How do you allow new characters in your campaign?

[Tech]

I'm curious how you allow handling the entry of a new character into your campaign? I started wondering after reading the thread about the annoying player with a 10d6k attack.

 

Do you make the player create the character right in front of you? Do you have them throw out a concept and then let them try to build it? Do you allow pre-created characters? Does everyone barnstorm to create the character?

 

In the campaign I'm in, the players know what's expected and are allowed to create their characters totally. When the group gets together, everyone including the other players look at the character and suggestions to add, change or delete from the character are made then. This allows players, and I think rightfully so, to have a say-so in the matter of the character they're going to be meeting soon.

[DasBroot]

Comprehensive caps and the expectation that they'll be followed.

 

If the game is 12 DC, 8 combat value, 30 numeric value cap on each defense (resistant and normal combined), no damage negation, and direct GM approval of all 'stop' powers - then a new player showing up with a 10d6 killing attack on his character is a non-starter:  Adjust down or make a new character.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I hold them to the current levels and power of characters already in the game: you don't come in at a penalty unless you want to (for rp reasons).  And you get cake.  Or at least some chips.

[TheQuestionMan]

Introduce Sidekicks

[sinanju]

I hold them to the current levels and power of characters already in the game: you don't come in at a penalty unless you want to (for rp reasons).  And you get cake.  Or at least some chips.

 

This. Players are free to create characters on their own, though we happily offer suggestions and critiques, and the PC gets posted to the online group we use for that, as well as for coordinating the games, posting fic pieces, and so forth. Once the character is in play, the player is free to make some adjustments if the build turns out not to be what they were trying for. (For that matter, any player is pretty much free to rewrite a character, or bring in a new one, whenever they like.)

[mrinku]

New player bringing in an existing character has never come up with me, but I'm careful to vet any new character. Not just for campaign caps and so forth but for design flaws that are going to be a problem for the player. Even stuff like a recurring villain being a perfect match to one-shot kill the new guy needs to be taken into account, though there are ways around that (she goes on vacation for a spell, never seems to get matched up with new guy etc).

 

In my very first group (3e, 1985) I was green enough to let in a player-designed character with no resistant defences and mediocre CV. First game was Tanghal Tower - he arrived, popped his head over the fence and blasted a VIPER agent. So far, so good. The other VIPER agent shot back, hit with his 2D6 RKE, rolls well, and poor Farmer Brown is suddenly very unconscious and bleeding to death (unobserved by the other players, who were on the other side of the map already fighting). I didn't let him actually die (I wasn't THAT green or cruel - his DNPC turned up to haul him off to hospital) but the character was retired before the next game.

 

Since then I've been careful to build and approve characters in conjunction with my players.

[bluesguy]

In my current group only a couple of people are capable of building their own characters.  Everyone provides me with character concepts.  I have published guidelines.  The people who can build a character on their own can and then I review it prior to any game.

[Crusher Bob]

This sort of thing is normally done by having campaign caps on this like a limit on active points of powers, a limit on CV, a limit on Defense, and limits on speed. For best results, it's better to have explicit trade offs in the caps instead of simple limits, beucase careful character generation can often max out all 'simple limits'.

 

Sample 'forced trade offs' style campaign caps

 

The following are 'equivalent' trade offs:

10 active points of an attack power

+2 OCV and +2 DCV (together)

10 total points of PD/ED

1 point of speed.

 

An 'average' hero has the following:

50 active point total attacks

7 OCV / 7 DCV

25 PD and 25 ED

5 speed

 

You can go up for free in one category, and can trade off an increase in one category for a decrease in another. It's not possible to be 'two up' in a category.

 

So, for example a legal character is

60 point attacks (+1)

7 OCV / 7 DCV

30 PD and 30 ED (+1)

4 speed (-1)

 

And another legal character is

50 point attacks

9 OCV / 9 DCV (+1)

20 PD and 20 ED (-1)

6 speed (+1)

 

A more detailed version of this sort of thing can be found here

[mrinku]

In my current group only a couple of people are capable of building their own characters.  Everyone provides me with character concepts.  I have published guidelines.  The people who can build a character on their own can and then I review it prior to any game.

 

Yeah, that's been pretty much the norm for me too. One other guy who has HERO rules and builds stuff and everyone else has always told me what they wanted. I usually end up designing the costumes, too, since I'm also the group artist.

[BoloOfEarth]

There are two sources for "new characters" -- an existing player replacing his current character with a new one, and a new player entering the game.

 

As to new players, I've only had two players enter an ongoing Champions game, and both were very short-term. 

• The first was my first Champions GM, so I just assumed he knew how to create a usable, balanced character.  My bad.  His concept (random powers determined by drawing playing cards from a deck) was neat, but he lumped his defensive powers in with his offensive powers, resulting in times where he effectively had no defenses at all.  This taught me to **ALWAYS** check new character writeups out, sometimes demanding changes where necessary.
• The second was the spouse of a coworker, who asked me to allow him into the game.  It was not a good fit.  First of all, he wanted a starting character who could turn into a full-fledged adult dragon (the type capable of taking on whole teams), so he wasn't happy that I wouldn't just allow that.  And personality-wise, he clashed with all the other players. 

As far as replacing existing characters with new ones, I've had several players do that mid-campaign.  In each case, the new writeup got vetted beforehand, and the player and I jointly worked out how the old character got written out and the new one got written in.

 

On the occasions where I end one campaign and start a new one, we generally talk out the types of new characters people want, to make sure there aren't any gaping holes in the team (e.g. no ranged attacks, or no bricks, etc.)  Some individual players work together to tie their characters' backgrounds together.  (For instance, Circe and Nexus knew each other, and knew of each other's powers, well before they became superheroines, and Malarkey and Nexus knew each other from school but weren't aware of each other's powers.)

 

There are a few players in our group who couldn't create a new character themselves if you gave them a month to do it.  Those players typically just give the group a list of stuff they want the character able to do, and a few of us work through the nuts and bolts of how to do that. 

[TheQuestionMan]

Introducing a NEW player is like a trial period of employment. First an interview (coffee shop meeting), then a shadowing (Invite the new player to watch a session), and finally a review process (A group vote).

 

Interviewing a new Character is easy. Follow the Character Creation Guidelines, Character Background fits setting, and finally a Solo Play test to work out the kinks (sometimes assisted by veteran player.)

 

Finally Introduction Adventure (Guest Starring Role), Mutual Needs (Skills or Powers beneficial to team), and finally chemistry (The unknowable quality that makes friends).

 

 

Cheers

 

 

QM