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

I have seen it quite often. So yes.
Sometimes followed by incessant bitching about how "lame" or "broken" the game is because they got what they demanded and the player who just rolled and went with what they got was having "more fun" than them.

I've also seen players with concepts that were more than happy to work within the framework of the system to get what they wanted and were quite happy with it while not being a problem to the rest of the group.

Really depends on the player. Some seem to just be looking for a reason to bitch the game no matter what you do.
Some just have a concept and get put off when you dont cater to it in some way. I try to warn players ahead of time if I think a concept will get much traction based on what looks to be the current campaign. If its much more freeform though then theres lots more leeway to give a concept some limelight.
Others have a concept and thats about it. They are happy to play Legolas in Star Frontiers or Spock in Boot Hill. (Which is though wryly fitting.) Or just a certain type paladin with a specific theme.

I like concept characters sometimes. 5e has been really great for me for inspiring some concept characters. But I go the route of theme rather than emulating an existing character from a book or movie.

It all comes down to what fits, what doesnt, and just how much a DM will bend before breaking.

Yes, I have seen such effects, though I am not sure exactly what the formula is. My guesses are something like:

I think it has to do with how well the player relates to their character in play. If they understand the character fully, including where they came from, why they are there, what interests them in the play situation, what their goals and fears etc are. It seems that for many players, that's much more easy to do for a new character when the character is simple and fits into the game world. It also seems like the mindset of fancy complex weird character abilities, or even just playing an experienced knowledgeable character who is completely new to the player, can be challenging to relate to.

For example, a player who hadn't "had time" to choose a character yet showed up, and I gave him a sheet for an otherwise-NPC average young sailor on the ship the party was on. He had as good a time as anyone in the group, perhaps better, and ended up involved in the middle of the intrigue, making suit on the ship's (NPC) princess passenger. The character's abilities were being young and fit and having swimming and sailing skills, mostly, a 25-point character in a group with 150-point PCs. Then unfortunately, the player made a character, who was a 150-point half-elf or something, with various spells and maybe some weird traits/abilities. The player kept showing up and enjoying the game, but only in a mostly generic uninvolved way, not really getting into his character or doing anything particularly interesting. I wish he'd stuck with the sailor.

I think it's generally a pitfall for systems and campaigns with lots of exotic choices for abilities and character types but no real integrated background. You can end up with a bunch of weirdo PCs who have no good reason to be in a group together or to all work on the same project, and whose players don't really identify with or fully understand the characters they're playing, because they were chosen for their weird qualities and powers and not because the player really relates to or understands the character.

On the other hand, I know players who I would expect to be able to play weird characters they come up with, as long as they seem suitably into the character and not just the abilities.

I think it's about relating to the person of the PC and their story and situation in the world, and things like "I want to be a were-jaguarundi" (true example) or "I want to start as a wizard with 40 spells I myself just read about for the first time" are big obstacles to that, as they're not very relatable and focus on abilities rather than the person.

Conversely I have rarely seen a player flip out over setting restrictions. It has happened. But not as much as concept ones go.
Like a BX example.
Me: "There are no paladins in this game."
Player who allways plays a paladin: "But there must be!"
Me: "No there doesnt. But. The cleric is pretty darn close. Since all the weapons do the same damage I am perfectly fine with you swinging a sword and being referred to as a paladin. Does that work?
Player: Sure!

Compared to "player who allways plays a bard" who stormed off when told there werent any bards in the game. But heres some options to make the thief bard-ish. He wouldnt have that and left.

Quote from: Omega;860036Compared to "player who allways plays a bard" who stormed off when told there werent any bards in the game. But heres some options to make the thief bard-ish. He wouldnt have that and left.

Well, gosh, could you blame him?;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ohk5Swy-04

Yeah, but not only thematic restrictions. Also the person who says, "I don't have enough points for my character concept."

This is one advantage of random roll generation, it discourages any tendencies this way - and anyone who is irretrievably special will just filter themselves out.

You are unique and special, just like everyone else. Now shut the fuck up and roll the dice.

Quote from: jgants;860022In 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).

I've a few variations on this. As far as I can tell, the common thread is that the player isn't especially interested in the offers (characters, events, etc.) made by the other participants.

Either they're just fucking around, or the opposite, they're intensely interested in their character concept and background - and only that. They do relatively little engaging the others, building upon/responding to/being affected by their contributions, but continually emit aspects of their character regardless of what's going on around them.

Quote from: Warthur;860015My 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.

I don't know whether this is relevant to your game -- Pendragon being, to the best of my knowledge, openly and unabashedly anachronistic -- but aren't Arthur and the samurai separated by something like a thousand years?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860033Me 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!

Fuck yeah Bluebeard.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860033Me 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!

Fuck yeah Bluebeard.

Quote from: The Butcher;860072Fuck yeah Bluebeard.

I couldn't run his character, only respond to what he gave me. I assure you I tried.

Quote from: SkargYes, I have seen such effects, though I am not sure exactly what the formula is. My guesses are something like:

This entire post felt spot on.

What 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.

For the most part, these types of characters that I have seen come from players who want to try out some broken mechanical combination. After play begins and their little trick doesn't work like they thought it did, then they get bored with the character fairly quickly.

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."

Great recipe for player-avatars and ciphers with little or no meaningful personality. On this, as in all sorts of other things Gygax was full of shit. I can't play a character if I haven't got a clue who they are, and just playing without any forethought is not my idea of fun.

GM gives the pitch (preferably before anyone sits down to chargen), hopefully they'll also either have a premise in mind (ie what the PCs are about) or will chair a discussion amongst the players to let everyone start bringing their ideas together.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860088The 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.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Expectations are a very different thing to special exceptions. Unless you have no goal beyond passing the time, you will have expectations. My leisure time is precious, I don't waste it on aimless activities where I have little idea what I'm going to get out of it.

In the real world everyone has preferences, even if it's merely informed by not doing what they did in the last game. Everyone coming in with no preferences at all leads to blank page paralysis and vague, unfocused games with little direction or initial impetus.

It's entirely possible to come in with expectations based on the premise you've been sold, mapping to what is known about the game world, and still be flexible about what the group negotiates at the start.

Quote from: Kiero;860096Great recipe for player-avatars and ciphers with little or no meaningful personality. On this, as in all sorts of other things Gygax was full of shit. I can't play a character if I haven't got a clue who they are, and just playing without any forethought is not my idea of fun.

To be fair to Gygax (and at least one person who doesn't worship the ground he walked upon ought to), the game that he was trying to play was vastly different from what the vast majority of gamers eventually decided they wanted to play. He was less full of shit, and more like the musician baffled by what his fans think the songs are really about.

QuotePlayers who demand character options from the GM are the first to get bored?

I experienced something similar with friend of mine - in virtually every game we played he started with some character (and character build) and than, after a few sesions he had to change in because his character "didn't work as intended". No need to say it wasn't the last change he made and sometimes he "needed" not just talents/feats/whatever but his class - like paladin to rogue (!). His characters nature, history he had with our characters and everything not covered by numbers was still all the same and since rest of us just didn't care (we actually find it kind of hilarious), we played like this for years. Any time we played an RPG with no or very limited character options, he seemed bored.

Than we started sword&sorcery campaign and he just didn't get ...well, anything that didn't match high fantasy troopes like evil corrupting magic or horrible insane mutants instead of cool awesome mutants. After lot of struggle he came with charater that fit in, but very soon he got bored with him a want him to be replaced with something like winter-soldier-meets-death-knight...

Quote from: The Butcher;860072I don't know whether this is relevant to your game -- Pendragon being, to the best of my knowledge, openly and unabashedly anachronistic -- but aren't Arthur and the samurai separated by something like a thousand years?.

That is actually the level of anachronism the Great Pendragon Campaign prescribes for the Twilight Period, so it fits perfectly.

I have encountered two players who were especially memorable in demanding special concessions without regard to the campaign or game premise.

One 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.

The other was a player who would come up with a new bizarre character concept for every game. Something truly out there. Like a minotaur ballerina gun-slinger. Then after playing that character for a session or two and discovering that it didn't live up to the hype, thus frustrating him with its limitations he would kill the character off and show up next session with something equally strange. Meanwhile the rest of us who were playing ordinary characters would be having a great time with them.

I have long felt that players should be allowed to play any reasonable character concept that fits the realms of possibility for the world, but I have become much firmer in laying out the themes and background assumptions of the world before character creation even begins. "Pick from these options," rather than "build whatever you want".