How do you like to start a campaign

[pemerton]

Most of the games I’ve played over the last few years have some element of collaborative PC creation. It works so well that I don’t really expect I’ll ever run a game in the future where we don’t do that. Some games have very formalized rules or procedures for it, others are pretty loose.

<snip>

Any games I run, I’ll adapt these session zero processes for character creation.

For me, it's not necessarily collaborative PC creation - or, at least, not in a strict sense. But the starting situation has to have some sort of narrative coherence, vis-a-vis the PCs that the players have created. And the players are pretty central to ensuring this.

The further details are system dependent; because different systems create different sorts of PCs who will make sense in different sorts of situation.

Here are a few examples:

4e D&D Dark Sun: Repost- first session of Dark Sun campaign

The players built their PCs, and came up with kickers, one of which connected directly to the campaign backstory (the death of Tyr's Sorcerer-King); and I integrated those kickers into an opening situation.​

Prince Valiant: Prince Valiant RPG - played a session today

The players built their PCs, and then decided that two - who had turned out very similarly, mechanically - must be father and son; I narrated the meeting with a third PC as all were on their way to a tournament.​

Burning Wheel: Burning Wheel actual play

My friend and I decided we would create a PC each and co-GM, each framing and adjudicating the adversity for the other. We agreed on a starting situation that would bring our PCs together, as rogues with a degree of common purpose.​

Classic Traveller: Classic Traveller - session report with reflections on the system [long]

The PCs rolled up their PCs (Traveller-style), and I rolled up a starting world, and we worked out what the PCs were all doing there and how they fitted together; and then I rolled up a patron encounter, and fitted that into the PCs' backstories.​

Torchbearer 2e: Torchbearer 2nd ed actual play

The two Elven PCs had once met in Elfhome, and one of them and another PC had met at the Wizard's Tower; the PCs met on the road, heading to the Tower of Stars (the first adventure site). I introduced some elements into the scenario to fit the PCs.

Of all my examples, I think this is the closest to classic D&D (which seems fitting for a game that is, to a significant degree, a homage to classic D&D).​

 

[Lanefan]

Most of the games I’ve played over the last few years have some element of collaborative PC creation. It works so well that I don’t really expect I’ll ever run a game in the future where we don’t do that.

The main issue I have with collaborative character creation is that inevitably someone gets stuck or talked into playing something not their first or even second choice because nobody else wants to play it and it's (actually or perceived as) a vital party role that needs filling.

With character creation done in isolation, each player gets (to at least start with*) just what they want; and if theres holes in the lineup, that's what adventuring NPCs are for.

* - low-level characters tend to be fragile little things thus there's no guarantee any given character will last all that long.

The game offers a bit of great advice… “character generation never ends”.

I like that line.

 

[zakael19]

The main issue I have with collaborative character creation is that inevitably someone gets stuck or talked into playing something not their first or even second choice because nobody else wants to play it and it's (actually or perceived as) a vital party role that needs filling.

There are many games where this just isn't a thing, as in "roles;" or there's a wide variety of classes that can fill roles. Eg: in 3/4 rulesets I'm running currently there is no concept of a classic D&D quad of roles in any way. We may deconflict specific playbook choice up front depending on how much duplication the system allows (eg: in Stonetop the playbooks are singular), but the actual character creation beyond that initial selection has to be done collaboratively as in the flow of the Session 0 framework and the playbook design demands it.

 

[Lanefan]

There are many games where this just isn't a thing, as in "roles;" or there's a wide variety of classes that can fill roles. Eg: in 3/4 rulesets I'm running currently there is no concept of a classic D&D quad of roles in any way. We may deconflict specific playbook choice up front depending on how much duplication the system allows (eg: in Stonetop the playbooks are singular), but the actual character creation beyond that initial selection has to be done collaboratively as in the flow of the Session 0 framework and the playbook design demands it.

The bolded sounds like polite-speak for "someone doesn't get to play what they want".

Not familiar with Stonetop other than things I've read in these forums, but hypothetically if Stonetop only allows one character per playbook* and if in a group of four players three of them turn up looking (for whatever reason) to play playbook-X then two of them are going to get stuck playing a second or even third-choice playbook.

* - in very short form, do you know the rationale for this design choice?

 

[zakael19]

The bolded sounds like polite-speak for "someone doesn't get to play what they want".

Not familiar with Stonetop other than things I've read in these forums, but hypothetically if Stonetop only allows one character per playbook* and if in a group of four players three of them turn up looking (for whatever reason) to play playbook-X then two of them are going to get stuck playing a second or even third-choice playbook.

* - in very short form, do you know the rationale for this design choice?

Yes, each playbook is a singular (as in "one of a kind/exceptional") person. You are the living Saint of Helior, or the Stormblessed Heavy. Your position in the world and place in town is one that you alone can fill. There's no niches here, no "if we don't have a Blessed of Danu we will all die in the first combat due to lack of heals/tanking/whatever." I also haven't personally experienced a group where multiple people are hard-aligned against a single playbook, in fact most of the time when I send the Setting Overview people have had a hard time picking the exact one instead; although again the game actually wants you to sit down together at session 0 and then work together to figure this out (which is what we've wound up doing).

Conversely, games like Blades in the Dark have no playbook restrictions at all - you can have a Crew of entirely Lurks.

My absolute worst characters/games have been the ones where people all made their own little blorbo before Session 0 even happened (or lacked a session 0 entirely).

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, each playbook is a singular (as in "one of a kind/exceptional") person. You are the living Saint of Helior, or the Stormblessed Heavy. Your position in the world and place in town is one that you alone can fill. There's no niches here, no "if we don't have a Blessed of Danu we will all die in the first combat due to lack of heals/tanking/whatever." I also haven't personally experienced a group where multiple people are hard-aligned against a single playbook, in fact most of the time when I send the Setting Overview people have had a hard time picking the exact one instead; although again the game actually wants you to sit down together at session 0 and then work together to figure this out (which is what we've wound up doing).

Still doesn't answer the question of what happens when three players all show up each wanting to play the Stormblessed Heavy, as that's what best suits each one's character concept.

I guess I should admit to an assumption here, which you can then tell me is out to lunch or not: that we are talking about the sort of game where players generally have character concepts in their minds coming in* (e.g. I want to play a bad-ass tough guy with some deep secrets in his past, with said deep secrets maybe or mabe not becoming relevant to play depending how things unfold) and then seek to, within the game system, create something that at least vaguely matches the concept.

I also have to assume Stonetop is a very low-lethality or even non-lethal game. The "there can only be one" idea means if a PC dies its player (or someone else) can't come right back with the same concept, which would be a nuisance to players who want to explore a concept but can't because their PC dies off in session 2.

* - as opposed to my own more random-based preference, which is that you show up to roll-up night without much by way of preconceptions, and then see what the dice give you to work with before deciding on a concept, personality, etc.

My absolute worst characters/games have been the ones where people all made their own little blorbo before Session 0 even happened (or lacked a session 0 entirely).

I'm not much for the modern "session 0" idea, mostly because a lot of what people seem to want decided in a modern session 0 is stuff I-as-DM want decided and locked-in weeks or even months ahead of time. I'll pitch the campaign-setting-system piece and explain the parameters during the invite-players-in process, which happens after the setting and rules are set and is done individually with each prospective player well before we all get together. This way, anyone who accepts the invite knows what they're getting into.

The first night we all get together is roll-up night (a.k.a. session 0 here), when the players roll up their characters (ideally without telling each other what they're doing); if that goes smoothly we'll roll straight into play where session 0 becomes session 1 on the fly and we get these guys in the field. I'll have some adventuring NPCs pre-rolled in case the players decide they need to recruit to fil gaps.

 

[pemerton]

I'll have some adventuring NPCs pre-rolled in case the players decide they need to recruit to fil gaps.

Why don't a party of adventuring NPCs recruit a few PCs to fill their gaps?

The way you're describing it seems to import a type of PC/NPC asymmetry.

 

[pemerton]

Conversely, games like Blades in the Dark have no playbook restrictions at all - you can have a Crew of entirely Lurks.

In Prince Valiant, by default everyone plays a knight errant. There are two ability scores (distribute 7 points between Brawn and Presence) and 13 skills (distribute 9 points across them - with at least one rank in each of Riding and Arms). That's how we ended up with two very similar PCs (as per my post not far upthread).

But Prince Valiant is not a "combined arms" game of the D&D sort.

In other games we've ended up with different PCs mostly because people want to play different sorts of characters.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Well I'll just say that having the party come up with shared backstories or relationships is great if that is something they are actually into or that plays into the campaign scenario in some meaningful way, but the time I had a DM absolutely insist that we use a game's official tools to establish pre-existing relationships with party members to improve our collective roleplaying (or something) was the least invested I've ever been in my character or group in any ttrpg I ever played, and just about the only time I've had trouble roleplaying a character.

It's okay to just meet at a tavern or whatever. Don't overthink it, and don't overengineer it.

 

[TheSword]

I always thought Pathfinder did some good opening scenes.

• Rise of the Runelords starts at a market featival
• Curse of the Crimson Throne starts with a tarot reading
• Kingmaker revised starts with a ceremony
• Serpents Skull starts with a shipwreck
• Skull and shackles starts with a press ganging
• Strange aeons starts in an asylum
• Second darkness starts in a casino tournament