>Start a game
>Ask players to make their chars all at the same time, but you tell them to first pick a concept and write it down their sheets in 3 words.
>Now they must pass their sheets to the player at the right of them. Tell them this could be their new character, they should pick their nation, physical appearance, ager and gender, but no mechanics (except those given by race/nation as approriated).
>Ask then to pass sheets to their rights again.
>Now they must pick a class and distribute points, make the crunchy bits but no gear.
>Tell them to pass the sheet to the person right in front of them or something that breaks the 'to the right' order.
>This person buys the gear and also selects a background for the character. Names him/her.
>Pass sheets to the left this time.
>This person picks a goal.
>Players can pick between rotating right or left one more time, the character they end up holding is the one they will be playing.
Would you consider doing this if you had a group you deem decent or better, /tg/? I particulary like the challenge of brings concepts someone else made, fleshing them out and trying to make them mine, but I understand characters are a very personal thing too and you might end up with something you don't enjoy.
>>47758440
I like the idea of everyone writing a short concept and then passing those around, maybe writing 3 just so someone isn't stuck with something they hate.
Outside of that, I think you get too many hands in it and it'd end up messed up. Having the general background picked out for you is one thing, but having all the details essentially be decided by committee is offputting
>>47758440
No, not really. It's one of those ideas that seem fun at first, but after a while will get me thinking "I don't like this and that" and make me want to kamikaze the character and create a new one.
It also doesn't help that my experience with premade characters was with a man that couldn't understand that a GM isn't a film director.
It'd be fun for a one-shot. Some of my favorite gaming moments were times that a DM tagged me to play an NPC or "fill" a one-shot with a plot-heavy pre-made and it was up to me to make it work for an hour or two.
Beyond that, though, you're going to have a real lack of sticky. People will be trying to play character's they don't have much skin in with options they wouldn't have chosen with a personality designed by committee. At best they'll throw away the fluff they don't like and try to make something out of the crunch, at worst they'll just wander off.
>>47758440
Seeing the responses on the threads...What if the creation of concepts, fluff and background was done as a group, in a more vague way, and then the concepts were given to players to speciy them and make the whole crunch themselves?
>>47758440
So, basically I end up with a character I don't like?
Great job OP.
>>47758710
Yeah, if you brainstorm character concepts and back stories, then put them all into a hat and pass them around, that could work better.
That's more akin to using a random generator to get an idea, rather than being handed a premade
>>47758771
Not necessarily one you don't like, just one you had no hand in.
Still not a very good method.
>>47758440
Too many passes around, you're playing telephone now not an RPG.
I wouldn't spring this on my players by surprise.
But I would absolutely pitch the idea of a 'short story' sort of scenario where they got semi-random characters to play as.
>>47758440
It seems like a poor way to do things. You could just hand out pre-gen characters and save time in session.
>>47758440
In something sufficiently rules light, a concept/pass/build/pass would be fine. Splitting the concept or the building into too many parts seems like a pain in the ass.
In recent iterations of D&D not as much. If character creation is likely to take more than 10 minutes already we don't really need to add extra steps.
>>47758440
It might be kind of fun to do for a one shot and if everyone likes the way it goes, you can always expand on it. I can see how it might be a turn off for some though.
