Team Players

[Remathilis]

My group has long lived with the "whose playing the X role?" system of play. Beyond that (and not being evil) their is very little collaboration.



Where X = healer, tank, blaster, or trapfinder.

 

[Agamon]

Planning as a group certainly cuts down on the chance a player might stall the game by emphaticly and stubbornly stating, "My character wouldn't do that."

Not completely, of course, though. DB players will be DB players.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

All of that is true.

One other way of looking at it though, is that if you're a DM, the characters the players create are your template, and on some level it can be advantageous to pass the complete responsibility of character creation to them, so you can then react to whatever they design.

If you accept (as is the mainstream) that the DM is the most skilled and creative person and is primarily responsible for generating game content, then clear character creation guidelines are probably essential for the players. If you're going for a more player-driven game, then loosening their restrictions, while it does make the players' job harder, increases what they can do.

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).

Yes, if that happens, it's bad. So a very open-ended character creation shouldn't be the product of the DM being lazy or failing to communicate expectations that he has, only if he genuinely wants to and is ready to roll with whatever the players do.

 

[Manbearcat]

All of that is true.

One other way of looking at it though, is that if you're a DM, the characters the players create are your template, and on some level it can be advantageous to pass the complete responsibility of character creation to them, so you can then react to whatever they design.

If you accept (as is the mainstream) that the DM is the most skilled and creative person and is primarily responsible for generating game content, then clear character creation guidelines are probably essential for the players. If you're going for a more player-driven game, then loosening their restrictions, while it does make the players' job harder, increases what they can do.

I think there is probably one solid rule that I have personally followed over the years:

The requirement of player calibration on thematic material and genre tropes to be explored is (roughly) in proportion to the number of players at the table.
​

Having 8 players with no calibration can easily cause the game to get away from you (you meaning the table, not the GM). Thematic premise and genre trope exploration that pushes (especially very hard) against each other will almost invariably lead to an incoherent, frustrating gaming experience. Conversely, if you're working together on your aspects (Fate), your bonds (Dungeon World), your Beliefs/Instincts/Goals (Mouse Guard), and your themes/paragon paths/minor and major quests (4e), then you're assured that you're going to have a fair (at worst) measure of coherency as buy-in (from player to player) is built-in. If you're playing a sandbox game, with 8 players, and no calibration on thematic and genre material that serves as the tie that binds, you're very likely to have a steady creep of incoherency of character buy-in and an equal proportion of ad hoc contrivance-as-glue to keep the game from coming to a screeching halt (because none of the characters have any idea what they're doing, why they're doing it, and, most importantly, why they're doing it for/with these 7 others).

As much as anything else, that is why I have liked to keep my group small for the last 10 years of play. Its tremendously easy to calibrate expectant genre material (and achieve and maintain coherency) and to embed thematic material into each PC that is internally provocative (internally within the PC themselves and the group at large). With tons of PCs, its very likely that a conflict that is thematically weighty for any 5 PCs is an utter waste of table time for the other 3. If 35 - 40 percent of the PCs are uninvested in (or worse, annoyed by the mere engagement in) the emotional and physical fallout of the conflict at hand at any one time, then you're probably going to be well served by a wee bit more intraparty calibration or a little bit of an adjustment on table agenda (perhaps just towards a more straight forward, thematically neutral dungeon crawl/wilderness survival/murderhobo/pawn stance romp...which is a great deal of fun...but you don't need any calibration because its mostly an ethical free-for-all).

 

[DM Howard]

Build characters individually, but with some interaction between players

This fits my regular group the closest, but we tend to NEVER pick the same classes and when a campaign is forming the first question we all ask the DM is "What's everyone else playing?". It's partly a synergy thing and partly a matter of not wanting to trod on someone's little patch of limelight.

 

[Elf Witch]

We have three DMs and we all do it differently.

When I DM I do number 3. I want the players do be able to work together without all the drama of why would my character be here and adventure with this character. I also don't want toes stepped on I find if two people both want to play a mage type working together they can each build a mage that is different enough to be fun for both of them. I also sit in and make sure no one get stuck playing something they don't really want to. I always tell the players don't worry about party roles I will figure out how to handle anything that is not covered. I actually schedule a character building session.

My roommate one of the other DMs does number 2 she wants there to be some connections between characters but we build them on our own.

The third does number 3.

In my experience number 3 is the one that will lead to the most role playing issues in game the most drama even to the point of bad feelings and players dropping characters. It is why when I started DMing I got away from it.

Now we have a mix of players we have one who always figures out last what he wants to play and I have noticed he will often take a role that he feels the party needs. He is has million and one ideas so I think he waits and use it to help narrow down his character choices.

We have another who is an aggressive role player he loves stirring party drama some players can handle some can't so it helps for them to know what he is doing so they can make a character that won't come in his cross hairs.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Closer to #3 than #2, so I voted #3. After a disastrous d20 Modern campaign a decade ago I learned that "you all meet in a bar" doesn't work as a trope (not literally, the PCs met for a job, but they were strangers).

Some years ago, my group would have several short games, most of which weren't D&D. (For whatever reason, the DMs that run the most stable games aim for D&D, Pathfinder, etc. Or Fate.) Fate ties characters together in the rules, so it's a #3. D&D's class systems aims toward #3 (you don't want to tick off the cleric, or wizard, or rogue, or fighter, because you need all of them) but doesn't tools to aim at that.

I've been in a large Exalted game (6+ players) where the PCs had no reason to be friends or do anything as a team, except that they were Exalted and lived in the same general area. We would have six hour sessions, the first five had us compete for DM time, and then the last we'd do a battle. Twice I tried allying with PCs, but both times the players moved out of town. (It wasn't me, I swear!) Eventually I started picking fights with nearby villains just so we'd stop the competition.

We had one DM whose last three games exploded because he made no effort to have PCs work together. I don't recall what the oldest of the three were, but the other two were Savage Worlds Deadlands and All Flesh Must Be Eaten. The last two had some passive-aggressive backstabbing which wasn't in the least bit cool.

One 4e game we're in somehow managed to get a group working together. I would put it at #2. It didn't do "you all meet in a bar" and we weren't strangers, but we have characters of incompatible alignments. Fortunately after a few sessions we've melded into a team, and it's not like anyone actually stuck to the alignment on their sheets anyway. There was no backstabbing.

I'm also running a 4e game (#3) and a friend is running a 13th Age game with some Fate added in (more #3 than #2).

 

[Lanefan]

As a player I'm usually in the #1 camp but sometimes #2; rarely #3 if another player and I are bringing in characters as established friends or relatives of each other. It's no fun if the whole group prepackages the party, though.

As a DM I prefer #1 or #2, though if the players have an idea that works as #3 that's fine too.

One variable not yet discussed here: can the DM be relied upon to throw NPCs into the party to fill any gaping holes? Around here the answer is yes - if the rolled-up player characters consist of three fighters, two wizards, a ranger and a necromancer it's a pretty safe bet the DM is going to proactively chuck in a cleric and-or a thief to fill the holes; or at worst wait until the party realizes their shortcomings and recruits some NPCs. To me it's essential that the DM be willing to (and allowed to) do this.

Lanefan

 

[Ahnehnois]

One variable not yet discussed here: can the DM be relied upon to throw NPCs into the party to fill any gaping holes?

Which is a subset of a broader question, one that could look much like the poll question but would instead ask whether the DM is running a game that is completely independent of the players, whether he's taking them into account and tailoring some aspects, or whether he's building it around them.

The more towards the latter end of that spectrum you're going, the more comfortable the players can be not coordinating.

 

[Storminator]

One variable not yet discussed here: can the DM be relied upon to throw NPCs into the party to fill any gaping holes? Around here the answer is yes - if the rolled-up player characters consist of three fighters, two wizards, a ranger and a necromancer it's a pretty safe bet the DM is going to proactively chuck in a cleric and-or a thief to fill the holes; or at worst wait until the party realizes their shortcomings and recruits some NPCs. To me it's essential that the DM be willing to (and allowed to) do this.

Lanefan

I add NPCs to the party all the time. It never has anything to do with the composition of the party. It has everything to do with the motivations of the NPCs and the actions and reactions of the PCs. If my players want to roll with no healer, I let 'em.

PS