Quote from: Phillip;860703Trivia: Though unfortunately a villain and not exactly 'super', there was an Elf With a Gun in The Defenders back in 1975-77.

Namor: the water (half)elf since 1939. :cheerleader:

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;859971This really leaped out at me because I'd noticed something similar. Does this match anyone else's experiences?

Yes, but not in a way you'd think.

My observation is that we're heavily invested in defending our shibboleths.  If a certain behavior pisses us off, we're going to remember vividly those players practicing that behavior who made themselves royal pains in the ass ... however much we might need to inflate their crimes (real or perceived) to fit the ranting, or claim that the hated behavior crops up a great deal more often than it actually does.  

After all, what kind of Internet screed would it be to start a thread with "Yeah, *I* know a bastard who insists on playing an elf ninja in every campaign he joins, no matter the milieu ... and then he goes along with the adventures just like everyone else, and pulls his weight."

In any event, there's a concept I'd like to toss out there.  Aren't we ALL "special snowflakes?"  Each and every one of us?  This pastime in which we're so heavily invested?  It involves, in just about every case, making pretend that we're someone we're so very thoroughly not.  That making pretend is in stark contrast with the accepted pastimes enjoyed by 95% of the population of our culture.  To the degree we're roleplaying, we're not carousing in a bar with a beer in our hands.  We're not at a concert of popular music.  We're neither playing sports, nor spectators at sporting events.  We're not staring at screens with game controllers in our hands.  For how many of our friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances are we not "special snowflakes" for indulging in tabletop at all?

For my part, I insist on conformity with the milieu in my campaigns, and for those who want to play Mal Reynolds in my fantasy campaign, well, GURPS has hefty surcharges for Unusual Background and High Tech advantages, so whatever.  (It's been a couple decades since anyone's tried.)  I just don't see non-conformity as a crime against nature.  Be somewhat self-defeating, nicht wahr?

Quote from: Kiero;860583Those couple of sentences are simple enough to be able to parrot any time someone asks you "what's your concept?". I'm seeing no value being added by writing them down, unless you have the memory of a goldfish.

A player character background should help the player roleplay the character. Different gamers benefit from different prompts, so what's helpful to one player may be very different from that of another player.

And I know that you know that without being told, so the whole goldfish snark is just you being a gobshite for the sake being a gobshite. In other words, it's you being you.

In fact, neither Greg's background - "I'm a damaged munition ready to explode at the slightest jostle!" - nor your proto-adolescent wankery - "I'm a war hero who killed a bad guy when I was a teenager and am beloved by dozens! - is worth a donkey's dick if they don't manifest themselves in Actual Play, around the tabletop.

And if you can roleplay a character who is damaged goods or a nascent badass without first writing down a character background, then they're worth even less.

That's why Develop-in-Play is a thing.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;860831A player character background should help the player roleplay the character. Different gamers benefit from different prompts, so what's helpful to one player may be very different from that of another player.

And I know that you know that without being told, so the whole goldfish snark is just you being a gobshite for the sake being a gobshite. In other words, it's you being you.

In fact, neither Greg's background - "I'm a damaged munition ready to explode at the slightest jostle!" - nor your proto-adolescent wankery - "I'm a war hero who killed a bad guy when I was a teenager and am beloved by dozens! - is worth a donkey's dick if they don't manifest themselves in Actual Play, around the tabletop.

And if you can roleplay a character who is damaged goods or a nascent badass without first writing down a character background, then they're worth even less.

That's why Develop-in-Play is a thing.

Sorry, but I really don't see how Develop-in-Play is a remotely exclusive thing from Develop-at-Start. The latter facilitates and enhances the former.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;860831A player character background should help the player roleplay the character. Different gamers benefit from different prompts, so what's helpful to one player may be very different from that of another player.

Missed you. Nice to see you're back.

Quote from: Ravenswing;860824I just don't see non-conformity as a crime against nature.  Be somewhat self-defeating, nicht wahr?

Non conformity is a crime against nurture, not nature. And 5% of the population? I think you are way too optimistic.

Otherwise you seem to be on target though.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;860831A player character background should help the player roleplay the character. Different gamers benefit from different prompts, so what's helpful to one player may be very different from that of another player.

And I know that you know that without being told, so the whole goldfish snark is just you being a gobshite for the sake being a gobshite. In other words, it's you being you.

In fact, neither Greg's background - "I'm a damaged munition ready to explode at the slightest jostle!" - nor your proto-adolescent wankery - "I'm a war hero who killed a bad guy when I was a teenager and am beloved by dozens! - is worth a donkey's dick if they don't manifest themselves in Actual Play, around the tabletop.

And if you can roleplay a character who is damaged goods or a nascent badass without first writing down a character background, then they're worth even less.

That's why Develop-in-Play is a thing.

Howdy stranger! Stay for a spell!

(And it is a good point about "the past is prologue": how much of it does matter? If it won't matter for the campaign or characterization then TMI. Detailed or outline sketch, can you actually play with it? Or are you just playing us? Seen too much of the latter to even bother with otherwise.

As for special snowflake? Uh, everyone wants to think they're special. Even the yobs I chill with at the bar. Playing RPGs is as mundane as anything else, like tatting, or facepainting for team sports. How is that even relevant to disrupting the table and then getting bored when the disruption didn't control the table enough to their liking?)

Quote from: Ravenswing;860824To the degree we're roleplaying, we're not carousing in a bar with a beer in our hands.

Clearly, you haven't seen my last few sessions:D!

I once played Empire of the Petal Throne in a tavern with beers in most players' hands. The characters, though, were pulling a heist in much less comfortable environs.

Quote from: Kiero;860835Sorry, but I really don't see how Develop-in-Play is a remotely exclusive thing from Develop-at-Start. The latter facilitates and enhances the former.

Not inevitably. Frequently I have started a game expecting to spin my PC in one direction only to find that it makes more sense/is more fun for me/is more fun for everyone if I go in a different direction. Lots of develop-at-start just means there's more baggage making such adjustments different. Develop-at-start doesn't universally work for everyone any more than develop-in-play does.

Quote from: Warthur;861051Not inevitably. Frequently I have started a game expecting to spin my PC in one direction only to find that it makes more sense/is more fun for me/is more fun for everyone if I go in a different direction. Lots of develop-at-start just means there's more baggage making such adjustments different. Develop-at-start doesn't universally work for everyone any more than develop-in-play does.

The solution to that problem is pretty simple: don't paint yourself into a corner with the stuff you develop at the start. Can't say as I've ever had difficulty with onward development created by what I came up with at the beginning.

Quote from: Kiero;861054The solution to that problem is pretty simple: don't paint yourself into a corner with the stuff you develop at the start. Can't say as I've ever had difficulty with onward development created by what I came up with at the beginning.

I'm not talking about painting myself into a corner so much as the actual experience of playing a particular and a campaign making me feel like I'd rather take them in a different direction from the one I initially declared.

But I should have guessed this would turn into another episode of What Works For Kiero Should Work For Everyone Else.

Quote from: Kiero;861054The solution to that problem is pretty simple: don't paint yourself into a corner with the stuff you develop at the start. Can't say as I've ever had difficulty with onward development created by what I came up with at the beginning.

Well, spiffy, but however much I'm a fantasy GM, I lack real world divinatory powers.  Every now and then a premise just doesn't work.

Based on the OP rather than the first fifty or so responses, my answer is that I've seen more times as a player, or potential player, where the GM puts some arbitrary restrictions on playable characters for personal reasons than players who really wanted to break the setting.

Back when WotC had a physical store in my local mall the manager (also a player, imagine that...), wouldn't let anyone play any alignment with chaotic in it. He had his reasons, of course, but it wasn't thematic.

I've had GMs ban various classes because they disliked the class. Since Bards and Monks both make this 'frequent hit' list, you know it wasn't about being overpowered.  Maybe Monks can be thematic, or contra-thematic.

Now, I prefer to play boring, bog standard fighters, which are almost (but not never) banned so who knows?


And it can be a really, really bad sign.  I gamed one time with a GM... in fact a guy who's group I'd taken over years earlier when he joined the Marine Corps... and never again.  There were a massive number of restrictions on characters, though I was able to make what I thought would be a too broken character.  Off the top of my head, Paladins were off limits, and I think dwarves were as well, except for the one guy who already had one.

No, paladins were reserved for NPCs.  The entire game was spent watching overpowered NPCs fight overpowered monsters, protecting us lowly players. The character I was reluctant to play because I thought I'd gone over the top in twinking out?  Unable to beat even a single orc in a fight. Godlike orcs. Fought by godlike Werewolf Paladins.

I never did figure out what we, the players, were supposed to be doing within the game world. At the table it was watching the GM be awesome.

Which was why we couldn't play those character types. Because they were reserved for the GM to be awesome with.




Bad player concepts do exist, but  that usually has less to do with GM restrictions than simply bad behavior from that one guy who always manages to misbehave... or more often a player that just didn't quite get the memo that time.  As the posts indicate, it seems fairly often the player gets it after a few sessions with his inappropriate character, so it seems to be self solving if you're the patient type.

Quote from: Ravenswing;860824 for those who want to play Mal Reynolds in my fantasy campaign, well, GURPS has hefty surcharges for Unusual Background and High Tech advantages, so whatever.

See: I read this a bit differently. If I were playing in a fantasy game (GURPS optional), and I really was hung up on Firefly to the point where I wanted to be Mal Reynolds IN that fantasy game, I wouldn't have much problem trying to translate it into a Fantasy Mal Reynolds.

I mean the archetype and attitude are the biggest features of the character. Is his weapon special? Nope, just a pistol. Swap it out for a sword and call it a day. The spaceship? Nah, brah. He can have a fucking wagon if you really need him to have a vehicle.  A sailing ship might be more 'accurate' to the character, but not too many games seem focus on the high seas.  Of course, he could just have a  horse (named Serenity...).  

Slap on the timeless backstory of a good old farm boy turned soldier who fought on the losing side, give him some shady mercenary work, but a dashedly inconvenient heart of gold, and call him 'Malcolm Reynolds', put a shit brown buff coat on him and call it a day.

What gets interesting is when a player does that and the GM decides that 'it doesn't fit' anyway.

Quote from: Spike;861193I never did figure out what we, the players, were supposed to be doing within the game world.

Applauding.

Apparently you missed that memo.