This came up in a thread on another forum when they were discussing players who chafe at character creation restrictions that are put in place for thematic reasons:

Quote from: Li ShenronFor me it's essential that the players adapt or find another game. In my experience, players who insist on playing just one character concept at all costs (in defiance of thematic restrictions) are the first players to get bored by their own choice during the game.

This really leaped out at me because I'd noticed something similar. Does this match anyone else's experiences?

Doesn't match my experience. I don't recall ever having a player who would only play one type of character. If I did encounter a player like that, I'd consider that a serious warning sign just as I would any other sort of player intransigence that is contrary to the setting or genre. For example, if I am running Call of Cthulhu, you aren't going to be playing a D&D dwarf. Period.

I presume "thematic restrictions" mean something like "there are no druids in this world" or "monks are only scribes in a monastery, not fighting/mystical types."

Frankly I'd be interested to play in a campaign that had such restrictions, it would mean the GM has put a lotta thought into his world and the shape of it. The more interesting series/campaigns have clearly defined character types. The Dune universe for example has the Bene Gesserit and Mentats. Goodkind's Sword of Truth world has the Mord Sith and Confessors. I wouldn't want such restrictions every time, but it would be interesting to see what a GM comes up with.

I haven't had direct experience with such a campaign, but I have made characters which didn't totally fit the campaign. In one Hero system game I made a guy who was a ship captain and had a bunch of nautical type skills. But the campaign was mostly land based. In another game, a GURPS campaign, I made a mage with a bunch of Informaion College spells. But the way the GM played the game nearly all of them went unused (those spells would have been well used in the Hero game though. I think it's true, the notion that we try to refight the last war in the current one.)

Yes, I can understand a player feeling too restricted if a GM downplays a character concept. The player has to learn not to get too wedded to an idea during character creation.

Makes perfect sense to me.  You start someone out getting preferential treatment as a Special Snowflake you either keep it up and give them whatever they want, or you don't, and they integrate and become one of the party.  Either way, they get bored.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;859971This came up in a thread on another forum when they were discussing players who chafe at character creation restrictions that are put in place for thematic reasons:



This really leaped out at me because I'd noticed something similar. Does this match anyone else's experiences?

I've seen both examples that would seem to confirm this, and those that would seem to contradict it. The jury is still out, in my book.
That said, anyone who asks me to play the ninja in Pendragon shall be kicked out of the game for not fitting the thematics of the game, regardless of how likely he would be to get bored with the mechanics of the ninja later.

Quote from: Doughdee222;859977I presume "thematic restrictions" mean something like "there are no druids in this world" or "monks are only scribes in a monastery, not fighting/mystical types."

Yes.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860002Yes.

Really? Are those even "players", or "people that didn't get to play"?
I honestly thought it's about creating a character using a build the GM didn't expect, and my previous answer was about that.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;859971This came up in a thread on another forum when they were discussing players who chafe at character creation restrictions that are put in place for thematic reasons:

This really leaped out at me because I'd noticed something similar. Does this match anyone else's experiences?

I'm still having a hard time picturing the scenario you are trying to discuss. Could you role play the scenario you are picturing? Was it like:
DM: Would you like to join my Roman Galdiator D&D campaign?
PC: Sure!
DM: Okay, do you want to play a gladiator, trainer, aristocrat, scoundral...
PC: A ninja!
DM: Uh...

That's over the top ridiculous, but what have you actually experienced?

Quote from: AsenRG;859996I've seen both examples that would seem to confirm this, and those that would seem to contradict it. The jury is still out, in my book.
That said, anyone who asks me to play the ninja in Pendragon shall be kicked out of the game for not fitting the thematics of the game, regardless of how likely he would be to get bored with the mechanics of the ninja later.

Heck, even samurai would be a better fit for Pendragon; there's enough parallels between knights and samurai in terms of both social position (both are mounted armoured warriors in a feudal system who loyally serve someone higher up the chain) and ethos (both aspire to embody the ideals of a code of honour, whether that be chivalry or bushido) that I could almost consider letting a player play a samurai who's come over to visit Arthur, particularly when you get towards the end of the Conquest Period where Camelot has become a world power. (They could fill the same niche as the occasional saracen knight who came over for much the same reason in Malory.)

My players probably won't do it though because they are too into their Salisbury knights' family trees. I might have some samurai turn up at Camlann to aid Arthur or something.

A lot of casual players just enjoy sitting down and playing a dwarf fighter.  

They already know how to play it

They enjoy playing it

They don't have the time nor inclination to learn the mechanics of another character type for whatever reason, because this one serves them perfectly well.

So, for a casual player, a campaign that is "thematically different" from, for ex, the D&D they grew up with is undesirable; they aren't jaded and looking for a new and improved roleplaying experience; they don't actually play RPGs as their primary hobby.  They are looking to enjoy some old familiar and reliable with their limited time.

I only play male, human, non-white, combatants with no magical powers. The only exception to the last part is empowered martial artists.

I have never gotten bored with my character choices, nor have I ever demanded character options from the GM.

I think I'm in the middle of this right now. One of my Cthulhubusters players came up with the idea of a "black street kid turned muscle" character. Which could work in the 1920s, but in our first session we're already having issues because he's trying to play him like a 1970s Blaxploitation character.

Simply put, Shaft in 1925's New Orleans isn't going to work for me so I expect his character to get imprisoned or lynched any day now...


In my few times as a player, I've often gotten bored and thus created a wacky character concept to be obnoxious (which I then grew bored of quickly).

* My D&D Black Muslim character, Hamza, who insisted he couldn't sleep in the tent with the female PCs, let them lay hands on him to heal him, and kept saying they should walk 10 paces behind him when they marched.

* My D&D fighter, Thor, who was a brain-damaged blacksmith who insisted he was the actual god.

* My D&D bard, Giuseppe, who I insisted on having an organ grinder (that only played Pop Goes the Weasel) as his instrument along with his trained monkey JoJo who could pick pockets and fire a hand crossbow (I can't believe the DM let me get away with that one).

* My fantasy Fudge character, Mordath the Contemplator, whose only skill was philosophy and being a nobleman. Because of his noble status the group insisted he was the leader despite the whole joke was he was indecisive to the point of never being able to make a decision (I'd spend 15 minutes saying things like "Well, on one hand..."). To be fair, two other guys had wacky characters as well (one was a rather flamboyantly gay fighter and the other described his character as a "horny pirate").

From my experience, on average, yes.

A lot of it is a big game to test the GM if he's willing to bend or break their own rules even before play. Same reasoning goes behind many pleas to allow XYZ splatbook, especially ones the GM is not familiar with. It's gaming the table before it even starts.

I recommend you wear your big boy pants and lay down the law. The correct social response is "No." It will save you so much heartache in the future.

They will either respect your authority, and thus your world, your players, and so forth in the beginning mutual exchange of trust. Or they walk because they were not interested in your game premise in the first place (be it ulterior motives or stuck with a favorite archetype). Best to clear the air of social insincerity and establish power dynamics in the beginning. You lose nothing from this position and can only gain from its clarity.

Only with long term friendships do I allow otherwise due to a better read of my audience.

Only seen something sorta like this in supers games, in particular the one where everyone (including me) played an ethnic minority in 1947, post-Roswell. It wasn't a huge issue, really. We used our ability to be "invisible" by pretending to be custodians at a business we suspected of secretly dealing with the Nazis.

Then again, all characters in supers games are snowflakes, so this likely is a poor example. I HAVE seen plenty of examples where the gameworld itself is considered humanocentric, and a majority of the party isn't. As someone who wants players to be happy, I eventually solved this by giving humans certain mechanical advantages, which I rationalized as the reasons WHY the world was dominated by them.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;860008That's over the top ridiculous, but what have you actually experienced?

Yeah, it was pretty much like that. An example:

Me and rest of group: Ok, Ravenloft campaign in the 19th century domain of Lamordia emphasizing social interactions, gentlemanly confrontations in dark narrow streets, and the piteous Gothic lives of runaway flesh golems.

Renegade: Half-ogre knight! I WANNA!

Rest: *Grumble* Well, one exception for exoticism can't hurt that much, right? It's Ravenloft after all, not historical roleplay.

Character stuck around long enough to throw the tone out of wack, then the player wanted to ditch him and have the party to start over in a new realm to restore balance.