Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Character Generation) Okay, fine article. I only have one question: how would the advice be any different when teaching 30 year-olds who haven't played an RPG before? (I get that kids are more likely to try new things and that the author's job is to teach kids... but I think the advice would otherwise be identical.)
Wizards "Character Generation" Article
- Thread starter mudlock
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
This teaches me that D&D really, really needs a way to just spit out a character and go.
The entire article is all "This is how to condense the myriad meaningless options that complete newbs have into coherent things that they can see the choice between instantly."
It's solid advice, though, and not just for kids! When DMing for new folks, I usually just whip up a few pregens and have the players pick from among them, saying "You tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you how to read that big block of numbers and letters you have." I find most people are more than OK with picking from among a few broad fantasy archetypes. Then, after they get into it, you reveal to them that they can create whatever they want.
Still, quite solid.
The entire article is all "This is how to condense the myriad meaningless options that complete newbs have into coherent things that they can see the choice between instantly."
It's solid advice, though, and not just for kids! When DMing for new folks, I usually just whip up a few pregens and have the players pick from among them, saying "You tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you how to read that big block of numbers and letters you have." I find most people are more than OK with picking from among a few broad fantasy archetypes. Then, after they get into it, you reveal to them that they can create whatever they want.
Still, quite solid.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
I liked that article.
Reminds me of this time when I was 10 or 11...
Hey, it wasn't THAT long ago!
...Okay, fine, if you want to skip reading this, I'll 'sblock' it.
[sblock=boring story]
Okay, so when I was 10 or 11, I taught my class how to play D&D.
This was a class of "smart kids," segregated once per week from the normal curriculum and put in their own classroom to do things beyond the scope of regular school work. Think of it as a once-per-week Montessori school.
The ages ranged from 8 to 13; pretty much the exact range of this article.
And I was using 2nd Edition, so class design was probably simpler, but the rules fundamentals were, uh... less consistent.
It took a while but everyone was able to grasp the basics of what was going on in-game. Characters got made (although they were largely "silly"), and I ran everyone through a short story. Most of the chafing was centred around my cheesy plot.
Response ranged from enthusiastic (several of them took advantage of the blank monster sheets I'd photocopied from the Monstrous Compendium) to indifferent (not sure what to make of it), to distaste and/or annoyance (bad plot, religous objections). I don't know if I'd call it a success, but I definitely have some appreciation for the job the man from the article is doing.
None of the peers I taught in that class expressed any interest in continuing with the hobby, and have not to this day, as far as I know.
Interestingly, in a similar program that I was in at a different school in a different town, one of the options for the First Years (Grade 4) year-long project was learning to play D&D. It would have been BECMI or 1st Edition back then.
The way it worked, was the graduating class got to choose what the upcoming First Years were to study. I was not so lucky, however, and our group did a year long study on the psychology of advertising. Worse yet, in our bitterness over not getting to do something "fun" like D&D (the class was unanimous in this), we chose "advertising" for the upcoming group. I regret that decision to this day.[/sblock]
Reminds me of this time when I was 10 or 11...
Hey, it wasn't THAT long ago!
...Okay, fine, if you want to skip reading this, I'll 'sblock' it.
[sblock=boring story]
Okay, so when I was 10 or 11, I taught my class how to play D&D.
This was a class of "smart kids," segregated once per week from the normal curriculum and put in their own classroom to do things beyond the scope of regular school work. Think of it as a once-per-week Montessori school.
The ages ranged from 8 to 13; pretty much the exact range of this article.
And I was using 2nd Edition, so class design was probably simpler, but the rules fundamentals were, uh... less consistent.
It took a while but everyone was able to grasp the basics of what was going on in-game. Characters got made (although they were largely "silly"), and I ran everyone through a short story. Most of the chafing was centred around my cheesy plot.
Response ranged from enthusiastic (several of them took advantage of the blank monster sheets I'd photocopied from the Monstrous Compendium) to indifferent (not sure what to make of it), to distaste and/or annoyance (bad plot, religous objections). I don't know if I'd call it a success, but I definitely have some appreciation for the job the man from the article is doing.
None of the peers I taught in that class expressed any interest in continuing with the hobby, and have not to this day, as far as I know.
Interestingly, in a similar program that I was in at a different school in a different town, one of the options for the First Years (Grade 4) year-long project was learning to play D&D. It would have been BECMI or 1st Edition back then.
The way it worked, was the graduating class got to choose what the upcoming First Years were to study. I was not so lucky, however, and our group did a year long study on the psychology of advertising. Worse yet, in our bitterness over not getting to do something "fun" like D&D (the class was unanimous in this), we chose "advertising" for the upcoming group. I regret that decision to this day.[/sblock]
Last edited:
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
I can only imagine that it was your teacher that made this so dire: the psychology of advertising can bring up some pretty astounding things if it's done right. It's basically "how people can be lied to and like it".
If you ask me, what D&D really needs is to have ready to play builds that aren't cack. Someone seems to let the "roleplay over rollplay" guy put one or two together, which always ruins it.
Last edited:
Crazy_Dragon
First Post
At my high school a group of us meets every other Wednesday (we get out at 2 PM and play to 6 PM). Basically I wanted to be a ranger, AKA bow user, quite perceptive and good nature skill so I went with an Elf Seeker. At level 3 I have 15 perception, 12 nature, 10 acrobatics, 10 insight, basically traps are irrelevant, ambushes fail and hidden treasure rooms are obvious.
Another member wanted to be a huge hulking "OMG I just dealt over 9000 damage," he went with a Goliath Barbarian.
The actor in the group (been doing acting for five years) went with a human battlemind who is retarded, but has a heart of gold and a high diplomacy. Playing KotS he thought there might be an orphanage in the castle so he knocked... he also managed to befriend Splug who has now become a NPC rogue who hides in the actor's backpack! (Oh yeah, since his character is an idiot he tanks)
The furry went with a Minotaur Avenger to dish out some divine smiting on behalf of Bahamut
The token black went with a Dragonborn Paladin because being encased in steel appealed to him, also he doesn't understand how to tank
The group is a pretty funny mix with I a heavily Catholic Indian (also half white), a Mexican who is half white, a tall white actor, a furry who is half German and half Portuguese and a black who "acts white". The dynamic consists of epic lulz.
Another member wanted to be a huge hulking "OMG I just dealt over 9000 damage," he went with a Goliath Barbarian.
The actor in the group (been doing acting for five years) went with a human battlemind who is retarded, but has a heart of gold and a high diplomacy. Playing KotS he thought there might be an orphanage in the castle so he knocked... he also managed to befriend Splug who has now become a NPC rogue who hides in the actor's backpack! (Oh yeah, since his character is an idiot he tanks)
The furry went with a Minotaur Avenger to dish out some divine smiting on behalf of Bahamut
The token black went with a Dragonborn Paladin because being encased in steel appealed to him, also he doesn't understand how to tank
The group is a pretty funny mix with I a heavily Catholic Indian (also half white), a Mexican who is half white, a tall white actor, a furry who is half German and half Portuguese and a black who "acts white". The dynamic consists of epic lulz.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
Actually, the teacher was pretty darn good, and despite going into it thinking that it was going to be boring, I did really enjoy the course material, even young as I was. Lessons from that year stayed with me and have shaped my outlook in immeasurable ways.
I only say that it was unfortunate in that the other option was D&D. Though, I got into D&D regardless, but might not otherwise have looked so deeply into the evils of ads had I not been subjected to it in school.
Heh, I was taking some poetic license, I guess.
I mostly agree.
I think that roleplay is important (it's kind of the point of the game, after all), but there is no reason why the default builds can't synergize both.
Approaching class, race and most importantly feat design from that philosophy would have saved us from much of the bloat we're now up to our proverbial necks in.
TikkchikFenTikktikk
First Post
To answer the authors question: yes, teaching chess to kids is saner than teaching D&D to kids. I've done both, I speak from experience.
In chess the pieces and board are very much finite. While the finer points of tactics and strategy are complex, moving your pieces around and capturing opposing pieces is easy (except for the $#@%ing knight; but even the knight takes at most five lessons to teach, IME).
D&D is by its nature and its multiple creator's intention damn near infinite. Each "piece" has almost infinite variety. There is no fixed board. The rules come down to "try something and the 'referee' will decide whether it works or not dependent on politics rather that almost concrete rules evolved over years.
Let me take a few points one-by-one:
"One of the least fun aspects of playing with kids is character creation. ... It’s not that kids can’t comprehend those rules. It’s just that they’re far too eager to start killing monsters and gaining superpowers to concentrate on dry mechanics."
You're doing it wrong.
I think the author is a rules lawyer, and rules lawyers are the worst and least fun thing that can happen to D&D.
What else can I say? If you think kids don't know how to create imaginary characters into which they pour their spirit and create drama and adventure, you are not observing and interacting with kids properly.
Honestly, this one paragraph published by the official vendor of D&D depressed the hell out of me.
This one paragraph exemplifies everything that I find the "wrong way" to play D&D. I really try very hard to accomidate multiple play styles (I hate sandboxes and love playing in a narrative/railroad, but do not begrudge sandboxers) but this just strikes me as very, very, very wrong. Play a boardgame.
Sorry, moving on. I did read the whole thing.
The Arabic Cthulhu was awesome. Why wouldn't you give 9-repeating to every score once you were told higher numbers for attributes are better? Why wouldn't every kid want to play Orcus? That's not a problem. That is not a problem! My daughter is playing a dwarf wizard with a wolf animal companion. That is not a problem. She just might encounter the djinni from Disney's Alladin while exploring the Ghost Tower with my Sareth. That is not a problem.
Has this writer read the 4E DMG? Consider "yes."
His coverage of racial traits is well done.
Skills and feats should not be brought up with kids younger than high school. Not because they are hard to understand but because the benefits are so marginal. I am not a fan of either in D&D, feats especially. He wisely skips feats. Skills get a marginal pass from me, but only because they usually only reflect a character's highest attributes anyway. Just say a character gets +5 to attribute checks using their two highest attributes if you have to say anything, clarify what kind of checks use which attributes, and be done with it. But usually skills only come up when a DM asks for them. Instead of the DM asking "what skill do you use" or "roll a <skill> check" the DM should ask 'what do you do' and then convert that to a skill and ask for a check.
He handles equipment well enough. (I'd just say here's your weapon, armor, and miscellany given the background you or I just worked through.)
"Disappearing XP"
XP **does** disappear as you go. Once you gain a level, all XP you've previously gained is worthless. Once you have the 1,000 XP you needed to hit level 2 it is worthless. You only need worry about the next XP you need to hit level 3. This isn't an example of the kid's innocence, it's an example of "adults" depravity.
Attack Powers
Uffda. Ask the kids how they want to confront the threat or problem facing them. Explain that given their class they can try what they want and likely fail, or try something else that is closer to what fits their class and will likely succeed. Why, the f***, are you trying to run kids as a tiefling warlock through their first D&D game?
The first gamers to play D&D were ridiculously smart wargamer geeks. But the first versions of the rules for almost a decade restricted options to fighting man, wizard, cleric, or thief and human, tall thin smart human, short thick tough human, or shortish thickish fun human. Not because the players were stupid or ignorant but because those roles have universal appeal to humans given our evolution. Go with that.
"Dungeons & Dragons is a roleplaying game. Storytelling and moral choices have equal, if not greater, importance to killing monsters and gaining levels."
OK. Sounds good.
"Explain that class is not really a job or a personality, but rather a set of game abilities."
Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
No! No! No! No!
Wait. The rest of this section makes sense except for that sentence. And the prologue should be true to its name and go first. Why would you develop a character concept after you've developed the character. That doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't you imagine a character you want to play and then make the number and rules work towards that?
A dry erase board a necessity? I barely use even paper at all when teaching chess or D&D.
This strikes me as one of the most wrong articles about D&D I've ever read. It's all the more upsetting because it's targeted at children. While I agree with many of his suggestions, on the most important ones I disagree vehemently.
The most instructive thing about this article, IMHO, is it demonstrates that WotC hasn't seriously considered the best way to teach new customers to play D&D and it is happy to outsource such a critical customer acquisition touch point to amateur volunteers.
In chess the pieces and board are very much finite. While the finer points of tactics and strategy are complex, moving your pieces around and capturing opposing pieces is easy (except for the $#@%ing knight; but even the knight takes at most five lessons to teach, IME).
D&D is by its nature and its multiple creator's intention damn near infinite. Each "piece" has almost infinite variety. There is no fixed board. The rules come down to "try something and the 'referee' will decide whether it works or not dependent on politics rather that almost concrete rules evolved over years.
Let me take a few points one-by-one:
"One of the least fun aspects of playing with kids is character creation. ... It’s not that kids can’t comprehend those rules. It’s just that they’re far too eager to start killing monsters and gaining superpowers to concentrate on dry mechanics."
You're doing it wrong.
I think the author is a rules lawyer, and rules lawyers are the worst and least fun thing that can happen to D&D.
What else can I say? If you think kids don't know how to create imaginary characters into which they pour their spirit and create drama and adventure, you are not observing and interacting with kids properly.
Honestly, this one paragraph published by the official vendor of D&D depressed the hell out of me.
This one paragraph exemplifies everything that I find the "wrong way" to play D&D. I really try very hard to accomidate multiple play styles (I hate sandboxes and love playing in a narrative/railroad, but do not begrudge sandboxers) but this just strikes me as very, very, very wrong. Play a boardgame.
Sorry, moving on. I did read the whole thing.
The Arabic Cthulhu was awesome. Why wouldn't you give 9-repeating to every score once you were told higher numbers for attributes are better? Why wouldn't every kid want to play Orcus? That's not a problem. That is not a problem! My daughter is playing a dwarf wizard with a wolf animal companion. That is not a problem. She just might encounter the djinni from Disney's Alladin while exploring the Ghost Tower with my Sareth. That is not a problem.
Has this writer read the 4E DMG? Consider "yes."
His coverage of racial traits is well done.
Skills and feats should not be brought up with kids younger than high school. Not because they are hard to understand but because the benefits are so marginal. I am not a fan of either in D&D, feats especially. He wisely skips feats. Skills get a marginal pass from me, but only because they usually only reflect a character's highest attributes anyway. Just say a character gets +5 to attribute checks using their two highest attributes if you have to say anything, clarify what kind of checks use which attributes, and be done with it. But usually skills only come up when a DM asks for them. Instead of the DM asking "what skill do you use" or "roll a <skill> check" the DM should ask 'what do you do' and then convert that to a skill and ask for a check.
He handles equipment well enough. (I'd just say here's your weapon, armor, and miscellany given the background you or I just worked through.)
"Disappearing XP"
XP **does** disappear as you go. Once you gain a level, all XP you've previously gained is worthless. Once you have the 1,000 XP you needed to hit level 2 it is worthless. You only need worry about the next XP you need to hit level 3. This isn't an example of the kid's innocence, it's an example of "adults" depravity.
Attack Powers
Uffda. Ask the kids how they want to confront the threat or problem facing them. Explain that given their class they can try what they want and likely fail, or try something else that is closer to what fits their class and will likely succeed. Why, the f***, are you trying to run kids as a tiefling warlock through their first D&D game?
The first gamers to play D&D were ridiculously smart wargamer geeks. But the first versions of the rules for almost a decade restricted options to fighting man, wizard, cleric, or thief and human, tall thin smart human, short thick tough human, or shortish thickish fun human. Not because the players were stupid or ignorant but because those roles have universal appeal to humans given our evolution. Go with that.
"Dungeons & Dragons is a roleplaying game. Storytelling and moral choices have equal, if not greater, importance to killing monsters and gaining levels."
OK. Sounds good.
"Explain that class is not really a job or a personality, but rather a set of game abilities."
Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
No! No! No! No!
Wait. The rest of this section makes sense except for that sentence. And the prologue should be true to its name and go first. Why would you develop a character concept after you've developed the character. That doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't you imagine a character you want to play and then make the number and rules work towards that?
A dry erase board a necessity? I barely use even paper at all when teaching chess or D&D.
This strikes me as one of the most wrong articles about D&D I've ever read. It's all the more upsetting because it's targeted at children. While I agree with many of his suggestions, on the most important ones I disagree vehemently.
The most instructive thing about this article, IMHO, is it demonstrates that WotC hasn't seriously considered the best way to teach new customers to play D&D and it is happy to outsource such a critical customer acquisition touch point to amateur volunteers.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
I *wish* I could have done this in high school. D&D, and all RPGs, were *banned* at my high school. Devil worship and all that (small, rural town). Even being caught with books on your person while on school property was grounds for confiscation and detention.
There was literally nowhere you could go to play in that town (i.e. hell on earth). No local businesses or institutions with enough space to play would allow it on the premises, and the one business that sold the product was a tiny hole-in-the-wall shop that also did video game rentals and had a modest arcade. The public library had no conference room, so gaming violated the noise rules, but wouldn't have been allowed anyway (they refused to even stock TSR novels).
I know this sounds like an "uphill both ways in snow up to your neck whilst wearing pajamas" kind of story, but it's true!
Crazy_Dragon
First Post
Bummer, sounds like people in your town read Chick Tracts (so crazy it seems like a parody until you realize that just like Conservapedia they are actually serious, though Chick Tracks is less sane).
and I really don't find the whole life was worse in my day since my grandfather walked 5 miles to school and the same back, along with a full time job and tutoring his nine siblings... Followed up with peace marches with Gandhi, putting himself through college and bringing over his entire family (siblings and cousins too) and my grandmother's family also (likewise) to Canada.
Oh boy here comes the 70's/80's again!
Character Generation:
No, teach people to make a character, not generate the results of the character mechanics into a character sheet. You might as well be trying to teach them game design.
Kid: Why does this race get this when this one doesn't?
Teach them to make an idea for a character, then tell them some things that might fit, even if just limiting to race and class.
Like I would expect a kid to do as being explained half of this stuff, I glazed over at the rest of the article.
I'm sorry, I just don't agree teaching 4th edition is a way to start, especially not with all the stuff to try to memorize and think about.
Still the best way I have used to teach ANYONE D&D and its teamwork and other aspects for the most part, is start them trying to read no books on it, but talk with them about designing a character. Someone like Conan/Kull, Merlin, etc....get them into understanding the game is just there to help you make those things.
After they have a good idea what types of things they can come up with, then let them start working with the rules of the game. By then they should have played a few simple games to get the idea of how people play together and working as a group, etc.
Otherwise all that "other stuff" being taught as skills, is often shadowed by the game rules being taught if the foundation is in the game rules itself.
Do NOT use D&D to teach religion. This is between a "younger gamer" and his/her family to discuss, same as you wouldn't try to teach them about sex.
Change clerics if you need to where religion and gods isn't a part of the game, but leave some things for parents to take responsibility for as it is there's not everyone else's. Especially since you are dealing with 7-11 year olds, and you can only risk causing problems for them at home if you push a subject parents may not be ready to talk about with their kids.
Similar Threads
- Locked
