DM gives you your PC; annoyance or opportunity?

[cybertalus]

If you're gonna go with pre-made characters, I'd remommend letting the players choose from them instead of just assigning them randomly. This gives them at least a small amount of control over their characters. It also avoids the luck of the draw leaving a player with a character type they can't play very well. (I, for example, cannot play dwarves. I've tried, but it never works.)

 

[rowport]

One of the best fantasy campaigns I've ever been in was a Rolemaster (I know, I know...) game in which, after getting a general idea the kind of classes we wanted to play, the GM created our PCs, names* and all. The campaign then started with us in our late teens, and we didn't even get to see our character sheets until a few sessions in. You just had to survive on wits alone at first. It was bloody brilliant. I knew that character better than any one I've ever run.

*I loved this. I mean, really, who gets to pick their own name? I know I didn't get to.

Hey, Buzz!

Well, as you know, I am generally up for experimentation (no, not like THAT) in games, so this sounds like a great idea to me. I particularly like the GM owning the character sheet, so you can learn your own ability limits through trial and error (and maybe even learn skills by continuing to persevere). That would make powergaming virtually impossible, but fantastic roleplaying. I am not sure that our normal group would be up for it long-term, though...

 

[Sir Whiskers]

The GM did something like this in our last (short-lived) campaign. We created our characters, minus background, then we discovered during our first session that we all had amnesia (and were stranded in an arctic region with just the clothes on our back). It worked fairly well as a hook, and we were just getting some answers when the group took an extended break during the holidays. By the time we started gaming again, the GM grew bored of it, so we're doing something else now. Oh well...

If you make up the characters, one of the best ideas I ever read was to place several miniatures on the table, one per character. Each player selects a miniature, and that's their character.

BTW, I agree with others who say you should get your players approval before doing this, and don't stretch it out too long. If a player really dislikes their character, let him/her create a new one after a bit, without penalty - I suspect most/all will keep their original character, since this could be an interesting hook.

 

[milotha]

I think it really depends on how pre-fleshed out the predesigned characters are. I for one, love creating up interesting and unique backgrounds for my character. I find that this inspires me as a player. If I was handed a character with a bland background, it would be harder for me to get into the character and harder for me to enjoy the campaign. A character is like a piece of art. It's my bit of self expression in a game that is mainly determined by the GM.

I've experienced this before in the old modules that had prerolled characters in them. Those ran OK with the predesigned characters, but most of the groups I knew preferred to bring in their own characters.

It would also depend on how balanced the predesigned characters are. If the GM designs a hobbled character for Bob because he knows that Bob is a good gamer and his characters always seem to be more effective, then Bob might not enjoy the game as much.

 

[Zappo]

I don't mind pregenerated characters (ie, any character that I didn't make by myself). They are often good chances to try something which I wouldn't have thought of otherwise. Now that I'm living abroad for a while, I'm playing in a campaign where I was given the PC of a player who left the group; it's just as fun, plus in this case it helps maintaining campaign integrity. Fortunately, there are very few character concepts that I don't like to play!

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I would have no problem with this as long as the GM didn't have a whole bunch of pre-conceived notions about how this character will develop and penalize me for not doing it "his way". I've experienced one DM who has a tendency to do this even if we all make our own characters. We give him a history and he decides what would be cool to do with it, even if it makes no sense for the character.

Its fine to give them an almost blank slate, but don't expect them to draw a picture exactly like you want.

 

[Aristotle]

I see other approving responses, but I'll chime in too. I did this is a recent Shadowrun game. Four out of the Five players ended the game asking if they could keep the characters for the next game. I consider that a success.

Your actually offering less detail than I did, so you should be fine. You could even leave race and sex up to the player to keep it easy. I made up enough characters for everyone in my group plus two extras. Everyone picked a number and then chose a character. Then I gave everyone a chance, in reverse order, to give up their character to pick from one of the three in my hand. If they did so, I would then add their original character to the three in my hand and move on to the next person. After one pass like that the players were stuck with the characters that they drew.

 

[morrolan]

I think it's a great idea, one I've done as a DM when we want a one-shot game or a break from the regular campaign. When someone integral to the game was gong to be missing I always had a few games in reserve for the rest of the players. Easier than spending a session making new characters for a game you'll only lay once or twice.

As a player too, I would enjoy the opportunity. I like to be thrown out of the usual character tropes I enjoy. Hopefully too, the Gm has constructed the campaign with these guys in mind, so you're looking at a good story to run with.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think it would depend upon the character I ended up with. I enjoy playing a lot of characters but I don't enjoy playing characters I would despise were I to meet them in person. (I've tried it, didn't like it--and thinking about it more, I wonder if there isn't something somewhat perverse about enjoying pretending to be despicable). I suppose there are characters I find annoying too and wouldn't want to play despite the fact that they might be decent people if they were real life individuals. (I know that's the case with some other peoples' characters I've played with).

There's another risk too--I enjoy playing dumb characters from time to time but generally, I'm a very tactical player and I enjoy trying special manuevers and pushing the nuts and bolts of the system. (I like to trip one foe, disarm another, take a 5' step, cast a quickened scorching ray, activate my contingency blink and quickdraw a different weapon to attack with expert tactician or use my riding dog for cover as I recklessly move between two rogues then call upon divine might as I smite the cleric they were hiding behind, or slow the bad guys and hit their leader with a quickened ray of enfeeblement). So, if I were stuck with a brainless half-orc barbarian whose only choices in combat were who to power lunge and how much to power attack for, I imagine I'd either eventually get bored or start playing him well above his int, wisdom, and charisma.

[Edit] All that said, I guess I've tried a few things like that myself. Once I ran a game where the PCs knew their stats and their classes (this was 2e) and filled out everything else as they went along. If they wanted to pick up a longsword that would be a proficiency. If they decided to pick up a halberd instead, they'd be proficient (or specialized) in halberd.

And I ran a real beer and pretzels mish mash dungeon crawl based on my spur of the moment memories of Forge of Fury Story hours mixed with the idol image from the 1e DMG and a half-remembered Dungeon Adventure about finding a lost elven city in a lost world type underground cavern. For that, I statted up a dozen PCs and handed them out to the players (so, I've got a dwarf fighter, a human fighter, a cleric, a druid, etc, who wants to play what? Here you do. When you die, pick another). It worked really well till I invited the wrong guy to join us and the best couple of players left rather than play with him.[/edit]

 

[buzz]

I particularly like the GM owning the character sheet, so you can learn your own ability limits through trial and error (and maybe even learn skills by continuing to persevere). That would make powergaming virtually impossible, but fantastic roleplaying. I am not sure that our normal group would be up for it long-term, though...

Heh, knowing that now one of the potential players is on to this thread, I may have to be careful about what I say.

First off, I don't think that I'd hold on to the character sheets.

As for the PCs themselves, they'd be pretty much blank slates. They'd have a race, gender, and (I'm thinking) a level or two in a paragon class with some skills and feats chosen that point them in a direction aptitude-wise, but don't dictate what classes the PC can subsequently take. They'd have no name, and probably no real memories.

Also, the PC may not really know how a member of their race is supposed to act. The elf PC might simply notice that he feels more at home in wooded areas, while the half-orc will find that, when in doubt, he tends to like to break stuff. I'm not 100% sure that I'd go this far, but I'm considering it.

See, one of the goals of the campaign is for the PC to find out who they really are and how it is they came to be in this situation. Ergo, there's no background for the player to have to deal with. They're living the PCs "background" as play commences.

I initial thought this up just because it seemed like a cool idea. I subsequently figured it would be a great device to use with a setting the players were unfamiliar with (i.e., didn't want to buy and read). Instead of having to pretend they're members of this society, the PCs literally don't know anything more than the players do. Everything is new.