Quote from: Old Geezer;723107MMmmmmaybe.

But there is also a certain strain of "plain old asshole" in the gaming world.  The type of player who if you say "There are no dwarfs in my world" instantly says "I want to be a dwarf."

Well, on the other hand, when this happened to George RR Martin, we got Tyrion.

JG

Being both a player and a GM, I've met my share of asshat players...AND asshat GMs. I notice GMs tend to get a bit more of a pass here in a lot of discussions, but I've met some real asshats. Just like I don't quite get why some players are the way they are-there are other times where I don't understand why some GMs the way they are.

Then again, as a player, I know what I like-and admittedly it's easier for me to tell sometimes if I'm going to sit out of someone's game than it is if I'm going to have trouble with a particular player. Once too many stringent rules come into play when I feel like I'm back in school, I tend to sit out games. If that's the way the table likes to play, that's cool-but we play a much more 'loose' game. We use the books, the rules, and the like, but tend to open up a lot of character options since we like when people can make exactly what they want, and try to work to accommodate players to try to get everyone as content as possible and on the same page.

('We' is my main group. I admit I tend to not really be into super-strict mostly because a large bulk of my gaming is done with a close-knit crew of people who have known each other for years-some of us have been friends since grade school. I can kinda understand it a bit if someone runs for random comic store people, and never knows what they're going to get, and thus wants to sorta tighten things down before people get in. Even then though I admit I used to run kinda loose games but I guess it's because I grew up on them. On that note-because we tend toward lenient-if we get a new player who DOES try to exploit things we tend to be harder on them since at that point we pretty much know they're just doing it to be an asshat.)

Quote from: robiswrong;723267Right?

I find that 'race/class' is the *least* interesting part of a character.

I've had people tell me that "humans are boring".  Really?  So 99% of characters *ever* in fiction are dull?  REALLY?

Quote from: robiswrong;723173This.  Some people have to be TEH UNIQUE thing, and so they read any actually available option as "normal" and therefore "boring".

If someone is really going to scream about this, and won't just find something available that they can work with, it's usually a good sign to me that I don't want to game with that person.

One of the best filters I've seen was running a D&D game with only humans allowed.  Got a great group of people out of it, with only a single troll.

YES.

To the person who asked up thread, I have DEFINITELY had this happen. Never in any games I ran thank Christ, but when I was younger and in HS we had several players in our local circle who were like this. They just could not play a 'normal' fucking character no matter what.

Incidentally, one of those guys was also the one who pretty much played actual Lesbian Stripper Ninjas constantly. Like in real life.

In fairness, I do get the desire to want to play a unique character, and I was occasionally guilty of picking 'that weird conversion I found on the net' myself when I used to play WoD and Rifts in those days. But I was just as happy usually to find an existing thing and spin a new take on it, and that usually made the best characters anyway so I kinda grew out of the impulse over time. Now I just want to know what's there so I know what I've got to work with, and I get kind of excited by the prospect if the game is a good one.

There are idiotic Players and there are asshole Players. Sometimes you get a high functional sociopathic misanthrope Player who is the latter that hides as the former.

My biggest issue with the whole 'Against Unique Characters' attitude tends to be what seems to be lumping in ALL people who like to play something unique.

Not every player who wants to play something unique wants to do it for exploitative purposes, not every player wants to do it to be a Special Snowflake and get All the Attention. Some people just *like* being something different than a human, regardless of how many humans were in fiction(or maybe because there are so many of them?)

It's not the action of wanting to play something different(again, upcoming 3.5 game we're talking about I have a Tiefling with a Frost Giant bloodline set up just because I wanted to play a big blue guy with hooves and horns since it popped into my head, and since the game can accommodate him, there's no issue-had it been simple Regular Races I have plenty of other ideas I could have used), it's wanting to play something different to be Betterer than Everyone Else at the table that I feel is the problem. It's just a shame people who like to play something unique more often than not get lumped in with exploitative assholes.

Quote from: Azzy;723362My biggest issue with the whole 'Against Unique Characters' attitude tends to be what seems to be lumping in ALL people who like to play something unique.

Not every player who wants to play something unique wants to do it for exploitative purposes, not every player wants to do it to be a Special Snowflake and get All the Attention. Some people just *like* being something different than a human, regardless of how many humans were in fiction(or maybe because there are so many of them?)

It's not the action of wanting to play something different(again, upcoming 3.5 game we're talking about I have a Tiefling with a Frost Giant bloodline set up just because I wanted to play a big blue guy with hooves and horns since it popped into my head, and since the game can accommodate him, there's no issue-had it been simple Regular Races I have plenty of other ideas I could have used), it's wanting to play something different to be Betterer than Everyone Else at the table that I feel is the problem. It's just a shame people who like to play something unique more often than not get lumped in with exploitative assholes.

No-one is against PCs being unique. They are already unique. Uniqueness comes from what the characters say and do.

However the "people who want something unique" is a definite type, and the irony is it's anything but unique. They trade depth of personality for funky powers, the end. Still, as long as they don't try to hog the limelight with their funky powers, that's not a problem.

System-sanctioned uniqueness is such a low priority for me. I like the banter between the encounters where you find out the PCs are more similar than different. The big blue tiefling's just this guy, you know?

Yeah, the fellow I have may get some prejudice from certain areas-but he's not like a crazy-freak-snowflake. Whatever the GM has people act like in cities, pretty much(a more superstitious city might have more issue with someone like that, where a city who is used to seeing different types pass through-perhaps a port town-may not even look twice at them.)

I always liked visual stuff when it came to uniqueness myself, rather than actual abilities. Usually if I'm playing something different I look at stuff and ask 'what can I make look cool?'

I totally know the type that Just Want Powers. They exist, of course.

Funny thing about powers and such-in the old Shadowrun days, Humans ended up getting played due to the Priority system in my experience(when I GM'd for others.) In the 1e/2e days, the top priority in the chargen system was Metahuman if you wanted to play non human. Despite their bonuses, they also had minuses, and when it came down to points-people seemed to rather have those IME(especially that Million Nuyen which you automatically gave up if you went non-human). Humans were everywhere. (Sure, Trolls got big physical bonuses, but they got a lot of minuses that you essentially had to feed in a higher priority of Attributes if you wanted to take advantage of them...which meant less money and skills, and skills were more important than raw Attributes in those days.) 4th edition became 'All Orks All the Time' because Orks were the best cost to points ratio. (Orks in Shadowrun are the second most common race population wise, so they definitely aren't snowflakes.) Later on you started getting SURGE snowflakes once that came in, but that was more 4e than 3e(since the 3e rules were a bit harder to take advantage of. In 3e SURGE folks were more the type to play them to play something weird than to get bonuses.)

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;723011And when they've picked Q, and brow beaten the GM or group into accepting it, regardless of conceits of the system or setting, they will then try and apply Q to Z.

And then whine when Q doesn't do what they want.

Ever have a player that for example, "Only plays Elves"

He might accept a Vulcan, but in any setting at all, he insists on being an Elf?

Even if there are no elves.

Quote from: smiorgan;723368No-one is against PCs being unique. They are already unique. Uniqueness comes from what the characters say and do.

Honestly, most people play a fairly small range of archetypes.  If options are limited and they've been playing a long time, you can start to see them repeat.  It's hard to make every wizard different when you use the same spells.  It's hard to make every Fighter different when you use the same tactics.  Taken to the extreme you get Knights of the Dinner Table and Knuckles IX.  

Quote from: smiorgan;723368However the "people who want something unique" is a definite type, and the irony is it's anything but unique. They trade depth of personality for funky powers, the end.

I strongly disagree.  

Quote from: smiorgan;723368System-sanctioned uniqueness is such a low priority for me. I like the banter between the encounters where you find out the PCs are more similar than different. The big blue tiefling's just this guy, you know?

I enjoy having many options.  I like multiple races, classes, templates, feats, spells, etc from which to choose.  While you might think some of my characters are 'samey' (human Ranger for instance), I do try to make the personalities different, but after several humans, I might want to try my hand at a minotaur.  It's not 'powers' - usually the unique creatures are less powerful than standard adventurers all things considered.  But it still makes things fun.

Quote from: Azzy;723362My biggest issue with the whole 'Against Unique Characters' attitude tends to be what seems to be lumping in ALL people who like to play something unique.

If you'll notice, my *primary* issue is with people that feel the need to be something that's explicitly called out as unavailable.

There's also a matter of what makes a character unique and interesting.  Spock is not unique and interesting because of his ears.  Bilbo is not unique and interesting because he's a habbit.  Those characters are unique and interesting because of their *personalities* - who they are, not *what* they are.

Quote from: Azzy;723362had it been simple Regular Races I have plenty of other ideas I could have used)

And that's why I wouldn't have a problem with you.

Quote from: Azzy;723362it's wanting to play something different to be Betterer than Everyone Else at the table that I feel is the problem. It's just a shame people who like to play something unique more often than not get lumped in with exploitative assholes.

I think the powergaming angle is a different thing entirely.  The "unique" issues I see are primarily the inability to accept *any* limitation, and secondarily the desire to be the focus of attention *without doing anything*.

Quote from: smiorgan;723368No-one is against PCs being unique. They are already unique. Uniqueness comes from what the characters say and do.

Bingo.  As I've said before, if humans are boring, then 99% of characters in fiction are boring.

Quote from: smiorgan;723368However the "people who want something unique" is a definite type, and the irony is it's anything but unique. They trade depth of personality for funky powers, the end. Still, as long as they don't try to hog the limelight with their funky powers, that's not a problem.

I call it quirk-based roleplaying.  I see it also as not just the powers that they pick, but often one or two significant personality quirks.

Quote from: smiorgan;723368System-sanctioned uniqueness is such a low priority for me. I like the banter between the encounters where you find out the PCs are more similar than different. The big blue tiefling's just this guy, you know?

I find the differences in motivation, goals, methods, and how they interact with the party far more interesting than the differences in skin color and ear shape.

But, yeah.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;723451Honestly, most people play a fairly small range of archetypes.  If options are limited and they've been playing a long time, you can start to see them repeat.  It's hard to make every wizard different when you use the same spells.  It's hard to make every Fighter different when you use the same tactics.  Taken to the extreme you get Knights of the Dinner Table and Knuckles IX.  

So, the following are all the same:

* The guy adventuring so he can save up money and marry the girl back home
* The guy trying to be the best warrior in the world, single-minded in his pursuit of perfection
* The guy who sees battle as his fast-path to money and glory
* The guy who's seeking revenge on the man who killed his father
* The ex-mercenary trying to redeem his checkered past
* The sword for hire who'll go to any extreme - but only against 'unjust' foes
* The bitter cynic out to make the world pay for what it's done to him

Because they're all fighters with the same abilities?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;723451I strongly disagree.

I don't think anybody's saying the two are mutually exclusive.  But there's a lot of people that mistake 'funky powers' or some unique race/class combination, or a quirk for actual characterization - and use them in lieu of actual characterization.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;723451I enjoy having many options.  I like multiple races, classes, templates, feats, spells, etc from which to choose.  While you might think some of my characters are 'samey' (human Ranger for instance), I do try to make the personalities different, but after several humans, I might want to try my hand at a minotaur.  It's not 'powers' - usually the unique creatures are less powerful than standard adventurers all things considered.  But it still makes things fun.

Nothing wrong with playing different races.  And the bolded section indicates that you can think of characters as more than their race/class combinations.  And sure, playing a minotaur can be interesting, but it's not the horns, or size, or racial abilities that makes a minotaur interesting.  It's how they relate to the world, their mindset, their adaptation to the world in which they find themselves, and how that world relates back to them.

Quote from: robiswrong;723471So, the following are all the same:

* The guy adventuring so he can save up money and marry the girl back home
* The guy trying to be the best warrior in the world, single-minded in his pursuit of perfection
* The guy who sees battle as his fast-path to money and glory
* The guy who's seeking revenge on the man who killed his father
* The ex-mercenary trying to redeem his checkered past
* The sword for hire who'll go to any extreme - but only against 'unjust' foes
* The bitter cynic out to make the world pay for what it's done to him

Because they're all fighters with the same abilities?

You realize that they could literally be the same character with virtually no modification.  

Ardenne left home to pursue the path of a warrior.  After ten years and seeing more blood shed than any man should, he returned home to his village and prepared to retire as a blacksmith.  But in his time in the mercenary company, he made enemies, including the Infamous Black Prince - a renowned swordsman.  He came in the night with a band of his men and murdered Ardenne's father.  Ardenne must acquire money to hire mercenaries of his own to force the Black Prince to battle - and he must train with his blade to ensure he can best the Black Prince.  And once he has his revenge, he will return to his betrothed - the one he can't marry, or even acknowledge lest the Black Prince realize the pain it would cause him to hurt her.  

But even if they're not literally the same character, most people can handle just a few personalities - the gruff one, the nice one, the quiet one and maybe that's it.  So you do the 'gruff thief', then the 'gruff warrior' then the 'gruff wizard', and so on, until you've done all you can do.  Now it's time to be the 'gruff half-demon' so it at least looks different.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;723515But even if they're not literally the same character, most people can handle just a few personalities - the gruff one, the nice one, the quiet one and maybe that's it.  So you do the 'gruff thief', then the 'gruff warrior' then the 'gruff wizard', and so on, until you've done all you can do.  Now it's time to be the 'gruff half-demon' so it at least looks different.

"Gruff" isn't a personality.  It's a one-note quirk, that may be built into an actual personality.

For example:

The gruff guy that is actually just awkward, but warms up when you meet him, and will generally help everyone

vs

The gruff guy that is so focused on his own discipline that he has little time or patience for those that he considers less disciplined than him

vs

The gruff guy that's really just cynical and bitter from years of being stepped on, mistreated, and having everything in his life go wrong

And those are still pretty shallow.  Mix in a few more character traits, maybe some motivations and history.  Add a little bit of internal conflict and you're getting somewhere closer to a personality.

Quote from: robiswrong;723531"Gruff" isn't a personality.  It's a one-note quirk, that may be built into an actual personality.

For example:

The gruff guy that is actually just awkward, but warms up when you meet him, and will generally help everyone

vs

The gruff guy that is so focused on his own discipline that he has little time or patience for those that he considers less disciplined than him

vs

The gruff guy that's really just cynical and bitter from years of being stepped on, mistreated, and having everything in his life go wrong

And those are still pretty shallow.  Mix in a few more character traits, maybe some motivations and history.  Add a little bit of internal conflict and you're getting somewhere closer to a personality.

You're talking to a Denner.

Quote from: CRKrueger;723532You're talking to a Denner.

THAT explains why I just put him on my Tongue My Pee Hole list!

I still most fondly remember one of the IC conversations I had in Warhammer. I was playing a character based off Felix Jaeger (except I was fleeing an arranged marriage with an ugly noblewoman). So I asked him why he was out adventuring.

"Well, you see, I used to be a mercenary, yeah? So one day, after I earned enough coin, I returned to my village, swore to my lord, got myself a ploy of land, took a wife. Got eight kids. And one day, I just decided I have had enough of their yammering and constant hard work as a farmer. So I took my old gear, my horse cart, told them I was going to the nearby town to get some farming gear, and never looked back."