Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Telperion 01-21-05, 12:39 PM	I know that different DMs have different ideas about character creation, but when I'm creating a character I like to do all of it myself. From the moment I come up with a valid (I always ask a DM's opinion before starting to make a new character) concept to the last moment of place the final rank in a skill I like to do it all myself. I diligently gather reasonable explanations for everything that is on the character sheet. I explain my characters background. I give any DM a good idea about my characters motivations, personality and sometimes even possible modes of behavior, so he can create / avoid possible problem situations. I detail some of the major contacts, friends and opponents my character has ran across (when your character starts at 3rd level he has already done stuff other than homework and household chores) and offer possibilities for interesting NPCs. I put a lot of effort into a character, but when it comes to my character I consider it to be my project and hang the DM who dares to touch my material before it's done! Once the material is done he can have it, look it over and make suggestions. Or he can just shoot it down and I'll happily make another character concept suggestion :). So, am I being unreasonable? Should I just do all the work and hand it over without ever seeing my character on a sheet? Give the DM everything he wants and just hope he makes it perfect? There's a lot of stuff he wants to know and I agree that most of it is useful and good to know. But I don't like the idea of just giving him the material and then just sitting back while he fills the character sheet with abilities, weapons, skills, magic items, feats, etc, etc, etc...
Kratch 01-21-05, 12:51 PM	Different DM's have different oppinions about this, though i believe many agree with you, for the most part. DM's get to create an entire world, they should leave the PC characters to the players. Though the player should show some lieniancy (sp?) as the DM may wish to add some history for plot/storyline reasons.
clarkvalentine 01-21-05, 01:12 PM	I think most DMs would agree maybe 90% with you. As a guy who both GMs and plays, I recognize the value of Player/GM collaboration in character generation. For instance, I think it's valid for the GM to place guidelines on the PCs - require players to make characters that can work together is the biggest one. Disallowing certain classes or feats or spells that don't fit his campaign setting is another. Other than that, the PCs are the players', as far as I'm concerned.
jnrhayz 01-21-05, 01:17 PM	If I wanted to play a pre-made character, I would play at a convention. Character creation is one of my favorite parts of the game. I would not like it. I would let the DM know that. As I create a character, my ideas can change and I have to work all that out as I create my character. It makes me closer to my character I think. So, I am against it.
Thorak 01-21-05, 01:39 PM	It is the player's right to request whatever he can dream up for his character's background and makeup. It is the DM's right to refuse or adjust those requests to fit what he'll allow. If this removes the bit the player specifically wanted, then he has the right to suck it up and try something else. For instance, if I developed a Swashbuckler who was the son of a high-ranked Duke, and the DM said "No, you can't be a noble. You're not going to be asking daddy for some money, or using influence you haven't earned", then I would either play a non-noble swashbuckler, or come up with something entirely different, if the nobility was a necessary part. My current character is a noble, but I knew my DM would have issues with it, so we carefully crafted a background that's more harmful to him than helpful. He may be of noble blood, but he was also the ruin of his family, which is now destitute and in danger of losing the last of their lands, as well as being dishonoured in the eyes of the court. He gains absolutely no benefit for being a noble, but it wasn't the nobility I wanted so much, it was the "he destroyed his family" bit I wanted. Which was easier to do with a noble family, since they have further to fall. But if my DM had said "no", I would have adjusted. That's his right, it's his game, and if he says no, it's not going to happen. Just because a player wants it doesn't mean a DM has to allow it. As for the DM assigning the basic statistics, that I disagree with. No matter how much you write out, he probably won't get your mental image quite right. My paladin, as presented above, was given his stats by the DM, but that was it, and that only because the DM doesn't like point-buy and was tired of the inconstancy of rolling, which usually favours one character over another. And while I might have done things slightly differently in that regard, I'm now playing a character slightly different than I had intended. His Charisma isn't as high as I'd wanted, and his Wis is higher, but that just means that I made him even more strong-willed and arrogant than I had intended. Which has actually made him more fun, so I'm not complaining. We had gotten to tell the DM our two most important stats before he assigned them, in any case. The DM also requires justification for things. No just taking a given feat out of nowhere; if your character doesn't have a bow, hasn't been shooting at anyting, you're not going to be picking Rapid Shot. If you have, then it could make sense. It's sort of like the optional training rules, but applied to the time before you level; if you're not working on developing that kind of skill, you aren't going to be taking that feat. Same for classes; a fighter isn't just going to be able to all of a sudden take a level of Wizard. If he's been studying basic spellbooks or getting instruction from an existing wizard, though, that'll justify it.
psionichamster 01-21-05, 01:41 PM	if you add in the "all the above is done as a group...all or most of the players that'll be at that table and the DM", your situation is just about what i do i like making char's too, but they're usually NPC's or "monsters" and i don't expect the players to help out there, or put in their twists (unless i asked, of course) but if everyone makes all their stuff in a vacuum, you can end up with unworkable party configurations sounds good to me! the hamster
Board_Rider 01-21-05, 02:01 PM	I am like Clark, meaning I DM and game. As a DM I will tell the Players before the PC creation process what is allowed and what isn't. The PC's can be made anyway he/she wishes as long as the guidelines are followed. I don't have many so it isn't much of a problem. As a player I don't even come close to fleshing out my PC's as the OP does. However I create the characters that I want, within the current rules and DM guidelines, and will gladly hand it to the DM when finished for his "once over". If things are not up to par then I change them. I do not see any reason to become upset over it...it's just a game.
Thoronmir 01-21-05, 02:20 PM	As a DM, I prefer to set parameters on PC creation before any players invest much time and/or effort into their PCs. This is to say that I tell them at the front end what resources are allowed and of any revisions I’ve made to Core RAW. As long as they stay within the boundaries I set, I leave the details up to the players. I honestly don’t care if Yancey the PC spends four Skill Points on Craft: Macramé. I’ve never once insisted that a PC take any particular Feat or Skill. I have reminded players that certain details of the campaign might warrant certain abilities in the party, but I leave it to the players to sort out. We us point-buy and I’ve never told a player what stats to use for his PC. As for PC backgrounds, I reserve the right to veto anything that proves inconsistent with my world, but I try to leave the player’s work untainted. I work with the player to refine the PC’s background. Had I been Clark’s DM, I would have suggested the “Fallen House” scenario for his Swashbuckler … he gets to have been raised among the aristocracy, but he gains no in-game benefits for his nobility (the exact solution he found with his Paladin). As a player, my first question before preparing for a new campaign is “What books do you allow?” I ferret out any houserules or optional rules the DM uses. I make sure I understand his boundaries before I set my mind to a character concept. I discuss the concept with the DM before I move on to actually building the PC. Once built, I review the PC with the DM line-by-line so he understands how and why I’ve constructed my character as I have. I believe it’s just as important for the DM to understand my PC as it is that I understand him.
Juan Moore 01-21-05, 03:04 PM	I'm pretty obsessive about my character sheets. In fact, I've got particular locations for all of my characters. We've got one person in our group who hates to make new characters, so the whole group gets together to figure something out for him... it becomes quite a party designing a character for him. :D But as far as the DM is concerned, as long as we obey all the rules he puts down, he really doesn't care about what we make (unless he's got a particular campaign idea and then we need to run the idea past him). It's nice if our characters mesh together, but if they don't, that's part of the challenge of gameplay. Then again, it's even better to let the whole party know what you're making at the beginning so no one feels redundant. (Ex. two rogues, one does Open Lock and the other does Disable Device). We've been playing together so long though, we really don't have to run stuff by the DM any more... and the house rules haven't changed much. The most recent house rule is to factor in the weight of money (forcing us to spend spend spend).
Ty 01-21-05, 05:51 PM	You know, I've never even thought about what you're describing. My players have always had freedom to choose whatever they want, write up what they want, and hold on to what they want to. If they want to leave the character sheet with me, so be it. The only restrictions I ever give generally involve no psionics or extreme races (although the warlock is getting the big *Banning Stick* because I simply can't find a place for them in our campaign and to be honest, don't like their flavor). Wish I could offer more productive information or suggestions but, I'm the exact opposite of what you're talking about. Players make their character and if they have questions, they ask me. Otherwise, hey, I'm just here to provide the entertainment.
Thorak 01-21-05, 06:43 PM	You know, I've never even thought about what you're describing. My players have always had freedom to choose whatever they want, write up what they want, and hold on to what they want to. If they want to leave the character sheet with me, so be it. The only restrictions I ever give generally involve no psionics or extreme races (although the warlock is getting the big *Banning Stick* because I simply can't find a place for them in our campaign and to be honest, don't like their flavor). Wish I could offer more productive information or suggestions but, I'm the exact opposite of what you're talking about. Players make their character and if they have questions, they ask me. Otherwise, hey, I'm just here to provide the entertainment. Cool. My next character is the newly-elected King of Waterdeep. He's raiding the city treasury at level 1 to equip himself and his friends. You may think I'm being ridiculous unnecessarily. I have been in a campaign where some joker tried to claim his character was a prince of the realm, because he'd stuck that tidbit somewhere on page 3 of the character sheet. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about, not general stuff like "I want to play a Dwarf Wizard."
Aluroon 01-21-05, 06:47 PM	As a new dm, I lay down some simple rules (books, setting, point buy, game starting area, level), give my pcs the house rules I use, and let them have at it. One they get there backgrounds hammered out, I look them over. If theres a problum I try to work it out with the pc, preferably without changing there concept to much. Atleast thats how I try to make it work. As a player it can be very frustration to have the character you have been working on for the last two weeks shot down by the dm, especally when you feel that he doesnt even lisson to your arguements. So yes, I can see why most players get upset when dm's want to tinker with there character... Aluroon
clarkvalentine 01-21-05, 11:47 PM	Cool. My next character is the newly-elected King of Waterdeep. He's raiding the city treasury at level 1 to equip himself and his friends. I'd allow the attempt, by saying: Did you take the Noble class I houseruled? OK, make your Call In Favor check, DC 30. Failed? Aw, no treasury-raiding for you. And you're getting indicted for fraud. ;)
Callista 01-21-05, 11:50 PM	DMs have the right to ban any prestige class, alignment, spell, et cetera., which should be done as little as possible but is otherwise quite in their power. DMs should have the final word on backgrounds; but if players don't make up 99% of their PC's history, the game becomes more like actors directed by the DM and less like characters in a setting provided by the DM. DMs already have enough to do without dictating PCs as well.
Thorak 01-22-05, 01:04 AM	I'd allow the attempt, by saying: Did you take the Noble class I houseruled? OK, make your Call In Favor check, DC 30. No, I didn't. But I'm not a noble. I'm a Fighter who's been elected King by acclamation. Failed? Aw, no treasury-raiding for you. And you're getting indicted for fraud. ;) I'm the king. Nobody indicts the king of anything. If they say anything against me, I have them executed for treason. That's the point of a monarchy; the king has absolute control. Now gimme my treasury. :evillaugh :king:
clarkvalentine 01-22-05, 01:09 AM	the king has absolute control. GM: The king obviously never met the GM. ;) Not in this setting, fella. No favor, no money. Now gimme my treasury. GM: Well, you can do that, or you can pay your army. Don'y pay your army, and they revolt. Which means you have a problem, since they're demanding the king's head on a plate. (In truth, I surely wouldn't allow anyone to be the bloomin' king. Not at the start, anyway.)
Thorak 01-23-05, 12:17 AM	GM: The king obviously never met the GM. ;) Not in this setting, fella. No favor, no money. Ahh. So you're going to metagame and change what a "king" is just to deny me something my background clearly entitles me to. I call that "cheating". Or at least bad DMing. It's as bad as saying "And then you wake up from your dream, and remember you're really a _____" GM: Well, you can do that, or you can pay your army. Don'y pay your army, and they revolt. Which means you have a problem, since they're demanding the king's head on a plate. (In truth, I surely wouldn't allow anyone to be the bloomin' king. Not at the start, anyway.) Oh, I'll send the army on a war first. Standard procedure; you get paid when you get back, or your family does if you have one, so we're not shipping large amounts of gold all over the land and putting it at risk. We've got your rights in mind, here, really. And once they're at war, a lot of them will die. And when I refuse to pay their widows, they won't have any able-bodied men around to help out, since they've all been sent to war. And somewhere around here, once I've emptied the treasury, I abdicate and do my darndest to vanish. I'm sure, with a kingdom's treasury, I can buy magical disguise gear, or even a permanent physical change of some kind. My point isn't that I should be allowed to do this. My point is that allowing a PC to have any background they can dream up is dangerous, and will cause headaches for the DM. The very fact that we can keep going back-and-forth with it like this proves my point. Not that every player would abuse it like this, but I've seen some try. I have honestly seen someone ask if they can use their 40th level archwizard who's killed Elminster in a new campaign. Where everyone else was starting at level 3 or so. His reason? "I earned everything legit in another game, honest."
Kalanth 01-23-05, 05:08 AM	As a DM, I am not interested in your character until YOU are done making it. When your done, I half heartedly look over your stats, then ask (with more interest) your background. Once we are done there, we are ready to play.
Ty 01-23-05, 08:19 AM	Well Thorak, All FR enthusiasts know there isn't a *current* king of Waterdeep so I'm sorry, you're character must be a delusional nut bug. Either that or man who has been dead for several hundred years. Which choice do you want? If a player wants to be a king, sure. You're kingdom has been overrun by orcs and you're on the run without so much as a copper to your name. No, my players know better than that. I have the good fortune of not playing with a bunch of munchkins. Do they include power-gamers? Yep, in fact all of them power-game to a certain extent. Is it ever a problem? Nope.
clarkvalentine 01-23-05, 09:42 AM	Ahh. So you're going to metagame and change what a "king" is just to deny me something my background clearly entitles me to. Ask the Queen of England if she can simply raid the UK's traeasury for her own pleasure. ;) Yes, I know you're arguing the devil's advocate position. But for everything the player can dream up, the GM has a counter. But your point is well taken, it can lead to headaches.
Thorak 01-23-05, 01:29 PM	Well Thorak, All FR enthusiasts know there isn't a *current* king of Waterdeep so I'm sorry, you're character must be a delusional nut bug. Either that or man who has been dead for several hundred years. Which choice do you want? If a player wants to be a king, sure. You're kingdom has been overrun by orcs and you're on the run without so much as a copper to your name. No, my players know better than that. I have the good fortune of not playing with a bunch of munchkins. Do they include power-gamers? Yep, in fact all of them power-game to a certain extent. Is it ever a problem? Nope. Kindly read my first post, where I clearly stated that he was newly-elected the King. Of course there's no record of it in the official stuff; this happened after they were printed. Your point about how my kingdom would be overrun by orcs and I'm penniless just proves my point; PCs don't get to pick whatever background they want, the DM has the right to change it to prevent abuses and such. I started this specifically to show that allowing a player complete freedom to play whatever they want and denying the DM the right to change it is a bad thing. Ask the Queen of England if she can simply raid the UK's traeasury for her own pleasure. Yes, I know you're arguing the devil's advocate position. But for everything the player can dream up, the GM has a counter. But your point is well taken, it can lead to headaches. The Queen of England isn't a true monarch; she doesn't have governmental control any more. She's a titular queen, but she's a figurehead more than a ruler. A better comparison would be the Saudis in control of Saudi Arabia. Who do indeed seem able to use the country's profits however they like. My point is that the DM must retain the right to counter and shoot down aspects of a character's proposed background. All the points being raised against me are just proving my point; you guys, taking the DM's position, are trying to edit my proposed background because you see the potential abuse. That's my point; the DM needs to have that power.
ShadowDragon8685 01-23-05, 01:53 PM	King, eh? So you want to be King? :evillaugh :evillaugh :smirk: :plotting: We can do this. By the time I'm done with crafting a Sim D&D game, you'll wish you'd rolled up a Bard. That, or you and your lieutenants will be hip-deep in orcs and fighting to keep the kingdom alive, while loving every minute of it. Of course, I'm just as likely to tell you to take a hike. Players should have total freedom over their character creation. Those who attempt to ABUSE this fact will find themselves being smacked around. If you really want to be a prince, go for it mate. Of course, you can't just raid the treasury for magical items. First off, you'd need daddy's permission. And he ain't gonna give it. Secondly, you can't just run off willy-nilly on adventures, you're a resource too precious to waste like that. If you're dead-set on this madness, daddy'll send a contingent of guards with you, THEY get to go into the goblin lair and have the fun, while you sit around outside leeching like 5% XP. Remember, those two big guys who're standing in the doorway and facing you and who are unwilling to move even to let you through sir, they're there for your protection. They really are quite nessessary.
Ty 01-23-05, 05:50 PM	Thorak, I think you're missing the point. Character creation is not merely stats, picking a class, skills, and feats. It also includes the character background. Background to flesh out the stats, class, skills, feats, and yes, starting gold, etc. That is why we have.... wait for it.... *character creation rules*. Tada! Last I checked, there was no King class with the 1st level ability of *Raid Treasury*. If you would have kindly read my first post, you would have noted that I, like most DM's, have absolutely no problem allowing characters to create their characters in conjunction with the rule books. If you go beyond the rule books, you are quite correct that at that point, you've got to consult the DM. I'm not sure why we are arguing or belaboring this point since we agree that starting as the King of Waterdeep isn't supported by the rules and is only something you could possibly do in conjunction with the consent of the DM. However, the original poster isn't talking about this, as far as I can tell. What he is talking about is his personality, his motivations, his character, as in his overall mentality. Most DM's don't care if your character is afraid of weasels, has a nervous tic, a particular fondness for knives, wants to find the Lost City of Babrawala, or whatever. It's the player's prerogative to play the character they want to play and I am not going to step in and say sorry, you can't play a jaded paladin based off Tom Cruise from the Last Samurai.
Juan Moore 01-23-05, 07:41 PM	Last I checked, there was no King class with the 1st level ability of *Raid Treasury*. Actually, that sounds like a really neat prestige class... :D I wouldn't let a 1st level character START as the "newly-elected" anything. However, I could say that he could be in the running after maybe 2 or 3 campaigns of Role-Playing his election campaign... it's an interesting idea... But I'd rather just give the guy some kind of key to the city or whatever. Making a PC king kind of reduces the mobility of the party... vastly.
D+1 01-23-05, 11:30 PM	I'm not sure why we are arguing or belaboring this point since we agree that starting as the King of Waterdeep isn't supported by the rules and is only something you could possibly do in conjunction with the consent of the DM.The original post suggested that the character sheet - and of particular concern to the poster, the character background - is sacrosanct. That is it not to be ALTERED by the DM, merely approved in toto or disapproved. What Thorak is saying (and what I stridently agree with) is that the character creation process doesn't generally work that way when the character being created is going to bump up against what the DM wants for the campaign. Character background MUST be a process that includes the DM's selective veto. If the PLAYER wants to be of the attitude "It MUST be taken ENTIRELY as I've created it or the whole thing gets scrapped", well let him be that way. But the DM does have the right - nay, the responsibility - to veto those portions of the characters background (or whatever) that he sees as problematic for whatever reason. Only a truly petulant player would make it an all-or-nothing deal rather than be willing to discuss it and compromise with the DM to fit the players character concept into the campaign. It's the player's prerogative to play the character they want to play and I am not going to step in and say sorry, you can't play a jaded paladin based off Tom Cruise from the Last Samurai.No, it isn't the player's UNCONTESTED perogative to play whatever he wants. Players don't have the right to play characters that disrupt the game, like characters that are played as annoying jerks because the player is being "true to his character". Players don't have the right to simply declare that their character is heir to the throne and expect the DM to have to go along with it. The DM has the right to tell the player that their character CANNOT be from "the Lost City of Babrawala" because there is no such place in his campaign. And so on, so forth, and such like. In short, the DM does not have the power to tell the player "You WILL play this background as I have rewritten it for you" but he does have the power to tell the player "I will not allow this and that element of your background so we'll have to work together to come up with something that I can allow."
Thorak 01-24-05, 12:30 AM	Thorak, I think you're missing the point. Character creation is not merely stats, picking a class, skills, and feats. It also includes the character background. Background to flesh out the stats, class, skills, feats, and yes, starting gold, etc. That is why we have.... wait for it.... *character creation rules*. Tada! Last I checked, there was no King class with the 1st level ability of *Raid Treasury*. If you would have kindly read my first post, you would have noted that I, like most DM's, have absolutely no problem allowing characters to create their characters in conjunction with the rule books. If you go beyond the rule books, you are quite correct that at that point, you've got to consult the DM. I'm not sure why we are arguing or belaboring this point since we agree that starting as the King of Waterdeep isn't supported by the rules and is only something you could possibly do in conjunction with the consent of the DM. However, the original poster isn't talking about this, as far as I can tell. What he is talking about is his personality, his motivations, his character, as in his overall mentality. Most DM's don't care if your character is afraid of weasels, has a nervous tic, a particular fondness for knives, wants to find the Lost City of Babrawala, or whatever. It's the player's prerogative to play the character they want to play and I am not going to step in and say sorry, you can't play a jaded paladin based off Tom Cruise from the Last Samurai. I originally posted the start of my insane King bit in response to, basically, this quote of yours; "My players have always had freedom to choose whatever they want, write up what they want, and hold on to what they want to" If I were a player of yours, then I want to choose to be the King of waterdeep, write it up on my sheet, and hold on to the entire treasury. You didn't say anything about "in the rule books", you gave complete carte blanche. D+1 got my point down pat.
Ty 01-24-05, 09:53 AM	You know what, we've been talking across lines here Thorak. The original poster seems to indicate that he has a problem with coming up with a description and handing over the character sheet for the DM to fill out with the relevant classes, skills, feats, magic items, etc. Now for my error in posting. In my original post, I should have placed Paragraph 2 where Paragraph 1 is so as to make the statement clear. Let me rewrite that so there is no confusion and anyone can read the qualifier before the "carte blanche". "The only restrictions I ever give generally involve no psionics or extreme races (although the warlock is getting the big *Banning Stick* because I simply can't find a place for them in our campaign and to be honest, don't like their flavor). You know, I've never even thought about what you're describing. My players have always had freedom to choose whatever they want, write up what they want, and hold on to what they want to. If they want to leave the character sheet with me, so be it." Does that make more sense now? You are correct. My grammatical formulation error caused an insane amount of confusion as my first statement could be taken entirely out of context by anyone who desired to do so. Obviously, I assumed people would read both paragraphs in conjunction with one another and not draw an absurd conclusion based upon only one paragraph, leaving the remainder of the post unread or unused. Obviously, I don't allow carte blanche on the "rules" since there are no psionics or warlocks in my campaign world. What I allow carte blanche on is that I trust my players to be reasonable both in background and in their application of the rules. I'm not going to take their background, write in stats, place magic items, etc. By the same token D+1, my players are mature enough to know not to (and lack the desire to) play a jerk, a newly-elected King of Waterdeep, or something entirely disruptive. I assume, in general, people posting here are mature adults capable of enjoying the atmosphere of role-playing with friends in a constructive manner until they have proven otherwise. Any written statement can be taken out of context or argued to an extreme with enough creativity. I believe at this point however, my post is not being taken in the spirit in which I placed it (meaning yes, there are DM's out there who don't give a rats patootie about controling every aspect of the game). I don't think I'd want to play in a game where the DM could tell me no on what I want to play and just hands me a character sheet. Likewise, I don't think I'd want someone who would manipulate the system or my trust in my players in my game. It's just a style difference really and Thorak and D+1, you both know as DM's what is best for your group so hey, live and let live. However, I also feel that there is a worm dancing in the water and that worm is wrangling my points in a contrived manner.
Thorak 01-24-05, 11:33 AM	"The only restrictions I ever give generally involve no psionics or extreme races (although the warlock is getting the big *Banning Stick* because I simply can't find a place for them in our campaign and to be honest, don't like their flavor). You know, I've never even thought about what you're describing. My players have always had freedom to choose whatever they want, write up what they want, and hold on to what they want to. If they want to leave the character sheet with me, so be it." As I did the first time, I see you saying you only generally restrict psionics and extreme races, followed by saying that your players have the freedom, I assumed besides those two restrictions, to play whatever they wanted. Hence my point about my next character being the King of Waterdeep. That's neither psionics, nor an extreme race. It's not one of the things you said you restrict, and you said otherwise you give your players carte blanche. Ergo, I can play the King of Waterdeep, and raid the treasury, because you aren't going to restrict my "freedom to choose whatever [I] want". Your posts afterwards in response proved my point; even though you claim to give your players full freedom, you reserve the right to edit their background if need be. That's the only way you have the right to say "If a player wants to be a king, sure. You're kingdom has been overrun by orcs and you're on the run without so much as a copper to your name." My point was that this right to edit is critical for a DM to have, because otherwise, the potential for abuse is too great. Even if it's unintentional.
arimus09 01-27-05, 10:50 PM	I would have to agree with most here that we have enough to do with running the game without having to worry also about PC creation. I have a few rules...players roll stats and hd in front of me. They assign skill points, choose feats etc...in front of me. I also allow at there option them to roll on my house rules backround chart. It does not give them a backround but adds or subtracts things from there character to help them with backround. These backround rolls determine things like pc's social class. They can roll phobias, etc...Alot of times I will get them started to work them into the game, but that tends to be very general...The cleric is healing the sick and a battered party stumbles up to him etc...Now the cleric is in the game. I leave the rest to my players subject to my approval. The only other control I have is Char sheets stay here. For me this eliminates all sorts of problems. Players are more than welcome to stop by and review their sheets anytime. This avoids "oops I left my sheet at home" or even "the dog ate it" Also it allow me easy access to their char while setting up for the next session. Further more if a player can't make it to the next session and that character is suddenly needed it is at my disposal. I try not to do anything character influencing...for instance the cleric can't make it and the party is injured. To avoid death because I was counting on the cleric being there to heal...all of a sudden he's there heals the pc's and then fades into the backround again. I love high level games but I usually have my pc's roll in at first level. I feel that this allows for character development. I also rarely regulate allignment. The game I'm currently running I have as it is an evil game I've required only e or n. Simply because I have hi level npc's that were put in place to ensure party unity would kill any good pc on sight. Anyway sorry for being so long winded in short make your character and submit it for DM approval.