Hey, big D&D guy, been in the hobby since 3.5 days and played for...13 years or so. Also branched out into other systems a bit, like White Wolf and Pathfinder and a few micro one-page type systems, but am mostly a D&D guy with a lot of focus on 5e. DM for a lot of that time, and its what's led me to discover my love of writing/worldbuilding, but I also still love playing.

Want to say that the primal, core tennant of tabletop is "depends on the people, depends on the table" Just wanted to stake that line before I get into any discussion. What I think is dumb, pointless, and nonsensical another 10-person group uses as their bread and butter and couldn't be happier. Also, obviously, just my perspective and the constant arguments about every aspect of the hobby possible show its one that thrives on diferences in opinion.

The idea of pregens=bad in most people's eyes is a few things to me.

1] History/Stigma. Pregens often are given to new players as a first time "this is less work/you don't know what you're doing/you have no interest in learning the system: just use this".
That means the person playing the character doesn't understand the mechanics and options, why they've been selected, etc. Like getting boosted to max level in an MMO, they didn't go through the process of making the character, so they don't undersand their build, or the rules relating to their core or side features, etc.

In addition, it's a lose-lose on the side of roleplay and characterization, because most new players also don't have skills to roleplay or develop a character. Providing a ton of out-of-the box characterization is restrictive, or leads to "Um, that's not really what a noble prince of the elves should be acting like" feeling, or other issues with maintaining consistent characterization. Providing very little out-of-the box often doesn't give a new player much to work with, so they can have trouble understanding roleplay scenes or establishing characterization. Giving someone "whatever you want, infinite options" doesn't usually let them actually make a compelling choice unless they have experience creating it themselves. (That's why stuff like the 5e backgrounds are really great, they're a concrete choice with definitive boundaries, but also flexible and open ended.)

2] Most players are looking for freedom of expression in tabletop. They want their choices to matter. Being handed a premade and told "this is your character" often leaves people with a bad taste because its something that was out of their control. Even if its a great character, in mechanics or narrative, it's not MINE. I didn't make it, someone else did. I personally struggle with the idea of 'ownership' of things, which is why I have to custom make most of my settings and rewrite lore even though I use D&D. I can't run premade campaigns either, I just don't feel comfortable unless the question of authorship is squarely in my hands. Even if the things I make are derivitive or copy something else, as long as it isn't pulled straight from a seperate source I can usually enjoy myself.

3] Investment. If a player won't put in the time and effort to put together their character and learn how to play, I don't feel confident I can trust them to return the effort I put into making and running the game (as player or DM). Rules and systems aren't for everyone, and there's plenty of old-school folks who go super hard into the nitty gritty to the point of frustration. But the bare minimim of playing a game is...knowing how to play. I've tried to get lots of people to play and if they bounce off the book or refuse to do anything to learn the game and don't want to put in effort....they can't play. These are often the same people who make little effort to schedule or will not be gracious with their share of the session time. There's obviously a learning period for new folks, but after a certain point I nor my other players can do everything on behalf of another. Everyone is busy managing their own fun, and the game needs to run smoothly by everyone pulling their own weight during the experience.

>System sepecific, there are a lot of different ways to present making characters/mechanical building besides slapping the book down and saying "READ". I taught my grandmother to play during a one-shot by doing research on teaching kids D&D and making her cards that spelled out her actions and options in plain english. I knew how all the mechanics worked, and she obviously was never going to learn on her own. I wouldn't do that for a full campaign, though, and did provide her a pre-made as well.

4] Work. A DM is making everything, running everything. I don't have time to make you a character as well and manage it for you. I run the world, you run the characters. I don't make choices for you, that's your realm of control and competence.



As for the idea of changing/tweaking/adjusting a character post-creation: Most reasonable people are okay with that to a certain point.

It can be hard to manage as a DM/Creator. Having to constantly adjust to new chraracterization or abilities is challenging without retroactive changes. It puts a lot of strain on the cohesion of the game is someone's character is in constant flux, constantly being adjusted and tweaked and updated and changed. NPCs, enemies, traps, challenges, to say nothing of narrative themes or story aspects. Some people value believability a lot, others are more able to handwave some aspect. For instance "Hey, you teleported us before...but now you're a fighter. Why can't you use magic any more?" Plot holes, essentially.

But change happens normally as people make choices and might discard aspects of their character over time. Being flexible is valuable, and everyone is constantly testing out new directions for character play and then comitting to them or not. But speaking from experience, having someone constantly changing major parts of their character without ever settling on something concrete, or every session being met with a new 'version' of a character is exhausting simply to try and process. Just like with relationships, you rely on your understanding of people to function and make choices based on that.

Getting nitty gritty, I'm someone who allows people to make changes, even to mechanics that the rules might not allow. Re-select a subclass, change some spells out, get a different magic item, etc. But all that is based off player comminication. I need to hear "I'm not having fun because X-Y-Z" not "These are better spells now/The new erratta for this makes it the better option". Why punish people for picking options so frustrating or weak they aren't fun? I want people to have fun, but I also want the game to have stakes, consistency, and a sense of reality offered by any good fiction.


I might be wrong, but it sounds like you might've experienced a huge level of inflexibility for making a character? It's always a tough thing for a DM to hear "I'll figure that out later" because, in my experience, it often never happens.

Speaking completely personally, I make characters hand-in-hand with my players as a sort of setting advocate/advisor. I'm not a big fan of huge backstory dumps/lore writeps from players, because I never fully 'get' what they're going for, so that means I can't deliver the experience they want.

I try to get details about many things to tie them into the setting, including making many things up in that very moment that get added to my setting bible/notes. We take some time to 'fence in' empty and undecided spaces that might be relevant, to get people thinking about deeper, broader, later-term things without having to fully decide them ahead of time. That's also when I determine what level of authorship I have over aspects. Do you want me to detail your family, or do you want to make them? You had a master, what were they like, can I make them/use them, or are they just a pretty setting detail to explain how you know to swordfight. You have amnesia? Do you the player know your past, or am I writing up some character backstory for you with guidence so you're both satisfied and mystified?

I can only make content for things/people I understand, and feature elements of people's backstories I know about, after all. However, I'm a big proponent of a "Develop the character in the game" style. Even if its an established part of a background/backstory, I want to see it on the stage. I want you to talk with your parents about your divine blood, I want that childhood sweetheart to meet with you over drinks, I want to hand you a powerful item and see you wrestle with your responsibilities like you said you would. Stuff isn't really real until it happens at the table, in my eyes.



You might check out Traveller, that's a sci-fi system that's more about generating a person through an unpredictable life that results in certain abilities, as opposed to constructing a person based on a defined outcome you've pre-determined. Had a player bounce hard off it because they said they didn't like they couldn't min-max or make any deterministic choices...which also means I never got to actually try playing it.