longer. Making one's own character creates way more attachment and also teaches rules.
3. Mechanics and how the character fits the setting as the setting is probably also unfamiliar to the player. It is important for the player to roughly know what NPCs expect from that character and what his station would be. Personality and backstory is something the player can bring.
4. NPCs.
5. It is not that i have never seen a player take a liking to his pregen and continue playing them. But most players vastly prefer their own one if they can afford it.

[dafrca]

This practice led me to a couple of questions:

1. Have you used Pre-Gens as a player/GM? Yes I have.

2. If yes, what was the experience like? For the one off games it can be good. FOr learning a new set of rules it can be helpful. Beyond that mostly I have not been too excited by pre-generated characters. It feels like I am playing someone else's character.

3. How "deep" should a pre-gen character be? Just mechanics, some basic backstory, more? Give me simple and clean so I can learn the rules or get right into the one off play. I do not want a heavy background that will mostly not be used in the environments I see them being played in.

4. Other than starting adventures and One-Shots, have you used Pre-Gens in other ways? Not really. I have never been given one I liked enough to keep playing beyond their intended use.

I am not saying you could not offer me a character I woudl want to play more, but in truth I can't imagine that I will care about it more than a little as it would always feel like someone else's character and as such their creation not mine.

[Mastikator]

No. I've never been sold on any pre gen characters. I'm no opposed to it in theory it's just that none have ever tickled my fancy.

How deep should they be? Very IMO. If there are pre-gen characters I assume there's a pre-gen story that the DM wants to tell. That's fine if it's a decent story to be honest, I'm not a "sand box or go home" kind of guy, a railroad is fine if the train has a good show if that makes sense (but I feel I need to know that before the game starts, tell us during session zero or before). With a pre-gen character I want built in story relevance. A pre-gen character should trade player freedom for something good.

[Kraynic]

1. Have you used Pre-Gens as a player/GM?
Yes, as both player/GM.

2. If yes, what was the experience like?
As a player, it was to make things easier for the beginning GM that was running her first game. Unfortunately, she hadn't learned to say no yet when everyone else wanted to make their own, and ended up making things that disrupted the game (which the pregens would have prevented). The game only lasted for 1 actual session due to the newbie GM feeling overwhelmed. I think if we had just stuck with the pregens, the characters would have been simpler and would have allowed her to get a little play time without having to learn more complex character mechanics. I mean, this was Pathfinder 1E.

As a GM, I have used them for One-Shot games where I am going for a specific theme. If I don't have a specific theme in mind, then I allow players to make their own.

3. How "deep" should a pre-gen character be? Just mechanics, some basic backstory, more?
I like some backstory, mainly so that there is a reason for the group of characters to be together. A quirk or 2 might be good, and any minor friction between characters in the group might be good to note in case it comes up in play. Other than that, it is good to leave room for the players to inject something of their own into the characters.

4. Other than starting adventures and One-Shots, have you used Pre-Gens in other ways?
In some of my games, I have an amulet of "true reincarnation"... What this does (mechanically) is bring the bearer back as a random race/class with the same xp as the just slain version. It is an item that I shamelessly stole from a GM who gave one of my characters something similar in a game years ago. I generally have the player roll up a couple race/class combos, I do a couple, and then they roll a d4 when the item activates to select which one gets used.

5. If yes to the above, what was the experience like?
In practice, this works well with certain players (I enjoyed it), and one player I gave it to enjoyed it. It can also be fun to have a character that can be "killed" at any time without the player being removed from the game, though that definitely depends on the type/style of game being run at the time. If the player sees the new character as a roleplay or game challenge, it works out well. If they don't, then it likely won't... Some players are definitely not at all thrilled, but will insist on keeping and wearing the thing and then be sullenly unhappy when it activates... Had that experience in the last year. So, definitely mixed success there.

[Vahnavoi]

1. Yes.

2. GM-pregenerated characters work just as well as player-generated and randomly generated characters.

3. The format that's created most bang for my buck: all numbers filled in, a five word synopsis of who the character is plus three sentences, quotations, aphorisms etc. to give player a sense of who that character is. Items are left to the player. Most material I've had per player on tabletop has been full A4 of backstory and personality with a handful of minor picks left to player. Most material I've had in freeform: several thousand word character sheet plus tens of thousands of words spread over multiple years of posts. The format of the game and reading skills of your players are what set limits to how much material you can hand to your players. Actual depth - how much game you can get out of a given character - has more to do with quality of information and game rules.

4. I use GM-generated and randomly generated characters for everything you'd use player generated characters for.

5. The distinction in actual play is close to none. Regardless of who originally made them, people make decisions of who the characters they play are, how they act and why, during actual play, so virtually any character becomes that player's "own" through extended play. As far as practical matters go, creating characters is a skill. The person who has to create most characters, with greatest variety, is often the game master, and thus they have most skill in doing so. Thus, especially with new players, it saves time and leads to equally good or better results if the game master just creates the players' characters for them.

[Telok]

As GM I used pregens introducing players the Champions. Stole about 12 recognizable characters from hundreds other people made, tweaked to simplify, offered the set or custom building to the players. Worked well on the mechanics side, the biggest issue was players not making the transition from loot & steal murder hobo games to something more heroic. Really, not-Hulk doesn't need a flamethrower to stop a simple bank robbery (BBQ hostages).

As a player I've only had to deal with boring generic ones from starter sets that people picked up when D&D 4e & 5e came out. Since those were always TPKs in session one I don't have a good impression of them.

[Tarmor]

1. Have you used Pre-Gens as a player/GM?
I've played pre-gens mostly in Tournaments, and at Conventions. In the past few years I've created whole groups of pre-gen PC's for over a dozen one-session games for multiple RPG's.

2. If yes, what was the experience like?
Good, to Very Good. It's a fast way of getting into a game when you don't have the minutes or hours required to create a whole new character. It can also be a good way to try out something you haven't played before. I don't consider it worthwhile for an ongoing campaign - myself or my usual group would much prefer to design our own characters. It can also be good for playing a new RPG, since the character work is done, and you spend time understanding the system rules without the fuss of character building which (depending on system) might be much more complicated.

3. How "deep" should a pre-gen character be? Just mechanics, some basic backstory, more?
Generally pretty simple or basic, though it can depend on the system and/or the game. In most cases, the PC only exists for a couple of hours and that's it. Why have a detailed background and personality for something you won't likely come back too.

4. Other than starting adventures and One-Shots, have you used Pre-Gens in other ways?
I haven't used/played pre-gens for starting adventures. As a GM I have prepared Pre-Gen PC's for a homebrew game that I was designing. I made up about eight pre-gens for 5 players. I ran three sessions, and they each chose to stick with the same character. (No background, no personality, etc except whatever they came up with at the time.) I tweaked the pre-gens between each session as I changed or developed rules, skills, abilities, etc.

5. If yes to the above, what was the experience like?
Very good. It was fun for the players (and me), and the Pre-gens and changes helped me see how things interacted and what worked or what didn't. We did later start a full campaign, and for that everyone created their own PC.

[KillianHawkeye]

During the quarantine, my group shifted to playing online and we used pre-generated characters to learn Starfinder and Pathfinder 2nd Edition. I think pre-gens work great for learning a new system or for new players learning to RP, and that it's good for them to have a detailed backstory to provide a hook to keep the player's interest.

Then once you've started playing them, even if you didn't create them, they become your character as you make choices and act out their personality as you see fit.

[dafrca]

Then once you've started playing them, even if you didn't create them, they become your character as you make choices and act out their personality as you see fit.

I wish I had that experience, but I never have. Every pre-gen I have played always felt like I was standing in for someone else and using their character. I never really felt that shift you speak of where the character feels like mine. Sounds good, would be fun I imagine. :smallsmile:

[Pex]

I am an unapologetic optimizer. I hate pre-gen characters because they're always made with choices I never would take. In D&D, Ability score allocation, spell choices, class ability choices, feat selection, there is always something I want to change because it significantly affects my play of the character. In an attempt not to make pre-gen characters too powerful the module creator or DM makes them too weak. Maybe not "too weak", but sub-optimal enough I'm figuratively ill from the terrible build choices made. My paladin with only 10 CO? My cleric attacks with a sling? Heck no. Most of the time DMs have been kind enough to let me make changes. I don't rewrite the character, just tweak away what's atrocious to something I can play. If I have to play as is it's experience, not a self-fulfilling prophecy, when before the game starts I know where I will be frustrated and the character becomes useless/near death and sure enough, it happens during that game session and the DM is surprised it happened.

[KillianHawkeye]

I wish I had that experience, but I never have. Every pre-gen I have played always felt like I was standing in for someone else and using their character. I never really felt that shift you speak of where the character feels like mine. Sounds good, would be fun I imagine. :smallsmile:

I think what's important is that you still provide the personality from yourself. A premade backstory can at most give you a starting point for a character, but as long as you fill in the rest as you play...

I suppose you need to internalize your claim on the character as well. If you never think "this is mine now", then it won't ever feel like your character. Maybe it doesn't come as naturally to others as it does for me? Just the act of putting myself into a character to roleplay it is enough to imprint myself on the character in my mind after a couple of game sessions.

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Have you used Pre-Gens as a player/GM?
Yes
2. If yes, what was the experience like?
We got to play sooner, was very good for tournaments / cons.
3. How "deep" should a pre-gen character be? Just mechanics, some basic backstory, more?
Just mechanics, some basic backstory,
4. Other than starting adventures and One-Shots, have you used Pre-Gens in other ways?
Question is way too vague.

Comment: pregens are a good way to introduce play to new players. They can also be an interesting challenge to an experienced player - OK, try this. (particularly if you've not played that character/kit in a given game).

Way back when, the GM had pregens for the first session of a Traveller game: he made ten characters, there were six of us players.
We each picked one. Worked out OK for as long as that game lasted.

[Easy e]

Has anyone played a game where the GM Pre-Gen the characters and then have them randomly assigned to you as the players?

If so, what was that like, and how did you feel about getting a random character?

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Has anyone played a game where the GM Pre-Gen the characters and then have them randomly assigned to you as the players?

If so, what was that like, and how did you feel about getting a random character?

I have played in a few games and really didn't see any issues. Reason was the DM running it wanted the players to be pushed out of their comfort zones and also he was using a rpg theme of soul swapping. So we essentially were jumping around different bodies.

For a game I ran once I did the same thing though players were jumping through time ala Quantum Leap fashion.

If you are wanting to do such a thing I would say it is advisable to clear it with your players first, assuming you would be DM for it. If you are a player, I'd say go for it as you might be surprised playing a different class or manner that you didn't before.

[Thrudd]

Pregen is appropriate mostly in the context of one-shots, especially when introducing people to a new game, when play time is limited, or when you don't know who the players will be.
In these contexts it isn't usually necessary to have much in the way of back story, the players only need to know what will be relevant for the single session, the character's motive. The pregens shouldn't be mechanically complex or have tons of abilities, unless the players are all very familiar with the game already. They should be the minimum necessary to participate in the session's planned events, designed to fill a role that will be uniquely useful or appropriate in fairly obvious ways.

If you're only going to be playing this game for a few hours, there should be little of that time spent with players improv acting and talking about their characters feelings, or reading the character sheet figuring out what they can/should do, and more time spent engaging with the content. So you really want everyone to be clear on their character's place in the scenario, to get right to the action.

If you know the players and know what their strengths as players are, then maybe you assign characters. You might also assign roles if there will be PvP or a saboteur/secret werewolf scenario, where you don't want people to see the character sheet and know that one of them is the "bad guy". Usually, I'd say it's easiest to let everyone look at the characters or hear a brief description and then decide among themselves who plays what. Choosing characters randomly can be fun, as long as everyone is down and willing to go with the flow. It is only one session, after all. I actually enjoy getting something random on occasion, it makes me try things/roles I might not otherwise try.

If you are expecting an ongoing campaign with regular players, there's not really much reason to pregen, unless the players like that. If you have an ongoing game, but with an open table format (so occasional guest players may pop in and out), you might want to keep some pregens on hand in case you have an unexpected guest for a session or someone brand new to the game.

[dafrca]

Has anyone played a game where the GM Pre-Gen the characters and then have them randomly assigned to you as the players?

If so, what was that like, and how did you feel about getting a random character?

No and I would be hard pressed to accept such a RNG method for "My" character when it a very literal sense it would not be mine in any way. :smallsmile:

[dafrca]

Reason was the DM running it wanted the players to be pushed out of their comfort zones ....
Interesting, make me wonder why the GM felt it was their place to determine a player needed such a push?

I do not play RPGs to have some other person try and mold me in the image they want. I play them for relaxing fun and for group social interaction. As long as I work for the good of the party and am engaged in the game I really do not think I need to be forced to play something either way.

But that is just my opinion. Other players may want such a challange, hope they have fun.

[Satinavian]

Has anyone played a game where the GM Pre-Gen the characters and then have them randomly assigned to you as the players?

If so, what was that like, and how did you feel about getting a random character?
Once. Was a pretty subpar experience.

I personally could play my character but didn't particularly like him. One other player was a horrible match for the character and the portrayal was extremely cringy and unimmersive. A third player had problems to remember who their character actually was.

It also didn't help that the plot was not particularly fun and relied too much on interpersonal action in a group where no one had a character they really cared much for.

[Vahnavoi]

Has anyone played a game where the GM Pre-Gen the characters and then have them randomly assigned to you as the players?

Yes.


If so, what was that like, and how did you feel about getting a random character?

Not particularly different from first-come-first-served picking from a selection of characters, or just randomly generating a character myself. I think a game needs to have some kind of mechanic tied to the character selection process in order for this to be meaningfully different from a game master just handing characters to players in order of arrival. For example, if one of the characters is secretly a spy, alien, werewolf, murderer etc., then the extra step might be worth it.

[DigoDragon]

1. Have you used Pre-Gens as a player/GM?
2. If yes, what was the experience like?
3. How "deep" should a pre-gen character be? Just mechanics, some basic backstory, more?
4. Other than starting adventures and One-Shots, have you used Pre-Gens in other ways?
5. If yes to the above, what was the experience like?

Basically, a thread to talk about the concept of Pre-Gens, swap some stories and share advice.

I've used them as a GM, but never as a player. As GM, I was running a Super Hero campaign and the players all wanted it to feel like Teen Titans/Young Justice where they were the newcomers.

So for session 1, I created some pregens of older, well-seasoned heroes and had them all play the "final mission" of this team, confronting a villain who was set to launch a pair of nukes he had acquired to incite a nuclear exchange. The players were caught off guard with this idea, but quickly got into it and had a lot of fun. When the players began with their actual characters on session 2 onward, the events and choices they made in session 1 became an in-game history of sorts. When a new villain shows up with the old villain's play book, the PCs had to find the older retired heroes and get info on where old hideouts were.

I didn't make the pregens too deep. I wrote two paragraphs each on backstory, motivation, and their standing within their team. Enough to give RP ideas to the players.

I haven't really used pregens much otherwise, except maybe to steal some from modules to fill out NPC rosters.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, my favourite use of pregenerated characters isn't too play them, but to have them as examples in the core rulebook. It's really nice to see what the writers of the game thought a starting character should look like, especially if you're not optimising. Do they spread their points out, or does the thief have five dice in Dexterity while the inventor has six dice in Intelligence? How many example PCs have access to magic? It's good for judging how the game is expected to be played, even if not the optimal way to build characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you are wanting to do such a thing I would say it is advisable to clear it with your players first, assuming you would be DM for it. If you are a player, I'd say go for it as you might be surprised playing a different class or manner that you didn't before. This is the old "make it part of the pitch for the game you are running, as some players may not care for that." Hey, look, we have one here. :smallsmile:

No and I would be hard pressed to accept such a RNG method for "My" character when it a very literal sense it would not be mine in any way. :smallsmile: If you go back up a few posts, and see my example from a Traveller game from a long time ago, all I can say is that we made the characters our own through play. We put our own 'stamps' on the pregens in how we played.
We had fun with them.
I understand different strokes for different folks.

[Quertus]

Since Free RPG Day is here, many starter adventures and similar One-shot adventures that are set up to introduce players to a game use Pre-Gen characters. This practice led me to a couple of questions:

1. Have you used Pre-Gens as a player/GM?
2. If yes, what was the experience like?
3. How "deep" should a pre-gen character be? Just mechanics, some basic backstory, more?
4. Other than starting adventures and One-Shots, have you used Pre-Gens in other ways?
5. If yes to the above, what was the experience like?

Basically, a thread to talk about the concept of Pre-Gens, swap some stories and share advice.

0) free RPG day? When? How can I know for next year?

1) yes.

2a) as a player, I hate pregenerated characters being mandatory. I'm really not interested in telling Frodo's story - I can read about it, or watch a movie, and it'll be both quicker and better. However, as optional choices, they're handy for "oh, this is how the developer expects that the game is supposed to be played".

2b) as a GM, well, how else do you a) test out a module; b) communicate the expected character optimization level? 'Cause I'll bet any other way of achieving these goals is inferior.

3) eh, depends on their function. In a "known system", mechanics and basic blurb (if any). As a way to help explain the system / setting, additional fluffy bits can help, if well written.

4) I'm guessing "testing adventures" and "calibrating expectations" both qualify.

5) 10/10, would recommend to everyone.

[Stonehead]

Honestly, my favourite use of pregenerated characters isn't too play them, but to have them as examples in the core rulebook. It's really nice to see what the writers of the game thought a starting character should look like, especially if you're not optimising. Do they spread their points out, or does the thief have five dice in Dexterity while the inventor has six dice in Intelligence? How many example PCs have access to magic? It's good for judging how the game is expected to be played, even if not the optimal way to build characters.

Yeah, seeing what the final product looks like in a new system can really make building your first character easier.

In response to the main prompt, I played a premade character once. It was the first meeting of an rpg club, and the DM wanted to start playing that day, instead of spending the whole day on character creation. I think it worked pretty well, kept playing that character for the whole campaign, it was pretty fun. The character did have a backstory, but after approval from the DM, I just swapped that out with something that fit me better, so I only ended up using the mechanics.


Interesting, make me wonder why the GM felt it was their place to determine a player needed such a push?

I do not play RPGs to have some other person try and mold me in the image they want. I play them for relaxing fun and for group social interaction. As long as I work for the good of the party and am engaged in the game I really do not think I need to be forced to play something either way.

I've never used pregens as a DM, but just to try to steelman the logic behind it, I could see it being beneficial for those players that always play the same type of character. I'm sure most of us have played with someone who always makes the same dual-wielding rogue with murdered parents and loose morals. Years of the same character with different names gets kind of annoying for the rest of the group, so pregens seem like a decent way to give everyone else a break without targeting that player specifically.

[dafrca]

... I could see it being beneficial for those players that always play the same type of character. I'm sure most of us have played with someone who always makes the same dual-wielding rogue with murdered parents and loose morals. Years of the same character with different names gets kind of annoying for the rest of the group, so pregens seem like a decent way to give everyone else a break without targeting that player specifically.
I still ask, why is it your right to force them to play something else?

I played for years with someone who only wanted to play the fight. Simple, clean fighter. Sometimes different because of feats or weapon choice (two handed vs sword and board) but if he was happy, contributed to the game, was engaged with the other, and in the end was a good player in other ways why does this bother you or make it your job to force him to play something else?

I still do not see it. :confused:

[Vahnavoi]

I still ask, why is it your right to force them to play something else?

A game master is the highest authority at a game table. They have right to do anything that isn't disallowed by law of the land, rules of the event venue and rules of the game. Your use of the word "force" is disingenuous. If the players aren't prevented from leaving the game, no-one's being "forced" in an ethically relevant way. There are no practical nor ethical problems in handing pregenerated characters to players, so the game master's motive doesn't matter. Players agree to their terms by agreeing to play.


I played for years with someone who only wanted to play the fight. Simple, clean fighter. Sometimes different because of feats or weapon choice (two handed vs sword and board) but if he was happy, contributed to the game, was engaged with the other, and in the end was a good player in other ways why does this bother you or make it your job to force him to play something else?

I still do not see it. :confused:

Consider: a scout master holding a competition for kids can wake them up in the middle of the night and make them hike several kilometers through forest during winter. A much harsher task, with actual physical risk involved, perfectly legal to set up as an opt-in exercise. It's the scout master's job, because it's part of the scout pedagogic method to teach kids how to cope in the wilderness.

Now consider the scout master could also be a game master, running a game for the kids to teach them some other skill. Having someone play a character made by someone else to broaden their roleplaying ability (etc.) is a minor thing compared to the above hike through the woods.

Of course, these are just an examples, and have little bearing on the original incident. I hope the point still remains clear: games can be used as tools towards non-game ends. Or even if you stay within a game, a game master could just be bored by a player always playing the same character, and decide to "push them outside their comfort zone" due to that. It's within the game master's rights because nothing disallows it.

[Satinavian]

A game master is the highest authority at a game table. They have right to do anything that isn't disallowed by law of the land, rules of the event venue and rules of the game. Your use of the word "force" is disingenuous.Nope.

The GM is not some highest authority. He is someone who takes over a role in a game, not much different from who manages the bank when playing monopoly. We wreally don't need any more GMs with delusions of grandeur,



Consider: a scout master holding a competition for kids can wake them up in the middle of the night and make them hike several kilometers through forest during winter. A much harsher task, with actual physical risk involved, perfectly legal to set up as an opt-in exercise. It's the scout master's job, because it's part of the scout pedagogic method to teach kids how to cope in the wilderness.
But the GM is very much not a teacher and players did not agree to some student-teacher relationship. They opted in to play a game, not to be taught the game. They generally also don't assume any superior knowledge/skill relating to the game by the GM.

[Vahnavoi]

Nope.

The GM is not some highest authority. He is someone who takes over a role in a game, not much different from who manages the bank when playing monopoly. We wreally don't need any more GMs with delusions of grandeur.

The role of the game master is having authority over the game. It evolved from and typically includes the duties of a game referee, that's where the rule "game master has final say" comes from. It has zero to do with delusions of grandeur. It's also unlike the banker in Monopoly because the banker is not a referee role and does not grand special authority over game rules.


But the GM is very much not a teacher and players did not agree to some student-teacher relationship. They opted in to play a game, not to be taught the game. They generally also don't assume any superior knowledge/skill relating to the game by the GM.

Wrong. The game master can occupy any other position of authority or relationship towards their players - which of these apply is situational and there's no general rule precluding them. The motives the players have for opting in vary and don't particularly matter, because it's not the motives of the players that dictate the rights of the game master. A game master cannot be assumed to have superior skills and knowledge of the game they're running, but typically should have them, to guarantee that they can succesfully carry out extra duties and responsibilities of their position.

Do I need to go on? All of this is basic stuff applicable to all referee roles.

[Satinavian]

All of this is basic stuff applicable to all referee roles.A referee in competitions enforces the rules and makes rulings where the rules are unclear. They don't make new rules or decide which game is actually played. They also don't tell the players which strategy to choose, which team composition they should use and don't decide which player should be on which position. They don't teach the game. Referees are not coaches and should not pretend to be.

[Martin Greywolf]

1. Have you used Pre-Gens as a player/GM?


Not personally, I enjoy building things too much for that, but I did get to play in several games where they were used.



2. If yes, what was the experience like?


Subpar to adequate at best, never great. We'll get to that.



3. How "deep" should a pre-gen character be? Just mechanics, some basic backstory, more?


If you are writing a module and including it, it should be as deep as you can get away with. It's easy to cut out or change things, but if these are meant for people with little to no experience, they need all the help they can get.



4. Other than starting adventures and One-Shots, have you used Pre-Gens in other ways?
5. If yes to the above, what was the experience like?


Yup. They are a great starting point for figuring out what kind of party the module author imagined going through it. If you have a Magnificent Seven plot and one of your PCs is a noble who can get an army to solve the problem, you're gonna have problems. You can work around these issues, but only if you are aware that they are, in fact, issues - hence the premade characters and their usefulness.

So, why were the premades subpar?

Well, a couple of reasons. The greatest flaw was, without a doubt, lack of player familiarization. If you have to build a character, you are much more likely to remember which abilities you even have, because you have to write them down - take that away, and you need players disciplined enough to re-read the character sheet a few times, or they will forget things.

Another reason was lack of connection to the characters. "I will pick Wizard McGeneric" is a very different feeling from "I made Thundercaster de Fireball, and he's my precious baby". This is, once again, more pronounced with new players who have no idea what they're doing.

What I prefer to premade characters is a chapter on what characters to make - give a list of connections they can have to the adventure, suggest party compositions and so on. Frankly, a lot of this workload should rest on the base rules, but...

[Vahnavoi]

A referee in competitions enforces the rules and makes rulings where the rules are unclear. They don't make new rules...

The fact that referees are empowered by the rules to enforce the rules and make rulings is what makes them an authority at and in the game. Also, rulings are de facto new rules, since they are binding for the game being refereed.


[Referees don't] decide which game is actually played.

There is no general rule precluding that. Especially when you're talking about hobby games, the referee can very well also be the person who pitches the game and organizes the game event. Nothing exotic about that.


They also don't tell the players which strategy to choose, which team composition they should use and don't decide which player should be on which position. They don't teach the game. Referees are not coaches and should not pretend to be.

Again, there is no general rule precluding this. Especially when you're talking about hobby games, the referee can also be your coach and the whole point of the game they're refereeing can be to teach you the game. Nothing exotic about that either.

Again: The game master or referee has right to do anything not denied by law of the land, rules of the event venue and rules of the game. Your counter-arguments seem to be to based on an ill-defined special circumstance where one of those places special restrictions on the game master or referee, while failing to acknowledge that they don't generalize.

Whether you're talking of roleplaying games or sports, it's neither exotic nor particularly uncommon for the game master or referee to be: a parent holding a game to their kids, an older sibling holding a game to younger siblings, a scout master holding a game to scouts, a youth counselor holding a game to kids, a therapists holding a game to their patients, a military officer holding a game to their troops, a teacher holding a game to their students, so on and so forth. Games can and do exist in framework of pre-established social hierarchies and relationships and they can and do have correspondingly varied motives and reasons to be held. That's why statements like "a game master is not [this or that] to their players!" are useless when said in a vacuum. There is no general rule precluding the game master from being this or that. Failure to acknowledge game masters who are this or that only leads to confusion over why some of them do what they do.

[Satinavian]

Sure, players can have hierarchical relationships outside of the game. A player can be a superior of another player, a player can be a superior of the GM, a Gm can be a superior of a player. But all of that would be coincident and not at all the regular assumption about some people coming together for a hobby. Just the opposite being an hobby event outside separate from whatever people do together otherwise assumes that they meet each other as equals.

And yes, we are talking here about hobby games. Not therapeuthic roleplaying or stuff like that.


Also "pitching the game" is pretty much the opposite of deciding what is played. It is literally asking for buy in and trying to convince people, not ordering them around.

[Quertus]

Nope.

The GM is not some highest authority. He is someone who takes over a role in a game, not much different from who manages the bank when playing monopoly. We wreally don't need any more GMs with delusions of grandeur,


But the GM is very much not a teacher and players did not agree to some student-teacher relationship. They opted in to play a game, not to be taught the game. They generally also don't assume any superior knowledge/skill relating to the game by the GM.

+1 this. Although, IME, the game is better when anyone with superior knowledge, whichever role they are playing, shares that knowledge, and anyone with inferior knowledge, whatever role that are playing, accepts that knowledge, without being a ****.


The role of the game master is having authority over the game. It evolved from and typically includes the duties of a game referee, that's where the rule "game master has final say" comes from. It has zero to do with delusions of grandeur. It's also unlike the banker in Monopoly because the banker is not a referee role and does not grand special authority over game rules.



Wrong. The game master can occupy any other position of authority or relationship towards their players - which of these apply is situational and there's no general rule precluding them. The motives the players have for opting in vary and don't particularly matter, because it's not the motives of the players that dictate the rights of the game master. A game master cannot be assumed to have superior skills and knowledge of the game they're running, but typically should have them, to guarantee that they can succesfully carry out extra duties and responsibilities of their position.

Do I need to go on? All of this is basic stuff applicable to all referee roles.

And I've called out plenty of referees for being complete and utter morons before. IME, the ref is not the highest authority: the clue-by-four is.

[Vahnavoi]

Sure, players can have hierarchical relationships outside of the game. A player can be a superior of another player, a player can be a superior of the GM, a Gm can be a superior of a player. But all of that would be coincident and not at all the regular assumption about some people coming together for a hobby. Just the opposite being an hobby event outside separate from whatever people do together otherwise assumes that they meet each other as equals.

And yes, we are talking here about hobby games. Not therapeuthic roleplaying or stuff like that.

The very thing I'm taking pains to point out is that your assumption of a game where everyone is equals is itself not an assumption you ought to carry to every game you hear about. It doesn't hold even for all hobby games. To go back to the earlier example, scouting is a hobby, scouts playing under a scout master are still playing a hobby game. So are kids playing under their parents or older siblings. You are being choosy regarding my examples.


Also "pitching the game" is pretty much the opposite of deciding what is played. It is literally asking for buy in and trying to convince people, not ordering them around.

If I want to play a game and convince my friends to play with me as a game master or referee, I have de facto decided what game is about to be played and made my friends subject to my authority for purposes of that game. It's neither opposite to deciding nor having authority. It's not even opposite to "ordering them around". To go back to the scouting example, the scout master ordering a scout to go for the hike through the woods is just assertively "asking for buy-in and trying to convince" the scout - because the scout has a right to refuse participating.

That's why I said to dafrca that using the term "force" in the question "why is it your right to force them to play something else?" is disingenuous. A game master is not "forcing" anyone in a relevant sense when they say "today, you're playing with these characters I made". They have the right to prepare and pitch that game, for whatever reason they feel like, when the laws of the land, rules of the event venue and rules of the game do not deny them. By agreeing to participate, you accept their terms. This holds even between nominal equals.

[Pex]

What the DM/Referee/Narrator/Story Teller/Grand Poobah says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too.

[Stonehead]

I still ask, why is it your right to force them to play something else?

I played for years with someone who only wanted to play the fight. Simple, clean fighter. Sometimes different because of feats or weapon choice (two handed vs sword and board) but if he was happy, contributed to the game, was engaged with the other, and in the end was a good player in other ways why does this bother you or make it your job to force him to play something else?

I still do not see it. :confused:

I mean, it's the DM's "right" to make everyone play their game as much as it's the player's "right" to make everyone else play with their character. It's kind of silly to talk about rights as if this is some grand human problem instead of just a group of people playing a game. If the DM says he wants to play a mafia game, he has the "right" to require all the players to be 1920s gangsters. Or if the DM says all your characters have to be residents of the starting town, or have to be Good/Neutral aligned, or can't user guns. I think it's relatively uncontroversial that all of these restrictions on character creation are acceptable. The only difference I see between those and pregens is a difference in scale.

The DM is only "forcing" you to play this character in the way that they "force" you to play a sci-fi character when they're running a sci-fi game.


Nope.

The GM is not some highest authority. He is someone who takes over a role in a game, not much different from who manages the bank when playing monopoly. We wreally don't need any more GMs with delusions of grandeur,


But the GM is very much not a teacher and players did not agree to some student-teacher relationship. They opted in to play a game, not to be taught the game. They generally also don't assume any superior knowledge/skill relating to the game by the GM.

I think the GM is the highest authority just because there's no other higher authority. Doesn't mean he's some ascendant being or omnipotent controller or anything, just means that the DM has the final say in disagreements. Many rpgs explicitly state this as part of their rule 0. If a player and the DM disagree about what happened in the game world, the DM's position generally wins out. If a player says "my character jumps up to the window", and the GM says, "no they don't, it's too high up", the character doesn't make it to the window. If that doesn't describe a difference in authority, I think we're just being pedantic.

[dafrca]

What the DM/Referee/Narrator/Story Teller/Grand Poobah says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too.

LOL Great quote. Love it. :smallsmile:

[dafrca]

I mean, it's the DM's "right" to make everyone play their game as much as it's the player's "right" to make everyone else play with their character. It's kind of silly to talk about rights as if this is some grand human problem instead of just a group of people playing a game. If the DM says he wants to play a mafia game, he has the "right" to require all the players to be 1920s gangsters. Or if the DM says all your characters have to be residents of the starting town, or have to be Good/Neutral aligned, or can't user guns. I think it's relatively uncontroversial that all of these restrictions on character creation are acceptable. The only difference I see between those and pregens is a difference in scale.

The DM is only "forcing" you to play this character in the way that they "force" you to play a sci-fi character when they're running a sci-fi game.
Not in the original context that you are quoting. The person was talking about forcing me to play a Rogue because I always play a Wizard in their fantasy games. That is not the same as asking people to make 1920s gangsters for a 1920s gangster game or a SciFi character for a SciFi game. Asking players to hold to a theme is understandable and if I do not want to play a 1920s gangster game well then I guess I am looking for a new table. Asking me to play a class I do not want to play because you think I need the experience is just silly and not the same.

[Stonehead]

Not in the original context that you are quoting. The person was talking about forcing me to play a Rogue because I always play a Wizard in their fantasy games. That is not the same as asking people to make 1920s gangsters for a 1920s gangster game or a SciFi character for a SciFi game. Asking players to hold to a theme is understandable and if I do not want to play a 1920s gangster game well then I guess I am looking for a new table. Asking me to play a class I do not want to play because you think I need the experience is just silly and not the same.

I don't know why the requirement has to be for your sake, and not for the groups. You know how a lot of authors end up writing all of their protagonists to be basically the same exact character? That's pretty annoying. It's annoying when a player does it too. Not to mention, it's easy to picture a game in which a rogue is a poor fit tonally. Maybe the DM wants to run a crusade game, or a game about town guards or something. Or maybe another player wants to fill that role, and it's a more old-school grindy game, where you need a balanced party. I don't get where "break them out of their comfort zone" transformed into "I'm doing this for your sake, not mine". The difference is just one of scale, the DM is controlling more of your character by whitelisting characters instead of blacklisting them.

If the argument is that controlling more of the build is too much for you, fair enough, everyone's got preferences. But other than the degree of freedom, I legitimately don't see a difference between them.

You said if you don't want to play a gangster game, you could just find a new table. How is that any different than requiring pregens? If you don't like your list of pregens, you could just find a new table.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also "pitching the game" is pretty much the opposite of deciding what is played. It is literally asking for buy in and trying to convince people, not ordering them around. Yep, it's a sales pitch. Kind of like "Take a look at this late model {car brand} | {car model}; care to take it for a test drive? It's got four on the floor, stereo..."

What the DM/Referee/Narrator/Story Teller/Grand Poobah says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too. Been true since before the RPG was invented, in table top games. Still true.

[dafrca]

You said if you don't want to play a gangster game, you could just find a new table. How is that any different than requiring pregens? If you don't like your list of pregens, you could just find a new table.
Sorry, let me clarify, the situation you described before was me being forced to play a specific pregen so you could control what class I play. So yes, if you tried to change me and force me to play a class I didn't want to play I would leave your game as well. Difference is one situation is an offer of a theme and the other a attempt to force me to only play the class you want me to.

What I am saying is for a GM to feel the need to force someone to play different class when they are otherwise a good player just seems silly and overly controlling. But you are right, I would leave your table and find a new one and let those players who want you, as the GM, to make all their choices for them stay and have fun their way. I would not stay and argue or otherwise cause conflict at your table. :smallsmile:

[Stonehead]

Sorry, let me clarify, the situation you described before was me being forced to play a specific pregen so you could control what class I play. So yes, if you tried to change me and force me to play a class I didn't want to play I would leave your game as well. Difference is one situation is an offer of a theme and the other a attempt to force me to only play the class you want me to.

What I am saying is for a GM to feel the need to force someone to play different class when they are otherwise a good player just seems silly and overly controlling. But you are right, I would leave your table and find a new one and let those players who want you, as the GM, to make all their choices for them stay and have fun their way. I would not stay and argue or otherwise cause conflict at your table. :smallsmile:

I guess to me, the distinction seems pretty arbitrary. I'm not going to be the best advocate in favor of pre-gens because, like I said before, I've never used them as a DM, and I've only been a player in a game that used them once. But like, in one circumstance the DM says "you need to be a space marine", and in the other he says "you need to be a space marine with these stats". Maybe the stats are just super important to some people, but I don't get how one is "forcing" and the other is not.

Then again, everyone's free to have their own preferences. If you aren't playing with pregen dms, and they aren't playing with you, who really cares?

[KorvinStarmast]

What I am saying is for a GM to feel the need to force someone to play different class when they are otherwise a good player just seems silly and overly controlling. While it depends on the relationship previously established between the two (that's out of game, not in game) I have been on the player end of that before for a one shot.
No worries, no tears shed, it's a one shot.

If the GM wants pre gens and a campaign, my suggestion based on that long ago Traveller game we played with pregens is this: if you have X players, have X+n pregens so that even the person with the last pick has more than one choice.
As an off the cuff example: you've got 4 players, have 6 or 7 pregens for the four to choose from.
Nobody gets stuck with the character nobody else wanted.
Masters Vault (a free introductory 5e adventure on roll20 that my players had a lot of fun with, does this (perhaps by accident). There are six or seven pregens but the game is notionally for a four person party.

[Satinavian]

I guess to me, the distinction seems pretty arbitrary. I'm not going to be the best advocate in favor of pre-gens because, like I said before, I've never used them as a DM, and I've only been a player in a game that used them once. But like, in one circumstance the DM says "you need to be a space marine", and in the other he says "you need to be a space marine with these stats". Maybe the stats are just super important to some people, but I don't get how one is "forcing" and the other is not.

Then again, everyone's free to have their own preferences. If you aren't playing with pregen dms, and they aren't playing with you, who really cares?
It is an important difference.

If it is just a couple of pregens that fit the adventure and the players pick one each, fine. Not the preferred option for many people but there might be good reasons to do it this way.

But asigning players pregens they don't like when other pregens are perfectly acceptable for that adventure and in fact used by the other players ? Just to get the players to play characters they would never normally choose ? That is bad. It is not something that happens when GMs respect their players and their desires.

[Stonehead]

It is an important difference.

If it is just a couple of pregens that fit the adventure and the players pick one each, fine. Not the preferred option for many people but there might be good reasons to do it this way.

But asigning players pregens they don't like when other pregens are perfectly acceptable for that adventure and in fact used by the other players ? Just to get the players to play characters they would never normally choose ? That is bad. Only control freak GMs who are way too full of themself and think it is their job to guide players to better roleplaying do that. It is not something that happens when GMs respect their players and their desires.

That's interesting, because wouldn't settings do that too? Aren't there settings you would never normally choose too? Like, if the GM said he's doing a pirate game, and one of the players would never normally choose to play a pirate, isn't that the same thing? Is it different if the DM hands out pregens and only one of them is a pirate? Or, if a set of pregens is more acceptable, what if the player doesn't like any of them? It's not hard to imagine 4 different characters I would never normally build. If the issue is that you could end up playing something you don't like, I honestly don't see how that doesn't apply to a setting or a set of pregens.

It seems like your issue (and correct me if I'm wrong, this is just a guess) is more about the motivation of the DM than restrictions placed on character creation. That makes a bit more sense, it's easy to picture some pretentious DM declaring he knows what's good for everyone else. At the same time though, it isn't hard to imagine other examples that aren't egregious. Haven't you ever been recommended a movie or game or something you were initially skeptical about but ended up liking? If that's never happened in the dozens of years someone's been alive, they either have terrible friends, or never gave any recommendations a fair shot. Or again, maybe it's for the sake of the rest of the players. Don't we all know someone who always plays the backstabbing thief? If I was playing with such a player, I would probably prefer it if the DM handed them a pregen ranger or something.

I kinda get where you're coming from, it's easy to imagine abusing the power of pregen characters, but I'm not the type of person to condemn an entire practice because some pricks could abuse it somewhere else.