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.
This issue you have is based on what?
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.
Some games, as has already been pointed out, don’t have “holes in the lineup” because they don’t require role specialization.
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.
They talk it out like friends. Or at the very least, like adults.
What if someone shows up at your game and doesn’t want to play an aspiring adventurer sent to map out a supposedly safe but actually not dungeon?
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.
Each of the playbooks in Stonetop has several background options to choose from. So the badass with the mysterious past is one such background. And that history absolutely will come up in play.
It’s not so much that the players have preconceived ideas about their characters (something that in my experience is far more common for D&D), it’s that each playbook has several themes to choose from, and players are encouraged to pick the one they think seems exciting.
I’ve been in two campaigns of Stonetop. One as a player and one as GM. There were two playbooks in common between the two games, and the background options for those two playbooks was also the same. And still, the characters were different…
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.
Not really. It may not have as much churn as old-school D&D… but it’s also meant to be much more about the characters than old-school D&D. What I’ve found is that a lot of the danger is to the people of Stonetop… the town that the characters live in. NPCs are much more fragile than PCs and are often at risk.
Also, it’s not meant to be a game that is played for many years like your campaigns.
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.
Right. Some people don’t want to play through stuff decided ahead of time by one participant.
and swarming with undead and there is a very obvious path to salvation. I've learned that I really dislike the concept of adventurer as a profession.. its goofy to me, so I start adventures in a way that doesn't require that concept
