pming
Legend
Hiya!
DM: Right then. 5e it is then. I'll be using Greyhawk if everyone's cool with that?
Players: Yup. Good with us.
DM: So, everyone, 3d6, in order, SDCIWC. Net bonus total of 0 or better. Go.
(players all roll characters)
DM: Done? Ok then. I've decided you will all start in the NE area of the Duchy of Urnst, on the SE corner of the Nyr Dyv.
Players: Ok then. Lets get to it.
Player 1: I have good Strength and Constitution (14 and 17). Thinking a nice Champion fighter.
Player 2: I am pretty average, lowest is an 8, but my highest is a 13. I can do pretty much anything I guess...Wis is 8 though, so...
Player 3: I have a decent Strength too, with 16. But my Con sucks, 7. My Int is 15 though. DM, can I switch my Strength and Con so I can make a Wizard that doesn't die in one shot?
DM: Fine with me...everyone good with that?
Players: Yup.
Player 4: Good! I didn't want to be a wizard again. I have an Int 14 and a Wis 15...with a Cha of 15 as well. Nice rolls. Str is 9, and my dex BLOWS, with a 7. At least I'm average with Con of 10. I think Cleric.
DM: Right then, looks like you all are set. A Fighter, Wizard and Cleric. Hey, Player 2, what did you go with?
Player 3: Well, looks like Thief is a good choice then for me. My dex is 12, so at least thats a bonus. Hmm...DM? Can I swap my Int with Wis so at least my perception isn't negative? For a thief that is?
DM:Sure. I'm cool with that.
Players: Ok, we are set. All bases covered. I think we should stick to Humans or maybe half-races.
Player 3: I was thinking Halfling.
Player 1: Ok. Human here.
Player 2: Human.
Player 4: Half-Elf. I'm thinking a human who was brought up with a heavy interest in his elven mothers heritige...life cleric, beauty of nature and all that.
DM: Perfect! Get going and we'll start when everyone's finished their characters.
*That's* how players...no matter what you are...should be making characters. As a group. With the GROUP as the focus. With each player having his/her choice of class be influenced by what the GROUP needs. This is how we've generally made characters for a campaign (any setting or system, honestly).
IMHO, it's not "power gamers" or "min/MAXERS" or "role-players" that are the problem. It's that for the last two decades or so, the RPG industry has been encouraging "special snowflake" character creation as opposed to "specialist in a group" character creation. Way back in ye olden tymes, the success of a group was based on how the GROUP worked together. How the GROUP complimented each other and covered each others asses (weaknesses). But recently, especially since 3e...with all the options and add-ons a single PC can amass, the focus drifted from "A GROUP of adventurers" to "A few individuals killing monsters together".
IMNSHO, if players and DM's would get away from the "I have to be special all the time!" and back to the "WE have to work well TOGETHER!", then the players who want to focus on one particular play style (power gamer, min/max, etc) can do that and it'd be fine...because everyone at the table created their character together with the focus on covering 'roles of the group' (re: Fighter, Magic-User, Thief and Cleric; the ENTIRE BASIS FROM WHICH THE GAME WAS CREATED!...*GROUP* focused).
*sigh* I'm old and crotchety. But that's how I feel. Do I like min/maxers? Not really...but if they create a min/maxed character with the group, filling a particular role, then everyone there will not be 'surprised' when that min/maxed character does his job well. When you have players each making a PC with no (or little) consideration of the adventuring party as a whole...that's when feathers start to get ruffled. When Player A made a damage dealer, and Player B also made one, but a different class; well, that's when you see pettiness, in-fighting, and jealousy rear their ugly heads.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
DM: Right then. 5e it is then. I'll be using Greyhawk if everyone's cool with that?
Players: Yup. Good with us.
DM: So, everyone, 3d6, in order, SDCIWC. Net bonus total of 0 or better. Go.
(players all roll characters)
DM: Done? Ok then. I've decided you will all start in the NE area of the Duchy of Urnst, on the SE corner of the Nyr Dyv.
Players: Ok then. Lets get to it.
Player 1: I have good Strength and Constitution (14 and 17). Thinking a nice Champion fighter.
Player 2: I am pretty average, lowest is an 8, but my highest is a 13. I can do pretty much anything I guess...Wis is 8 though, so...
Player 3: I have a decent Strength too, with 16. But my Con sucks, 7. My Int is 15 though. DM, can I switch my Strength and Con so I can make a Wizard that doesn't die in one shot?
DM: Fine with me...everyone good with that?
Players: Yup.
Player 4: Good! I didn't want to be a wizard again. I have an Int 14 and a Wis 15...with a Cha of 15 as well. Nice rolls. Str is 9, and my dex BLOWS, with a 7. At least I'm average with Con of 10. I think Cleric.
DM: Right then, looks like you all are set. A Fighter, Wizard and Cleric. Hey, Player 2, what did you go with?
Player 3: Well, looks like Thief is a good choice then for me. My dex is 12, so at least thats a bonus. Hmm...DM? Can I swap my Int with Wis so at least my perception isn't negative? For a thief that is?
DM:Sure. I'm cool with that.
Players: Ok, we are set. All bases covered. I think we should stick to Humans or maybe half-races.
Player 3: I was thinking Halfling.
Player 1: Ok. Human here.
Player 2: Human.
Player 4: Half-Elf. I'm thinking a human who was brought up with a heavy interest in his elven mothers heritige...life cleric, beauty of nature and all that.
DM: Perfect! Get going and we'll start when everyone's finished their characters.
*That's* how players...no matter what you are...should be making characters. As a group. With the GROUP as the focus. With each player having his/her choice of class be influenced by what the GROUP needs. This is how we've generally made characters for a campaign (any setting or system, honestly).
IMHO, it's not "power gamers" or "min/MAXERS" or "role-players" that are the problem. It's that for the last two decades or so, the RPG industry has been encouraging "special snowflake" character creation as opposed to "specialist in a group" character creation. Way back in ye olden tymes, the success of a group was based on how the GROUP worked together. How the GROUP complimented each other and covered each others asses (weaknesses). But recently, especially since 3e...with all the options and add-ons a single PC can amass, the focus drifted from "A GROUP of adventurers" to "A few individuals killing monsters together".
IMNSHO, if players and DM's would get away from the "I have to be special all the time!" and back to the "WE have to work well TOGETHER!", then the players who want to focus on one particular play style (power gamer, min/max, etc) can do that and it'd be fine...because everyone at the table created their character together with the focus on covering 'roles of the group' (re: Fighter, Magic-User, Thief and Cleric; the ENTIRE BASIS FROM WHICH THE GAME WAS CREATED!...*GROUP* focused).
*sigh* I'm old and crotchety. But that's how I feel. Do I like min/maxers? Not really...but if they create a min/maxed character with the group, filling a particular role, then everyone there will not be 'surprised' when that min/maxed character does his job well. When you have players each making a PC with no (or little) consideration of the adventuring party as a whole...that's when feathers start to get ruffled. When Player A made a damage dealer, and Player B also made one, but a different class; well, that's when you see pettiness, in-fighting, and jealousy rear their ugly heads.
^_^
Paul L. Ming