Mfw a player asks me to make their character for them

Yeah, sure. They have a character concept, and I can make sure that concept is translated into something that will be mechanically relevant for the adventure I'm planning to run.

I don't see the issue here.

I had a player who was losing interest in RPGs in general and the more we kept having him at the table the more he wanted to avoid any of the work which accompanied the game

It finally culminated with him asking me (the GM) to make his characters for him in a few games, I made the first one since he was new to the system and he put some effort in... the second one no, and finally I told him if he was bored then maybe he could come back later when he felt more into it

That was three months ago and he hasn't been back since, good riddens I suppose.

The most I will do is walk him through the character creation process:
- I will reorder character creation so that it's easier to build a character from nothing. For example, I find that it's usually best for a player to pick their class first, but I've run into many systems where the class decision is after other decisions in the character creation chapter.
- I will use my knowledge of the system to narrow down a players options to the ones that fit with the character they want. But I will still give them options that they have to decide between.
- If there is a step that is simply math, I'll do the math for them.
- They will do all the writing on their character sheet. Partly because my handwriting is terrible, partly because it helps them remember what is where if they write it themselves.

I usually dedicate the first session of any campaign to character creation. Especially when I know other players haven't touched the system before.

I have three players in my group of 6, and for the past four years of playing with them, I have made all their characters. They are strong roleplayers who have no interest in mechanics, no head for numbers, and no time to read rulebooks. It doesn't bother me at all to do it for them, in fact I prefer it, because when they used to do it themselves, they would invariably create terrible characters because they had no understanding of the system. This way they have mechanically sound characters who can do what they want them to do, and contribute to the party. They have more fun, the other players have more fun, I have more fun.

Google [system] premade [class]. 90% chance they'll either swap in a self made character once they've gotten their feet wet or drop out. Either way, problem solved.

I've got the opposite right now. I'm in a new group and the DM wants to make all the characters.

DnD 3. I think he wants to avoid some people optimizing much more than others.

Purely anecdotal,

but in my experience that has only happened with new players. I find it best to take them through the creative process step by step, and making suggestions for optimization. They have the final say on anything that gets added, but four players who need their character built for them, I usually suggest classes with little crunch, so they can understand the basics of gameplay as opposed to "extra" mechanics you may add to other characters.

The irritating part comes when they ask so many questions, you may as well also be PLAYING their character. Still, if they're new, a one-on-one session styled after vidya tutorials would be a no pressure manner by which to introduce someone.

The main issue I've heard is that new players don't know how to effectively use the rulebook. Some hands-on experience is usually the best manner by which to teach.

TL;DR: only ever with noobs, guide them through it. A rulebook does not grant real experience.

Sort of and yes.
My friend's first attempt at TTRPGs let him confused, so he asked me to walk him through the steps of making/optimising his character.
I basically ended up making it for him, given it was Pathfinder and it's character creation is convoluted as fuck.

>new player
>wants to play a druid

>how could he know the druid is not the most suited class for his needs, he just wants to have fun

Why does druid = fun in so many new players heads? I don't get it. Seriously out of the dozens of people I introduced to the game back in dnd 3.5, almost half of them wanted to be druids.

It happens often and I love it. I'm the rules master at the table who flips through handbooks too often and my table doesn't like making trap options or useless characters, so they tell me what kind of character they want this time and I gleefully assemble it.

Now, this is purely mechanical. They make the name and story.

>Making a character is the easiest part of roleplaying, it only gets harder from there.
Really? Because I can play most new systems after a ten-minute introduction, but creating a character usually requires at least half an hour even in systems I am familiar with.

If they don't know about the mechanics, it sounds easy to handle. You're the nature loving guy who tries to keep balance. You can probably talk with animals and shit and do magic.

If they know about the mechanics, it allows them to try everything. Druids can join the melee, use both arcane and holy magic offensively, be healers and support, and they also get an animal companion and later you could even transform yourself.

If you play a druid, you can try everything. Turns out you don't enjoy melee? No problem, you can cast. You like to fight close up? You can. And you're also just not as vulnerable in close range as other classes. And you can use your pet as a meatshield anyways.

It's both full freedom and the ability to fill in almost any role the party needs, which also makes it easier in the eyes of a newbie. You don't need to find how to make yourself useful, you can just go do whatever you're lacking the most.

some systems with an 'amensia' trait tend to more or less make the GM build the character for the player, although it's typically in two stages - one where the character can't remember parts of his past, and one where they don't know anything about themselves
GURPS, for instance - the points spent on the 'partial amnesia' disadvantage can be spent by the GM on whatever the fuck he likes, and more or less lets him add mental disadvantages and advantages, whereas the 'total amnesia' requires the GM to more or less build the character entirely
of course, it's up to the GM whether they actually do this or not since it can be a pain to play with

if the player's just doing it to be lazy then they can either fuck off or get something absolutely horrible and/or useless
if the latter, then i'll break out GURPS Asparagus

I have requested my GM makes a character for me, but the environment surrounding my group makes this less of a strange occurrence.

The primary issue with my group, is that everyone wants to GM, and everyone has GM ADD, so most of our campaigns are 1-3 sessions and accomplish a lot of nothing,
thus I find that often I am making similar characters and creating a style of role type and RP. This has the effect of becoming stagnant, and creating mild issues in all parts of the group that I interact with.

I find it's a lot easier to break this stagnation with external help. If I ask the GM to make a character for me, I'll have a character that is made fitting into the world already, giving me a better grasp of the GM's expectations of the game, and letting me break out of my old style and try a totally new character type.
Finally it lets me focus much more on Improv and RP, as my contribution to the game is now entirely in 'how I play my character', and not in 'what I play for a character'.

This is a circumstance that doesn't come up often, but if it's a good player who's asking you to give them the 100% on who they are and why they're here. Give it a shot, let them roll with what you give them, and see where it takes the campaign.
Might turn out better than you think.

Yes, and I didn't cry about it on Veeky Forums like an autist

>DM: "How do you want your character familia?"
>Player: "Just fuck my shit up."
>DM: "Kender Monk it is then."

"Hey, user, I'm lazy, can you make a character for me?"
"Sure, bud."

>Billy Bob Joe
>Male
>Human
>Commoner 1
>HP: 12
>Str: 14
>Dex: 14
>Con: 14
>Int: 8
>Wis: 12
>Cha: 8
>Profession (Farmer): 1 rank + 1 wis mod + 3 class skill
>Perception: 1 rank + 1 wis mod + 3 class skill
>Toughness
>Skill Focus (Profession (Farmer))
>Fast-Talker
>Thoroughbred
>Doubt

No. I probably would help if asked though. I'll help someone achieve a concept or spitball ideas for one, but it'd be lame to just make it with no input.

>make me character pls I am lazy
>okay, roll 3d6 down the line
>..nevermind, I'll make my own character, thx GM!

had it happen a couple times with new players. no big deal.

anyway, i usually have 3-5 premade characters on hand when i start a campaign, due to setting differences. i mostly make them to show what an "average" adventurer/murderhobo/whatever looks like in the setting. it helps with character creation whether or not anyone uses them.

I have a folder with 21 pre-gens that I hand new people to look through while saying "let me know if you want something that's not in there. Most people either find what they want or ask for a similar character I can stat up in under a minute.

It's also pretty good for old hands that want to switch up to a new class. Wins all around.

I offer a choice of premade characters in literally every game I DM.

Like, if I have 3 players, I will offer a choice of 3 out of 6 different premade characters.
Literally never failed me.

I dislike the style of play people practice where people think up their entire character beforehand.
It's too rigid, where people have to think "will my character do this?", and that's shit.
I want unrestrained stream of thought, not constant double-checking of whether it would contradict the backstory.

Characters are blank slates. They develop in the course of the game, not before it. The backstory rarely matters and can be established retroactively, simply via player's banter - that's a lot more fun in my opinion.

no, but as a player I've been constantly given premade characters by a gm. We have actual characters, but I guess they have too much free will for the railroad the gm wants us on.

>I dislike the style of play people practice where people think up their entire character beforehand.
>It's too rigid, where people have to think "will my character do this?", and that's shit.
>I want unrestrained stream of thought, not constant double-checking of whether it would contradict the backstory.
But wouldn't this happen more often when someone is playing a character they haven't generated themselves? With that you know who you are coming in and don't have to get a feel of the dos and don'ts that would come with a fresh and unfamiliar character

I've occasionally made character sheets for my players, if they ask.

But they still come up with the character. I just fill in the numbers while they're cramming for finals or whatever the hell is giving them trouble this time.

Let me explain. Your player wants roleplay challenge. He enjoys not the concept of selfinserting faggotry but rather art of pprestidigitation, he want challenge to live someone elses lifelife, and thats - life must come from another person

DnD is not the only game where druids are multi-usable fun. WoW does that also for example-and who did not play it for a while?

>Tfw my first character was a paladin
>all the characters I've played except 2 for the last seven years have been paladins

Am I the only one who loves being a lawful stupid tank?