Pre-made characters. Lazy DMing?

[KainVorador]

I think so. I've always DM'd with a fairly open-minded philosophy. When starting a campaign I've always told the players "Make whatever character you want. Don't worry about what someone else is playing. Play what allows you to have the most fun."

Now, if the whole party ends up as wizards? So be it. As a DM, I have the power and the authority to adjust the setting and difficulty of anything encountered. It doesn't just take a rogue to get past locks and traps, nor does it take a burly fighter to smash down doors or defeat some other physically tough opponent. A creative player adapts and over-comes, likewise, so does a DM.

Am I weird?

[John_Geeshu]

No., not weird.

But you've forgotten the primary rule about enjoying oneself:

Live and let live.

[richvalle]

Not weird. I've been pushing the same idea to my players in the WLD.

Not all of them are listening though.

rv

[Oberoten]

The answer of course would be that, yes. We adapt.

If I was handed a certain character at the beginning of a game or even campaign, I would adapt him or her. Stay within the role given, but let it grow. I am less worried about the stats and "mage" "fighter" "rogue" than i am with personality and background after all.

An interesting char is one which I can let grow in unexpected directions.

The Fighter that Despises Paladins because he failed to become one. And yet.. he still acts like one.

The necromancer who uses his skills primarily to banish the undead. Or to lay the dead to rest.

The Rogue with aspirations to one day write the greatest book on magic-theory ever written despite that he has not a smidge of magical ability himself.

[Kalan]

It will all depend for me.

If I was doing a one shot, pick up type game, with little to no notice, I'll provide Pre Gens (esp with new rules).

Campaigns - generally I prefer the players to come prepared (as I usually give LOTS of notice when I'm about to start a campaign).

There's nothing lazy about using pre-gens...it all depends on what you're doing.

[VenomousFiligree]

If I was doing a one shot, pick up type game, with little to no notice, I'll provide Pre Gens .... There's nothing lazy about using pre-gens...it all depends on what you're doing.
What he said :)

[KainVorador]

No., not weird.

But you've forgotten the primary rule about enjoying oneself:

Live and let live.

I enjoy challenging other peoples ideas and beliefs. Not so much in proving them wrong, but more into the fact that I want them to understand exactly why they believe or feel a certain way instead of just comforming or hopping on the proverbial band wagon.

[Griogre]

I agree with what others have said here. Pregens are great for certain type of games - tournys, one shots or some modules. There are there to get the players playing immediately with a balanced party. I have no problem with using or playing with them in that circumstance.

For a longer running campaign, I like to make my own characters and have my players make theirs. In that type of campaign if the players are experienced and come up with an all wizard party - it's fine with me, I'll warn them they are heading for a TPK unless they are clever, but if they still want to try: fine. After a few die off they will rebalance the party and if they can make an all wizard group work, well that's great too.

[NymTevlyn]

Yeah, it's so lazy for the DM to spend all that time creating the characters instead of relying on the players to do it for them. Only a lazy person does something for themselves that someone else could do instead. I think it's the players that are lazy. Rather than stepping up to the challenge of taking on a role not of their own creation, they usually take the easy path out and project themselves into their characters by playing what they always play.

There's nothing lazy about DM'ing. That's why it's so hard finding good DM's.

[Sigurd]

There are no correct answers to this. (especially since I seem to be in the minority) :D

I like to tweak my character choice a little by what other people are playing. To my mind if the party is going to go risk their lives facing dangers they would naturally resent the 4th 1st level wizard in a 6 character party.

Similarly I really like a party to pull together and build its own identity -- that means I think sharing fair and smart is a good thing. It seems stupid for characters to steal from each other. It insults my character if I see individual greed or rudeness at the party expense. For me to be in character I have to trust fellow players. If there is no trust the game starts to feel artificial and pointless.

Sigurd

[NymTevlyn]

Four 1st level wizards are stronger than you would imagine. Consider sleep, disrupt undead, color spray, charm person. Properly prepared with good teamwork and they would as strong as or stronger than a "balanced" party.

[Sigurd]

"stronger than I imagine" is a little thick. I like wizards and play them often.

With most players they would rock for the first encounter and have little left for a long day of challenges. They would have lots of knowledge skills but typically bad agility and staying power for extended march. Wherever they go, better like wizards because the party would have difficulty hiding thier appearance.


3 kobolds with crossbows, striking from cover, might end the party very quickly. Without wilderness skills the party might be very fragile.

[NymTevlyn]

Wherever they go, better like wizards, because the party would have difficulty hiding their appearance. Yeah, because all wizards wear robes and pointy hats. :rolleyes:


3 kobolds with crossbows, striking from cover, might end the party very quickly. Without wilderness skills the party might be very fragile. Wilderness skills have nothing to do with being ambushed. That would be spot and listen checks. Wizards are intelligent, thus they would know better in the first place.... and hire a guide to lead them through unknown territory. Hell, even a "balanced" party would be better off hiring a guide that knows the land. Regardless, an ambush is a danger to any party. Whether they're all wizards or the cliche fighter / mage / thief / cleric.

[Tropico]

This is mostly a theoretical argument being presented.

First, you're assuming that a GM who presents pregens for his games will allow you to use the pregens and nothing but those pregens to play.

In reality, GMs who use pregens are almost without exception open to people bringing in their own characters as well, and the pregens are there simply as a convenience and for people who don't understand the rules well yet.

Second, you're assuming a typical weekly ongoing 'campaign' type of game (to quote your own post, "When starting a campaign").

This is silly, no GM who is starting a campaign is going to use pregens. Ever. Pregens are used to one-shots, demo games, first games with a ruleset, and for certain very specific modules (which are almost always one-shots)

Finally, as has already correctly been pointed out, creating a set of pregens is extra work for the GM. It is a service and a convenience for the players who join and dont want to or don't know how to make characters. To call that 'lazy' is just not right.

So, I submit to you that your whole anti-pregen thing is more a theoretical stance that is living inside your own head, rather than anything you've ever really seen in an actual game. The real world where people actually play is a little different. But that's just IMHO of course ;)

[KainVorador]

The real world where people actually play is a little different. But that's just IMHO of course ;)


Not sure where that assumption is coming from, but alright. I've DM'd sessions where people didn't have a lick of d&d experience and instead of handing them a pre-gen, I make them learn how to create their own character. All the source books were available and I was there to guide them. From that point on, I never had to worry about that person ever needing me for character creation again.

I still stand that I think pre-gens is lazy DMing. Whether I'm the minority or not.

[Sigurd]

I still stand that I think pre-gens is lazy DMing. Whether I'm the minority or not.


I can agree but I'd also say that there is enough work in DMing that bouts of lazyness are not necesarrily a bad thing.

:)

[NymTevlyn]

This is silly, no GM who is starting a campaign is going to use pregens. Ever. Pregens are used to one-shots, demo games, first games with a ruleset, and for certain very specific modules (which are almost always one-shots)
Wrong. I've run successful, long term campaigns where each character was pre-generated. It allowed me to tailor the campaign storyline very specifically to those characters without falling back to the stupid arsed "gold, xp, and loot" motivations.

[scytale2]

Pre-gens are just another tool in the DM's armoury to ensure that the players have an enjoyable session. If a module has been designed for a balanced party, then first level wizards are going to struggle with it. I guess a DM could go through the entire module and try to adapt the content to an unbalanced group, but this will take time, especially if done on the fly and ultimately will lead to the players having less fun, especially at Level 1, when the options are very limited for spell-using classes. Where a DM has plenty of warning and knows the party is unbalanced AND the DM has written the module, then I would probably argue that it's the DM's job to adapt.

I agree with Nym's comment that sometimes characters can be designed for a campaign and a player will be able to choose which one they would enjoy playing, but again this is part of the DM's vision for his or her campaign.

I mentioned on another thread that sometimes players graduate to the norms - half orc barbarian, dwarven fighter, elven wizard, halfling thief - with the same old feats - power attack and cleave, the rapid shot set etc. Using pre-gens can therefore give some players an encouragement to step outside of their comfort zone and roleplay, rather than skill/feat/play. If DMs do adapt, then it should be for players who roleplay dangerous situations, knowing that they have not min-maxed their character.

I struggle with the "laziness" comment for the reasons already stated multiply on the thread. In addition, if you have a limited amount of time, why waste an hour of it drawing up a new character, when the DM has one you could use? I can't see how it is "lazy" in any shape or form. Perhaps you could explain your thinking a bit more clearly.

Lastly I would say that it is not fair to take a view that the DMs are doing a service, which players are generously accepting by turning up. It's a balanced thing and players should make just as much an attempt to adapt as a DM and sometimes accept that they were wrong to tackle something without all the tools and character classes at their disposal. It's a bit like going into work as an IT consultant saying "What, you need computer skills for this job?"

[scytale2]

Ah yes, one final point. Sometimes a DM would prefer to have less powerful characters for an adventure - the DMG talks about having low power and epic campaigns and even gives different point values for starter characters. So having a scenario where high-powered players blitz through it might spoil the fun. Another use for pre-gens...

[Tokuriku]

This is my 2 cents.

I won't talk about pre-gens but about not letting players make whatever they want. I don't like having 4 thiefs in a group for the simple reason players tend to like to be able to do things the others can't do. It makes them unique and special in regards to the game. If everybody is a thief or a warrior or anything for that matter, that special edge has been rendered common place in the group.

That small but quitessencial point often makes me "push" my players into choosing different paths. I make that choice so that the players get the most fun and gratification from my games, that's all :)

Mind you I don't ike the idea of "well rounded groups" like: we'll also need a cleric you know. I don't push that way. I'll stand up to any challenge of interesting characters.. i.e: instead of a warrior, why not make a Pirate or something ;) Here's a special edge for you!

[scytale2]

This is my 2 cents.

I won't talk about pre-gens but about not letting players make whatever they want. I don't like having 4 thiefs in a group for the simple reason players tend to like to be able to do things the others can't do. It makes them unique and special in regards to the game. If everybody is a thief or a warrior or anything for that matter, that special edge has been rendered common place in the group.

That small but quitessencial point often makes me "push" my players into choosing different paths. I make that choice so that the players get the most fun and gratification from my games, that's all :)

Mind you I don't ike the idea of "well rounded groups" like: we'll also need a cleric you know. I don't push that way. I'll stand up to any challenge of interesting characters.. i.e: instead of a warrior, why not make a Pirate or something ;) Here's a special edge for you!

Well said, Kenshin - agree totally. Strangely you can get away with two fighters, but two druids can take away the special "edge" that you talk about.

[KainVorador]

I think that's because with fighters it's alot easier to invision something different. We've seen so many movies and works of fiction where the fighter type characters are all different. Whether it's style of fighting, weapons of choice, or philosophy.

Nathan Aulgren in "The last Samurai" was a fighter, but he's certainly alot different than say Drizzt Do'Urden, Artemis Entreri, Maximus from Gladiator, Achilles, or Aragorn. But they're all Fighters.

With other classes like Wizard, Sorcerer, Druids...you don't have alot of examples to go off of. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter...yes, they both have magic, but those classes in those settings work completely different than the fighters mentioned above.

That's my comparison.

[joeru]

I think that's because with fighters it's alot easier to invision something different. We've seen so many movies and works of fiction where the fighter type characters are all different. Whether it's style of fighting, weapons of choice, or philosophy.

Nathan Aulgren in "The last Samurai" was a fighter, but he's certainly alot different than say Drizzt Do'Urden, Artemis Entreri, Maximus from Gladiator, Achilles, or Aragorn. But they're all Fighters.

With other classes like Wizard, Sorcerer, Druids...you don't have alot of examples to go off of. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter...yes, they both have magic, but those classes in those settings work completely different than the fighters mentioned above.

That's my comparison.

My comparison is

a) that the edge of a character is his personality and goals in "life"
b) that class and level-based systems suck big time

[Oberoten]

My comparison is

a) that the edge of a character is his personality and goals in "life"
b) that class and level-based systems suck big time



Agree on A... But would also add that the flaws, obsessions and other noteworthy faults in a character's character is even more important.

As for B... I have to agree here too. Mostly because skillbased and class-free systems tends to make for much more warried characters who are defined by personality instead of labels.

[VonHack]

In reading the posts throughout this topic, there have been many references to "balanced parties" and "goals of characters". I would have to say that agree with the goals of characters, as my games tend to focus on the characters rather than a particular storyline. I do this for a reason. When I run a campaign, I view like a movie or book where the characters are the main focus. If I had a group of 6, with 4 mages, and 2 rogues, then perhaps the story would take a turn towards something magic related. For example having the characters working to create their own guild of magic within the city. They could utilize the rogues to help against the competition. There are any number of things that a GM/DM can to do to overcome any character group build... its the GM/DM's world after all.

The other thing these post have brought to mind is the limiting posibilities of D&D. Since I started playing and running Warhammer games, I have had a much more entertaining experience. There are no levels or classes. True, there are careers, but I feel these offer more developement opportunities both in the mechanics of the character, as well as the overall history and growth of the personality. Rarely have I seen a D&D character with a background that represents what a peasent or tradesmen would have been before deciding to go out adventuring. In Warhammer, you really dont have much of a choice in that matter. Just my 2 copper

[ArbiterX]

I've played D&D since the first boxed set (my box came with chits instead of dice!), and its been interesting to see it morph from the days of Fighting Men, Magic Users, and the Cleric. Unfortunately, I heartily agree that mechanisms such as choosing class and alignment (*shudder*) can often serve to straitjacket the character right from the start, artificially forcing the 'character' to conform to certain pre-expectations before play even starts. Good characters and GM's can overcome this, no sweat, but I do think its ironic that a system that put 'role'playing on the map does so much to constrict 'playing a role' at times.

As for pre-gens, nothing sucks worse that surprising players with it, but plenty of fun campaigns can come from playing the role of something known - who wouldn't jump at the opportunity to play The Man with No Name in a Boot Hill campaign? I know I'd enjoy re-enacting characters from the first Dragonlance story, say. Ultimately it boils down to the GM and his social skills - pre-gens can often signal a GM who views players as nothing more than narrative puppets that are shuffled through a story entirely of his telling. Good GM's allow characters a significant part of telling and forging the campaign story, and that means by default a player expects to be able to formulate his own role and character. So IMHO pre-gen'd PCs should always be part of a game's announcement, allowing a player to take a pass if it isn't what they want.

In any case, the last thing a player can call any GM is lazy. I'm converting the darn FG2 d20 rules to Action! for a Gunslingers campaign, for crying out loud. :)

[KainVorador]

Can a GM call a GM lazy?

[ArbiterX]

Can a GM call a GM lazy?

I'm pretty sure it goes against our union rules!