Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Someone 03-05-05, 01:34 PM	D&D campaigns wind down (or abruptly) end, for various reasons- people can't make the sessions any more, the DM out of adventure ideas/ material, characters retire or are all killed off, etc. But has anyone ever have a campaign never get off the ground? Even before a single adveture? That is, the process of character creation brought up so many problems, that people just didn't want to put up with what could easily be bad D&D? This recently happened to me (I'll spare the details unless asked), and was just wondering if anyone else had it this bad, and ask for advice on how to make charater creation sessions run better.
Vatras 03-05-05, 01:47 PM	It didnt happen to me so far. I always lay down some rules for character creation (system doesnt matter, I did it for all) and leave the rest to the players. In 3.5 that means I say what books are allowed and if there are some exceptions, what playable races and religions exist in the world (sparing myself any of the broken ones). If someone brings up something outside of that (like he always wanted to try out a class from a d20 book) I look it over and allow it, if its nothing gamebreaking (no sense in spoiling peoples fun). I dont mind how people determine their stats, so the players can roll or point-buy as they choose, but all have to use the same method (mine prefer rolling, its usually three sets of stats and they can choose which one of the three they want). I have tried handing out pre-generated characters too, but results varied. The first time it was a huge success (Dragonlance series in 1988/89), the second time round it remained an experiment (I had the main characters abducted and the henchmen were to rescue them; I hoped they would take to the lower level henchmen to replace the high level primaries, but that worked only in one case; I had designed a shapechanger class (1st Edition) and the player decided to keep the character for his own).
Lord Ian Stark 03-05-05, 02:03 PM	Character creation problems. With who the players themselves or with what the DM wants in his game world? This has never happened to me in all my years of gaming as a DM or player. For me, creating a character and it's background can be one of the greatest aspects of D&D. I remember making a Kender Bard and spent over a week on picking feats, skills, spells, and other things (plus background) to reflect (in my mind) what a Kender Bard would actually do. Then when I showed the DM he said nope. No Kender in this game world. I was upset but never *****ed at him as it is his game world and I made something more mundane and boring to "fit" the game world. :) When I DM, anything is game. If you take the time and effort to create your character and make a good story as to how he got in your world...well that is D&D to me.
Sir Todd 03-05-05, 02:03 PM	Yep in my long years playing I have seen this several times. In fact it happens on a daily basis in PbP sites. It's the law of supply and demand at work. The demand is the players and the Supply is the GMs. When there are a large supply or even surplus of GMs then the players get very picky. If a certain GM doesn't offer what the player wants he simply finds one who will. High supply makes costs go down. Costs being the level of GM micromanagement players are willing to tolerate. The reverse is true too. In a small town or other such area where GMs are very rare then player will often put up with all manner of abuse just to play.
Razoreface 03-05-05, 02:06 PM	I've had a couple like that... players already not showing up to the character generation sessions, rampant goofing off meaning one long session sees a quarter of the characters finished, and the others with no idea that anything happened at all.
Lord Ian Stark 03-05-05, 02:31 PM	I've had a couple like that... players already not showing up to the character generation sessions, rampant goofing off meaning one long session sees a quarter of the characters finished, and the others with no idea that anything happened at all. Yikes if I had to make my character with everyone else in the group at the same time/room I can obviously see why nothing would get done. It's hard to spark your imagination with so many other people interfering with your thoughts and asking your opinion on should I do this or what about this. In my mind what you’re doing to your characters is the same as you trying to DM with not one thing planned whatsoever and have a group of people staring at you going...well? I as a DM and player am used to rolling our stats and HD in front of our DM and then going about on our own to make our characters however we want. Then we all get together on game night and show the DM are character sheets so he has an idea what everyone is and make sure everything looks good. Luckily my group is trustworthy and we all believe this is a game so cheating just ruins the spirit. So why roll stats and HD in front of everyone? Because it's fun and clears the air if someone does have a few 18's or something great. Do people have questions of the DM about things? Oh sure that’s why there is a phone or E-Mail. If you play a game like it is a chore, then obviously people will get bored and goof off.
Razoreface 03-05-05, 03:13 PM	Some groups just do it that way... some players need supervision to smack down their psychotic munch ideas before they get too far off the ground, because having habitual super power gamers show up on game night with characters that are about to be vetoed puts everyone out, and some players need other people to crutch them along, or they show up on game night with a half blank sheet. :) Myself, I always know exactly what I'm starting with beforehand, and I'm just waiting for the rolls or the point buy so I can do numbers.
Cold Napalm 03-05-05, 03:20 PM	I have never run into this problem but an instance has come up in the what's a player to do board where it happened too not so long ago. If you as a DM won't bend to what the players want even a little, game over. Remeber players need to have fun too and to ignore them = bad...not that I'm saying you did that since we have no details hehe :) . Share if you want or don't if you don't.
Thoronmir 03-05-05, 05:30 PM	Do people have questions of the DM about things? Oh sure that’s why there is a phone or E-Mail. If you play a game like it is a chore, then obviously people will get bored and goof off.Our character creation sessions are less about questions for the DM than for questioning other players. My players are used to my particular eccentricities regarding character parameters (races, classes, alignments allowed). And, as you note, I’m always available via e-mail or telephone if a player needs to confirm one of my houserules. But, regardless who in the group is DMing, we always have a session at which we discuss character concepts. Typically, the DM sets the stage for the campaign, addressing issues such as starting level, describing where the campaign will begin, the nature of the campaign (low or high magic; combat-intensive or diplomacy based), and any campaign-specific revisions to our respective homebrew worlds. Basically reviewing all of the information the players need before they start building PCs. Then, the players usually spend some time deciding what types of PCs they want in the party. The players determine what roles need to be filled and who will fill them. However, rarely does anyone actually build their PC at the character creation session. Players do that privately. But getting all the players together before they start building PCs is helpful. To answer the OP’s question, no, not in 25+ years of D&D has character creation presented such an impediment that we scrap the campaign.
Jaxem 03-05-05, 05:45 PM	Greetings, Our campaign has had problems like this before but never to the extent that they would destroy the campaign. It is usually only one player who wants to play something that everyone else (Sometimes not the DM even) deems a little too munchkiny. Example is a PC who wanted to play a Neutral Evil Human Ranger with Humans as his favored enemy when the rest of the party were good-aligned humans. When this was disallowed he wanted to create his own base assassin class. We were all playing strictly PHB and some of the optional WOTC books so the DM said no. He made a big deal and tried to convince some of us that this was unfair etc but in the end he played by the book. But I can't see how all the players can have a problem with character creation like several people mentioned. When I DM I tend to be strict as to what is allowed. I tend to stick to the published material to avoid some of the problems with unbalanced self creation. As a matter of fact my first campaign I was happy since I thought the players were cooperating to make a balanced party by asking each other and suggestion what to do/play and trying not to get duplicates. I later found out it was because they didn't want to share treasure with a similar character. -J
Someone 03-06-05, 12:47 AM	For the sake of clarity, I was going to be a player, not the DM. But some of the problems were getting to me as well (and some of the other players as well, I think). But that's a good point about a problem being that everyone was trying to make their character at the same time. It did seem hectic, with too few people who knew the rules trying to help the others. Would having all the players do the same step at the same time before anyone moves on to the next step be a good way of making characters as a group? The DM had set a few groundrules and campaign concepts- start at 5th level; core only, unless reviewed and approved; pointbuy and set hp/ level; you could start with magic items, provided the total value didn't go over the wealth by level number. It just seemed that one or two of the players didn't want to follow any of these.
Wizard 03-06-05, 01:02 AM	I've never been in a situation quite that bad...but I certainly see myself contributing to one like that. I tend to be a sort of Character Sheet Gestapo. I mean, if you find 4 18's on another player's sheet, you have to wonder...
ShadowDragon8685 03-06-05, 01:06 AM	Are you the guy responsible for this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=388431)? If so, you well deserve it. That's player abuse. Some other general thoughts: Players should be made with the whole party in mind. If characters are created mostly in a "Hey, this would be cool" vacuum, you wind up with a freakshow Savage Species party (which is not inherantly a bad thing,) that is devoid of roguish trap-slaying skills (a Very Bad Thing), devoid of Arcane and Divine Beatdown (Also a Very Bad Thing), and devoid of any Charisma Based Interaction. (A Very Bad Thing.)
Laranis Callirr 03-06-05, 01:50 AM	Never as extreme as never getting of the ground, but a campaign I played in was scrapped after the first session. It was supposed to be an 'all-rogue' campaign, but the DM wasn't really up to it after all.
Someone 03-06-05, 01:39 PM	Are you the guy responsible for this thread?Nope. I hope I'm never in a campaign that's THAT micromanaged. There was going to be a pretty good range of character types to fill all the usual roles (I was going to be a scorceror, specifically so the party would have arcane support), except maybe the one who wanted to be an elven bard/fighter/rogue/sorceror...
11d7 03-06-05, 01:44 PM	The campaign I just ended (see my other posts) was in part due to character creation. The players could just not create character that either fit their mission or fit into the same party. Thats not the intire reason the campaign was ruined but it is a contributing factor.
Crossover-Chronicler 03-06-05, 02:30 PM	Just recently, actually, I was running a "cyberpunk"-influenced game of Urban Arcana, in which the PCs were the heads of various factions (using the basic "organization" descriptions in d20 Modern) devoted to preventing or capitalizing on the growing tension between humans and the recently-revealed demihumans. Each player decided the details of his faction, including the option of having a single exclusive "faction toy" (such as the Tattoos of the Beloved or the specialty psionic power of the Mindwreckers). Characters would be 15th-level, and each player would be allowed to dictate the basic qualities of two 12th-level "seconds in command" (They dictate race, class, and generaly purpose; I as DM would work out these NPCs' detailed stats), as well as a host of progressively weaker and less-detailed subordinates. Gameplay would be run in person, online, by phone, mail, e-mail, chat, IM, or smoke-signal as necessary and appropriate. (a week later) 1st player: "Here's my character. Here's my 'faction toy,' my basic expectations of my lieutenants, and a list of plot hooks and equipment I want on-hand. So, how soon 'til we start?" Me: "Cool." 2nd Player: "If I work all of this stuff into the background and concept of my character/faction, can I have unlimited resources and absolute legal authority?" Me: "No." (2 more weeks) 1st Player: "So, how soon 'til we start the d20 Modern game?" 3rd Player: "I'm nearly done with my character." 2nd Player: "When he says that, he means he's nearly gotten around to starting it." 3rd Player: "What he said." 4th Player: "Haven't started yet." 5th Player: "I just got invited to this game." (another week passes) "My character's done except for equipment." 1st Player: "So, how soon 'til we start the d20 Modern game?" 2nd Player: "I need help with skills and feats. There are some skills and bonus feats described in these classes aren't in the books." Me: "Can you tell me what they're called?" 2nd Player: "No." Me: (looking at all classes, looking up all relevant information) "Nope. They're all in there." 2nd Player: "No they aren't." Me: "Prove it." 2nd Player: (opens book, falls asleep) Me: "Wake up!" 2nd Player: "I'm not asleep! I'm thinking!" (this dialogue repeats for about an hour, until he falls into a deep slumber and ceases to respond) another week 1st Player: "So, how soon 'til we start the d20 Modern game?" 3rd Player: "I've almost decided what class I want to play." 4th Player: "Still haven't started. Life's been kinda hectic." another week Me: "Y'know, if you guys aren't interested you can just say so..." Players: "No, we're interested..." 3rd Player: "My character's almost done except for equipment. And feats." 2nd Player: "Done except for equipment. But I want a bunch of specialty equipment that doesn't exist in the books." two more weeks Players: (silence) 1st Player: "So, how soon 'til we start the d20 Modern game?" Me: "Y'know what? I've lost interest."
The Final Dream 03-06-05, 02:33 PM	I've never had a campaign go sour, although I've only been DMing for 3 years. I'm pretty responsive to my players, and in turn they put up with my restrictions. Since my group has been using basically any material they want for the last three years, there was some grumbling about sticking to only the core base classes and +0 ECL races for my current campaign, but they're pretty tolerant and even the munchkins are under control.
Cold Napalm 03-06-05, 07:00 PM	See I never really had a problem with campaigns going sour...I just nod and go okay to EVERYTHING the players ask for...and make then regret every bit of it. Train em young, train em early, train em often. As for someone's post...yeah the set up seems fairly standard...but what was the issue? Core classes only? Core races only? point buy? I mean really you could bend on those fairly easily...especially if it's point buy vs rolled...just go okay you choose one and go with it (no re-roll...even if you roll sub par...like -3 bonus to ability).
Disciple_of_Taoth 03-09-05, 12:49 PM	I have had several campaigns go sour just on character creation. Mainly its because of one of my players. He is a really good player, but it takes him forever to make a character. Most of my group can make a good level one character in an hour or less, it takes him about three weeks. Its not that he doesn't want to play, he just has a hard time coming up with a concept that he likes, not that i blame him, but he'll take three weaks making a character and then after the first combat or encounter that he doesn't like him. I have had several of my campaigns on hold at various times because of him, and it really makes it hard to get back into playing sometimes. I even made a more 'restricted' campaign so they could have simple character with out a lot of fuss and fanfare, but it still took him nearly a month to make a character and the campaign almost got dropped. Most of the time i feel like im railroading him into making characters, but i also think about the rest of the group and the fact that they want to play.
scott644 03-09-05, 04:31 PM	One that gets me is as stated above, players taking forever to design their characters. Another is building a character in an above-1st level party where the party's presumed to have been together already thus well-suited to each other, declaring for a specific build, then changing that build and announcing the change at the last instant so it breaks the balance everybody else had striven for in the party. Watched a real beauty recently though. A fellow combined both of these. Declared his character, and everybody else built their designs around his so the party would be well-rounded. Then over the week after creation he totally rebuilt the character concept but not the character itself, waiting until the start of the session to announce and begin implementing the changes. Then wondered why people were exasperated and disappointed over it. His only saving grace was he's a newb at gaming in general so doesn't really understand the social aspects of polite gaming.
dantedarkstar 03-09-05, 06:17 PM	Unfortunately I did experience campaign dying before the start. It was going to be Star Wars campaign. We had a character creation "session", where we worked all things about the characters with GM. Cool. Unfortunately, next week I was unable to play for reasons beyond my control. The play was cancelled (if 33% of players can't play GM decided he won't GM; the other people spent the night playing console games). Next week, it turns out another player cannot play, because of something. So, we don't play. Next week... the GM cannot... Next week, at last no one has some unexpected situations. We can play. However, the GM admits he completely lost the motivation (when he told he'll GM StarWars game he was playing KotOR 2 at that time, after this few weeks he had it finished long ago, and whole atmosphere gone away). Next week, we just started D&D... :D So that's it. But there's more (although a bit off-topic). We started playing D&D as I said. At the beginning of 2nd session, a certain elf in the party (level 3) was critted 20,20 with full power attack from just your average orc with greataxe. He was instantly dead. Since the main plot was hurt by that *quite* random accident, in the end we decided to make new party, and start again (some people, including me weren't that happy of characters they made anyway). So, we start playing new campaign. At the 2nd session... Well. Due to suboptimal tactics (GM thought we did everything wrong, but on the other hand ALL players didn't think ALL was done wrong; sure, we knew we didn't do best of best) and very poor rolls we was half-PK'ed (out of 3 players, 1 was dead (for the 2nd time !!!), 1 KO and 1 still standing). The GM decided that he doesn't feel like GMing for us, since he would end up killing us again. Well... Is this some cursed fate or something ? The moral of the story: Beware of 2nd session ! :D
UltimateReality 03-09-05, 08:02 PM	Each player decided the details of his faction, including the option of having a single exclusive "faction toy" (such as the Tattoos of the Beloved or the specialty psionic power of the Mindwreckers). Characters would be 15th-level, and each player would be allowed to dictate the basic qualities of two 12th-level "seconds in command" (They dictate race, class, and generaly purpose; I as DM would work out these NPCs' detailed stats), as well as a host of progressively weaker and less-detailed subordinates. Gameplay would be run in person, online, by phone, mail, e-mail, chat, IM, or smoke-signal as necessary and appropriate. (a week later) 1st player: "Here's my character. Here's my 'faction toy,' my basic expectations of my lieutenants, and a list of plot hooks and equipment I want on-hand. So, how soon 'til we start?" You know what? Ditch the rest of them, keep player 1, and make a new group. Player 1 seems cool. We've gamed with basically the same set of people for close to 2 years now, with minor additions and subtractions. This time around, when my fiance picks up the DMing hat again, he wants a nearly all-new group. The only "old gamer" will be me. We are inviting our current DM, but we've been gaming under him less than a month so he doesn't really count yet (and he last played in 2nd ed.). I think TPK's going for what I wanted with my group: new blood, new approach, and new social dynamic. Hopefully, he has more time and energy to devote to his campaign than I did to mine. I for one really look forward to starting.
CBLong 03-09-05, 09:16 PM	I guess that I'm more of a liberal DM. I generally try to let my characters do whatever they want, in terms of character creation, but I do shoot down any ideas that would obviously break the game. The way I see it, this is the PC's game as well, and they're here to have fun. If they aren't having fun, then I've failed at my job of being a DM. Oh, yes, and I agree with you on that issue, Shadowdragon, so I generally try to nudge my characters in the right direction. But if they're just deadset on playing an all-arcane campaign, it's their own fault for the campaign crumbling down.
TheSecondZombieJesus 03-10-05, 01:00 AM	Personally, I love creating a new 1st level character, whether it be in D20 Modern or regular DnD, especially trying something new (my Modern char is a paranoid ex-military psycho who weilds a chainsaw :D ) I also find it extremely fun to create a good backstory. Other players in our group however..... Me: Okay, I'm done! DM: Go help *person* Me: (to person) You remember how skills work right? Definately? Person: Of course. Do you think I'm some kind of idiot? The game begins.... Person: I use my computer use skill, and get.... 30. Everyone: :eek: At level one? Me: How many ranks do you have? Person: 10. I pumped my skill points into it. *shudder*
snowlynx 03-11-05, 11:43 AM	I've had some campaigns killed because they players couldn't complete their characters so I could start it....it seems the group just doesn't like making characters, particularily the stat and eq stuff. I came up with a solution that works for my group, though: I've made characters I thought they would like (and indeed they liked them better then the characters they normally make- Really, really odd :mymy: ) I did let the one character who wanted to make his character make it, with some suggestions to all of them to help them fit together as a group. It takes a lot more effort on my part but at least it ensures character creation gets done; I've only done it a couple of times (and these are the only games that get past the first session, unfortunately.) I am a little confused as to why they want to give me such control. I'm trying a new idea with my next game: I'm going to have them start off thinking up a concept for a 1st level character, and run them through (fast forward, diceless roleplaying) what they've done with their lives so far based on what they've told me (up to about 5th level). I hope this will help them with character creation, and give them some idea as to what sort of items they might have for their character, as well as give them a pretty detailed background with a solid connection to th world around them. I suspect they may make me help with their stat stuff (oh well; still better then me making their character completely for them as they seem to like so much- I find this really hard to DM for!)
Joe Khol 03-11-05, 12:46 PM	This recently happened to me (I'll spare the details unless asked), and was just wondering if anyone else had it this bad, and ask for advice on how to make charater creation sessions run better. There are three methods I've used which all worked (for me at least - YMMV); In every case, the DM gives the players an idea of the campaign, game world and style before hand and gets a general idea of the kind of characters people might like to play (to avoid or at least cater for parties of 5 Bards or Assassins and Paladins). 1) DM takes players one at a time to roll up their character start to finish and flesh out a bit of background/plot hooks etc. Meanwhile the other players read the books to make their plans or veg out/watch TV/chat until everyone is done. Sometimes we will work out what kind of character (TWF Ranger, Blaster Wizard, Cleric Archer etc.) everyone is playing before hand (by e-mail) to make things a bit quicker. 2) Before the first session the DM lays out rules and players make up their own characters. The DM looks them over, maybe suggests changes for rules, plot or balance reasons. By the first session everyone has their characters ready to play. Obviously requires points-buy and very specific rules about what is allowed. 3) DM creates a party of characters and hands them out at random. :eek: I know, I know, some people would hate that but it worked for us. Real quick obviously and actually encourages players to think and roleplay differently. To make things easier, I usually start at 1st level, never higher than 4th (for campaigns - one-offs are different) and we use very few books beyond the core three. Most of the character creation problems I hear about are down to having too many options. I typically start by running a short starter adventure with little or no direct connection to the main campaign plot to help the characters individually and party as a whole develop and usually get a 1st level party up to 2nd before the real fun starts.