Pre-Gen Characters

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.