DM Forcing Characters on Players

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I've had a lot of fun with this as a player. Several con or one off games, where there was no time for character creation. Worked fine and I had a chance to play out some characters I would have been unlikely to create myself.

And my first shadowrun campaign, the ever popular anmesia setup - highly amusing - was very refreshing to play an unfamiliar RPG with no ideas about the rules, setting, my stats or abilities... finding out I could cast magic was a real eye opener One of my favorite ever campaings.

I've used pregens as a DM, but only for mini adventures. Tempted to try and work something with that planar legion idea from earlier in the thread...

Umbran - couldn't agree with you more. I'd play anything they liked!

 

[scourger]

It's great for one-shots,

but this poll & thread are about campaigns. I have seen this method as a success and a failure as a player; but largely as a success as a DM.

I played a game in which the DM essentially took an older edition module and handed out the bare bones of the torunament PCs from which the players could choose a character. The bare bones were: race, class(es), and statistics with some magic items. There was also a pre-made motivation for us to be together as a group, including one character as a putative leader. It was pretty fun to flesh out the character and play for a while, but it degenerated when we deviated from the "script" even just a little bit (a common problem for that particular DM). Also, the DM took over the unselected character as an NPC since that character was "important" for the story (I think he secrety wanted to play, too). When my PC died, I played the NPC. Again, it was fun until I strayed from the "script" for that character by doing things that the DM didn't think the character would do. Then, my PC was reincarnated as a different race and missed his chance at one of the artifacts in the story--a fact that was unfortunately brought to my attention by the DM. To make matters worse, we didn't even finish it after several months of play because the DM felt we did all the "good" parts. Overall, it was less fun than other games I've played. It could have worked if the DM had slackened the reins a bit and let the players get into the roles presented, but I guess that wasn't fun for him. (The same guy has quit our group because we don't play just plain vanila D&D. It's a shame because he is a friend, but he's just too selfish.)

Another campaign we strated was the all-dwarf campaign. It was great to have that unifying element in common. Sadly, it didn't last more than a couple of sessions.

In the Star Wars game that I'm not finished not playing yet, I would love for the DM to restrict us to being with the Rebel Alliance. He hasn't yet, but here's hoping. I would also love to play an all-jedi game.

As a DM, I have had good results from narrowing the types of characters that the players may play. I took my 2e game back to the core and was much happier. In 3e, I allowed nothing beyond the PHB. I ran Judge Dredd d20 for a judges-only game (I loved it and am always ready to reprise it, but I think my players are ambivalent about the game and world).

In my current 3.5 Shackled City game, I sprinkled in human jedi, judges, and mutants as the First Tier characters with those options plus aasimar paladins and the core PHB races & classes as Second Tier character options. My goal as DM is to encourage "good guy" characters with some very different options. It has worked very well so far. I think the up-front restrictions are embraced once the inherent resistance is overcome. I also made them roll their stats in order (S D C I W C--but with 5d6 to make it more powerful) to narrow their choices for them.

I would love to DM many more such restricted games, but there just isn't enough time. The all-judge Judge Dredd, all-human Mesopotamia D&D, and the Star Wars all-jedi games are at the top of my list right now. (The Giant's Skull is an awesome one-shot with pre-gens that I would love to do as a tie-in to my old 3.0 game, but I can't get the players interested.)

 

[JoeGKushner]

Depends on the GM. If the characters are interesting and the background give me some room to flex my own ideas with the character, no problem, but if the GM has a script for me to follow, well, that presents it's own difficulties.

"But Sir Koliban wouldn't do that!"

"No, Sir Koliban, as written and directed by you, certainly would not do that. Since we don't share brains however, the second you gave me this character to roleplay, I have given him my take on his character. Now if you wish to pay me large sums of money to act this character out according to a script you've provided, I'd be glad to. In the meanwhile, remember that this is a game, and it has to be fun for everyone, or at least the biggest person and seeing as I'm 6'6", I win."

 

[Templetroll]

My first game of D&D (c. 1979) I was told I "...must roll up a dwarf because that was the only available character penciled in the marching order."

It turned out to be cool because I liked dwarves, got a great rollup on stats (19 strength, 3 charisma) and after the first adventure looting tombs/they killed a wight (I helped with missile weapon) I got a +2 mace! No one else used the thing and it became his signature weapon.

I've played at plenty of cons where characters were handed out. One at a Wilmark Dynasty event there were a list of characters provided and everyone could play one of the characters once each in a scenario. Several of the characters were serious, several were silly. One "halfling" was described in such a way that you immediately thought of Mickey Mouse. I squeeked out a "Hello, my name is Mickey!" and the GM said, "I don't allow funny voices at my table."

:\ It also seemed he did not like cinematic attempts or swashbuckling. I did the reasonable thiefy things at the times itwould be useful during that run but had no fun while I was at it. The rest of the con was great, BTW.

I can see a reason for a GM to hand a character to some one but think it should be used sparingly and it is how the game is played that is more relevant to whether the practise is fun or not.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The only times I use this kind of thing as a GM is to hand out 'temporary' characters, either for a scene that does not involve the normal PCs, or because Joe Snuffy Paladin Extraordinaire has snuffed it, so he taks over Ralph the Baggage Boy until the PCs reach a logical point to replace Joe.

An example of the former is a scene I have used in opening a Call of Cthulhu campaign where it is likely that only one character will survive, so I hand out the temps, and let the players know that they shouldn't get too upset when the characters die.

The Auld Grump TPKs aren't fun, even in CoC...

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I'm going to be doing something similar for my next few games. They're not campaigns, but will be a bit longer than one game (one looking at 3-5 sessions, one looking at 4-10, another at 3-6). I'd just like to say that I'm not forcing a character on anyone though. There's a big group of people I know who are always looking for another game to play in. And I'm going to invite them to play in these games, where they will have limited character choices. Thus far, I havn't heard a single protest, but we're not actually going to be starting till January.

Has anyone else run into this problem?
"Ok, so this game's going to take place as a military special-ops unit. I'm running things more by the book, so encounters are going to be harder and you may want to pre-think some tactics. One of the major themes I want to go for is that you neeed to depend on each-other and work together. The back drop is a major war."

"Can I play a pacifist who is opposed to the war?"

"No, the game is going to be pretty combat heavy."

"Can I play an assassin sent to kill the rest of the unit?"

"No. No backstabbing."

"How about a spy for the other side."

"No, I'd like to keep the inter-party problems to a minimum this game."

"Can I play a farmer?"

"I suppose you could have been a farmer before joining the millitary."

"No, I mean like freshly drafted. Just off the farm last week."

"And why would you be in a special-ops unit?"

"Uh...."

Two of the people I play with are infamous in our gaming circle for this sort of thing, and we've got another who usually ends up with nothing. Last time he was a druid. So he was a gardener. And that was all the history or character there was. Now, while I don't mind people creating their own characters, spending a month hunting down people, getting them to come up with concepts that work in the game, building stats, dragging histories out of characters, then coming up with chutes to drop them into being a party (unfortunately, my playres don't like doing this on their own), is a whole lot of effort.

So, until I'm ready to do something that allows for the extra time and effort of letting them build their own characters, I'm going to be giving them a list of pre-generated characters to choose from.

 

[Orius]

This attitude I honestly don't understand. "Never" is a long time, and is absolute. Under no circumstances, ever?

"Never" is the word used in the poll, so that's how I'm stating my preferences. But generally, I prefer being allowed to play the character I want to play without a DM forcing his own preconceptions upon me, and I do the same for my players.

Hamlet, Lear, Lady Macbeth, Don Quixote, Willy Loman - a whole list of characters folks didn't write for themselves, but would die for a chance to play.

True, but this is D&D, not Shakespeare or Cervantes. I play to kill things and take their stuff. I'm not the type of player they goes into in depth character acting.

Besides, I'm not female, so I doubt I'd land the role of Lady Macbeth. And I'm far too old to get the role in the old-school Shakespearean way, IYKWIM.

And I hated Death of a Saleman.

Why do you view it as "foisting" or "choice stomping" and "straightjacketing"? Why don't you view it as a challenge, a chance to extend your role-playing ability? Why do you focus on what you don't like about it, rather than what you migt be able to get from it?

As you yourself demonstrate, players sometimes get into patterns. They'll only play X,Y, or Z, and nothing else. There's a fine line between being in the groove, and being in a rut - sticking to a pattern can lead to having your characters always be the same. Playing something you didn't pick for yourself, and doing your best to play it well, is a good way to make sure you stay out of the rut.

Because that's not the kind of player I am. I'm not into the acting bit, and so taking a role that I don't identify with, or which I really don't want to play is something I have very little interest in. And if I'm pressured into it, it's not something I'm going to put effort into, because I don't like people forcing me to do things I don't like. If the situation is recreational, such as a weekly D&D session, well then I have the freedom to reject it. Come on, everyone knows there are players out there that will play anything, and there are players that have their favorite types of characters. That's just the way D&D is.

I occasionally play White Wolf games. But never vampires. I have an intense dislike for the pop-culture view of vamps, and refused to play one. Until my favorite WW GM said that he *needed* me to play a vampire (and he honestly did need someone to play one). So, I sat down and thought long and hard about hnow I could construct a vampire I could tolerate playing. The end result was one of my favorite characters. I still don't like playing vampires in general, but I liked him.

Well, to me, accepting the role of a vampire for a GM that you liked playing uinder because the group needs one is different to me than say a GM saying, "I'm sick of seeing you play werewolves all the time. I think it's time you start playing ones of these whiney goth freaks (I freely admit that I do not like V:tM, or the whole gothy pop-culture vampire image ) because I think you need to broaden your horizon." If I want to broaden my horizon, I'll do so the way I want.

Like I said, I don't like clerics. Now, if a group absolutely needed a cleric, and the DM ran a damn good game, maybe I'd consider it. I would not want to play if the DM insisted on a core personality for the character and constantly stomped on me by saying, "Your character would never do that." If OTOH, he asked me to roll up a cleric on my own, then I'd comply a little more readily. I would be able to accept some restrictions given the makeup of the party to avoid internal conflicts, because there's a certain amount of necessity there. But otherwise, I don't want to be forced to play a character someone else wants to see me play.

It's not unusual that I don't like playing clerics, the cleric has long been an unpopular class (at least in the old days). But I also know that most D&D games usually need a cleric to be successful. It would really depend on the campaign and the circumstances