Suggestion for DMs

[swrushing]

Thats not my experience.

I set the genre and setting and other than limiting some cases, i leave initial character concepts to the players. I often find they do indeed help me determine the broader pictures and also, of course, the characters they choose do a lot of the determining of the stories told.

Current example: For my stargate game, they decided to run one military scout guy, one medical guy already in the SGC, one medical guy retired from military service (currently employed by a convenience store) and one alien healer.

Now, obviously they do not make good choices for a typical SGC exploration team but after just a few seconds thought i realized they make a great Search--n-rescue or Medical emergency response team. That changes the disposition of a lot of their mission assignments. It makes for an interesting and different campaign. i like it.

I would not have gotten that had i told them or drove them towards a "typical" exploration team.

Since as the DM, I'm the one who's going to do most of, if not all the work, I'm the one who decides what kind of party the players are going to have, and if they agree with that, I talk with every one and I create the characters.

I know it sounds dictatorial, but it's been my observation that if you leave character creation to the players, you're going to end up with a party made of five psychopathic killers all named "Bob", none of whom will have any kind of background written down.

 

[ciaran00]

I know it sounds dictatorial, but it's been my observation that if you leave character creation to the players, you're going to end up with a party made of five psychopathic killers all named "Bob", none of whom will have any kind of background written down.

Why do I get to be Mr. Pink? I'll be Mr. Black, yeah. That's a good name.

ciaran

 

[Tonguez]

in the past I've used - members of a travelling circus troupe, agents employed by the Holy Church, from the same village, part of a merchant caravan and settlers sent to colonise a new land

I then ask the players to tell me why the PCs are there and how they know each other...

 

[Nightfall]

I know it sounds dictatorial, but it's been my observation that if you leave character creation to the players, you're going to end up with a party made of five psychopathic killers all named "Bob", none of whom will have any kind of background written down.

Which just means they are really good at being CE.

 

[Wombat]

I am currently designing a new campaign (the one I am running will run down in 1-2 months, so I have to get something together). I, too, have had the problem of "why is The Party together?" This is especially problematic when characters die or are retired. So with the new game I am trying a different tack.

The setting is going to be urban, with forays outside of the city at times. The players are all bound together because they are part of the same club/secret society. Any characters, both those at the beginning of the campaign and those that are brought in later, must all adhere to the club's rules. To this end, I have given the players a set of guidelines for designing the club. They are to tell me the parameters, at least in broad outlines, of the group, come up with a name, and suchlike, and then all players agree that their characters would be individuals who would join such a group. I can tailor plots to the club, they can tailor characters to the club. Makes it easy on both ends.

Actually, the more I talk about the new campaign, the more excited I get

 

[Mystery Man]

I'd love to do a campaign centered around the Rod of Seven parts from the A&E Guide. I'd probably take a lot of things from the module (rules that were left out for the rod in A&E Guide) and use them.

 

[nopantsyet]

Since as the DM, I'm the one who's going to do most of, if not all the work, I'm the one who decides what kind of party the players are going to have, and if they agree with that, I talk with every one and I create the characters.

I know it sounds dictatorial, but it's been my observation that if you leave character creation to the players, you're going to end up with a party made of five psychopathic killers all named "Bob", none of whom will have any kind of background written down.

Maybe that's because you do most if not all of the work. Put more into the hands of your players. Let them add to the world. Let them interact with the world. Try letting the characters develop their own motivations for working together. Don't impose or expect them to impose a party vision from the start. Let circumstance and necessity play. Send the Paladin on a mission that he can only accomplish by working with an unsavory character. Make them find within the bounds of their characters reasons to work together without killing eachother. Let them create their characters independently, so they focus on creating an interesting character, rather than on fitting the mold. In two sessions of a new game, I've already got a LG character questioning his assiduous commitment to those values. Now that makes for an interesting game.

It's easy to stay in the habit of running our games like modules, but there's a lot of fun to be had by breaking out of that pattern. And as for the players being able to handle it, I've introduced half a dozen players to this approach and have yet to have a bad experience with it. Not one "Psychopath Bob." Just keep them roleplaying and it will work out. Now, if your players are six, or are just face-to-face CRPGing, then you're going to have five PKers and there's not much you can do about it besides cope however you can, which unfortunately sounds like what you're being forced to do.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Maybe that's because you do most if not all of the work. Put more into the hands of your players. Let them add to the world. Let them interact with the world. Try letting the characters develop their own motivations for working together.

If only it were so simple... My players are quite good actually. If they put their mind to it, they are quite capable of roleplaying their characters with finesse and style. The only problem is, they are extremely lazy and most of them don't have much imagination. I've tried the approach you're describing, but it doesn't work: they are perfectly content to play cardboard characters if that's what they end up with, and show absolutely no desire to add to the world. Left to their own devices, they'll automatically revert to the Everquest school of roleplaying. But if I put toys on the table for them to play with (motivations, character quirks, extended backgrounds), they will run with it and it will make for a much more interesting game.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

"But all of these characters are bards! I said a band of dragon slayers!"
"That's right - we're a band. The Dragon Slayers."

-Hyp.

Thang god I wasn't drinking anything when I read this post. I would have to smack you one for it. Bad Pun Please instert .25 and lets move on.

 

[Shallown]

I put it on the players as to what brings them together.

For my last game which starts like 6n months after a war I told the players they had to know at least 2-3 other characters before the game starts.

As a group usually 3 of the 6 players will know exactly what kind of character they want to roll up and the others tend to fill in. (Its not always the same 2-3 people though)

So The players are pretty good about slef balancing their party and as for starting to together the players came up with all the ocnnections. Most revolved around one character only becuase he played a 12-13 year old scout/messenger that was a rogue in the non thieving way. He had run messages in and out of the besieged city and had met or at least been seen by several other party members.

I also told the group they were starting out as caravan guards headed toward the border of the human lands. They were responsible for making their own motivations. Some were just to turn a coin , some to see how bad the invaders had wrecked the land so when I started at an Inn the characters had at least seen each other before and had a reason to go on the first adventure. Made it easy on me.

Later