Would you play in this game?

[S'mon]

I think this is fine - probably a very good idea - for what you say you want to achieve. I think mechanical build + Theme + maybe PC name & some very short background notes is a good starting point for a roleplay-oriented player; you need of course to allow them plenty of scope to determine the actual personality of the PC.

Two suggestions:

1. You may want to build the PC in consultation with the player, rather than have them choose from a stack. This should give both of you exactly what you want. A big advantage of pregens is that you can easily build the campaign around them; choosing from a bunch of pregens with most going unused loses that advantage.

2. You should let the player tweak the mechanics of the PC if they want; drop a Power, choose a different Feat sort of thing. This lets them discard bits they don't like/don't use, and lets them get comfy with the PC.

Edit: I know that I've been very happy with the result of handing out two pregen human barbarian Fighter PCs to new players in my Southlands game. Getting such PCs into the game helped greatly with the Swords & Sorcery theme and avoided the 'menagerie' effect that occurs when everyone makes their own PC in isolation and chooses another weird race/class combo. One player kept his Fighter as-is, the other redid his heavily, from an E-Slayer to a MP2 Brawler, which has worked brilliantly so far. Both players kept the very brief background notes I gave them, while adding ideas of their own. By contrast the other PCs which were created by the players themselves are much more 'menagerie' types, they have taken far more effort on my part to integrate, not so satisfactorily, and while most are good (inc Megaera Saryth & Bulwark, guys ), in a couple other cases they haven't really interested or inspired me.

 

[Tuft]

Would not touch it with an eleven-foot pole.

I'd like my character's build A) evolving as part as the story and B) reflecting the character's personality.

"I'm good at handling animals, because during the siege of Azure Forest, I found this lost wolf cub, which I subsequently raised during the following adventures."

Or

"I had to brush up my diplomacy quickly, because we learned that we had to go to the Elven Court and handle the intrigues there."

When the events of the campaign puts their mark on your build, your character sheet becomes a memento; each number, feat, option a reminder of what happened; a part of the story. One reason why I dislike pre-determined optimal builds, besides them usually being boring specialized one-trick ponies.

 

[DragonLancer]

Sorry, but wouldn't appeal to me. Part of the enjoyment regardless of what type of player someone is, is making their own character with their own choices. I'd pass.

 

[Tuft]

If you are concerned about the characters' efficiency, why not nudge the monsters' level down a notch?

 

[Nagol]

Possibly with a few of caveats:

1) I trust the DM.

2) The first 10 levels see abbreviated play -- enough to reinforce the setting and my character's role in it, but no more than is warranted by the choices I get to make for the character. Say one session per level or so.

3) The DM's concept of optimised meets my concept of optimised. If my choices are going to be constrained becasue the DM wants to guarantee a minimum power level then I want veto because many DMs I've played with over the decades can't tell optiimisation/power from 'neat' ability/circumstantial power.

 

[Barastrondo]

The irony here is that what I'm after is people who don't care about the mechanics and can roleplay any character and yet the feedback I'm getting (not just from this thread) is so far that people wouldn't do it because mechanical decisions affect roleplaying choices.

Well, if you're doing it right, race and class and background aren't purely mechanical decisions. You may be pre-selecting the combination of race, class and theme for mechanical reasons, but that means that the opportunity to choose race, class and theme for roleplaying reasons is removed from people who would ordinarily like those choices. Some people pick a tiefling for fire resistance; others for that "devilish outsider" personality.

Unless I'm reading your post wrong, you're even choosing sex and name for the characters. Those are fewer choices for a player to make, too, and they aren't even mechanical. I don't think it's ironic to say "the DM making these choices for me means I have fewer choices to make."

Now all that said, sure, some players will probably go for it. Sometimes it's fun to roleplay what is essentially an assignment, to see if you can bring some style and individuality to a predetermined structure. It's not my cup of tea -- I prefer to be able to make all those choices myself, and wind up in situations and plot hooks that reflect my choices, because that engages me a lot more personally. Or at least, that's how I'd feel if it were a choice between playing an assigned character in a fairly mandated campaign and a self-designed character in an organic campaign. If I had the latter going on, I wouldn't be averse to trying out a few sessions of the former on the side.

 

[onedtwelve]

So, regardless of optimizing your own character, I'll say this--if you're going to have a "railroad" plot, you'd better have a darn good reason for the PCs to follow it. Don't penalize them when they go off track and don't try to encourage them with huge rewards when they follow the track, and if need be, change the track because it'll probably happen.

What I'm saying is, when the PC says "hey, I'm gonna go over to this place and try to talk this guy into doing this thing," and it follows your track, it shouldn't be because you've essentially forced the PC to do that, it should be the most logical thing for the PC to do. That PC has to want to follow the track, or it won't be fun for anyone.

As far as character optimization goes, advertise to new players. They won't be so uptight about it.

 

[the Jester]

Not for me, thanks.

I don't get to make my own character or choose how he grows? Dealbreaker.

Affirmed railroad? Dealbreaker.

I mean, I'm not really sure what the selling point is here. "It's an rpg, only without your input!"

I agree with the earlier comment that you should just write this as a story.

 

[korjik]

I wouldnt play it. I make my character and not getting to make and develop my character in both mechanics and roleplay aspects would take alot of the fun out of the game.

It is a very fine line tho. I dont really have a problem with the railroaded aspect of the idea, as long as it is done right. If the idea is explained out to me, I will go quite a ways to fit in, but I want to make the choices if this is going to be a fairly long term campaign.

As for the railroady bit: Everygame I have ever played, the players have been compulsive about exploding every trestle that the train has to go over. Namely, they always end up doing something that I completely did not expect. If I detail out the campaign to rail levels, it will leave the tracks at some point.

It is how you take this into account that will be the determiner of if the game will reach a conclusion. If you are too inflexible about how the players get from point A to B, then all they are is spectators and die rollers. All you have is a narrative wargame in that case.

Should you have the flexibility to let the players think they have a choice, then it sounds like it could be a fun game. Except for you wanting to make my character for me.

 

[onedtwelve]

You know, I think the biggest issue with this suggestion is the guided leveling. Choosing a pregen is a good way to go, but not being able to level it how you want is what could make or break this. If you let the players do the leveling, I don't see a big problem with this as long as you are flexible with your railroad as korjik suggested. What would you really lose by letting the players level up their own characters?