Quote from: Kiero;860096Great recipe for player-avatars and ciphers with little or no meaningful personality...Sorry, but that's nonsense...

We appear to have different table experiences. I've rarely seen a two-page background write-up that was worth the time put into it. One or two sentences were usually enough, and the less Mary Sue elements the better.

Personality, quirks, goals - the ones that matter will emerge naturally in play, and player stand-ins don't bother me much.

You know that advice they give writers? "Is the story you are planning to tell the most interesting period of your character's life? If it isn't, what is? Why aren't you telling us about that period instead?"

To me, the campaign is the most interesting period of the character's life, the part where we really discover who they are, where they develop their most unique features in appropriate response to the circumstances.

Quote from: DavetheLost;860119 Like a minotaur ballerina gun-slinger.

Now that is an image that sticks in the brain.

Quote from: DavetheLost;860119One always insisted on playing the same character. He only wanted to play a version of his Paladin, Kessel, no matter what the game was. D&D, Traveller, RuneQuest, Space Opera, whatever, he wanted to play that character and no other.

This, to me, is far more common.  Perhaps not the this extreme, but playing a particular concept over and over again.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860136We appear to have different table experiences. I've rarely seen a two-page background write-up that was worth the time put into it. One or two sentences were usually enough, and the less Mary Sue elements the better.

That says more about you then about them.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860136Personality, quirks, goals - the ones that matter will emerge naturally in play, and player stand-ins don't bother me much.

Naturally in play? That says more about you then about them

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860136To me, the campaign is the most interesting period of the character's life, the part where we really discover who they are, where they develop their most unique features in appropriate response to the circumstances.

Depends.

Quote from: Sommerjon;860145That says more about you then about them.

Is this supposed to be a criticism? I can't tell.

"That says more about you then about them."
How?

What, that the two-page background guy usually forgets most of it once the action gets rolling and he focuses on the circumstances at hand? That having to share the GM's attention with other players is going to trim the fat?

I run sandboxes. Whatever they want to put energy into is what happens.

And anyway, what's wrong with actual play 'naturally' filtering out what the player really wants to emphasize about a character instead of what they thought they wanted before the campaign got rolling?

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?

The title of this thread does not match the actual ask from this thread.
If the base options allow you to be a number of archetypes and inspire you to create s fully realised character and you still want options ... then possibly the player is either a min/max monster or an attention whore.
However, if the base game setting insists you start as very narrow character type that is neither inspiring, creative or well constructed in the setting then I can see it natural that players chaff against it.

However, the usual reason players get bored with a game is the GM has run out of inspiration or simply isn't very interesting.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860088What was that old (probably apocryphal) Gygax quote? "Background? The first three levels will be your background, now let's start playing."

The more expectations and "special exceptions" you go in with, the less flexible you will be, and the less you will be able to engage with what the GM and the other players actually present to you.

If the game has so little setting hooks that you don't emerge thinking yeah I really want to play a lizardman buccaneer or an Elvish Raven flier but damn which one... but end up with a vanilla 'D&D' world and no one has any inspiration beyond the PHB then meh.. you aren't trying hard enough.

Quote from: jibbajibbaThe title of this thread does not match the actual ask from this thread.

I apologize. Getting thread titles right yet punchy is tough.

Quote from: jibbajibba;860166However, if the base game setting insists you start as very narrow character type that is neither inspiring, creative or well constructed in the setting then I can see it natural that players chaff against it.

However, the usual reason players get bored with a game is the GM has run out of inspiration or simply isn't very interesting.

Is this merely a devil's advocate statement for the sake of argument and furthering the discussion, or am I being criticized? I apologize if I'm taking this the wrong way, but between this post, your next one, and Sommerjon's I'm getting a "it's all your fault you shitty GM" vibe that may or may not be there.

Note that I've not imposed any restrictions in my last three campaigns.

The problem with RPGs is you have to play with living people and many living people suck.

All we can hope to do is play with non-suck people who want everyone to have fun at the table and sometimes that means focusing character concepts based on the GM's setting.

Of course, the reverse caveat is also true and GMs should create settings which engage their players, or seek out other players for whatever setting they do wish to run.

I had the "always play a dwarf" guy back in the 80s. Dude was a freak and I'm sure he's among the legion who gave up tabletop to just play WoW naked and soaking in their stank juice. Good riddance.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860164How?

How?
You:To me, the campaign is the most interesting period of the character's life, the part where we really discover who they are, where they develop their most unique features in appropriate response to the circumstances.
You: I run sandboxes.
Players: We go to bigtown set up shop as Baker, Cooper, and Begger(s).

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860164What, that the two-page background guy usually forgets most of it once the action gets rolling and he focuses on the circumstances at hand? That having to share the GM's attention with other players is going to trim the fat?

Perhaps you need to play with more people, lumping every player who likes to write a background with Forgetful Guy?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860164And anyway, what's wrong with actual play 'naturally' filtering out what the player really wants to emphasize about a character instead of what they thought they wanted before the campaign got rolling?

Nothing is being filtered out.
Players are syncing to each other and how you are portraying the setting.

"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."
The other players aren't syncing with their choice is the more likely answer

Quote from: Spinachcat;860200I had the "always play a dwarf" guy back in the 80s. Dude was a freak and I'm sure he's among the legion who gave up tabletop to just play WoW naked and soaking in their stank juice. Good riddance.

IDK. "always plays to be far more prevalent nowadays then back in the 80s.  Wierd part is more of the "always plays...." people come from the 80s and 90s.

From personal game design and publishing experience.

Albedo: We had this one come up a few times. "Why cant I play a human?" in a setting with absolutely zero humans in it.

Red Shetland: A setting with no anthro rodents or reptiles aside from the Orcs (and one dragon from someone elses comic.) Had someone wanting to play a bug, two inquired about rodents, and one wanted to play a pixie.

During the Lost Plateau playtest way back we had someone wanting to play a dinosaur. This was though pre Jurassic Park.

Seems there is always someone who wants to go outside the setting for some unknown reason. They read the setting info and yet still insist on something that might be impossible for the setting. Or just not really fit. And sometimes suggested adaptions dont meet their acceptance for god unknown reasons.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860187I apologize if I'm taking this the wrong way, but between this post, your next one, and Sommerjon's I'm getting a "it's all your fault you shitty GM" vibe that may or may not be there.

Those posts struck me the same way and I'm not even being criticized. Yet.

Personally I don't want someone to come to the table with 2+ pages of background. Why?

A) I won't remember it.*
B) It won't match the setting or link to its history.**
C) It will clash with at least one of the other PCs.**


* Would be short story writers would be well advised to either bold key concepts and important people and events in their narrative so those things jump out when I am skimming to lookup PC's grandmother's name. Or use  use bullet points.

** If the group wants detailed prehistory (and not all groups do) then everybody coming to the table with their own 2+ pages is not the way to get that done. The PCs need to be created at the table as a group with input and feedback from the person who knows the setting and can ensure that PC prehistory links to the setting. Usually that person is the GM.

Now if we all create characters together and you want to write up 2+ pages of character background that is consistent with what we all created together. That's wonderful. Love to see that.

Quote from: Sommerjon;860218How?
You:To me, the campaign is the most interesting period of the character's life, the part where we really discover who they are, where they develop their most unique features in appropriate response to the circumstances.
You: I run sandboxes.
Players: We go to bigtown set up shop as Baker, Cooper, and Begger(s).

I... still don't know what the problem is here. If the whole group wants to do that then there's no issue, is there? If town professionals dealing with small scope challenges is what everyone signed up for, then the one guy who defiantly pleaded to be the royal heir tiefling necromancer dungeon delver would be the fly in the ointment rapidly getting bored.

I think there's some miscommunication going on.

Quote from: Sommerjon;860218Perhaps you need to play with more people, lumping every player who likes to write a background with Forgetful Guy?

Alright then. I've played with many people, but I could always stand to play with more.

... Or was that possibly a(nother?) jab at my experience/skill? If it was, you know it is possible to have a lot of experience and still reach different conclusions than yours, right? That's why I come to forums like this, to get other perspectives.

Again, if no offense is intended I apologize for reading that into these comments.

Quote from: Sommerjon;860218"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."
The other players aren't syncing with their choice is the more likely answer

That may be the case, but again, if the majority signed up for a certain theme, should they really be expected to bend to the exception rather than the other way around?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860187I apologize if I'm taking this the wrong way, but between this post, your next one, and Sommerjon's I'm getting a "it's all your fault you shitty GM" vibe that may or may not be there.

Probably just  Somm off the meds and attacking someone. Again. It just happened to be your turn on the cross.

But if it will make you feel better we can be mean to you too. :mad:

But I do agree with them that you came across a little too strong as lumping everyone wanting "option" characters into one boat. That is a bit irksome when its obviously not the case and theres a massive variety in how players will come at this, and then react as has been shown so far.

Some will get bored. Possibly because they are getting what they want. Seen this all too often. Though more in non-RPG ones. Others will be fine and may even not pose a problem to the play.

In my experience a player who wants to break character generation constraints does so for one of three reasons.

First, they may simply be contrary.  They don't want to play a gnome except that you said "there are no gnomes in this world."  If you said "everybody is a gnome" they'd want to play something else.  Basically, they're a dick.  Get rid of them.

Second, they may simply not be actually that interested in the concept but don't want (for some reason) to bow out of the game.  This person is more interested in socializing and not really interested in gaming.  Come up with nongaming social events.

The third type of player really wants to play, but insists on a character who is 'different.'  The problem with this in a group is that their different character, if you're playing the situation accurately, will attract more attention than the rest of the group put together.  Essentially, they've just reduced the other players to supporting actors in their story, usually without realizing it.  The solution to this is, if you have time, run them separately so their unique character can be the center of attention.  Otherwise, you just have to tell them "no" unless the other players are all OK with being Fred and Ethel.