Whenever I introduce a player into D&D after the first character they make they tend towards creating super optimized characters, this is likely due to exposure to the community or build videos, which is pretty largely bent on optimization over concepts, so I wanted to know if this would be a good move going forward with newer players.
I'd never tell the player what classes/subclasses exist in the game, instead I ask what they would want their character to be like. There's a good likelihood that they'll respond with a character from some sort of existing fiction that's out there. I then ask questions to narrow down what playstyle they want to have, which informs me what subclasses/feats to pick. Once they have answered all of the questions, they don't see their character sheet until the night that they play the game.
Main reason I'm posting this is because I'm wanting to know if this is too controlling.
I definitely think that's too much. It's just my opinion, but I don't think you should ever make anyone's character for them. You can help guide them along the process, and you can work with them to build a backstory, but you should never make it for them. If you don't want them making optimized characters, just let them know that any build goes, and you aren't going to make things hard enough to warrant powerful builds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
I'm with wooby on this. You might not have explained yourself well in how this is going to be accomplished. But are the players going to tell you character archetype and then have 0 input after? Like are you going to roll the dice for stats and the also decide where those go? I'd be concerned as a player if I knew my DM doesn't like optimized builds (I don't know why in a game we are annoyed people do this) that he'd give me a cleric with a low wisdom. Which why play a cleric if their wisdom is 8, you are hurting the players ability to do things. I am not saying you are going to do this, but why else have control over a character building but to prevent the Fighter from having high STR, the wizard from having high INT, the cleric from having high WIS.
If you want to have a more fun game, definitely sit down with your players and help them create. Make suggestions that might be more out of the box and explain how it could be cool for the concept to be more wacky. But I don't feel like players should have 0 insight into their character. Also if they are only going to get the sheet first game, how are you expecting them to do anything with the character on the first day? They have to spend time getting to know the character you created. I say you instead of them because giving a archetype is not creating a character. Saying "I want to play Robin Hood, but he is missing an eye." Might seem like a well fleshed out character, but their is still a lot for the PC to discover, giving them the time before the game to do that is important.
Optimized characters does not mean bad or no concept. Since D&D is a game, we should expect the Wizard to buff his INT, the Druid to buff their WIS, the Barbarian to buff his CON. Playing optimally is not a bad thing. If you want more concept or better RP, help that by talking to the players and also showing them through NPC RP,
I think I didn't explain this well, so I'll rephrase what I intended, and I'll show the scenario that incited me to think this.
Although being fairly new to D&D Beyond, I am quite experienced in 5th edition, and by preventing optimization I don't mean stopping the characters from having good stats, in fact, I'd probably influence their stats (I use point buy) to better fit the class, I meant I didn't like optimization to prevent mechanical nightmares like Polearm Master + Sentinel or the incredibly viable Sor/locks, Sorc/adins, & Pal/locks. I'm aware that these are incredibly viable multiclasses, but from a narrative perspective I see the players jumping through hoops to attempt to justify these choices, and I think they detract from the overall narrative. I wouldn't just straight up choose the class for them, but I'd ask them something along the lines of, "What kind of character would you intend to play?" I'd then follow that up with, lets pretend they answer with they like wizard characters from RPGs, "Do you wish for your character to be born with the ability to influence magic, they studied and mastered magic, or they make a pact with some entity to gain magic?" Let's pretend they answered born with capabilities, I'd then ask, "What do you want for your character to be in terms of the magic they cast, they can cast a variety of spells, or they focus on a particular element?" I'd continue with this, but once I get to actually picking the spells for the class, I'd leave it completely open and ask what magical capabilities they want their character to have, then I'd attempt to match each description they gave to a spell that exists. I'd continue this process until I completed all the different parts of character creation.
The reason why I wanted to do something like this is in my campaign we had an areligious barbarian not at all connected to nature and was roleplayed as somebody who was incredibly strong when he got mad, who lived by himself on the coast, and was eventually drawn into the adventure. I generally run a slower campaign so it took awhile until we reached level 3 and once he reached that point he chose bear totem barbarian & proceeded to not acknowledge that this option is meant for a person who is totemic. In the system I had above he likely would've described a Berserker barbarian, which would've made a lot more sense from a narrative perspective.
Okay well that expands a lot, but doesn't change my opinion.
Players should not be disallowed from choosing mechanical options they want for their characters simply because "Well that doesn't fit the RP of that subclass." The first thing D&D says is that we get to change how we want. PC gets mad easily - frankly that is not "berserker" that is simply the rage mechanic - they play a barbarian. They enjoy the feature given to them by a certain subclass, but don't enjoy the flavor? Than as a DM you and the PC should be working together to make sense of the flavor to apply. Are some subclasses easier to due that to? Yeah, but like I said, mechanical punishment should not be the reason behind this. You thought he should lay a berserker from his description, but you are not the character, so you don't get to make those decisions. Counter example. Rangers are described has being these far off in the woods, never interacting with society but protecting them from the outskirts of civilization. Does that mean every PC who plays a ranger should be some hermit that came out of the forest? No, you are now doing the opposite of what your original goal is and now shoehorning, and constricting RP, because of lore/flavor text written into the classes/sub-classes. Look, if you have a problem with multiclassing, and in your examples above, frankly those multiclasses require some heavy RP just to get, I don;t understand why you want to remove your players choice.
Also if you are concerned about them doing all the above stuff, are you going to dictate what they take at every level up? Your example with the barbarian, you would still hand him a level 1 character and in 2 levels he gets to pick his subclass, or are you going to tell him what his subclass is?
Either way I still don't agree with this. As a DM you can help guide, but should not be making choices for the PC, if you are choosing their first level character, what's to stop you from dictating what spells they get, or choose each day. What's to stop you from picking if they get a feat or ASI? It seems you gave PCs some leeway on multicalssing and now regret it, because the RP didn't make sense. That is what you can do better, if a PC as a Pally and wands to go lock, well that's a 3-4 level adventure to find a patron willing to accept a paladin. What oath did they take and possibly to which god? Will taking a patron break their oath? What are the consequences of choosing a demon when you are a paladin of Pelor?
Sorry if my thoughts are jumping all over, I just reread the post and think of more stuff. Your ending line says a lot though - you had a vision for the character and didn't like the way it was taken. Now that is a out of game conversation to explain stuff, but ultimately the player gets to choose the options for their PC. Think about how much control you want to have over the story and if that is going to be healthy. DMs already have a lot of say in the world, NPC, and adventures. Should we also be dictating what our PCs do at every level?
Thanks for the input, I wont implement the method I said above, but if I were to do so I would ask questions about what weapons they prefer and such and get the class options out of the way at the beginning through different questions.
I just think its a bit funny that if a player wants an option for mechanical purposes & ignore the rp associated with that option, the DM has to find a way to justify it in the setting.
Thanks for the input, I wont implement the method I said above, but if I were to do so I would ask questions about what weapons they prefer and such and get the class options out of the way at the beginning through different questions.
I just think its a bit funny that if a player wants an option for mechanical purposes & ignore the rp associated with that option, the DM has to find a way to justify it in the setting.
It's almost like the DM creates the world or something. And also as you stated you had a problem with him taking it since the RP didn't work. Player wasn't bothered by it not fitting, you were. Ergo - you need to make a reason up, was my answer because the player wasn't bothered. If you said the player wanted this but could'r figure our why then I would have suggested the opposite. The player make a lore reason. But you have the problem here, not the player.
Your final line confirms my belief that this method would be poor for your players.
I would also say it is too controlling to pick out class/subclass options for Players to try and enforce concept.
I might put broad restrictions on my Campaign, like "there are no elves in this campaign world", and next time I start a new Campaign I'm thinking of telling the Players than they need to build an integrated Party with a rationale for the group being a team, and one sentence history for their group, as part of Session Zero - but their individual Character choices are theirs, and theirs alone. I might tell the Players that - moving forward - they are completely free to develop their Characters any way they see fit, but they need to provide in-world rationale for those choices. That doesn't take any options away from them - it just means they need to font-load some RP and Character development into their play ahead of time. And I certainly don't get to make those choices for them.
In the case of your non-religious Barbarian who went bear totem, you and they could have worked together to provide an transformative story beat which would have made their selection make sense. The spirit of the bear comes to them in a vision; they are saved from certain death by a great spectral bear; etc. A little bit of story just for them, to justify in game the choices they've made outside of the game. I've done that sort of thing before. In one case a Paladin turning 3rd level had just happened to have a religious vision as part of the story, in which the Character had to choose whether or not they were devoting their service to their Deity, or not ( sort of an old school flavor Paladin ). I had discussed it with the Player, and had indicated that if they decided they didn't want to make the oath to their Deity, they could convert to any flavor of Fighter they wanted without experience penalties. The choice as to which way they wanted to jump was up to them.
I get where you're coming from: you want a more Character and Story focused style of play, and your Players are going more tactical wargame, viewing the PHB and Character options as a wide open menu that they get to select from without any reference to the history of their Character.
But I don't believe you can play for them, and I don't believe you should take their choices away from them. You can work with them to try and fit their choices into the world, and if you have the right kind of group, you can call on them to justify their Character's choices from the perspective of in-world logic.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You are really talking about a difference in perception of D&D itself. Being a control freak won't fix this. Some people just can't or don't want to RP, they have other reasons for playing. That doesn't mean that all of you can't have fun over all.
Here is some outside perspective on the types of players and why/how playing with them can be fun.
When I start with new players, I just like to sit down and flip through the PHB with them. I don't get into the mechanics of anything, but more let them look at the pictures as I describe the classes with a sentence or two of what they do in and out of combat. Then something similar for the various races, backgrounds, etc. See what ideas interest them. It's similar to the way the OP describes, but instead of telling them what they should be, I tell them what all their options are and let them decide. This edition makes it almost impossible to create a bad character -- even a non-optimized character will be viable and fun to play.
And especially for a new player, as the OP is describing, I'll give them lots of leeway to do whatever they want. Let them learn how to play the game, and decide how they like to play the game.
This was how I RPd my Padlock. First 3 levels I went Paladin. A shadowfell creature appeared before me and called upon me to under take a quest for them. (Vengeance Paladin) They were so happy they gave me a Hexblade as thanks and realized my weakness in combat so they taught me and gave me my Hexblade Warlock powers. At total level 8 I'm Pal 6/War2. And my background, not the one from the choices was written to be this way from the beginning.
I'm not trying to snipe your scores but, I love this video! It solves more problems for players and DMs than any other video I have seen about RPGs, period.
I'm not trying to snipe your scores but, I love this video! It solves more problems for players and DMs than any other video I have seen about RPGs, period.
lol, no worries. Yes, it is fantastic. I think the whole series is fantastic. Recommend away!!
Whenever I introduce a player into D&D after the first character they make they tend towards creating super optimized characters, this is likely due to exposure to the community or build videos, which is pretty largely bent on optimization over concepts, so I wanted to know if this would be a good move going forward with newer players.
I'd never tell the player what classes/subclasses exist in the game, instead I ask what they would want their character to be like. There's a good likelihood that they'll respond with a character from some sort of existing fiction that's out there. I then ask questions to narrow down what playstyle they want to have, which informs me what subclasses/feats to pick. Once they have answered all of the questions, they don't see their character sheet until the night that they play the game.
Main reason I'm posting this is because I'm wanting to know if this is too controlling.
I definitely think that's too much. It's just my opinion, but I don't think you should ever make anyone's character for them. You can help guide them along the process, and you can work with them to build a backstory, but you should never make it for them. If you don't want them making optimized characters, just let them know that any build goes, and you aren't going to make things hard enough to warrant powerful builds.
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
I'm with wooby on this. You might not have explained yourself well in how this is going to be accomplished. But are the players going to tell you character archetype and then have 0 input after? Like are you going to roll the dice for stats and the also decide where those go? I'd be concerned as a player if I knew my DM doesn't like optimized builds (I don't know why in a game we are annoyed people do this) that he'd give me a cleric with a low wisdom. Which why play a cleric if their wisdom is 8, you are hurting the players ability to do things. I am not saying you are going to do this, but why else have control over a character building but to prevent the Fighter from having high STR, the wizard from having high INT, the cleric from having high WIS.
If you want to have a more fun game, definitely sit down with your players and help them create. Make suggestions that might be more out of the box and explain how it could be cool for the concept to be more wacky. But I don't feel like players should have 0 insight into their character. Also if they are only going to get the sheet first game, how are you expecting them to do anything with the character on the first day? They have to spend time getting to know the character you created. I say you instead of them because giving a archetype is not creating a character. Saying "I want to play Robin Hood, but he is missing an eye." Might seem like a well fleshed out character, but their is still a lot for the PC to discover, giving them the time before the game to do that is important.
Optimized characters does not mean bad or no concept. Since D&D is a game, we should expect the Wizard to buff his INT, the Druid to buff their WIS, the Barbarian to buff his CON. Playing optimally is not a bad thing. If you want more concept or better RP, help that by talking to the players and also showing them through NPC RP,
I think I didn't explain this well, so I'll rephrase what I intended, and I'll show the scenario that incited me to think this.
Although being fairly new to D&D Beyond, I am quite experienced in 5th edition, and by preventing optimization I don't mean stopping the characters from having good stats, in fact, I'd probably influence their stats (I use point buy) to better fit the class, I meant I didn't like optimization to prevent mechanical nightmares like Polearm Master + Sentinel or the incredibly viable Sor/locks, Sorc/adins, & Pal/locks. I'm aware that these are incredibly viable multiclasses, but from a narrative perspective I see the players jumping through hoops to attempt to justify these choices, and I think they detract from the overall narrative. I wouldn't just straight up choose the class for them, but I'd ask them something along the lines of, "What kind of character would you intend to play?" I'd then follow that up with, lets pretend they answer with they like wizard characters from RPGs, "Do you wish for your character to be born with the ability to influence magic, they studied and mastered magic, or they make a pact with some entity to gain magic?" Let's pretend they answered born with capabilities, I'd then ask, "What do you want for your character to be in terms of the magic they cast, they can cast a variety of spells, or they focus on a particular element?" I'd continue with this, but once I get to actually picking the spells for the class, I'd leave it completely open and ask what magical capabilities they want their character to have, then I'd attempt to match each description they gave to a spell that exists. I'd continue this process until I completed all the different parts of character creation.
The reason why I wanted to do something like this is in my campaign we had an areligious barbarian not at all connected to nature and was roleplayed as somebody who was incredibly strong when he got mad, who lived by himself on the coast, and was eventually drawn into the adventure. I generally run a slower campaign so it took awhile until we reached level 3 and once he reached that point he chose bear totem barbarian & proceeded to not acknowledge that this option is meant for a person who is totemic. In the system I had above he likely would've described a Berserker barbarian, which would've made a lot more sense from a narrative perspective.
Okay well that expands a lot, but doesn't change my opinion.
Players should not be disallowed from choosing mechanical options they want for their characters simply because "Well that doesn't fit the RP of that subclass." The first thing D&D says is that we get to change how we want. PC gets mad easily - frankly that is not "berserker" that is simply the rage mechanic - they play a barbarian. They enjoy the feature given to them by a certain subclass, but don't enjoy the flavor? Than as a DM you and the PC should be working together to make sense of the flavor to apply. Are some subclasses easier to due that to? Yeah, but like I said, mechanical punishment should not be the reason behind this. You thought he should lay a berserker from his description, but you are not the character, so you don't get to make those decisions. Counter example. Rangers are described has being these far off in the woods, never interacting with society but protecting them from the outskirts of civilization. Does that mean every PC who plays a ranger should be some hermit that came out of the forest? No, you are now doing the opposite of what your original goal is and now shoehorning, and constricting RP, because of lore/flavor text written into the classes/sub-classes. Look, if you have a problem with multiclassing, and in your examples above, frankly those multiclasses require some heavy RP just to get, I don;t understand why you want to remove your players choice.
Also if you are concerned about them doing all the above stuff, are you going to dictate what they take at every level up? Your example with the barbarian, you would still hand him a level 1 character and in 2 levels he gets to pick his subclass, or are you going to tell him what his subclass is?
Either way I still don't agree with this. As a DM you can help guide, but should not be making choices for the PC, if you are choosing their first level character, what's to stop you from dictating what spells they get, or choose each day. What's to stop you from picking if they get a feat or ASI? It seems you gave PCs some leeway on multicalssing and now regret it, because the RP didn't make sense. That is what you can do better, if a PC as a Pally and wands to go lock, well that's a 3-4 level adventure to find a patron willing to accept a paladin. What oath did they take and possibly to which god? Will taking a patron break their oath? What are the consequences of choosing a demon when you are a paladin of Pelor?
Sorry if my thoughts are jumping all over, I just reread the post and think of more stuff. Your ending line says a lot though - you had a vision for the character and didn't like the way it was taken. Now that is a out of game conversation to explain stuff, but ultimately the player gets to choose the options for their PC. Think about how much control you want to have over the story and if that is going to be healthy. DMs already have a lot of say in the world, NPC, and adventures. Should we also be dictating what our PCs do at every level?
Thanks for the input, I wont implement the method I said above, but if I were to do so I would ask questions about what weapons they prefer and such and get the class options out of the way at the beginning through different questions.
I just think its a bit funny that if a player wants an option for mechanical purposes & ignore the rp associated with that option, the DM has to find a way to justify it in the setting.
It's almost like the DM creates the world or something. And also as you stated you had a problem with him taking it since the RP didn't work. Player wasn't bothered by it not fitting, you were. Ergo - you need to make a reason up, was my answer because the player wasn't bothered. If you said the player wanted this but could'r figure our why then I would have suggested the opposite. The player make a lore reason. But you have the problem here, not the player.
Your final line confirms my belief that this method would be poor for your players.
I would also say it is too controlling to pick out class/subclass options for Players to try and enforce concept.
I might put broad restrictions on my Campaign, like "there are no elves in this campaign world", and next time I start a new Campaign I'm thinking of telling the Players than they need to build an integrated Party with a rationale for the group being a team, and one sentence history for their group, as part of Session Zero - but their individual Character choices are theirs, and theirs alone. I might tell the Players that - moving forward - they are completely free to develop their Characters any way they see fit, but they need to provide in-world rationale for those choices. That doesn't take any options away from them - it just means they need to font-load some RP and Character development into their play ahead of time. And I certainly don't get to make those choices for them.
In the case of your non-religious Barbarian who went bear totem, you and they could have worked together to provide an transformative story beat which would have made their selection make sense. The spirit of the bear comes to them in a vision; they are saved from certain death by a great spectral bear; etc. A little bit of story just for them, to justify in game the choices they've made outside of the game. I've done that sort of thing before. In one case a Paladin turning 3rd level had just happened to have a religious vision as part of the story, in which the Character had to choose whether or not they were devoting their service to their Deity, or not ( sort of an old school flavor Paladin ). I had discussed it with the Player, and had indicated that if they decided they didn't want to make the oath to their Deity, they could convert to any flavor of Fighter they wanted without experience penalties. The choice as to which way they wanted to jump was up to them.
I get where you're coming from: you want a more Character and Story focused style of play, and your Players are going more tactical wargame, viewing the PHB and Character options as a wide open menu that they get to select from without any reference to the history of their Character.
But I don't believe you can play for them, and I don't believe you should take their choices away from them. You can work with them to try and fit their choices into the world, and if you have the right kind of group, you can call on them to justify their Character's choices from the perspective of in-world logic.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You are really talking about a difference in perception of D&D itself. Being a control freak won't fix this. Some people just can't or don't want to RP, they have other reasons for playing. That doesn't mean that all of you can't have fun over all.
Here is some outside perspective on the types of players and why/how playing with them can be fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQsJSqn71Fw
Darn, neither I nor BioWiz can score this point.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
When I start with new players, I just like to sit down and flip through the PHB with them. I don't get into the mechanics of anything, but more let them look at the pictures as I describe the classes with a sentence or two of what they do in and out of combat. Then something similar for the various races, backgrounds, etc. See what ideas interest them. It's similar to the way the OP describes, but instead of telling them what they should be, I tell them what all their options are and let them decide. This edition makes it almost impossible to create a bad character -- even a non-optimized character will be viable and fun to play.
And especially for a new player, as the OP is describing, I'll give them lots of leeway to do whatever they want. Let them learn how to play the game, and decide how they like to play the game.
This was how I RPd my Padlock. First 3 levels I went Paladin. A shadowfell creature appeared before me and called upon me to under take a quest for them. (Vengeance Paladin) They were so happy they gave me a Hexblade as thanks and realized my weakness in combat so they taught me and gave me my Hexblade Warlock powers. At total level 8 I'm Pal 6/War2. And my background, not the one from the choices was written to be this way from the beginning.
I'm not trying to snipe your scores but, I love this video! It solves more problems for players and DMs than any other video I have seen about RPGs, period.
lol, no worries. Yes, it is fantastic. I think the whole series is fantastic. Recommend away!!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting