Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Team Players
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6313450" data-attributes="member: 17106"><p>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.</p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>***</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>***</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6313450, member: 17106"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Team Players
Top