Team Players

[Ahnehnois]

This seems to be coming up lately, so let me try to ask it in poll form. It's one of those no right, no wrong answers, just a question of philosophy.
EDIT: The question wasn't worded to make this clear, but I'm asking what do you personally do in your group (as opposed to what you think other people are doing out there).

The issue is whether players, when making their characters, are aware of and make decisions based on what the other player characters are going to be. In general, most D&D games adopt the conceit that player characters are going to ultimately be working together as a party, which is an assumption that I am making here.

The first option would indicate that players make their characters at home and show up to the game with no foreknowledge of who their teammates are going to be. The party is probably formed during the process of play, probably through the DM putting characters together in some way.

The second would be that they talk back and forth, but don't necessarily see the party makeup as being the primary goal. So, one player might be aware that another is making a rogue, and might think to himself "we probably don't need two rogues, so I'll play something else", but if he really wanted to a rogue, he might go against that thought.

The third would be that individual characters really aren't the goal, the goal is to build a whole party. If one player has an idea that doesn't really fit with the party, he can't play it. Characters are created explicitly to synergize or work together effectively.

***

To some extent, this interacts with the idea of covering roles (for example, if you're collaborating, you might say that someone has to play the healer, you need a tank, and so forth). However, it is possible to collaboratively build a party of all rogues if you want to. The point is whether you're looking at character creation as an individualistic or collectivistic process.

It could also include things like playing compatible alignments and races, creating shared backgrounds, and selecting specific character abilities with their utility to or interaction with other PCs in mind.

***

Obviously, it is possible that you've done things different ways. For poll purposes, you're supposed to just pick whichever you do the most, but feel free to discuss away.

 

[Agamon]

Everything is cool when you're part of a team!

 

[Agamon]

Sorry, got that last post in before the poll. To answer, rarely option 2, usually option 3. Never option 1, not if I'm running the game. Unless everyone has already gotten together to discuss the group template and already know how the PCs relate to each other, then option 1 will work, I guess.

Edit: Option 1 says without considering the other players, so yeah, that's no good for my games at all, I guess.

 

[TwoSix]

My PF group, which is my main play group, is option 2. My preferred option is 3, as FATE character creation is the most fun I've ever had in character creation.

 

[the Jester]

I prefer that each pc be made independently, but with a general understanding that everyone will work to be tolerably compatible, e.g. no evil pcs running with paladins in 1e.

 

[Thaumaturge]

We use option 3 so much that for the first campaign of 5e I'm insisting on no "table talk" about character creation. I want people to play what interests them most in the new edition without worrying about what works best for the party. We're months away from that point, and the players are already nervous about it.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Li Shenron]

Definitely a mix, therefore option #2.

IMXP there is usually always 1-2 people who want to play only one thing and get upset otherwise, but the majority of players interact with each other when making characters. And then there is me, who wants to try almost every possible character in the game and goes last in the class choice to fill the missing gap

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

My groups have typically been option 1 types, though I sometimes try to push them toward option 2 (I voted option 2 based on my current group).

Most of my players are fans of the "reluctant or atypical heroes thrown together by fate" style of fantasy, making party "roles" strictly a secondary consideration.

 

[Thaumaturge]

One of the things we do to keep someone from feeling "stuck" as a healer is this:

When a campaign ends, the previous campaign's DM gets to pick his class first, if he's playing. The next person to choose is the previous campaign's healer/cleric/leader. Once those two have taken their choices, the floor is opened for discussion about what different players want.

We've definitely had some people chain healers or defer their choice to fill a gap. We sometimes will build upon the first choice for thematic reasons.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Yora]

In my campaigns, characters are always created at the start of the first game as an alredy existing group. But that's because I tell them so right from the start, not their own idea. However, most players seem to come to the first game without any clear plan of what they want to play, expecting to first see what the context of the game will be and what other characters wikk be.

Characters that are added later, for new players or as replacement, are made to be additions that make sense to stay with the group even after the current adventure during which they meet. Between adventures, they are people already known to the group, but not having had any screen time until now. Some Cousin Lester or the like.