Monte on Character Creation

[delericho]

But who cares? A pregen for a newbie is just there so they can learn the game quickly.

Well, I was commenting in the context of Monte's post, where he posits pregens being available for all levels of player experience...

The best way to learn the game is to play it, I find.

I agree, but there are few things more off-putting to a new player to be given a character that sucks, and to spend the session watching the 'real' PCs do awesome things. The pregen you give them has to be at least comparable to the other PCs; indeed, there's an argument for having the pregens be slightly more powerful than PCs for experienced players, to counteract the lack of system knowledge.

IME, it is best if the DM, not the game, stats up the pregen for new players - that way, he can tailor the character to the campaign, can avoid the game-design 'traps' that Monte is so enamoured with, and he can keep up to date with whatever supplements are being used in the campaign this week.

Point is that you don't sit a newbie down and say, "Here's 5,001 options. Make a character."

On that, we agree.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Point is that you don't sit a newbie down and say, "Here's 5,001 options. Make a character."

Agreed.

And while I have no prejudice against pregens- used 'em both as a player and a DM- my preferred method with newbies is to sit down with them and help them model their PC. I find they tend to enjoy themselves a bit more than with pregens.

When I have a lot of newbies, I try to use a buddy system- veterans helping the new players, while I kind of help fill in gaps.

 

[Kzach]

I guess I kinda assumed the DM would make the pregens. Being an optimiser, half the time the pregens I give out to newbies ARE more powerful than the other PC's

 

[Janx]

Did we all read the same article? Monte's not really talking about pregrens.

What he's saying is that there's too many choices to be made during the character creation that take more time than the differentiation they provide. They also end up being the nit-picky things that choosing BEFORE game play starts is the least informed time to make that decision.

If all 1st level PCs came with zero feats, max ranks in all class-skills, then the only choices a player has to make is race, class, and equipment. Any future advancement could enable specialization as the player sees where it would benefit him in the campaign.

 

[Ariosto]

Something like the Talislanta approach can work for a start: a wide variety of basically pregenerated character types. Provide a systematic way for customization, for folks who want that -- but don't make it mandatory.

 

[Stalker0]

In fact, I usually wish more time was spent on it, like a whole session with the group together.

I like char gen, and I hate char gen sessions. My experience mirrors Kzach, everyone lingers, delays, a lot doesn't get done. Especially as I'm older and sessions are harder to come by, a char gen session is just one real gaming session I didn't get to play.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Some thoughts from Monte Cook on character creation. I'm sure this thread will have its share of speculation on how this differs from 5E and if that has anything to do with his departure, but it might be worthwhile to examine some of what he says more objectively and how it relates to the history and design of RPGs/D&D overall.

The Chapel Perilous - Character Creation

Actually I could see this design principle retained in 5e.

1. Elf
2. Wizard
3. magic user
4. sage

some minor and 1st level spells and be done. Familiar comes later at level 3.

Actually i am very very agreeing with him. Character creation should not involve a lot of uninformed choices. And especially no choices you need to make at level 1, that could have a huge impact later on, like missing out toughness as a feat, so you can become a dwarven defender.*

* just an exapmle i did not have to look up...

 

[Elf Witch]

I usually agree with Monte but this time I don't. I enjoy character creation and I don't find it to be a chore. It really is not that hard you pick your race, class, feat, skills and weapons. It takes me about 20 minutes to do this for a first level character.

Yes there are a lot of options if you choose to them but most of the time I tend to stay with the core. Which is what I suggest for people who hate all the choices.

As for newbies I find it works best to talk to them and get an idea of what they want then build the character for them. Once they start playing and learning the rules it is easier for them to understand how to build a character.

As for making choices at the beginning that may not work in the campaign that is what retraining is for and understanding DM. There have been times it becomes obvious someone picked the wrong feat and so if they have never used it or used rarely I will allow them to swap it out.

I also have an idea of what is going on in my world so I will say that concept is not going t get a lot of chance to use their specialties in the game.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Option paralysis (or whatever people call having too many options from which to choose) has never been a thing for me. I don't really understand it, but then again I often have trouble understanding the mindsets of other people. I see options as a good thing; lots of options is a great thing.

So, I ask: "Why is having a lot of options a bad thing?"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think options are bad, and I don't think Monte is saying they are. I think what he's getting at is that there should be a way to get a new game with new players going quickly without having a gimped PC that needs extensive reworking to be comparable to stand alongside PCs that experienced players bring to use.

Pregens, "archetypes", package deals and things like that all provide solutions that let a new player find something they'd enjoy playing without too much hassle.