Pre-Generated PCs: Do they work for you?

[AFGNCAAP]

Thanks for the replies!

I'm not sure where I stand with pre-gen PCs. I think that they're a great way to introduce new people into the game, and that they're good PCs for someone who's up to playing anything. I also think that it's a nice option for anyone who wishes to quickly join a game, or who doesn't want/isn't able to play a game regularly.

For one campaign, I assigned everyone a pre-gen PC (loosely based after the player & their PC preferences) & ran a supplementary campaign, one that ran parralel & occasionally crossed over with the main game (and their created PCs). Except for 1 player who wasn't crazy about playing pre-gens of any sort, the game went quite well.

I'm considering running occasional, sporadic games/adventures/short campaigns that affect the main game, to add to the game a bit. The pre-gens could wind up taking an artifact the PCs were questing for, unleash a menace that the PCs eventually encounter, or just wind up making things easier/harder for the PCs to accomplish.

With a few exceptions, I try to leave pre-gens relatively "blank," per se: have all the basic mechanics & whatnot provided, but leave over elements (physical description, name, AL in some cases, etc.) open for the players to fill in (or, at least, provide stand-in information there, which the player may freely change, if he/she wishes). I also prefer pre-gens to fill in/cover areas that the party is weak in &/or use races/classes that were not selected by the players. I also use point-buy (ensuring that all pre-gens have the same point values).

Keep those responses coming!

 

[Xavim]

They work great as one-shot NPCs or the basis of side-villains, but I've never used a pregen as a player. I find creating my own character to be a far to joyous experience to leave out. Everyone has their favourite characters that hold a special place in their memories and I think that pre-gens take a bit away from that.

 

[Thanee]

I generally dislike pre-gens, because if you don't put any thought into your character, everything is going to be a bit sterile, but can see their use for cons, tournaments, one-shots, etc.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thels]

I actually love to generate my characters, so I'm not too fond with Pregen, but I see the use of it and can live with it on occasion. It comes in handy when you want to do a quick game, or a game where everyone else is a complete newbie as it takes too much time to have everyone going through the creation process, possibly dropping the interrest of some players, but in an established group, explaining newcomers how to make a char shouldn't be too much work and could be assisted by the other players.

 

[Umbran]

I generally dislike pre-gens, because if you don't put any thought into your character, everything is going to be a bit sterile...

Interesting. I find that to properly role-play a pregen takes more thought, rather than less. When you build your own, you tend to rely on your own conventions, and allow things to flow. When the GM provides most of the structure, though, you have to put a lot of thought into how you're going to work with it.

Case in point - I played in a Deadlands game that used pregens. Now, I was the player at the table who knew most about the game, and the conventions of westerns. Left to my own, I would have created a character who had equivalent knowledge as well. Instead, the GM gave me a "tinhorn" - a character that recently came from back East, knew nothing about how things really work in the West, and was expected to get himself into bad situations through his lack of knowledge. It took a lot more conscious attention to what I was doing to play this properly than what I would have made for myself. The experience led me to be a more thoughtful player in general, and made me more conscious of my personal conventions as a player.

 

[SpringPlum]

Keeping in mind that I have never played in a tournament and our one shots are usually too spontanious for the DM or GM to have made pre-gens...

As a player, I heartily dislike playing pre-gens. I had my first experience playing one recently and did not like it. I just could not get comfortable playing a role that I had not put anything into her creation. Our DM let us suggest a class and gender but that was it. The pre-gens are side characters for the epic campaign that we've been playing for a while. It is neat that we get a perspective that's different from what our primary (and personally created) characters see but I wish we got some input.

As a DM, I encourage creativity from my players and ask that they make a well-rounded character, but if anyone new to the game asked me to, I would be willing to pre-gen a character for them.

 

[Altalazar]

Pre-gens are the spawn of hell and they must be smote with divine annihilation.

But let me tell you what I REALLY think...

I hate them. For me, it is all about character, and a pre-gen eliminates that entirely. I don't know a single player who would even consider for a nano-second that it would be fun or worth playing with a pre-gen. I do know players who have so many character concepts they almost savor a character dying so they can try a new one (ALMOST, that is).

Of course, in that same vein, one-shots aren't all that interesting either. We prefer to play campaigns. We did do one-shots in 1st Ed, where we'd just get together, whomever was there would pick characters of the appropriate level, and then we'd "go" but we now prefer to have real reasons for groups to be together, along with some history.

 

[Tom Cashel]

You know what I've always wanted to do? Have all the players roll up their own characters, but when they get to the table...have everyone pass their sheet to the player on their right. Just to break players out of their comfortable molds. Anyone ever tried this?

 

[diaglo]

You know what I've always wanted to do? Have all the players roll up their own characters, but when they get to the table...have everyone pass their sheet to the player on their right. Just to break players out of their comfortable molds. Anyone ever tried this?

well, as a referee for OD&D i rolled the character stats for my players as per Booklet I.

they then chose the class as they saw fit.

 

[Umbran]

For me, it is all about character, and a pre-gen eliminates that entirely.

Sorry to be blunt, but IMHO - Stuff and nonsense!

Hamlet is a character. A pre-gen. More than that, the details of his actions and speech are largely determined for the one who plays him. But somehow Sir Lawrence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, and Mel Gibson all managed to do different, interesting things with the character.

IME, people put to much emphasis on the generation of the character, and then sit on the laurels of that work. You can make a character your own, even if the stats and feats are chosen for you ahead of time, and the situation you start in isn't one of your own choosing. Character isn't about ownership. It's about development. All a pre-gen gives you is the starting place. You talk as if you cannot begin a journey if you are given the starting place by someone else.

Of course, in that same vein, one-shots aren't all that interesting either. We prefer to play campaigns. We did do one-shots in 1st Ed, where we'd just get together, whomever was there would pick characters of the appropriate level, and then we'd "go" but we now prefer to have real reasons for groups to be together, along with some history.

Reasons and history aren't only the province of long-term campaigns. Campaigns are novel-series. One-shots are short stories. Mini-campaigns are from novella to novel in length. You can have reasons and history in all of them. The issue isn't length, it's the amount and quality of qwriting done by the GM.

Mind you, just as not all novelists are good at writing short stories, not all GM who are good at campaign work are good at one-shots, and vice versa. The two different styles require different pacing and elements. And, of course, just as not all readers enjoy short stories, not all players like one-shots.