Team Players

[Ahnehnois]

Interaction between players and having character creation guidelines are two separate things.

If you're going towards the latter option in this poll, the guidelines are a product of the group process on determining what the party is going to look like. So they're different, but not unrelated.

 

[Agamon]

They do. "Go make a character" without any other guidelines is a tall order.

Sets off warning bells for me.

The GM could be a Jedi stating, "This is not the game you're looking for..."

 

[1of3]

Deliberation with the group is superior. Not only for combat and adventure roles, but also for character motivations and backgrounds.

In fact, if you want a certain degree of antagonism in the party you should talk about before. Same for romance etc.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sets off warning bells for me.

The GM could be a Jedi stating, "This is not the game you're looking for..."

I wouldn't go that far. It's something that could be done and done well if you're trying to have a more player-driven game than is typical. But it's a tall order. Usually, character creation guidelines make things easier and enable better communication between player and DM.

 

[Agamon]

I wouldn't go that far. It's something that could be done and done well if you're trying to have a more player-driven game than is typical. But it's a tall order. Usually, character creation guidelines make things easier and enable better communication between player and DM.

Perhaps. Just my own play style, but I haven't played in a fun game where all the PCs have nothing to do with each other pre-start. It assumes a style of play I'm not into. But, I know other would disagree. That's why I say it's bad for me, not just bad.

Edit: I read your full response after responding myself. Bad habit.

Anyway, I see what you're saying, but that's more about players talking with the DM. That is less necessary, in my opinion. But the players working amongst themselves is a must in my games. I'll go ahead and change my own assumptions for the game as a DM depending on what the players as a group decide. In fact, had to do that in a big way in the game I just started. I love when the players want to inject their own ideas in the game.

 

[Manbearcat]

On the flip side, it can also be an asset. Believe it or not, not everyone likes the "you can play *anything* you want!" form of character creation.

I, personally, find I am more creative and interesting in my character concepts when I am given restrictions. I want to know the party needs a fighter, for example, because I am personally better at answering, "How do I make a fighter interesting?" than I am at answering, "What one concept do I want to play right now?"

This is how I see it (and the members of my group as well). There is an interesting parallel here to the thread that [MENTION=81511]Mercurious[/MENTION] started some time ago about the activation or inhibition of creative reservoirs based on boundaries or blank canvasses. I brought up the diversity of mental frameworks and that having boundaries, guidelines, or templates serve to empower the creativity of some and that an open tapestry, anarchy, or a vacuum of restrictions can serve as a paralyzingly straight-jacket for them. This was in respect to "actions available to characters" but same principle applies.

 

[was]

Usually #2 so there's not too much overlap between characters. Last time we had an overlap was with two blaster wizards. One went with fire and the other with ice.

 

[diaglo]

I prefer that each pc be made independently, but with a general understanding that everyone will work to be tolerably compatible, e.g. no evil pcs running with paladins in 1e.

this.
as a referee i'll give them some guidelines as to how the world is set at the start. we as a group build from there.

 

[Emerikol]

I voted #3 but where possible it's #2. I do believe there might be discussions though about what is allowed or not allowed and someone might be encouraged to try something different. I will say that once they start playing they are very much a team and work together. It might be that any other course of action inevitably leads to death so they've learned that teamwork is a survival trait in my campaign.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I wouldn't go that far. It's something that could be done and done well if you're trying to have a more player-driven game than is typical. But it's a tall order. Usually, character creation guidelines make things easier and enable better communication between player and DM.

The problem with "go make a character" is that, in reality, the DM almost certainly has some expectations about what kind of character you're going to make, so you either don't even think about that, and may well end up with a PC that annoys him on some level, or you try to guess, and still may end up with the same (and are probably less satisfied than otherwise).

So it sets off warning bells for me, too - not horrible ones - but nowdays I would always question a DM who said something like that, about what he actually wanted.

If you are all in an established group of players (not PCs) in an established setting, that's a lot easier, and tends to work fine, but a new setting, and/or new players or DM? Tricky, as you say.