Sick of players planning out their characters

[wraithstrike]

RumpinRufus wrote:

+1 for allowing free retraining.

Taking risks with non-optimal feats, etc. is much less of a gamble if you know that if the going gets too tough, you can switch around a feat at your next level-up.

I agree with this. If he wants the players to not plan or plan less then he should make sure mistakes so painful. Now some players know the game well enough that they don't need to put anything on paper, so it won't really bother them to not write it down anyway.

[Froth Maw]

One of my characters that I made before I had a firm grasp of the rules wasn't set in stone, and he was kind of a mess. In the beginning he was built to grapple people and beat them up with a spiked gauntlet, but then I realized that that was terrible and switched to using a sword. Then I switched from barbarian to two handed fighter for the extra strength damage. Then the DM gave me a gauntlet that gave me a claw attack and I really wanted to use that, but I had already started building around using the sword. Then I got cornered by three wood golems and the final boss and died. If you don't plan, you'll probably die.
Also, as far as selling cool items and stuff goes, you should just give the characters stuff that they can use. My last barbarian would've turned his nose up at anything that wasn't an axe. Even his secondary was an axe, and he made all of his minions carry axes. That's not bad role-play, that's just a character who knows what he's about.

[Abraham spalding]

wraithstrike wrote:

RumpinRufus wrote:

+1 for allowing free retraining.

Taking risks with non-optimal feats, etc. is much less of a gamble if you know that if the going gets too tough, you can switch around a feat at your next level-up.

I agree with this. If he wants the players to not plan or plan less then he should make sure mistakes so painful. Now some players know the game well enough that they don't need to put anything on paper, so it won't really bother them to not write it down anyway.

Or just not tell him they did it. It's really nothing he has any means of controlling in any way shape or form.

[Rerednaw]

We had a +3 Cold Iron Evil Outsider Bane Longsword drop. My Paladin did not select it. In fact he hasn't selected ANY magical weapon that has dropped since level 1. The only one he accepted was the one he was given by a priest of his god who said "God X wants you to use this."

The other Paladin in the party, an Aasimar Oath of Vengeance of Ragathiel did not take it either. Because he is a reach build.

Another factor: my Paladin is small and 99% of all magical gear that drops in the game is for medium creatures.

I actually had not planned my character at all. But then he only gets very few feats so he always has 2 levels to think things over before decision time.

When I play casters though I do plan. Each of them has 3 or 4 types of spell lists if they memorize and their feats are more or less decided based on the school/domain they specialize in.

If they are spontaneous I usually have a focus or goal in mind, but I'm pretty loose on how I get there.

[Aleron]

Alexander Augunas wrote:

Maybe instead of lamenting that your players don't leave themselves room to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face, you should think about where the PCs would like to take their characters and design a story that will help the PCs realize their character concepts? Just a thought, but when someone complains of rigidity, its typically a two-way street. If you're a GM who is playing an AP, then you're also a hypocrite because in using an AP, you basically have your entire adventure mapped out in advance.

Personally, I'm a planner. I want my character to be cool and effective. However, the best laid plans of mice and men are often lead astray, and I usually end up revising my build based on my experiences in-game (Oh man, my GM is really pushing this "leader" thing. Maybe having Leadership would be a cool idea!) or mechanically (I keep getting wrecked by Fortitude saves. Maybe I should take a level in a class with a good Fortitude bonus). But having a build idea already in place helps me have a starting ground from where I am and where I want to be going.

Couldn't agree with this more.

Wanted to add, I don't get to play a lot honestly. I mostly DM, so it actually serves double duty for me. Most characters I have a rough outline from level 1 to 20. Those concepts that don't get played (which there are indeed many), usually end up as NPCs and villains in the games I run.

Having their stats and abilities roughly figured out at a glance from levels 1 to 20 makes it very easy to use them that way. Just select the level, toss them some npc equivalent gear and they're good to go. Not to mention it tends to produce more dynamic characters I find with more varied emotions and motivations than I would give them otherwise.

[kikidmonkey]

I plan my characters all the way up to level 20 and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, hehehehahahahaaaMWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHa *cough*

[Artemis Moonstar]

I'm annoyed when people plot out every aspect of their character from 1-20, and take it to actual play while sticking to it rigidly.

I'm fine when people plot out every aspect of their character from 1-20 as a 'proof of concept'.

I flip-flop between: going full organic with a general theme (if I'm playing a dragon blooded sorcerer, I'm going to plan on taking whatever dragon related stuff I can get as I level up nag dabbit); or planning a concept from 1-20 with a lot of wiggle room and space for more 'organic' options.

My fiance prefers pure organics herself, though she's got no problem with planners.

We both have an extreme distaste for pure munchkins (the rules-twisting, detrimental-mechanic-ignoring, "what kind of AC does cleavage give? What if I just left my top off?", "you can't do 23595 DPR at level 1? You suck, get out my game!" kind. Though we don't have a problem with fantasy armor, as long as it's visual effect only, lol).

[Grokk_Bloodfist]

I always try to leave in a few open feats slows to adapt. I'll flex a fair bit with my build but I definitely plan it out. Sometimes, it's the only way to be effective.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Actually I think planning out your character make a lot more sense than just taking anything that catches your interest. Most successful people figure out what they want to do early and spend a lot of time preparing and training to achieve their goals. This happens in real life too, not just games. You don’t just decided to become a professional athlete or a nuclear physicist by accident. It takes years of dedication and sacrifice to achieve high levels of competency.

Do you want to play someone who is supposed to be the best at what he does, or do you want to play the person who dabbles in everything but is good at nothing. Personally I would rather play Rambo than Ralph the mouth.

[StDrake]

I don't plan my characters out much, but hell I'd prefer to. It might be annoying when it gets to one extreme, but its just as bad when it gets to another and I simply don't know what to take when the level comes. Too many options, not enough resources, and then if I even limit the choices there's always the question of "when will which of these be most needed?" and I risk ending up with a character that stinks until level 20 which it will never get due to issues with time for playing and group coherence.

Want to swap problems? I would consider it.

[Nyaa]

Reebo Kesh wrote:

Thoughts?

I'm disappointed that in 60 posts nobody mentioned Tempest Stormwind.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Well, to be fair, I did kinda reference it here cheekily.

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

...Some of my best roleplayers are optimally mechanic'd….

[richard develyn]

I like to plan my characters well ahead, possibly up to 20th level, including equipment.

It's the equipment part, actually, which I find the most useful, because it tells me whether I should think about keeping or selling the loot which we find in our adventures.

I don't see anything wrong with this from an RP pov either. I plan my real life in much the same way - particularly education and career - so why shouldn't an RP character do the same. Of course, things rarely go to plan, but having an idea about your direction seems like a good thing to me.

Richard

[Neo2151]

Reebo Kesh wrote:

Are there any players out there who do not plan out their characters level progression?

I've grown tired of players who have every skill and feat planned to 20th level. It leaves no scope for the character to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face.

A common example is the "I must wield one type of weapon and commit all my feats to it!" then a nice piece of gear is found and they PCs just sell it.

I'd love a game system where you don't know what you get at the next level, of course this would only work once per player per class.

Maybe a more gestalt approach would work. You build a base character who can fight and as she progresses in levels she seeks out things she'd like to do - become a mage, a rogue, join a church etc

Thoughts?

Personally? I'd love to play a character like this. To totally ignore any sort of planning/meta-gaming/etc and just "roll with the punches" when it comes to build decisions.

The problem, is that Pathfinder is HORRIBLE for this kind of play. Absolutely awful.
There are literally thousands of really bad character options in this game, and a small handful of good ones. If you don't pre-plan your character, you're likely going to either spend WAY too much time leveling up, or picking awful options because, at the time, they seemed like a good idea.

[Hayato Ken]

I once witnessed some players who did not plan their characters.
That was really bad on several levels:
-The characters had no real character concept besides being an alcoholic or something similar useful.
-One evolved around a ring of invisibility after some time, meaning he was invisible most of the time but did not much else.
-Same character also a 3PP race, what made him a tree and monk.
So there was an invisible tree who had no plan what to do in combat or most other situations. While this made for good slapstick, the player was not happy after some time, because he was not good at anything.
-Another was a ranger that could not decide between ranged and melee, but didn´t want to "plan" a switch hitter either. After some levels he really sucked.

What is also to say, AP´s are quite often very thematic, focusing different types of foes and challenges in different books.
"Growing" around that would very often mean players adapt after level up, go to the next place and have a bunch of useless abilities and gear, which let´s them suck and become frustrated.
As a GM, i always try to avoid something like that.
Better the players know what they are doing, are into the game, have fun and be effective. I even go so far as to tell them what could be usefull and if i see someone going a route that will end in being useless or not able to do a lot, i tell them and ask them to change it.
If the difficulty is too low, you can always raise it a little afterwards.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Reebo Kesh wrote:

Are there any players out there who do not plan out their characters level progression?

I've grown tired of players who have every skill and feat planned to 20th level. It leaves no scope for the character to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face.

A common example is the "I must wield one type of weapon and commit all my feats to it!" then a nice piece of gear is found and they PCs just sell it.

I'd love a game system where you don't know what you get at the next level, of course this would only work once per player per class.

Maybe a more gestalt approach would work. You build a base character who can fight and as she progresses in levels she seeks out things she'd like to do - become a mage, a rogue, join a church etc

Thoughts?

I agree, but it is the way this hobby has gone for a lot of players. System mastery is so important, they plan it out to be sure (and to make sure they get what they want).

Not everyone is onboard with this though, I only plan a few levels ahead (only have so much time to commit to it).

[DM Under The Bridge]

Hayato Ken wrote:

I once witnessed some players who did not plan their characters.

That was really bad on several levels:
-The characters had no real character concept besides being an alcoholic or something similar useful.
-One evolved around a ring of invisibility after some time, meaning he was invisible most of the time but did not much else.
-Same character also a 3PP race, what made him a tree and monk.
So there was an invisible tree who had no plan what to do in combat or most other situations. While this made for good slapstick, the player was not happy after some time, because he was not good at anything.
-Another was a ranger that could not decide between ranged and melee, but didn´t want to "plan" a switch hitter either. After some levels he really sucked.

What is also to say, AP´s are quite often very thematic, focusing different types of foes and challenges in different books.
"Growing" around that would very often mean players adapt after level up, go to the next place and have a bunch of useless abilities and gear, which let´s them suck and become frustrated.
As a GM, i always try to avoid something like that.
Better the players know what they are doing, are into the game, have fun and be effective. I even go so far as to tell them what could be usefull and if i see someone going a route that will end in being useless or not able to do a lot, i tell them and ask them to change it.
If the difficulty is too low, you can always raise it a little afterwards.

If an invisible tree monk does nothing in combat, does anyone notice it is a failure?

[pickin_grinnin]

I generally come up with a probably game plan for feats/skills/etc. for the first three character levels. I sometimes make notes on things that would be good to take after that, but I'm adaptable and am more than happy to change things to fit the circumstances.

Unfortunately, Pathfinder tends to reward people who minmax/"optimize", and that in turn usually requires planning things out to the nth degree. For me, that's a drawback of Pathfinder. For others, it's the main reason they like the system.

[Devilkiller]

I think that the advice to allow retraining might go a long way towards helping the OP get players to follow the "leads" he throws out as a DM. I mean, if you can retrain feats then a PC with Weapon Specialization (longsword) who finds a powerful magic bohemian earspoon which is the hereditary weapon of the emperors of Bazoo might be more likely to embrace the story item. The later on the DM can reveal that the PC is the true heir to the vacant Throne of Bazoo and must use the earspoon in his or her to overthrow the evil Viceroy who has ruled in the Lost Emperor's place for a hundred years. Of course the Imperial line is possessed of strong magic, so the PC might want to awaken his or her true powers by taking some levels in Magus or even Sorcerer and Dragon Disciple.

I suppose that on some level retraining might help turn "Darn, my PC isn't working out as I'd hoped" and "I wish I had prognosticated the right feats to take so I could follow the character development quest the DM thinks my character needs since his creative ideas are apparently better than mine" into, "Wouldn't it be cool if..?" Of course some players would simply plan out how to best use retraining from levels 1-20 to take feats or levels which are useful at the point when they're taken but then get discarded later.

[Eltacolibre]

Frankly unless you have a very weird and specific build, most feats you would ever need is done by level 11. Yeah wizards and the likes have spell perfection (level 15) but whatever, still a specific build.

I don't plan everything but saying that I don't have a plan would be a lie. On my cleric, I have 8 different spell lists prepared, ranging from when we are casually traveling overland, dungeon exploration, dealing with a lot of undead etc...

As a DM, I have seen some of my players plan out everything, while others adapt a little more organically. It frankly, doesn't matter at the end of the day, as long as the person is having fun, the rest I don't care. Sometime when they ask me, for what option would be better, I give them some advice, now if they want to follow it or not, not my problem.

[Brother Fen]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

If an invisible tree monk does nothing in combat, does anyone notice it is a failure?

Well done.

[Senko]

Personally I tend to plan out my character's and look on it as job planning. I want to get into job X When I grow up what do I need to do it? There's still usually room to swap out q feat or the like if need be and I've loads of room for responsive growth in skill points. Oh I've been leading the army against the invading demons I'll spend a few points in profession leadership. Oh I planned to take knowledge sailing but they stuck me in the galley ok profession cooking it is. I've realised while I can tell you what happened 200 years ago last Tuesday in another dimension I don't know what's down the street perhaps I should invest a point in knowledge local to explore the city.

[Anguish]

Reebo Kesh wrote:

I've grown tired of players who have every skill and feat planned to 20th level. It leaves no scope for the character to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? Yes, definitely.

There is one ultimate goal in this game: have fun. If your players plan their PCs several levels in advance, you can rest assured they're doing it because that's what they want to do.

There's no need to be a control-freak DM and worry about what's going on at the other side of the table. As long as there's no balance problem forcing excess work on you, as long as there are no social problems with players who make PCs that clash, as long as the players are having fun, you should just focus on the huge toybox of bad guys and plot elements you've got.

You you can't have fun because your players are planning their characters, something somewhere is wrong.

[foolsjourney]

I build my world fully sandbox, and adventures aren't built around CR and killing things, and there are no adventure paths. That makes things so much more flexible for me to give out free feats, skill ranks or proficiencies. I let them plan their journey in advance- as others have said, for some classes it can be necessary- but build in incentives to try other things. If the cleric picks up the longsword lying around and dispatches those foes with it, I may well give them it as a free proficiency in the next level up. If they take off their armour in order to creep into somewhere, I will give them some stealth skill points as reward for their success.

That way, they get the chance to still play their linear character exactly as they planned it, with no in game penalty, but they can choose to take chances and get some benefits that aren't gamebreaking, but are a kind of roleplaying loot.

[kestral287]

Artemis Moonstar wrote:

I'm annoyed when people plot out every aspect of their character from 1-20, and take it to actual play while sticking to it rigidly.

I'm fine when people plot out every aspect of their character from 1-20 as a 'proof of concept'.

I flip-flop between: going full organic with a general theme (if I'm playing a dragon blooded sorcerer, I'm going to plan on taking whatever dragon related stuff I can get as I level up nag dabbit); or planning a concept from 1-20 with a lot of wiggle room and space for more 'organic' options.

My fiance prefers pure organics herself, though she's got no problem with planners.

We both have an extreme distaste for pure munchkins (the rules-twisting, detrimental-mechanic-ignoring, "what kind of AC does cleavage give? What if I just left my top off?", "you can't do 23595 DPR at level 1? You suck, get out my game!" kind. Though we don't have a problem with fantasy armor, as long as it's visual effect only, lol).

Some of my favorite characters started as nothing more than proof-of-concept designs.

Also some of my least favorite characters, but those just never get to be played. And usually wind up with their files deleted eventually.

Nooot sure why the munchkins came up; the two are not mutually inclusive in the least. But hey.

[graystone]

Rerednaw wrote:

Another factor: my Paladin is small and 99% of all magical gear that drops in the game is for medium creatures.

Iron Lord's Transforming Slivers can help with this.

[tony gent]

Just about all the players i game with do not plan out there characters in any great detail at best we think a couple of levels ahead but its not set in stone
Example my fighter in carrion crown is a spear and shield user and has been since first level, however we picked up a potent bastard sword which i liked so next level i took the exotic weapon feat bastard sword .
She's still better with the spear in general combat but now has an extra option in combat

[Gwen Smith]

Reebo Kesh wrote:

Are there any players out there who do not plan out their characters level progression?

I've grown tired of players who have every skill and feat planned to 20th level. It leaves no scope for the character to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face.

If you're the GM, the first thing you should do is tell your players your expectations before the campaign starts. If you seek out players who build "responsively" or encourage players to do that, you will probably get better results.

But most importantly, the players have to know/trust that there will be experiences that will lead to growth and character development. As a GM, you have to work with the players and find out what they hope their characters will develop into so you can plan encounters that way.

And as other people suggested, allowing players to retrain will help them stay more flexible.

Reebo Kesh wrote:

A common example is the "I must wield one type of weapon and commit all my feats to it!" then a nice piece of gear is found and they PCs just sell it.

That's really not a good example.

First, of all the character choices, what weapon they wield is often the most structured. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are just the tip of the iceberg. The list of feats and abilities that require Weapon Focus as a prerequisite or apply to a specific chosen weapon is staggering: Close Quarters Thrower, Point Blank Master, Improved Critical, Crusader's Flurry, Dazzling Display...
If you want to increase weapon flexibility, you'll have to waive the requirements for a long list of feats and class abilities.

Second, even without any kind of weapon focus/weapon specialization/whatever, there is a completely separate feat tree for ranged fighters and melee fighters. In one campaign, two martial characters were a medium two-handed (any weapon) build and a small ranged (any weapon) build. Oh, sure, they could switch hit, but they would lose 3/4ths of their abilities when they did. Both the characters did change up weapons as cool ones landed, but they really had to stay in the ranged-vs-melee categories to be useful at all.

Third, most classes can use only a small selection of weapons, and the size of the weapon matters. If your only medium characters are a wizard and a monk, you can't complain if the PCs keep selling all the medium martial weapons you give them.

Fourth, the choice of what weapon to wield is often more character personality than mechanics (or "what's the best gear"). Several people mentioned in-character choices that drive them to adopt or avoid different weapons. Some other reasons are
- A Cleric/Inquisitor/Paladin/Warpriest wielding their deity's favored weapon will probably choose it over any "nice piece of gear"
- A Kensai Magus loses a number of class abilities if he strays from his favored weapon: should the character lower their AC by 4 just so they can use this shiny new weapon that does more damage?
- A bladebound Magus will never trade his weapon, because his weapon is alive.

Fifth, does it really matter? What difference does it make if the PCs sell "a nice piece of gear"? The GM knows the character's weapon choices/proficiencies/feats/etc. Why not just give the PCs a weapon that one of them can use instead of complaining that they keep selling what you give them?

Reebo Kesh wrote:

I'd love a game system where you don't know what you get at the next level, of course this would only work once per player per class.

Have you tried Hero System. You have no preset levels and classes: you just build out your character however you want by spending "hero points" to buy new abilities. Instead of "leveling", you earn more hero points as you play, which you can spend in any way the GM allows. It's a completely free-form system, which lets you grow characters very organically. You can either do small increases to exiting powers (grow and evolve) or ask the GM to stage some kind of life-altering event so you can change your character more dramatically (I've had characters die and come back to life with a completely different set of powers--whatever works for you and the GM).

It sounds like that might be more suited to your preferred play style.

Reebo Kesh wrote:

Maybe a more gestalt approach would work. You build a base character who can fight and as she progresses in levels she seeks out things she'd like to do - become a mage, a rogue, join a church etc.

A lot of players include these kinds of things in their level 1-20 plans. For example, my Zen Archer got kicked out of the monastery for "anger management" issues after 6 levels and switched to Barbarian for level 7-8. Then she calmed down a bit and started to focus only on the bow, which was the only part of her monastic training that she actually liked, and switched to Fighter (Weapon Master) at level 9, which was my plan from level 1. If they do plan out these kinds of changes from level 1, is that somehow worse then doing them organically as they level up?

I'm wondering if the "planning" aspect is what's really bothering you. Could it be that they keep too strictly to a plan in the face of contraindicating events? Or that they don't seem to have any in-character reasons for their plan?

It seems like you're having problems with several players who happen to plan their characters, but that the actual problem isn't caused by the fact that they plan. I'd go back through the issues in my mind and make sure that "planning" is really the underlying problem. Because no matter how much time you spend solving a problem, if it's the wrong problem, nothing will improve.

[Gregory Connolly]

I am one of the people who plans out builds in advance. I am also one of the people who rarely follows the plan. The process of making the plan tells me most of what I need to know about following the plan. My PFS Wizard has max ranks of disable device and perception with a smattering of ranks in other rogue skills. This was not in the plan at all, but after being stuck in enough parties that couldn't pick a lock he learned how. At the same time I didn't vary the part about getting 7d6+2 selective sickening fireballs in choice of elements at 5th level, because that is what the character is designed to do. I try to figure out what a character's shtick is and then leave the rest of the build open to allow the character to grow.

[The Dragon]

Hmm. There's also the aspect that casters are more likely to "get away" with bad choices than warrior types, so long as they don't multiclass.

Powerwise, the difference between a planned wizard and an unplanned wizard is... not that big really.

A fighter can wind up in a really tight spot if he decides to adapt to the loot he recieves, and the foes he faces. Examples include taking blind-fight, a second weapon focus when you get a +3 sword instead of your +1 axe and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, a wizard who takes the wrong feats, or even blows all but 20% of his skill points on untrained skills will still come out pretty all right so long as his int is higher than 15 to start out.

The difference between,
1W - Scribe Scroll
1 - Spell Specialization(burning hands)
1H - Spell Focus(Evocation)
3 - Improved Initiative
5W - Spell Penetration
5 - Intensified Spell

And
1W - Scribe Scroll
1 - Spell Focus(Evocation)
1H - Spell Specialization(burning hands)
3 - Great Fortitude
5W - Craft Magic Arms and Armor
5 - Dodge

Is honestly not that big of a deal.

[leo1925]

graystone wrote:

Rerednaw wrote:

Another factor: my Paladin is small and 99% of all magical gear that drops in the game is for medium creatures.

Iron Lord's Transforming Slivers can help with this.

What is that?

[Nearyn]

@OP: Yes, there are players who don't plan their progression.

I do not agree with the idea that players planning progression is hurting the game or in some fashion lessening potential for growth.

-Nearyn

[Zhayne]

Ultimately, this boils down to, I think, the level system. You have limited resources, because the game has hard limits on what you can acquire, and when you can acquire them. That, by its nature, encourages planning, forethought, and efficiency.

I assume most people here are familiar with the idea of only having (small amount of money) left, with a lot of time coming before getting more. That's what this is like. You have to use it judiciously, or you're in deep trouble.

The aforementioned HERO System works much better for this, not only because it's free-form point-based, but because it doesn't pretend that all characters of equal 'level' (points) are going to be similar power level 'just because' (aka 'The CR System'), plus that means it doesn't ramp up the power levels like PF does, in spurts and fits.

[Dracoknight]

I have the feeling that complaining about "planning" is basically: "Stoping playing the game your way, my way is the one not hurting the game!"

Also: a character not planned out is most likely going to be a generally nobody, no planned background, no planned plot hooks, no motivation... this is a part of the planning as much as the mechanics.

Even worse a Sorcerer or a Oracle without planning is stuck is rather subpar or even useless spells. See the scenario that one adventure is undead heavy so they pick up some anti-undead spells only to have the entire rest of the campagin with no undeads or undeads with too high saves to make the spells useful.

Spellcasters for the most part REQUIRE planning, especially those with limited spellpool.

Planning doesnt hurt the game, however the opposite is true: NO planning hurts the game more than anything in my opinion.

[Friend of the Dork]

There is nothing wrong to want a game with more organic PCs. Some people here think it's blasphemy to have a game where your character won't find the butterfly sword you want specialization in, or not being able to play any build in the minmax forums.

The trick is to tell the players beforehand to not rely on overspecialization, and that not all concepts will work ahead of time. Planning is allowed, but may be a waste of time. That way most players make chars that have more optiond - 13 int and dex fighters opens up a chain of feats that might be useful, rather than sinking everything in str. Taking feats and skills according to what one encounters can be helpful as recurring enemies can be dealth with more easily. My players usually mix it up.. plan a concept and needed feats, but change some and leave room for organic growth.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

It depends on the game and the system.

Some of my favorite PCs were not pre-planned at all. They may have had a concept and some general ideas planned in advance but their personalities and the story took them places I didn't expect, and their mechanics reflected this. Most of these characters were in other systems than d20, like V:tM, L5R, Ars Magica, etc. Character advancement is a bit more fluid in these systems than d20.

In most d20 games I have a basic idea what I want to do from the get go but I don't make definitive decisions about how to do it until I level.

[phantom1592]

I think a lot of it depends on the type of personality the PLAYER has.

Some people are more organized and list driven... some shoot from the hip and go and with the flow. All boils down to whether you fold your underwear into tiny squares before placing them in your drawer, or just shove them in.

Neither is wrong, and neither really has any bearing on the game. Some personalities just rub people the wrong way.

[sunshadow21]

I think some sort of planning is necessary, but how much and of what kind will vary by campaign, group, and player. While I don't see the point in planning out every skill point for 20 levels, I also don't agree with those that do zero planning of any kind whatsoever. Even a good background to drive the character and give them focus is a type of planning, and every character should have at least a solid basic background and a decently made personality to start from.

I usually come up with a solid background that give the character a general direction that works with the campaign idea the DM has presented, work up a general list of mechanical options that will work with both the campaign and the character background, and than work out a rough idea for the major choices I have to make in the next several levels. It gives enough focus to provide guidance while leaving the actual details loose enough to adapt to changes in the campaign, party, or character story.

[JiCi]

Can you really blame your players from planning ahead? Even then... EVERYTHING you do can throw a wrench at their plans.
- Rolling ability scores can change their plans.
- Getting KILLED change their plans.
- Getting REINCARNED change their plans.
- Getting CURSED change their plans.
- Getting AFFLICTED change their plans; gaining a level while having an ability damage can screw everything. You can't select that new feat because right now you DON'T have the high enough score.
- Getting CAPTURED change their plans; you're striped for your gear for 3 levels, due to a scenario and have to make your way out using whatever you have.

A sorcerer is allowed to change spells known according to the situation, just like a fighter can change its weapon according to the situation. If you know that the scenario will have aquatic environments, the sorcerer might go for Water Breathing and Fredom of Movement instead of other spells, just like the fighter might go for ranged weapons if the scenario keeps, or made it clear, that the enemies are flying constantly and are rarely seen in melee.

Adapting to the situation will less likely get you killed than sticking to a plan and having to deal with its shortcomings.

I see nothing wrong for players to plan ahead... but in the end, THEY have to be cautious of what awaits them. Nothing always goes... according to plan, afterall.

[Shiroi]

I wrote a 1-20 progression for my gnome mindchemist alchemist. A new player, a rogue focused on assassination and prestiging shadow dancer later, a very unorganized and unoptimized character with a new player, joined our party in the third session. I dropped 5 feats from my list to invest in the alchemists poison suite, so I can help his character to make the best use of his design. I've planned how my character, who personally doesn't use or particularly like poisons, will realize that for the food of accomplishing the parties goals poisons will become a part of their lives. He's the only one who can pull off making a decent poison so he starts learning how to work with animal toxins and such, investing 5 whole feats into making the perfect poison for someone else. To get this dubious benefit, I dropped point blank shot, splash mastery, rapid throw, weapon focus, and twf.

Just because I plan ahead, doesn't mean I'm not willing to change my plan if the plot pushes in a different direction. If for some reason I lose my alchemist lab (again) I'll be taking levels in a different class to show how I learned to survive without my bombs and extracts. (Probably fighter, use a sling, take point blank shot as the bonus feat because it works with my bombs later when I get a new kit).

I don't plan skill points, my first few levels are rounding myself out to be trained in every trained only skill and to have a single rank in every class skill. After that, I'll choose skill ranks based on what he uses often, things he would get better at by story logic.

[Morgen]

What do you expect people to do, roll dice to randomly select everything?

It's a game. You're always are supposed to come up with some kind of plan or strategy for the future if you want to do well at a game. That's true for every game from the playground to professional leagues. Even games that seem to be entirely random have large amounts of strategy to them.

Even more specifically Role-playing games in general are games where the reward for playing it (beyond obvious social rewards) is that your character gets more powerful in some manner. The plan for the character starts at first level just by picking a class in Pathfinder.

So there are going to be very few players in this game who aren't going to know what to do after they take their first level of wizard or fighter. They've already made up their minds by making that first choice about a lot of things that need to be thought about for the future.

If you want people to keep gear it needs to be useful to them, not just cool or interesting.

[JiCi]

Morgen wrote:

What do you expect people to do, roll dice to randomly select everything?

For classes? No...

For races? Hell yeah!

Think about it: The PCs start in an alchemist's laboratory as guinea pigs for his maddening experiments. The PCs free themselves, but not without "permanent" damage.

Make a table using each and every single quality and traits and have players roll the dice 5 times.

Enjoy you new mutated form people XD

High-level healing spells could restore the original physical bodies though, as a mean to get rid of that.

[Taren Greymoore]

So many people here have said things that essentially are saying that the players should have fun and be able to build their chars how they want, to have fun. What I notice people forget is that the DM also needs to have fun. Which means that sometimes yes players are playing "badfunwrong" for that game. Players are no more important than the DM as far as who has more of a right to have fun; it should be a balance. But players of late seem to forget that; and think the DM is just their for their benefit.

Players that think they must optimize everything, need to learn that no, you actually do not. It's like an arms race, if players constantly make characters as optimized as possible, the DM has to do the same with NPCs to balance it. Which can just turn a story flat; as certain NPC concepts become obsolete and NPC will become more cookie cutter.

The inverse can be true if a DM always optimizes NPCs; but then players can also learn that you don't need to fill every single character hole. Flaws define a character more than their strength & abilities ever will. Story isn't about winning, it's about having fun and being part of a good & fun story.

As for preplanning builds and growing from story, there is a difference between planning out the entire build and having an idea of a character concept. I think a point he (the thread starter) is trying to make is that say your character has to spend time on a ship at sea, and even goes through the motions of learning it; but then never actually take any skills to reflect that. They aren't interacting or being influence by their environment, they are just going through the motions. It is also a bad habit of metagaming of knowing things ICly without having the actual skills to reflect it; and then act like the DM is the bad guy for enforcing it. And claiming that they experienced it ICly so shouldn't have too, except that's exactly what skills and stats and abilities are, reflecting what you've done ICly.

There is enough leeway in general character advancement to allow someone to be good at something, and still have other abilities without everything having to be towards one skill or fighting style. That's just an excuse to min-max and power-game.

Not sure when "I win" became the most important part of a Role-playing game; it didn't use to be. Actually have seen players that think because they are the PCs they should get away with things without repercussions, like they have some sign above their heads saying they are special.

[Marroar Gellantara]

*GM massively screws over planning

*Everyone plays fullcasters

Be careful what you wish for.

[Shiroi]

@Greymoor

It sounds to me like you haven't mastered the fine DM art of bluffing. Do you show your PC's the stat block of your NPC? I don't even have one for mine half the time. When I do they sure aren't getting to look at it. I make my NPC or BBEG or Monstrous Nasty Thing to be a challenge, mechanically, and whatever the **** I want, flavor wise. Rules are for players, let them abuse them however they want within reason. I'm the dietific figure of the campaign, I decide what armor my evil sorcerer gets to wear, regardless of arcane spell failure chance. I decide how much HP my rude barbarian bar bouncer needs. I decide whether my rogue fails his fortitude save or not.

If you are choosing to spend hours optimizing your NPC's to keep up with your rules intensive PC crowd, you have forgotten who you are, Simba. This is your land, go take it back.

[kestral287]

JiCi wrote:

Adapting to the situation will less likely get you killed than sticking to a plan and having to deal with its shortcomings

That says, to me, that you need a better plan. Contingent options to deal with the abnormal are part of good planning.

Taren Greymoore wrote:

So many people here have said things that essentially are saying that the players should have fun and be able to build their chars how they want, to have fun. What I notice people forget is that the DM also needs to have fun. Which means that sometimes yes players are playing "badfunwrong" for that game. Players are no more important than the DM as far as who has more of a right to have fun; it should be a balance. But players of late seem to forget that; and think the DM is just their for their benefit.

So... explain to me exactly how my Cold-specialized and dragon-obsessed PC has made life harder on the DM because I plotted her to 20 levels? And when I say 'plotted', I mean every class level and class ability, every feat, every spell, every item, exactly how and when she's divvying up favored class bonuses between options... the only thing I haven't plotted is skill points, beyond knowing that I need five of A at level 6, five of B at level 10, and fifteen of C at level 15.

He's seen most of her plans (and even suggested a few improvements). This means he knows some useful things:

The two weapons that she wants to use. He knows that if she gets anything else, it'll be sold or passed off to another party member because she can't use it (not doesn't want to-- classes don't allow for it. Can't. Though she doesn't particularly want to either). And I already know that he's tossing around ideas for a custom rapier for her to use. By planning early, I have ensured that he doesn't waste time building a weapon she's just going to sell.

He knows what buttons to push. A racist human empire exiled her and the party to another dimension, which is basically serving as a giant prison since nobody knows how to get back. That, she takes in stride. Us finding an essay on said human empire's attempted genocide of dragons? Now it's personal. That essay was not a major plot point, it was just something she picked up and read, that he probably threw in on the fly. But in doing so, he makes sure she's heavily engaged in the plot.

He's not going to have to deal with iffy rules question on the fly. If there's something I think the rules let me do, but I'm not sure, I can ask him well in advance.

He's aware, at least roughly, of her capabilities. I do things like run Excel calculations on end-game damage for fun. And if I'm talking to him while doing it, and casually mention that yeah, end-game she can drop the Tarrasque so far negative that it'll take eons to recover in the span of a single round, then that can turn into him knowing how to plan out end-game bosses to be a threat.

He knows how to challenge my character. Knowing, at least in broad strokes, what her strengths and weaknesses are and how to address them means that she's not going to solo the BBEG, but she's also not going to be useless. He can take the time to find that balance.

These are all good things, for both of us. Some of our others PCs, he's more or less in the dark about. I fully expect that to bite somebody in the ass sooner rather than later.

[Orfamay Quest]

Taren Greymoore wrote:

Players are no more important than the DM as far as who has more of a right to have fun; it should be a balance. But players of late seem to forget that; and think the DM is just their for their benefit.

I'm afraid I'm having difficulty seeing how players' planning their characters could possibly interfere with the game master's fun. Indeed, I don't even see that it's necessary for the game master to be aware of whether the players have planned their characters to level 20 or not. When I present my shiny new level five character for your audit and approval, are you going to know exactly why I took a particular skill point or feat?

Indeed, as kestral pointed out, pre-planning is something that's useful for the game master precisely because it reduces the chance of someone being caught blind-sided. ("What? No, you can't take that prestige class despite the fact that you've wasted two feats and five skill points on the prerequisites.")

[Dracoknight]

I have yet to see a argument against character planning... so what is it really?

The argument that its not flexible is a strawman at best, as planning a character doesnt force that particular player to stick to the plan what so ever.

That the planning makes the characters "evolve" and "grow" unnaturally is a myth considering how the XP system work and levels, the character grows in their skills in what they can do and not only a new thing they just happend to be doing. "Oh i did a thing with catapults, i totally have skills in engineering now"... makes more sense for a swordmaster to become better with his sword rather than start using whatever shiny scythe or axe he just found, but it would make sense for a barbarian to do this due to their chaotic nature.

Plan a personality, plan their build, spare time, give the GM a way to tailor games to the characters.... what is it not to like?

PS: sorry for the mess in grammar and writing, its rather late and i cant fix it atm.

[TOZ]

Hey, where did the OP go?

[Zhayne]

Back under his bridge, probably.

A depressing number of posters post that they're look for opinions, when all they really want is for people to agree with them. When that doesn't happen, poof.