Anyway, I think we’ve all been in a game with a where there’s no way the characters would ever adventure together. Y’know, the noble half-dragon elf Wu Jen, the goliath Frenzied Berserker, the gnomish Druid that loves all that lives, and the enigmatic ninja assassin who’s a loner but inexplicably in the party anyway. Oh, and the guy who sucked up the LA on that fiend that was so cool and contributes very little aside from scaring away those annoying commoners. Y’know, the ones who sell you stuff.
Not much fun, is it? Everyone in the party hates the other characters, there’s no synergy in people’s abilities, and everyone’s character is so unique that people are all striving to get their personal storyline advanced.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I am in no way suggesting that this is the unavoidable outcome of all parties with oddball members, even ones where the oddball is the human wizard 12, since he’s so normal. I’m just suggesting that that is a possible outcome, and one that has befallen me all too often. Especially vulnerable, I have found are parties that start at high level in campaigns where people have a lot of freedom and own a lot of books. In my experience with that situation, either the party is very effective because the characters work well together, maximize their common strengths, and minimize their weaknesses since they have a lot of options to draw on, the characters are mostly mundane since no one wants to look through all those books (and you have an hour to make characters and play, or the lamentable situation above results. Actually, the first one has never happened to me, but I imagine it would be a blast.
But I digress. I have come up with a new method of character, nay, party generation that I think will make the characters more likely to work better together, and it might enhance roleplaying besides.
Diplominator’s Method of Party Creation
(DMPC for short. I realize that this acronym means something else for many of you, but I’m sick of the debates about Dungeon Master Player Characters and I hope to supplant them.)
1. Add up the number of people who showed up. Subtract one, since someone has to DM. This gives you a number we shall call X.
2. The DM will describe to the players the type of campaign he envisions occurring, i.e. a kick-in-the-door game, a game with lots of a certain variety of opponent, a more social game, etc. Also, any house rules will be clearly laid out, especially ones regarding character creation and allowed sources.
3. Each player will independently create X “character skeletons.” By this, I mean a race, class progression, and one (1) suggestion for a tactic, quirk, or other distinguishing feature of the character. The suggestion is not a requirement, but it should be considered a courtesy to at least consider it. The character skeletons that each person creates should add up to a well-rounded party, and the
4. Everyone gives their lists of character skeletons to the DM, who reads each list aloud. Everyone votes on which party to use, with players getting one vote and the DM getting X/4 votes, rounded up. In the case of a tie, the DM chooses.
6. Character skeletons from the selected party are randomly distributed, although trades are permitted. Each player now fleshes out the character, choosing alignment, feats, skills, spells, personality, etc. (although they must qualify for PrCs and the like in the class progression). Once again, it is recommended that some serious thought be given to the suggestion provided for a character. This way, people will be able to tinker with a character and customize it to be “theirs,” but the party retains the synergy envisioned by its creator.
7. Play. Enjoy the enhanced synergy between characters, fewer prima donnas, and enhanced plausibility of a party’s continued association. Also, since the skeletons are assigned randomly, people are occasionally forced to play an archetype they might not usually consider.
Now, DMPC may not be for everyone. In fact, it’s not supposed to be. Parties composed of mature adults who can do this instinctively need not apply. I’m happy for you; my group is rarely like that. But if you have problems with nonsensical parties where the members squabble over every little detail, you might want to consider DMPC.
7. Play. Enjoy the enhanced synergy between characters, fewer prima donnas, and enhanced plausibility of a party’s continued association. Also, since the skeletons are assigned randomly, people are occasionally forced to play an archetype they might not usually consider.
I think everything but this is a great idea for helping parties that can't seem to knowingly work together. Being randomly assigned a race and class even if it was voted on, doesn't mean you wanted to play the fighter, or the rogue, or maybe you prefer playing a ninja over a rogue? Maybe no one likes playing the healer but you, so someone else is stuck with a role they don't enjoy?
I wouldn't sacrifice my entire choice on what I could play simply to get a party that works together. I agree with [thread=168180]Sulaco's Players Guide to Better Games[/thread] on the fact that you shouldn't create your character in a vacuum, without the other players, but that doesn't mean you should completely give up the idea of playing one of the character concepts you want to play.
Sure, this method requires some ability to tread new paths and come up with something you want to play that's not something you 'd think of immediately, and encourages it, but I can expect one player being better at it than others, for whom this might not be a recipe to success.
I believe other tricks might be needed to create a convincing party. Sulaco's 'Player's Guide to Better Gaming' here on Regdar's contains some info that might work for any group of players, and which you certainly should check out. I am not quite sure, after reading your post, whether you and your group already use this method or if it is still in a conceptual phase. Either way, democracy is a good answer to arguments, so if one thinks his group needs imposed restrictions (as opposed to absolute freedom) that's fine by me.
I think an alternate to voting, might be to make the lists, but then sit and discuss with everyone else, what types of things you would like to do, along with how your character concept could work well in somebody else’s list. I've take a little time, and put together a skeleton list of my own, that I know would never get voted in, but has a group of characters that compliment each other very well.
-----
Personally, I don't think Gnomes get enough screen-time, so here's a sample group I came up with.
Gnome Druid: Natural Spell, Augmented Summoning
-Stays in animal form as much as possible, and rains down an Army of critters with each battle. Good at crowd control with things like Entangle, too.
-Animal Companion is a Medium creature and ridden by his/her sibling the...
Gnome Barbarian: Mounted Feats
-Rides her/his sibling's Animal Companion, and is really excited about the idea of being able to ride a Wolverine, when they get to Fourth Level, so that they can just go nuts together on the battlefield. Girl/boy-friend to...
Gnome Rogue: What else... Improved Feint, Tumble master
-The master of "you can't hit me", flanking and other rogue-y things.
Personal quote: "Center the Fireball on me. I don't mind!" (boy/girl-friend to the Barbarian)
and finally...
Gnome Bard: Magic crafter/caregiver/buffer
-a parent figure to the rest, the Bard takes care of everyone in one-way shape or form. Healing and Charm focus. (Along with Calm Emotions, just incase the Wolverine mount ever REALLY got out of hand...)
-----
Now, maybe I'm really only interested in playing the Gnome Barbarian, because I think the idea of raging on the back of a raging Wolverine would be pretty cool. This list would be a way for me to show how I think I would compliment a Druid, and how that Druid might compliment other characters, as well. If someone else had included a barbarian in their list, I would be able to get some Ideas from that, as to what the others though the role of a barbarian might be.
So, even if it's not perfect for everyone, I think the idea of everyone putting together a core list of characters and quirks could really help many groups start off with a more cohesive and complimenting selection of characters and abilities.
:D
a) The first 3 steps are unchanged. Instead of one player’s party being voted on, the group votes on the PC for each role with the DM breaking a tie. For example:
Cleric1/Fighter1/Rogue1/Wizard1
Cleric2/Fighter2/Rogue2/Wizard2
Cleric3/Fighter3/Rogue3/Wizard3
Cleric4/Fighter4/Rogue4/Wizard4
In this case the cleric will be played by player 4, the fighter by player 1, the rogue by player 3 and the wizard by player 2.
b) Alternately the Players could receive a party role (healer/blaster...) at random. They then create a number of skeletons for their own character where the other players and DM vote which is best for the party.
This keeps the democracy and synergy without stepping on any toes. :D
Maybe no one likes playing the healer but you, so someone else is stuck with a role they don't enjoy?
I thought about this at first too. However, if only one person wants to play the healer, they can trade (as suggested in step six). It would be fairly stupid for them not to, they want to play a healer and the other people don't? Of course they'd trade.
Moreover, the system doesn't eliminate personality types, but it eliminates extremely strange class and race combinations within a party. Sure there might be a loner in the party, but there won't be a two-headed halfling druid adventuring with a whisper gnome barbarian, a thri-kreen psion, and a human bard (I WISH I was kidding).
two-headed halfling druid adventuring with a whisper gnome barbarian, a thri-kreen psion, and a human bard (I WISH I was kidding).
So... uh... what's wrong with that party other than the halfling having 2 heads?
I just can't shake the feeling that having someone else define anything about your character might lead to resentment.
How about, as part of step six, each player has to choose between trading with the other players or keeping the "skeleton" they were dealt but changing any 1 element. Within reason, of course; the modified character skeleton has to fill the same basic niche. If someone tries to abuse this option, or if it turns into an argument about what constitutes "one element" or a "niche," the DM can veto the modification, in which case the player(s) can trade as normal.
I personally dislike this method. Perhaps it would be better for players born to play lawful PCs, but I think that making that kind of decision which may be against the player's will - which character he/she will be with for the rest of the campaign - is wrong. It may work for others, but not for me.
Hopefully your fellow players know at least a little of what you like, and will try and adjust accordingly. I think this would work fine if everyone tries it honestly and without malice. I'm tempted to try it for a one-shot, and see how it goes.