Ello, my fellow Dungeon Masters, I need a little help.
I am the main DM for my school's Table Top Club. The DND side has been on a little hiatus for some other games, but I'm starting to open it back up with a one shot.
Over the past couple years some reddit of tumbler post about giving your players amnesia and blank character sheets, then letting them fill it up as more is reviled. Right now I'm in the middle of writing a basic story for my players. My plan is to run the same campaign for two groups, so more people can play with smaller groups. I'm not the best at making an engaging player character. Maybe a side character or a one off, but no something that someone can really play for long.
My ask of you is this, do you have, or can you make, characters with interesting qualities. A few examples I came up wait a friend are:
A pacifist, and every time they attack it's with disadvantage
A blind man, given sight by the god of Mischief, and sometime sees just fake things (Please use this one)
A loner who hate everyone else
The point of these qualities are to be able to be said by the DM, but have little context.
First, make sure your players are on board with not getting to decide their characters. Some people may not want to have that decision taken from them, while others may breath a sigh of relief that they don't have to.
Some of my character ideas:
Blood hunter/any martial class if you don't do 3rd party Dhampir: they hunt monstrosity and things that hunt and devour humanoids, because they are trying to make up the cenutries of wrong monsters have inflicted upon humanoids; however, they still thirst for blood and sometimes are driven into a feeding frenzy by combat. They keep their vampiric nature hidden.
Firbolg/Half-elf paladin of glory raised in the north by barbarians who believe in valor and making a legend of yourself. They were found abandoned on a rocky cairn and they took them in. They're out to make a name for themselves and slay legendary beasts to earn honor for their family because they were always seen as a liability
Gnome warlock of the fey: A tricksy trickster who loves tricking. Mischevious, always up to something. They were raised as a spoiled brat in a noble family and thus can be snobby to others. They entered into a pact because they wanted to be more than everyone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
Down, down, down the road, down the Witches Road
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
I really really really think that idea would not be as fun as it sounds in the tumblr post, and I think the person who wrote it is probably not verey familiar with DnD. If you think about how it would actually go, it's less "omg I'm DRAGONBORN???" and more the DM not telling players what they can do and then repeatedly asking them "what do you do?" When you really think about it, the DM has all the information and just controlls when the players get it, and by the premise of the post, the DM eventually tells the players, so one might wonder why they have to wait for the DM to choose when to release that information.
Think about it in a different situation. You're not in a shop, you're in a fight. "What do you do?" "Hmm, well I don't know. Do I feel super strong or super smart?" "Haha that's an interesting question, roll Insight on yourself", "Ok I only rolled a 6, are there any modifiers to that?" "Oh um let me look at your stats. One sec, I had them right in front of me. Oh wait, here we go, I found it. Sorry, 6 is a fail." "Well ok I guess I just try to swing a chair at the enemy...? I roll a 12" "Yeah lol that misses."
Not only could that sort of interaction be very frustrating for the players after the novelty of figuring out what species they are wears off, but that's a really loooooong exchange to have in the middle of combat, and you're going to do that for every player involved, and this is not going to fit into a one shot, and I don't think it's a very fun idea in practice.
If you're trying to get D&D up and running, there's a lot to be said for just running normal D&D. Save the weird stuff for when people are more jaded.
Also, for giving the players PCs, you probably want to let them decide on their characters' personalities. If you're not doing character generation, far better IMO to give them basic pregens, and then ask them some questions that let them decide who their character is, and how they connect to the other PCs.
(Also "loner who hates everyone else" is the second-worst D&D character ever, right behind "deranged murderhobo".)
I agree with the general sentiment. I think jl8e's approach is the best. Play standard, and use pre-generated character sheets - but also be prepared to help someone build their own character if they're not into a pre-gen. Absolutely let them have their own personality - except if it's "a loner who hates everyone else." D&D is a team game, so I would ban that personality entirely for a table of new players.
Bluntly, I don't like any of the qualities you and your friend came up with. Rolling everything sight-based with disadvantage is not going to be a fun experience, it will be utterly miserable for that player. A blind man who sometimes sees fake things also is bad, because this is a game of the mind. All the players have to rely on is your accurate descriptions of the world. It's hard enough sometimes understanding what's going on when the description is true, never mind when it's randomly false.
The ideas you and your friend came up with totally won't work. They are major debuffs/complications to characters that the players didn't ask for, and it strays into telling the players how to play their character which you NEVER want to do. The only time I've seen the "you all lost your memory" trope work well is in a TV show called Dark Matter, where it starts out will all the main characters having lost their memories and deciding what to do or not, and they decide they want to be good guys and help some people prepare for a group of elite mercenaries coming to attack them, only to discover they are the mercenaries these people are afraid of. They all then slowly discover various convoluted backstories about themselves but the characters choose what to do with that information and whether they go back to being that person or decide to change their fate / who they are.
The way you would do it in 5e, is start with all the players deciding the personality of their character - are they naturally diplomatic and want to negotiate solutions? are they natural jokers? are they impatient and just want to find the quickest solution regardless of the potential consequences? or are they planners who come up with crazy convoluted plans? Are they smart and good at solving puzzles or are them thick and solve problems with their fist?
You then have the players choose their race & starting ability scores to reflect that personality. So the meat-head who like punching their way through stuff gets high CON/STR and low INT. The natural diplomat gets high CHA but low STR. The kleptomaniac gets high DEX and low WIS. etc....
Then you the DM come up with backstories for all of them, and decide which skills they are proficient in due to those backstories. You also decide what class they are, and build their characters up to level 2 or level 5 (whichever level you / they want to start at). You keep that secret but as they play and use different skills you reveal if they are proficient in those skills or not, and when they try to do stuff in combat / cast spells you reveal if they can or cannot. etc....
The campaign then becomes their journey to discover their backstories, and what they choose to do about those backstories now that their memories of those backstories are gone - so you MUST write in a central conflict to each character's backstory such as:
- They committed a crime and the authorities are looking for them. - Someone did something terrible to them and they were in the process of setting up a scheme to get revenge on them. - They were hired by some bad person to do an awful thing. - They were on their way to deliver an important message, and if they fail to deliver it on time could cause something bad to happen. - They were a ruler/heir to some kingdom that is under threat. - They have a family somewhere that they have been separated from. - They made some promise or swore some oath that they have now broken.
However, all of these are pretty complex and nuanced stories. IME most kids don't want something that complicated, they just want to be powerful characters that go fight the monsters.
The best version of the 100 character questions questionnaire that I know of starts with three mandatory questions: 1. What about your character is social; 2. What's a plot your character would be motivated to participate in; 3. Why would your character choose to join a group? Why are these questions mandatory? Because the anti-social loner who won't join a group and can't be motivated to take part in a plot HAS NO STORY. A storytelling game about a character who has no story is going to be...difficult. Seek to create characters for whom those questions are answerable.
I'm assuming you've played D&D. You want to start up the D&D club at your school, small groups, get people involved so that they have fun. I agree with the comments above that the suggested ideas aren't a great approach to setting up a game where folks, especially newer players, would have fun.
However, consider the ideas that you and your friend came up with:
A pacifist, and every time they attack it's with disadvantage
A blind man, given sight by the god of Mischief, and sometime sees just fake things (Please use this one)
A loner who hate everyone else
Would you be able to have fun playing any of these crippled characters? Half of D&D is likely combat and the first character will be useless at that unless they become a spell caster using saving throw spells exclusively or a heal bot life cleric. It isn't a fun concept for most players - they would not enjoy playing it. Similarly, the second character where the DM has to tell the player they see things that aren't there and then it develops into an argument between players over what is there and what is not. With the DM manipulating the player to react to something that isn't there. Fun? Not. The Loner idea is the same. D&D is a group game. Adventurers go out looking for fame and fortune but they have to rely on the others in their group for their survival. They would not choose to adventure with someone who could not be relied upon. A loner who hates everyone is NOT a team player and would not make a good party member.
One of the first questions characters have to ask is why they are adventuring together? When players create characters, many come up with interesting concepts but don't fill in the details to know why they are adventuring and why they are working with other folks. All of your examples are cases of characters that would not make good party members (except perhaps in very limited roles) but more importantly would not be very much fun to play unless the player wanted to play a character like that and had a specific back story that would make it work in a party or group setting.
As an alternative, you could consider setting up a scenario where the decisions of the players during the intro adventure will begin to define their character. Get the players into the role playing first before they have a defined character. Are they thoughtful/methodical ... do they analyse things or just jump in? Does the player see the character as Strong? Dextrous? Hardy? Smart? Perceptive? Convincing? What does the player want to be skilled at? Does the player want to approach things in melee or at range? With weapons or spells? Do they like nature or prefer an urban environment?
I think the suggestion from eapiv about using a questionnaire of sorts that is discovered through a role playing intro adventure that then gets built into a character for each player would give a very unique start to each game creating a character for each player that they are more invested in and where they have a better understanding of where the character comes from and what they might want to do.
If you still want to use pre-gens for a one shot instead then perhaps consider giving each character a secret agenda or objective in the adventure. I've seen this technique used for adventures built for conventions where the characters have interesting quirks or goals that will drive the character interactions and role playing from the beginning while giving the players characters that are unique and fun to play.
An iron statuette. When the player is present, the PC is a changeling (any class works) and everyone behaves as if the PC has always been there since... nobody actually remembers. When the player is not there, the PC doesn't exist at all, not even in the mind of the party. The PC can only know what they've experienced or been told, like a normal person would. The PC also knows people believe they've always known each other if they're present, and also that people forget their existence when not. This is a curse placed on the changeling by a powerful creature.
Edit: Anything bad the party has done in the past, it is likely (20%) to be blamed on this PC as part of the curse; however, this only lasts for the current session. The curse can be removed with Remove Curse from someone else, but nobody can know the PC has a curse or it will become irremovable for 100 years.
Ello, my fellow Dungeon Masters, I need a little help.
I am the main DM for my school's Table Top Club. The DND side has been on a little hiatus for some other games, but I'm starting to open it back up with a one shot.
Over the past couple years some reddit of tumbler post about giving your players amnesia and blank character sheets, then letting them fill it up as more is reviled. Right now I'm in the middle of writing a basic story for my players. My plan is to run the same campaign for two groups, so more people can play with smaller groups. I'm not the best at making an engaging player character. Maybe a side character or a one off, but no something that someone can really play for long.
My ask of you is this, do you have, or can you make, characters with interesting qualities. A few examples I came up wait a friend are:
The point of these qualities are to be able to be said by the DM, but have little context.
First, make sure your players are on board with not getting to decide their characters. Some people may not want to have that decision taken from them, while others may breath a sigh of relief that they don't have to.
Some of my character ideas:
DM: He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
Down, down, down the road, down the Witches Road
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
"When are we gonna take a snack break?"
I really really really think that idea would not be as fun as it sounds in the tumblr post, and I think the person who wrote it is probably not verey familiar with DnD. If you think about how it would actually go, it's less "omg I'm DRAGONBORN???" and more the DM not telling players what they can do and then repeatedly asking them "what do you do?" When you really think about it, the DM has all the information and just controlls when the players get it, and by the premise of the post, the DM eventually tells the players, so one might wonder why they have to wait for the DM to choose when to release that information.
Think about it in a different situation. You're not in a shop, you're in a fight. "What do you do?" "Hmm, well I don't know. Do I feel super strong or super smart?" "Haha that's an interesting question, roll Insight on yourself", "Ok I only rolled a 6, are there any modifiers to that?" "Oh um let me look at your stats. One sec, I had them right in front of me. Oh wait, here we go, I found it. Sorry, 6 is a fail." "Well ok I guess I just try to swing a chair at the enemy...? I roll a 12" "Yeah lol that misses."
Not only could that sort of interaction be very frustrating for the players after the novelty of figuring out what species they are wears off, but that's a really loooooong exchange to have in the middle of combat, and you're going to do that for every player involved, and this is not going to fit into a one shot, and I don't think it's a very fun idea in practice.
If you're trying to get D&D up and running, there's a lot to be said for just running normal D&D. Save the weird stuff for when people are more jaded.
Also, for giving the players PCs, you probably want to let them decide on their characters' personalities. If you're not doing character generation, far better IMO to give them basic pregens, and then ask them some questions that let them decide who their character is, and how they connect to the other PCs.
(Also "loner who hates everyone else" is the second-worst D&D character ever, right behind "deranged murderhobo".)
Weird that there's three new threads today all asking variations on memory loss mechanics
I agree with the general sentiment. I think jl8e's approach is the best. Play standard, and use pre-generated character sheets - but also be prepared to help someone build their own character if they're not into a pre-gen. Absolutely let them have their own personality - except if it's "a loner who hates everyone else." D&D is a team game, so I would ban that personality entirely for a table of new players.
Bluntly, I don't like any of the qualities you and your friend came up with. Rolling everything sight-based with disadvantage is not going to be a fun experience, it will be utterly miserable for that player. A blind man who sometimes sees fake things also is bad, because this is a game of the mind. All the players have to rely on is your accurate descriptions of the world. It's hard enough sometimes understanding what's going on when the description is true, never mind when it's randomly false.
The ideas you and your friend came up with totally won't work. They are major debuffs/complications to characters that the players didn't ask for, and it strays into telling the players how to play their character which you NEVER want to do. The only time I've seen the "you all lost your memory" trope work well is in a TV show called Dark Matter, where it starts out will all the main characters having lost their memories and deciding what to do or not, and they decide they want to be good guys and help some people prepare for a group of elite mercenaries coming to attack them, only to discover they are the mercenaries these people are afraid of. They all then slowly discover various convoluted backstories about themselves but the characters choose what to do with that information and whether they go back to being that person or decide to change their fate / who they are.
The way you would do it in 5e, is start with all the players deciding the personality of their character - are they naturally diplomatic and want to negotiate solutions? are they natural jokers? are they impatient and just want to find the quickest solution regardless of the potential consequences? or are they planners who come up with crazy convoluted plans? Are they smart and good at solving puzzles or are them thick and solve problems with their fist?
You then have the players choose their race & starting ability scores to reflect that personality. So the meat-head who like punching their way through stuff gets high CON/STR and low INT. The natural diplomat gets high CHA but low STR. The kleptomaniac gets high DEX and low WIS. etc....
Then you the DM come up with backstories for all of them, and decide which skills they are proficient in due to those backstories. You also decide what class they are, and build their characters up to level 2 or level 5 (whichever level you / they want to start at). You keep that secret but as they play and use different skills you reveal if they are proficient in those skills or not, and when they try to do stuff in combat / cast spells you reveal if they can or cannot. etc....
The campaign then becomes their journey to discover their backstories, and what they choose to do about those backstories now that their memories of those backstories are gone - so you MUST write in a central conflict to each character's backstory such as:
- They committed a crime and the authorities are looking for them.
- Someone did something terrible to them and they were in the process of setting up a scheme to get revenge on them.
- They were hired by some bad person to do an awful thing.
- They were on their way to deliver an important message, and if they fail to deliver it on time could cause something bad to happen.
- They were a ruler/heir to some kingdom that is under threat.
- They have a family somewhere that they have been separated from.
- They made some promise or swore some oath that they have now broken.
However, all of these are pretty complex and nuanced stories. IME most kids don't want something that complicated, they just want to be powerful characters that go fight the monsters.
The best version of the 100 character questions questionnaire that I know of starts with three mandatory questions:
1. What about your character is social;
2. What's a plot your character would be motivated to participate in;
3. Why would your character choose to join a group?
Why are these questions mandatory? Because the anti-social loner who won't join a group and can't be motivated to take part in a plot HAS NO STORY. A storytelling game about a character who has no story is going to be...difficult. Seek to create characters for whom those questions are answerable.
Hi!
I'm assuming you've played D&D. You want to start up the D&D club at your school, small groups, get people involved so that they have fun. I agree with the comments above that the suggested ideas aren't a great approach to setting up a game where folks, especially newer players, would have fun.
However, consider the ideas that you and your friend came up with:
Would you be able to have fun playing any of these crippled characters? Half of D&D is likely combat and the first character will be useless at that unless they become a spell caster using saving throw spells exclusively or a heal bot life cleric. It isn't a fun concept for most players - they would not enjoy playing it. Similarly, the second character where the DM has to tell the player they see things that aren't there and then it develops into an argument between players over what is there and what is not. With the DM manipulating the player to react to something that isn't there. Fun? Not. The Loner idea is the same. D&D is a group game. Adventurers go out looking for fame and fortune but they have to rely on the others in their group for their survival. They would not choose to adventure with someone who could not be relied upon. A loner who hates everyone is NOT a team player and would not make a good party member.
One of the first questions characters have to ask is why they are adventuring together? When players create characters, many come up with interesting concepts but don't fill in the details to know why they are adventuring and why they are working with other folks. All of your examples are cases of characters that would not make good party members (except perhaps in very limited roles) but more importantly would not be very much fun to play unless the player wanted to play a character like that and had a specific back story that would make it work in a party or group setting.
As an alternative, you could consider setting up a scenario where the decisions of the players during the intro adventure will begin to define their character. Get the players into the role playing first before they have a defined character. Are they thoughtful/methodical ... do they analyse things or just jump in? Does the player see the character as Strong? Dextrous? Hardy? Smart? Perceptive? Convincing? What does the player want to be skilled at? Does the player want to approach things in melee or at range? With weapons or spells? Do they like nature or prefer an urban environment?
I think the suggestion from eapiv about using a questionnaire of sorts that is discovered through a role playing intro adventure that then gets built into a character for each player would give a very unique start to each game creating a character for each player that they are more invested in and where they have a better understanding of where the character comes from and what they might want to do.
If you still want to use pre-gens for a one shot instead then perhaps consider giving each character a secret agenda or objective in the adventure. I've seen this technique used for adventures built for conventions where the characters have interesting quirks or goals that will drive the character interactions and role playing from the beginning while giving the players characters that are unique and fun to play.
An iron statuette. When the player is present, the PC is a changeling (any class works) and everyone behaves as if the PC has always been there since... nobody actually remembers. When the player is not there, the PC doesn't exist at all, not even in the mind of the party. The PC can only know what they've experienced or been told, like a normal person would. The PC also knows people believe they've always known each other if they're present, and also that people forget their existence when not. This is a curse placed on the changeling by a powerful creature.
Edit: Anything bad the party has done in the past, it is likely (20%) to be blamed on this PC as part of the curse; however, this only lasts for the current session. The curse can be removed with Remove Curse from someone else, but nobody can know the PC has a curse or it will become irremovable for 100 years.