Encouraging more interesting characters...

[DeadlyUematsu]

I really like 3E and the options it offers, but in my experience, many characters seem to be built solely for power. In numerous campaigns, I have had to scrap characters I would have gladly played because everyone else min-n-max to the extreme, either rendering half of the party obsolete or turning the game into virtual arms race between players. Since I'm about to start a campaign, I would like to avoid this sort of problem. So how can I encourage more well-rounded, roleplay-oriented, and fun-for-all character builds?

 

[Timeboxer]

Here's something that I did for my Nobilis campaign that you may find interesting to try.

Character creation will be communal. Tell everyone to bring only a name, a personality, and a nifty background to character creation, but insist that they do not have a particular class or race or anything in mind. The background should be relatively generic; this is the point. At the table, everyone goes around and introduces their character and their background and so on. Then, you go around the table and put the spotlight on one player, and have all of the other players suggest classes and races and feats and skill choices or whatever that seem like they might be a good match. Possibly in this way they could arrange it so that their characters are interconnected, as well.

And then, at this point, everyone chooses a class and race, and then rolls stats for their character. (This will probably shed a different light on their background.) And then, well, it's character creation as normal.

Admittedly, this does require rather cooperative players, but you may find it useful as everyone feels invested in the party as a whole. My current GM has everyone declare class and race and then roll 4d6 straight down the list, which has also turned out interestingly.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Here's something that I did for my Nobilis campaign that you may find interesting to try.

Character creation will be communal. Tell everyone to bring only a name, a personality, and a nifty background to character creation, but insist that they do not have a particular class or race or anything in mind. The background should be relatively generic; this is the point. At the table, everyone goes around and introduces their character and their background and so on. Then, you go around the table and put the spotlight on one player, and have all of the other players suggest classes and races and feats and skill choices or whatever that seem like they might be a good match. Possibly in this way they could arrange it so that their characters are interconnected, as well.

And then, at this point, everyone chooses a class and race, and then rolls stats for their character. (This will probably shed a different light on their background.) And then, well, it's character creation as normal.

Admittedly, this does require rather cooperative players, but you may find it useful as everyone feels invested in the party as a whole. My current GM has everyone declare class and race and then roll 4d6 straight down the list, which has also turned out interestingly.

Interestingly I know of this method and I've thought about using it. Unfortunately, I've seen other DMs use this and it failed dismally even with cooperative players. Should I go about using this method anyway, what steps can the DM take to make sure it is effective?

 

[random user]

Huh, I just had an interesting though. More of a brainstorm, so it probably won't work but I thought I would write it down.

What if you had everyone bring in two character concepts. These would be done without stats, but could refer to stats or feats in some way (ie "this fighter is specialized in tripping people" or "this wizard is loyal to his party but paranoid and believes that the world is ending in 5 years and we must all prepare for judgment from the respective deities of the lands"). They would also have the standard motivations, background, and family/friends stuff.

The DM will review each character concept and assign stats to each character in whatever way he sees fit, giving more stats to cool, detailed, and/ or tricky combos. This means a weaker overall concept may be given additional stats to better balance it against stronger concepts. Of course, this is very subjective, so could be problematic.

The players then choose a character to "reserve."

The players then total up the ability scores of his non-reserved character and create a list from highest to lowest.

Then, going around the table using the list, each player either chooses a character in the non-reserved pile and returns his old character to the unreserved pile or passes and keeps his reserved character. Proceed through the list (go back to the top if needed) until everyone passes. Even if you pass once, you can later switch characters if there is a new character in the mix you'd rather have.

During each session, assign roleplaying xp rewards (or deduct roleplaying xp, though people hate losing things) to people who are staying true or exemplifying their characters.


I have no idea if something like that would work... but just a random thought.

 

[knifespeaks]

Here's some info on a campaign which I am commencing on the weekend - it might give you some ideas:

http://www.tehbomb.com/BB/viewforum.php?f=11&sid=7f4db0629f699e36633f8e5d198bd1f2

The threads titled 'Character concepts', 'Starting Information' and 'More about skills and feats' might be helpful.

Roleplay and strong milieu consistency are what make it work, and the players are very excited.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Interesting characters are built during the game, you can direct players to interest based on their backgrounds. A good thing to do is to have a player jam session before your game to build background, this you can use to direct the players, also discuss the game after play. Tell your players that you want them to answer a couple of questions before their next game; where they want the game to take their characters, what do they want from their characters. The information they return could direct you and them.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I really like 3E and the options it offers, but in my experience, many characters seem to be built solely for power. In numerous campaigns, I have had to scrap characters I would have gladly played because everyone else min-n-max to the extreme, either rendering half of the party obsolete or turning the game into virtual arms race between players.

It's not hard to make a character good at something
It takes real effort to make a character bad at everything
If you go to the effort to make your character bad at everything suck it up
Otherwise you should find that your character does have uses.

 

[random user]

It's not hard to make a character good at something
It takes real effort to make a character bad at everything
If you go to the effort to make your character bad at everything suck it up
Otherwise you should find that your character does have uses.

True, but there are sometimes concepts that are cool but clearly inferior.

For example, a ranged melee who specializes in hand crossbows. He has a love for them; knows how to craft them; thinks they are awesome. Roleplaying reasons aside, given similarly statted characters, I have a hard time seeing a situation for this character to shine.