Quote from: ForumScavenger;722969My players expect psychics to be able to do anything from Star Wars, to creepy River type stuff, to X-Files / Lovecraft type material. They also expect that a character can be one of those things and not the others. As long as all three are present, they are happy. Leave one out and they will only want to play that.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;722969As long as all three are present, they are happy. Leave one out and they will only want to play that.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;722969Leave one out and they will only want to play that.
Are you one of these gamers?
And if so, what the fuck is wrong with you?
They're attention whores?
yes...idiotic attention whores is a succinct definition of players...why?
It's just a symptom of the culture. News, entertainment, etc - I want exactly what I want and I want it now!
Most American's work lives are total complete shit in the fulfillment department, so when it comes to playtime, it better be 100% instant wish fulfillment or the channel/site/book/game gets changed. Got no time for even imaginary frustration or failure in entertainment, that's the rest of their life.
Quote from: CRKrueger;722980It's just a symptom of the culture. News, entertainment, etc - I want exactly what I want and I want it now!
I still have a copy somewhere of an op-ed piece published in
Time, around twenty years ago, that opined that much that was now wrong with America was due to the explosion of cable channels, and that that was the kickoff event which led to the whole syndrome of people demanding that their tastes be catered to, down to the narrowest idiosyncrasy, and that failure to do so was an intolerable affront.
Heaven knows we see enough of it in gaming, where there's a wide swathe of opinion that holds that a game system sucks if it doesn't likewise cater to every individual prejudice, and that the suggestion "If you don't like a particular rule, or you'd like there to
be a particular feature, houserule it" is treated as an insult.
This relates to my main axiom of GMing: "Give your players a choice between A and B and they will inevitably pick Q."
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;723002This relates to my main axiom of GMing: "Give your players a choice between A and B and they will inevitably pick Q."
JG
And 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.
I take a look at it from two different categories. If a player REALLY loves Q, and has had their heart set on playing a Q since they read about a Q, finding out Q is banned I can understand being a let-down. As a GM, I'll try to work with this, depending on the reason why I banned Q. Like, if it turns out the 3.5 game I'm running is in my own world and I banned Q because it literally doesn't exist, then I'd explain that and say 'Hey, I'll run a Greyhawk game or whatnot later on, and you can play a Q then.' If it's for a more minor reason, perhaps they can get me to rethink it(especially since I'm not likely to ban something unless it, well, doesn't exist in the world.)
If a player just wants to play Q to be a pain in the ass and act like a kid, then I'm much less patient and less likely to accommodate them. I can usually tell the difference.
QuoteHeaven knows we see enough of it in gaming, where there's a wide swathe of opinion that holds that a game system sucks if it doesn't likewise cater to every individual prejudice, and that the suggestion "If you don't like a particular rule, or you'd like there to be a particular feature, houserule it" is treated as an insult.
I never understood the supposed insult from being asked 'Why don't you houserule something?' The first thing I personally do when I get a book is read the thing and figure out what I'm going to be obviously houseruling(there are some things which I feel need testing first, and other things where I can see FLAT out I don't want to keep.) It's as natural to me as rolling dice. I suppose it's the whole 'But the book isn't catered to the type of game I WANT TO RUN QQ.' Then cater it or find a book that does.
Yeah, there's something wrong with uppity players that have preferences and/or expect to have some input on what type of game you're playing.
It's the same reason every restaurant has a fixed menu and you only get what the kitchen is making that night - if you want something else, you should come back at the right time. Oh wait, that's not how restaurants do it. They let you pick what you want from the available options, and most restaurants will even let you switch options (I'd like this sandwich but I want it on this other type of bread; I want this meal, but I want this other side; I want this but hold the mayonaise).
What's wrong with getting what you want, again?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;723068Yeah, there's something wrong with uppity players that have preferences and/or expect to have some input on what type of game you're playing.
It's the same reason every restaurant has a fixed menu and you only get what the kitchen is making that night - if you want something else, you should come back at the right time. Oh wait, that's not how restaurants do it. They let you pick what you want from the available options, and most restaurants will even let you switch options (I'd like this sandwich but I want it on this other type of bread; I want this meal, but I want this other side; I want this but hold the mayonaise).
What's wrong with getting what you want, again?
There's a difference between asking for chicken with the salsa verde instead of the marinara, even if it's not on the menu, and getting pissed when a taco truck doesn't have lobster bisque.
Quote from: Brad;723073There's a difference between asking for chicken with the salsa verde instead of the marinara, even if it's not on the menu, and getting pissed when a taco truck doesn't have lobster bisque.
True. And if you're looking for salsa verde at an Italian restaurant, you might find out that they don't have it. Not every option is always going to be available, and I'm on record as saying that setting consistency trumps options.
If you want to play a samurai in Merry Olde England, that's not going to work.
But if you want salsa verde, you should go to a Mexican restaurant and the GM of the Olive Garden shouldn't yell about how 'entitled' you feel.
So when someone starts complaining about 'entitled players', I think it's fair to ask 'how does that make the game
worse for anyone else at the table?'.
Considering how many people here have pointed out that 'it shouldn't matter if your Fighter is weaker than his wizard - you're on the same team', it probably shouldn't matter if player A wants to be a 'medium' and player B wants to be an 'astropath'.
The players in question?
(http://www.swissarmylibrarian.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/verucasalt.jpg)
Quote from: CRKrueger;722980It's just a symptom of the culture. News, entertainment, etc - I want exactly what I want and I want it now!
Most American's work lives are total complete shit in the fulfillment department, so when it comes to playtime, it better be 100% instant wish fulfillment or the channel/site/book/game gets changed. Got no time for even imaginary frustration or failure in entertainment, that's the rest of their life.
MMmmmmaybe.
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."
It's less about "instant gratification" than it is about "being a fucknugget."
Roald Dahl had to model from something for the characters in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Those archetypes are not all that hard to find if you look around. But I'm not paid to babysit as a GM, so I don't have such problems at my table.
Quote from: Opaopajr;723131Roald Dahl had to model from something for the characters in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Those archetypes are not all that hard to find if you look around. But I'm not paid to babysit as a GM, so I don't have such problems at my table.
Same. If there are no dwarves, there are no dwarves. Fortunately I haven't had met a player who had to play his favourite race yet.
Somewhere, I advocated cutting character choices waaaay back, while remaining flexible, to help deal with player indecision. Give someone 10 races, 30 classes and 50 feats, and they'll probably be paralyzed. Tell them "You can be a Fighter, Magic-User or Thief" and they will immediately know what they want to play, if it's not an option... and then you can negotiate. This is good for weeding out idiotic players, too.
There are, of course, levels of this kind of behavior:
Low Level: Leave out an option, they ask if they can play that option... but if you say "no", that's OK. (Not Actually Idiotic.)
Medium Level: Leave out an option, and they ONLY want that option, and throw a fit if they can't have it (as per the OP. Somewhat Idiotic.)
High Level: They look around for TEH MOST!1! AWESOME!!1!! option possible and ask for more... and if you give in, they ask for STILL MORE. (Definitely Idiotic.)
The medium and high levels of this are pretty dysfunctional, but the medium level might be easier to deal with, if the option they demand isn't AWESOME!1!! These are the most likely to be just plain dicks, though... the high-level types are too self-absorbed to make demands just to be dickish.
I think the strength of RPGs is precisely that the options are unlimited - you're not limited to just the pieces that are in the box or pre-programmed choices. As others stated - this is much like one of the strengths of a restaurant as opposed to a ready-made meal is that you can make requests. Players enjoy this aspect and like to engage in it.
In much the same way, if PCs come to a corridor that turns left or right, they'll often try to break down the wall, or teleport, or go back the way they came. That's a big part of what is cool about tabletop RPGs.
I don't think that wanting stuff not on the menu is inherently being a dick. Players can be dicks about it in the same way that people can be dicks about anything, but I think it's normal to be interested in trying out choices that aren't pre-programmed.
Quote from: Old Geezer;722977They're attention whores?
This. 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.
Are we just making up things to hate now, I've never actually met anyone who would even remotely get upset because their favourite character type wasn't available.
Quote from: The Traveller;723179Are we just making up things to hate now, I've never actually met anyone who would even remotely get upset because their favourite character type wasn't available.
Lucky you. I have.
The experience has generally been unpleasant. I've found such players to almost universally be incredibly immature and problematic in other ways, and will often scream if they don't get their way. It's almost like some mild form of Oppositional Defiance Disorder. And, as I've said, it's since served me as a great flag for likely disruptive players.
Idiots are idiots, of any flavor.
Quote from: robiswrong;723192Lucky you. I have.
The experience has generally been unpleasant. I've found such players to almost universally be incredibly immature and problematic in other ways, and will often scream if they don't get their way. It's almost like some mild form of Oppositional Defiance Disorder. And, as I've said, it's since served me as a great flag for likely disruptive players.
I had someone who wanted to play a complete pacifist who would KILL anyone who touched his favorite knife. He fought to get his way, too, and was horrified when I suggested the only way that made sense was if he had a split personality, one side pacifist, the other violently murderous.
I had someone who, when I suggested a game of elven spies, wanted to be a grizzled human warrior who was WORLD FAMOUS. He got his way, and then complained that, for a group of spies, the characters seemed too conspicuous.
Both of those were when I was running GURPS, so the players actually had many more character options than in D&D at the time. And yet: PROBLEMS.
Quote from: talysman;723209I had someone who wanted to play a complete pacifist who would KILL anyone who touched his favorite knife. He fought to get his way, too, and was horrified when I suggested the only way that made sense was if he had a split personality, one side pacifist, the other violently murderous.
I had someone who, when I suggested a game of elven spies, wanted to be a grizzled human warrior who was WORLD FAMOUS. He got his way, and then complained that, for a group of spies, the characters seemed too conspicuous.
Both of those were when I was running GURPS, so the players actually had many more character options than in D&D at the time. And yet: PROBLEMS.
(http://i1.kwejk.pl/site_media/obrazki/2012/10/724ed45662b73c5b2dfd3d918298c945.jpeg?1351254813)
Quote from: robiswrong;723173One 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.
I've used this myself and it is remarkable. Made me realize that when I run another game be sure to memorize all penalties of such classes and use them. Often the players this sifted out admitted that they like such classes because GMs usually forget to apply all the social and other penalties from race.
And then there were the "I can only play a snooty elf or brusque dwarf" because their misanthropy was palpable and immutable, but the less said of those the better.
Quote from: talysman;723209I had someone who wanted to play a complete pacifist who would KILL anyone who touched his favorite knife. He fought to get his way, too, and was horrified when I suggested the only way that made sense was if he had a split personality, one side pacifist, the other violently murderous.
I had someone who, when I suggested a game of elven spies, wanted to be a grizzled human warrior who was WORLD FAMOUS. He got his way, and then complained that, for a group of spies, the characters seemed too conspicuous.
Both of those sound awesome to be honest, Doctor DJ from Event Horizon and Sean Connery trying his hand at espionage in North Korea.
Embrace the difference.
Quote from: The Traveller;723215Both of those sound awesome to be honest, Doctor DJ from Event Horizon and Sean Connery trying his hand at espionage in North Korea. Embrace the difference.
The first seems more like a case of "concept the GM doesn't think makes sense" more than wanting to play something that's been disallowed.
The second is a bit more iffy, as if the pitch of the game is "elven spies", a human warrior is certainly a bit out of place. It's possibly workable, presuming that humans exist in the world.
In both cases, it seems like the concepts could be workable, and I think that it's a good idea for a GM to look for ways that things *can* make sense when possible, even if it's not *precisely* what the GM thinks is perfect to start.
I don't see either of them as really being what the OP is talking about, though - the desire to play things that have been explicitly been declared not part of the world.
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".
Yeah, I think I've seen this or at least people on RPGnet who think this is okay behavior that ought to be accommodated by the GM. To be specific, there's two kinds:
1) Gotta play a ninja because ninjas are cool. Even though, hey, game is set in ancient Rome.
2) May look like (1) but if you set the game in 16th-century Japan, they gotta play an Aztec warrior because it's "original".
The first is kinda cute the second is Aaa! [/Sam Kinison].
I so don't want to be that guy that I often try to take the most mundane option for the setting. It's about engaging the setting and developing a character in play, with evolving status and relationships.
Quote from: Arminius;723265I so don't want to be that guy that I often try to take the most mundane option for the setting. It's about engaging the setting and developing a character in play, with evolving status and relationships.
Right?
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: talysman;723209I had someone who wanted to play a complete pacifist who would KILL anyone who touched his favorite knife. He fought to get his way, too, and was horrified when I suggested the only way that made sense was if he had a split personality, one side pacifist, the other violently murderous.
I had someone who, when I suggested a game of elven spies, wanted to be a grizzled human warrior who was WORLD FAMOUS. He got his way, and then complained that, for a group of spies, the characters seemed too conspicuous.
Quote from: robiswrong;723242In both cases, it seems like the concepts could be workable, and I think that it's a good idea for a GM to look for ways that things *can* make sense when possible, even if it's not *precisely* what the GM thinks is perfect to start.
I don't see either of them as really being what the OP is talking about, though - the desire to play things that have been explicitly been declared not part of the world.
I'm not sure where the quote from the OP came from or implies. Is ForumScavenger talking about character types are don't exist in the world at all, like Arminius' example of a ninja in ancient Rome; or about characters that exist in the world but aren't allowed as PCs in the campaign - like talysman's example of playing a human warrior in the elven spies campaign.
Part of this may be a matter of expectations. I tend to run campaigns with input from the players. I'll specify a few things that I really care about, but for most things I'm happy to go in different directions. If the players don't like elves, I might cut elves out of the campaign. If the players do like elves, I might include them even if I originally hadn't planned to.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;722971Are you one of these gamers?
And if so, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Nope, I'm not. In fact I try to be the last, or one of the last, players to make a character so I can fill in what is needed.
However, I've certainly seen it as a GM. Most recent example was a player in a Shadowrun game. I said "No Deckers, because the matrix takes too long while everyone else dies of boredom." So they made a Technomancer...
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. :D
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. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;723532You're talking to a Denner. :D
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."
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.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;723515Quote 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.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;723451While you might think some of my characters are 'samey' (human Ranger for instance), I do try to make the personalities different
...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;723451I strongly disagree.
Yeah, well I disagree that you disagree.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes.
Quote from: jhkim;723172I don't think that wanting stuff not on the menu is inherently being a dick.
No, it's not. One player in my D&D group was
always playing something exotic, so another fellow said that when he was DM, that player would at last have to play a human.
So it is, and no complaint from the player!
Moral: Don't be a dick, and don't play with dicks. (We leave that to the priest character.)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;723515You 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.
I guess that truly uncreative people probably do go through life assuming everyone else is equally uncreative.
But over here, I'm running an LotFP Dark Albion game. Probably one of the least set of options you can have in terms of mechanical in-rule ways to make two characters of the same classes different from one another; elves, wizards, and clerics may have different spells from one another, a thief might have a different choice of which set thief-skills he chooses to put his points into, and that's IT. And there's only 7 classes.
And yet over two campaigns, and what must be at this point something like 30 different characters (each player gets to play 2 characters at a time, and of course there's plenty of deaths), there's almost never been any two characters of the same class that were the same. Each one, within the mold of the fantasy-england low-magic setting, was very much his own thing.
RPGPundit
Quote from: James Gillen;723002This relates to my main axiom of GMing: "Give your players a choice between A and B and they will inevitably pick Q."
JG
Case in point: The friend who was running a game on Wednesdays is burned out and asks me if I can go back to GMing. I say, "OK, well I had the Shadowrun game I was running last year, give me a couple weeks to prep for that." He says "Actually I didn't like the new Shadowrun system very much, can we do Champions?" Which would kind of require coming up with some history for why the PCs are the first superheroes in the world OR coming up with a whole backstory for who the heroes were between the 1930s and today. But I had a whole bunch of work done for another gaming group doing Pulp Hero so I decided I could just skip ahead a couple years and do a Golden Age of Champions game- that way I wouldn't have to answer the question of who the first superheroes were because the PCs would be them.
My first friend and Player B are making characters that work with this concept (a Superman-type and a tycoon with gasoline-powered armor). Player C however wants to make something similar to the character on the Canadian/SyFy series
Continuum - a female law enforcement officer in 2077 who got caught in some condemned anarchists' escape plan via time travel, showing up in the first decade of the 21st Century and trying to stop the anarchist cell from destroying her family's future. In this case the PC would be an intelligence agent following somebody who used time travel to go to the '30s to stop World War II and "make history better."
Which is a great concept in and of itself, it just throws a monkey wrench in the whole concept of my game, since even if I establish that the PC and her archenemy are from an alternate timeline, I still have to come UP with that timeline background...
JG
I disagree, in which X + time travel is a great concept by itself. No good has come from time travel games except too many more questions and everyone ending up a subsidiary to their precious story/timeline. Your group needs a greater taste of the lash and less of the mirror.
If you can't explain your character in a succinct phrase without sending up red flags, you can't have it in my games. See: time traveler saving the future, street urchin with magic lamp of wishes, schizophrenic godling, bundle o' point buy disadvantages, etc.
Quote from: RPGPundit;725179I guess that truly uncreative people probably do go through life assuming everyone else is equally uncreative.
But over here, I'm running an LotFP Dark Albion game. Probably one of the least set of options you can have in terms of mechanical in-rule ways to make two characters of the same classes different from one another; elves, wizards, and clerics may have different spells from one another, a thief might have a different choice of which set thief-skills he chooses to put his points into, and that's IT. And there's only 7 classes.
And yet over two campaigns, and what must be at this point something like 30 different characters (each player gets to play 2 characters at a time, and of course there's plenty of deaths), there's almost never been any two characters of the same class that were the same. Each one, within the mold of the fantasy-england low-magic setting, was very much his own thing.
RPGPundit
That is awesome and speaks a lot about how some people focus on mechanics while others focus on character.
I have a friend who was recently telling me about the dnd group he started gming for, and he said "They don't role play at all"
Its hard for me to relate to dnd without role play, but its definitely out there and being enjoyed by some players.
Well, kind of enjoyed; his players apparently argue about rules all the time :)
Disclaimer: I am not saying everyone that loves mechanics is unable to also focus on character.
Yes, there are people who do both (enjoy diddling with mechanics while also being serious roleplayers).
RPGPundit
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?
Tell me about it. The attitude just baffles the Hell out of me. For some reason that type of player that feels like the longer the character description is the more interesting the character will be. so a Warrior losses out to the Half Dragon/Half Kender Time Traveling Psychic Warrior even though 9 out 10 times, IME, they'll have exactly the same personalities as the rest of their characters. There was a thread on this that blew a few weeks ago.
The weirdest example of it I've seen is in Exalted where you'll get people that refuse to play Solar Exalted because they're too "vanilla human" when almost all the other types are humans with endowed powers too.
There's a reason for my Katamari Damacy signature. Strongly in the "personality shows through play" school of thought. Everything before is just a sketch.