Characters for others

>>52070524
>That Guys character is swapped with This Guys character.
Hmm...

>>52070545
The important thing is that everyone thinks they are designing the character for themselves.

There are actually a couple of games which fold an element like this into their mechanics.

Better Angels is a rather funny game where the PC's are quite ordinary, decent people possessed by demons who demand to be satisfied by acts of villainy, but offer power... So of course, the best way to satisfy the demons without hurting any body is by committing acts of over the top, impractical supervillainy.

The interesting mechanic is that each player plays a demon in someone else's head. Each player makes the first half of their character, the human side, then passes their sheet to another member of the group who takes over creating their demon, which defines some more of their supernatural and wicked capabilities. In play, each player is playing both their character And the devil on the shoulder for that player. It's a little hard to do in practice, but it's rather fun once you get going.

>>52070524
I think that would be a very interesting and fun experiment for a group that would be down with it, but I could very easily see feelings get hurt. Maybe one player put a lot of thought and care into making his character, gets swapped for a lazier character, and gets to watch as someone else bastardizes the thing he spent so much time and effort on.

It's a bit childish, but in this hobby I could very much see that being the case.

>>52070608
Yeah I can definitely see that happening as well. You would have to make sure the group you are working with are mature and are open to something new.

I see the excitement in having to figure out a character that was not made by you but also seeing how clearly you made your character design and if someone else can see what you were trying to create.

>>52070589
That sounds great actually, that might be the way to go with these mechanics, since people would feel less cheated if they got to create half of the characters. Thank anon, I will check it out.

File: Dissapointment sets in.gif (1MB, 478x360px)

1MB, 478x360px

>>52070524
Yeah, I totally play roleplaying games and make up cool characters so I can NOT play them. If I wanted to be playing someone else's ideas, I;d ask them for ideas from the start.

Sorry, can't see the appeal of a mechanic like this, other than LOL RANDUMB XD!

>>52070524
That's a terrible Idea. ALL THE BENEFITS of making characters for others are lost if your players think they are making them for themselves.

If you tell your players that they are making characters for each other from the beginning, they'll curb their excesses a bit more and be way less likely to minmax or make ridiculous donut steel original characters, and then they'll sit around doing their best with what they've got.

If you only tell them after they made the characters, they'll make the same boring/horrible characters as usual and on top of that be pissed off because they got rused.

>>52070608

Life is what you make of it. If you're capable of creating an interesting character, you should be capable of salvaging a shitty one. Think of it as a challenge.

File: Soulhunters.pdf (131KB, 1x1px)

131KB, 1x1px

>>52070524
It's an OK idea for getting people who play tiny variations on the same character again and again (Babbies First Roleplay 4 Life!) to try getting into the real fun of the hobby, but you lose me with the deceit. Telling them it's for themselves is a bit shitty.

There are plenty of games with random or cooperative character design to curb that behavior built right in.

The Classic reasoning behind rolling for stats had a lot to do with this sort of idea, for one.

Co-op is another way to do it. PDF related gives other players a real hand in deciding how your character's traits are applied as advantage or disadvantage. The player to your left "Left Hand" decides how your personality, family, culture, looks, arms, and gear can be used against you. The player on your right "Right Hand" decides how those same things can be used to your advantage. Once everyone has a character the GM gets everyone's Disadvantages to throw at them later for negatives to a given roll, and a designated ally player gets your Advantages to add positives to a given roll.

It's a primitive example, but at least it's a CC licensed game I can show you here and now.

There are many more games that take some or all of the character creation out of the players hands, and choosing one of those options from the jump seems a better idea than a surprise ruse being sprung on the players from out of the blue.

>>52070524
Only if they know this in advance.

This was actually my introduction to /tg/ games. In my first ever D&D campaign, our DM made switch characters that we created for the sake of "not playing in your comfort zone." It was a huge curveball, but we had fun doing it.

>>52071705
>>52071733
>>52071933
>>52071938
>>52073127
Thanks anons for the advice. Alright, I will try this out but I will tell the players that they are going to be making characters for someone else. Who its for I will leave to random chance.

But thank you, the reason I posted this was because I know that an idea that sounds good in your head has a good chance of only sounding good in your head. Especially when I am a forever DM, its hard for me to see stuff from player's perspective.

>>52070524
I'd agree to only try this with groups that know each other and can game without major problems.

Also to expand on the idea: what about players making the whole cast together and rotating characters more then once? Maybe not once per session but after every major story arc maybe?
Or do you think its more important to grow into one role only but do that one better instead?

>>52075436
I didn't think of that. But that's an interesting idea to try, thank you anon.