Team Players
- Thread starter Ahnehnois
- Start date
Mishihari Lord
First Post
Mostly #1, with the the exception that players making new characters during a campaign know what everyone else is playing already. I've never seen a need to feel particular roles. It's easy enough to design adventurers for any group as long as you know who they are ahead of time.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I've found it's quite easy to design a campaign even when you don't know that. But for some people, standardization of these things seems to be important.
Crothian
First Post
We do number one but the players are free to discuss things if they want. The main reason they don't is we don't devote a game session to creating characters. Everyone is very experienced with the system and can easily make characters on their own. We usually have a few weeks to a month advance warning on when a new campaign is going to start so that gives the players plenty of time to create a character and ask questions of the DM.
We do not enforce or really even discuss having a balanced party. I was with a group that did that back in 2e and I hated it. I want players to play the character they want to play and NPCs and magical items can easily be acquired to fill any gabs.
We do not enforce or really even discuss having a balanced party. I was with a group that did that back in 2e and I hated it. I want players to play the character they want to play and NPCs and magical items can easily be acquired to fill any gabs.
Desdichado
Hero
When I'm running, I make a point of emphasizing that option #1 is totally OK, and that it's my responsibility as the GM to ensure a good game for the characters that I get. In fact, I think penalizing the players for "poor" choices in character selection is passive-aggressive and kind of jerkish. I actually feel incredibly strongly about that as a philosophical position with regards to player creation.
Despite that, we really end up doing #2. Some people go off and make the characters that they want to make. One guy is kind of a rogue specialist, regardless of what game, genre or system we're using, for instance. He tends to always make a rogue. If anyone else wants to play a rogue, they can, but they run the risk of being a little redundant in a game where party role is important. I don't tent to run games where it is, though. A few other guys ask around before deciding. At least one guy thinks along the lines of option #3 and will attempt to fill out holes in party make-up.
Again, I'll emphasize repeatedly that he doesn't have to do that, but he will anyway. He's just too much of a tactics kind of guy to do otherwise. He's also the min-maxer in our group, as it happens.
When the other guys run, they don't emphasize this, but we still gravitate more or less towards #2. There will be some discussion, but not much, and only one or two people will let said discussion influence their choice of character.
EDIT: Also note; I assume that the question refers to role selection more than any other character consideration. I do, on the other hand, use an adapted FATE mechanic to tie the characters together thematically and in their background, so they can hit the ground running without either the trite "we're all sitting around in a tavern and conveniently decide that we look like a good group to work together for no good reason" or other more contrived "bring everyone together" kind of thing. And I do prefer to give the players some thematic guidance before we start, so we don't end up with a paladin in our grim n gritty pirate game, or an assassin in our questing knights game, or whatever.
Despite that, we really end up doing #2. Some people go off and make the characters that they want to make. One guy is kind of a rogue specialist, regardless of what game, genre or system we're using, for instance. He tends to always make a rogue. If anyone else wants to play a rogue, they can, but they run the risk of being a little redundant in a game where party role is important. I don't tent to run games where it is, though. A few other guys ask around before deciding. At least one guy thinks along the lines of option #3 and will attempt to fill out holes in party make-up.
Again, I'll emphasize repeatedly that he doesn't have to do that, but he will anyway. He's just too much of a tactics kind of guy to do otherwise. He's also the min-maxer in our group, as it happens.
When the other guys run, they don't emphasize this, but we still gravitate more or less towards #2. There will be some discussion, but not much, and only one or two people will let said discussion influence their choice of character.
EDIT: Also note; I assume that the question refers to role selection more than any other character consideration. I do, on the other hand, use an adapted FATE mechanic to tie the characters together thematically and in their background, so they can hit the ground running without either the trite "we're all sitting around in a tavern and conveniently decide that we look like a good group to work together for no good reason" or other more contrived "bring everyone together" kind of thing. And I do prefer to give the players some thematic guidance before we start, so we don't end up with a paladin in our grim n gritty pirate game, or an assassin in our questing knights game, or whatever.
Last edited:
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
We approach character creation as a collaborative process, but not generally in the sense of ensuring well balanced parties. Rather our focus is on making sure players are all on the same page as far as what they want out of the game, what the relationships between characters will be like, making sure that dramatic tension exists but doesn't overwhelm play, etc. We play player driven games and have found that active cooperation and collaboration are key to making them work.
Ahnehnois
First Post
The issue here is the process, not the result. If everyone agrees to play the same class, but they talk back and forth about their characters, it's still collaborative. If people build characters without having met each other and coincidentally come in with the four-archetype classic party, it's still individualistic.
I expect that most people will think at least to some extent in terms of covering functional roles, but that isn't the only way to look at it.
I expect that most people will think at least to some extent in terms of covering functional roles, but that isn't the only way to look at it.
It's nice to see players giving a damn if the party has a nice cross-section of skills. But I think working as a team to make the roleplaying aspects gel is much more important (i.e., story buy-in, cooperation on character/party origin). And if, in pursuit of that, players make their characters gel tactically, so much the better.
Jack Daniel
Legend
"Build"?
The players roll 3d6 in order and generally pick the class that fits their stats.
The players roll 3d6 in order and generally pick the class that fits their stats.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Well, there's still some building going on there. It does vary as to how much control the player has over the character creation process. "Build" does have something of a new-school connotation, I suppose. The point here is how the player exercises whatever authority he is granted.
