You know the player...the one that's doing 3 points of damage a round, or rushes up to the front and tries to tank with a 14 AC.
So what if you create a set of NPCs, 5-10 or so that the players interact with and then when one of the PCs die they transaction into one of these NPCs (this is easy to do in HeroLab where you have dozens of iconics characters available).
What do you think of this? Have you done this in your campaign? What affect have you noticed on your players? Does this help or hinder the campaign?
I'm purposefully not giving my opinion on this so as to not sway the conversation...basically I'm playing True Neutral right now :-)
|
My opinion? Bleh.
Personally I would NEVER want to play a character that someone else designed.
If I'm forced to play a character the DM designed, then I might as well not be playing at all -- the DM is merely using me as a player to tell his story, instead of allowing me as the player to become part of the story.
Pregens are fine for intro games *this is how you play* where everyone is learning a new system. But building your own character is a huge part of the game. You design your backround, crafting a personality type that you want to represent with abilities that you find interesting.
And honestly, the guy who tanks with a 14 ac isn't going to get better with a better designed character. He'll keep on attempting to perform tasks that are unsuited to his character - like facing off against the wizard with the new BSF you handed him - until he learns better. Handing him a pregen won't make him a better player, nor will it make him any more likely to survive or make intelligent choices.
Their first character they start with in the campaign is completely customized and created by them...forgot to mention that.
|
|
Unless all my players unanimously requested this alternative, I would not run my game this way. Players of characters not created by them are easily disenfranchised with their fictional alter-ego and get bored or indifferent, at least this is my observation.
I would consider giving a player an NPC to play if he were to die out in the middle of nowhere with his party and its a choice of that or sit there and do nothing for the next several hours while the party finishes some quest. But thats only on the spur of the moment.
I agree with everyone here. When the player's character dies let him know why he died, whether it was due to tactics, and/or design issues. When he makes the next character check it before he plays it. Let him know which decisions will likely result in failure and why, but let him make the choice in the end.
I agree with what appears to be the consensus, I believe that creating your own character is an integral part of the experience.
By having the player create a character from a concept on his/her mind, the player invests emotionally in said character, and this helps them relate with their characters and facilitates the many roleplaying aspects dependent on the player thinking and acting like the character he/she is playing.
I, for one, would hardly play a campaign where I couldn't create my own character, even with some restrictions presented(like say, no magic users) I believe the decision of what kind of character to play should always be within the players grasp.
I would never want to play a character I didn't have a hand in creating.
At the same time, I always find it hard to roleplay introducing a new PC to the group.
Here's this new guy we've never met before. He's probably evil, and might murder us in our sleep, but we should trust him with our lives because he's wearing a "PC hat."
as not all my players have the time to invest in trawling through feats, skills, core and base classes, I give them a choice.
Give me the concept/background and I'll generate a PC around that for you to look at or go make yourself.
As for just playing a handout where I've had no input...nope.
Any statement containing "Force the players to..." is probably a bad idea.
However, I've found that there's nothing wrong with having a stable of potential PCs for, say, one-shots. I've got a bunch, of many different playstyles and concepts, and they're a big hit. Playing a character you didn't make isn't so bad, and you do it in most videogames anyhow.
Now, for an RPG, and for, specifically, a campaign, I agree that the Players should create, at least mostly, the Player-Characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd let them "take control" of an NPC that's there right now (or "just around the corner") for the rest of the session or until it's appropriate to introduce a new character.
This would let them continue playing the game until we can properly write up and introduce the new character.
I say "let them", because the player might be happy with sitting out for a while to write up a new character anyways.
I don't think I'd ever use it to teach someone, unless they asked for it first.
I could see having some mostly prebuilt character ideas that a player could quickly finish and get back to playing for the rest of the session, but as a long term solution, forcing them to continue playing such a character would not be a good idea.
Same as above.
Letting them play a hireling or some other ready to hand NPC is always a good solution for the duration of that session - no point calling it a day and going home, or sitting around playing PSP because you are now bored... get them back in for that session, and come back next time with a fresh sheet.
Either they will get the gist of not charging tanks wielding only a banana, or they will have a great time doing improvisational game play with random people, pets and raised undead. "hey we can't rez you bro, but the Necro can turn you into a skeleton"...
Much better option:
Have players create an "in case of death" character or two. If their character does die, they can then take control of a character they they created themselves, and can be introduced when the story allows.
Apply Zombie or Ghoul template :)
This is one of those things that should only happen in a game where its impossible to work in a new PC and if that is the case let the players know ahead of time and possibly let them stat some NPCs that will be available for them upon said death.
I'd let them "take control" of an NPC that's there right now (or "just around the corner") for the rest of the session or until it's appropriate to introduce a new character.
This would let them continue playing the game until we can properly write up and introduce the new character.
I say "let them", because the player might be happy with sitting out for a while to write up a new character anyways.
I don't think I'd ever use it to teach someone, unless they asked for it first.
That.
I would agree with that and would love if my have done that when one PC died because he chose to draw from a deck of many things and the rest of the group had to wait 3 hours for him to make a new character in order to play 2 hours with PC.
This plan seems extremely unappealing to me.
Never underestimate the allure of playing your own character. It could be mechanically identical to the NPC you had planned, but if it is their own character it will be intrinsically more likeable to them.
That.
I would agree with that and would love if my have done that when one PC died because he chose to draw from a deck of many things and the rest of the group had to wait 3 hours for him to make a new character in order to play 2 hours with PC.You opened the door for that situation by putting the Deck in play in the first place. In a situation like that first thing to check is to see if the party is going to do anything to correct the situation. (Most bad results in the Deck ARE correctable with a bit of work) than maybe have the player run a temporary NPC you might proivide for the group until they do so.
But I can't emphasize this too much; If you are not ready for things that can instantly derail your campaign on the draw of a card.... don't put the Deck in play.
First i wasn't the DM on that game.
And all players had the option of not drawing like i did, and we all knew what the results might be.Yes i understand that the deck should have been presented in the end of the session and not in the beggining, the DM realized that too, but the thing is if the DM had enforced the above technique for the session then we would have played 3 more hours.
What's more the player of the PC who died felt that we (the rest players) were resposible for what happened, and was quite angry to me when i told to hurry with his new character.
What's more the player of the PC who died felt that we (the rest players) were resposible for what happened, and was quite angry to me when i told to hurry with his new character.
How was it not their fault for taking the risk?
How was it not their fault for taking the risk?
What's more the player of the PC who died felt that we (the rest players) were resposible for what happened, and was quite angry to me when i told to hurry with his new character.
I wish i knew.
I have to take Devil's Advocate here, but it hasn't been too bad using existing characters.
In my case dying twice in the same session made getting back into the game that much easier.
The characters are all those in the AP (in the back) initially, with new ones sprinkled in as time goes by.
You still apply your own personality for the most part. Its like picking a character from the Character selection screen of a Video Game (e.g. Street Fighter).
I have to agree that as a stop gap it can be useful in the right context/setting. Recently my character died in our homebrew, as we are on a ship that we collectively own I jumped on a crew member to finish the session. The GM took the correct track and had us in a safe harbor with friends of the party who vouched for my new character as a crew replacement by the end of the session(even though I had not made the character yet) a brief e-mail to the players/ GM's to throw some back story about a parallel team's last survivor for mutual enemies put us on track for the next session. I was glad to have the NPC for the short term; but would not want that character as it already had established drives and desires which I may not want for a character.
I have to take Devil's Advocate here, but it hasn't been too bad using existing characters.
In my case dying twice in the same session made getting back into the game that much easier.
The characters are all those in the AP (in the back) initially, with new ones sprinkled in as time goes by.
You still apply your own personality for the most part. Its like picking a character from the Character selection screen of a Video Game (e.g. Street Fighter).
Except this isn't a video game.
If I wanted to play a computer or console RPG, thats something I make a conscious decision to do and I know walking into it that I will be playing a pre-created character.
But if YOU like the idea. Do it.
I think it's only adding insult to injury to the player. Just because you make them play a pregen, what's to say they won't do something equally stupid with that character that gets them killed?
What I would do is simply offer them some advice.
"You want to step up to the BBEG and take hits, try a Paladin."
Its bad enough for a GM to try to railroad their players into roles and story lines without having to make them play from a list of pre-approved guys you made with no input from the person who will actually be playing the character.
If that whole thing actually appeals to you, I would strongly suggest you write a book and let the players run their own game.
Generally I think people should make their own characters. Taking over NPCs works well when it's hard to work someone totally new into the story.
That being said, I'm a fan of pre-gens. I've been gaming a long time, I tend to make the same type of characters. It can be a lot of fun to be handed something out of your normal zone and play it. Stretches the role-playing muscles.
In a game I'm in now my dragon blooded sorcerer got shot dead by a ranger. I ended up taking control of a free-spirited enchantress we had rescued with necromancy and transmutation as her opposed schools. Something I -Never- would have built myself. And I'm having a blast.
YMMV.