When Mark talks about CharGen he brings up an interesting way to make characters. While not exactly the same, it brought to mind the Amber point bidding system. This brought me to the realization that Mark’s article is a great way for a GM to have PCs fit in the game world. And that’s something that I can always put to use.



The idea of getting PCs that fit the game world got me to thinking about one of my GM failings: I have a hard time putting a limit on the types of characters that I allow players to use.



If a players wants to play something, no matter how out of the ordinary, or how much trouble it might be, I tend let them do it. Sure, I try to talk them out of their idea, giving them some alternative suggestions that I think they might like, but I don’t tell them “No. I don’t allow that in my game.” I rationalize this to myself by saying if I do limit them then I would deny the players their fun.



The reason I think this is a failing is that it’s part of the GM’s job to make sure the PCs are playable in the world your group is building. While I don’t shy away from PC vs. PC conflict in my games, there are some PC types that are just don’t fit into the world well. If PCs don’t fit in the world well, then my rationalization is foolish as it will only cause more harm than good. Limitations are necessary to make sure the PCs fit.



For clarification, when I use the words “fit” or “work” in connection with PC types, I’m talking about how the PC would operate in the game world. If one of your PCs is an assassin who kills anything (women, children, dogs, hamsters, small shellfish, etc) for money that might not fit/work if most of the other PCs are non-military investigator types in a Diskworld like setting.



We all know that characters that don’t fit are a problem. The player of such a character normally has nothing to do while all the other players are having fun with their characters because his skill aren’t useful or his design isn’t compatable (assassin doesn’t mix with a party of pacifists). Not fitting in causes arguments at the table and rash, unrealistic actions taken by the bored player who only wants to get into the game with his friends.



(I agree that some players are contrary by nature, and they actually seem to enjoy not fitting in, but that’s a topic for another day.)



As having fun is the reason we play RPGs, we need to find a way to make sure that the characters in our games work with the setting and other PCs. Mark’s idea of getting the players to help create all of the characters can help you have PCs that fit. Unfortunetly, that type of character creation isn’t going to work with everyone. Some players enjoy the die rolling or the point spending privately (i.e. without direct input from the other players) so let’s see what else we can do to help.



We could simply tell the players “No, you can’t have that type of PC,” but that’s not easy and can cause other problems. Most players in our groups are friends, and it’s hard to tell people they can’t have a character that they like. Doing so can cause the players to feel that the GM is trying to stop them from having fun, or that the GM is being too controlling. One of the things I’ve adopted to try and combat this and fight my failing is to communicate directly with the players on what I’m looking for.



The first thing I do before I begin a new campaign is to tell the players what kind of setting I’m planning on, and what kind adventures I’m looking to set up. I don’t tell the players what type of PCs they need to make – I infer that in my descriptions.



By telling the group I’m looking to set up some “old fashioned dungeon crawling 1st ed AD&D style adventures” the players will pick up on the fact that in order to have fun they will need to make PCs that fit. They will want to have PCs with the skills and abilities that will fit that setting. If they don’t they won’t get the most out of it they could, and they can’t complain that they have nothing to do or that their character isn’t involved enough.



Describing the world and the adventure styles you are planning is only the first step. The next thing is to tell the players that they can swap out characters after the first couple of adventures. That lets the players have an out in case they find, for any reason, that their character just isn’t what they wanted it to be.



Yes, it can be a bit of a pain to have characters jump ship in mid campaign. That’s why you only allow that to happen after the first two or three sessions. After that, they can’t swap out unless their PC dies.



By the time you have a few sessions under your belts the group will have gotten into the groove of the setting, and you’ll all know how things are working out. The setting may change slightly, or the adventures may take a twist that you weren’t expecting at the outset of the campaign. Such is they way of RPGs so it’s good to give players a chance to adapt.



When you give the players a chance to re-tool their character choice, you allow them a chance for a PC that works better in the setting and with the other characters in the group. This also allows you as the GM to re-tool your adventures and setting if necessary.



Some players may need a bit of coaxing to swap out characters. Some folks don’t seem to take a hint so you have to be prepared to talk to such a player about doing something different. Perhaps not a total swap, maybe just a re-tool of the character they started with. Kindness goes a long way, so don’t be hard on the player, work with them and see what you can do to come up with a compromise solution. Just do it sooner rather than later. Changes to PCs later in a campaign are harder to work with than if you do it within the first few sessions.



That’s it for me. Let me know what you think and I’ll see you in the forums.