Quote from: Omega;860321The fourth type just has some "character" and wants to play it. This could be a favorite character of their own. Or could be something from a book or movie. Sometimes this can reach fetish or obsession levels. Usually not. Neither good nor necessarily bad on its own. But can be vexing for the DM to try and shoehorn Gandalf into Call of Cthulhu.

The fifth type has a style they gravitate to strongly. Sometimes very strongly. They always play mages, always play elves, etc. This is neither good nor bad on its own. But can be vexing for a DM when they want to play a magic user in Star Wars. but they can be outstanding in games that they fit into as they need often the least prep time and can slip into a character with ease.

These types dont want to be "special". They just want to play something they are familliar with or idealize.

Then theres the other types. So many

Quote from: Omega;860321The fourth type just has some "character" and wants to play it. This could be a favorite character of their own. Or could be something from a book or movie. Sometimes this can reach fetish or obsession levels. Usually not. Neither good nor necessarily bad on its own. But can be vexing for the DM to try and shoehorn Gandalf into Call of Cthulhu.

The fifth type has a style they gravitate to strongly. Sometimes very strongly. They always play mages, always play elves, etc. This is neither good nor bad on its own. But can be vexing for a DM when they want to play a magic user in Star Wars. but they can be outstanding in games that they fit into as they need often the least prep time and can slip into a character with ease.

These types dont want to be "special". They just want to play something they are familliar with or idealize.

Then theres the other types. So many.

Those are both sub-cases of "not interested in the concept."  If I pitch a game of Comic Book 1970s Superheros and you want to play an Elf, you're not interested in playing Comic Book 1970s Superheroes.

Quote from: AsenRG;860371Sixth type: doesn't want to be special, is interested in the concept, interested in the setting, but the proposed character types bore him to tears or seem too cartoonish to get involved.

It would take a lot to convince me that this exists.  If I want to run PENDRAGON as a game of Le Morte d'Arthur and somebody doesn't want to play a Knight of the Round Table I'm going to have a hard time believing they're interested in the concept and the setting.

The character types are part of the concept and the setting.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860388Those are both sub-cases of "not interested in the concept."  If I pitch a game of Comic Book 1970s Superheros and you want to play an Elf, you're not interested in playing Comic Book 1970s Superheroes.

[whiny_nerd_voice] But Gronan, Bright-Elves first appeared in Thor #277 (Nov. 1978). So I should be able to play an elf. [/whiny_nerd_voice]

Quote from: Bren;860363I see shared prep as very different thing from a player shows up with a 2 page backstory created without any input from anyone else.

One nice thing about shared prep is it works well for creating a group of characters who each have a reason to be together or to work together. Another thing is it facilitates creating room for some intra-party friction without the friction being too frictional. Those two reasons have moved our group in the direction of shared preparation. The downside is it takes time to do group creation. And for some groups (ours is one) that equals time they don't get to play. And since some people really don't like planning and brainstorming sessions, those people would rather just start playing and figure that stuff out as the game goes. I've not found a way to really satisfy both kinds of players. If they play together someone ends up doing something they don't like very much.

As far as I'm concerned, time spent up-front preparing for the game saves you a lot more time in jarring expectation-mismatches (or even total game failure) later. The Mass Effect game was slightly unusual in the sheer volume of detail it generated in preparing, compared to some of our other games, but we've found it to be a very fruitful approach.

Indeed, it was intended from the outset that the PCs here would be a cohesive team of specialists who had worked together before and knew each other. So the effort at the start, talking all these things through was vital to make that a reality. Now most of the write-up that appears on the wiki was me, because I love the setting and coming up with this stuff, but it's the result of the group's discussions.

I also agree that it's not something that will satisfy players who just want to get playing.

Quote from: Tahmoh;860368Given that the character write up Kiero posted is for Mass Effect i see zero issue with that level of detailed background info as having played the videogames that's the kinda stuff you get asked at character creation anyway.

This is true, the game generates that level of detail anyway.

Though sci-fi seems to be much more content-driven than fantasy, from my experience of it. We don't play a lot of sci-fi, and it's been a noticeable difference.

Quote from: Kiero;860399Though sci-fi seems to be much more content-driven than fantasy, from my experience of it.

I'm tempted to start a new thread dealing with this idea.

Quote from: Bren;860390[whiny_nerd_voice] But Gronan, Bright-Elves first appeared in Thor #277 (Nov. 1978). So I should be able to play an elf. [/whiny_nerd_voice]

Well, if you HAVE Thor 277 and I read it and it didn't SUCK, I might actually allow you to play a Bright-Elf.

If I say I'm running 1970s four color comic book Comics Code superheroes... well... I have a certain obligation to mean what I say.

Quote from: Omega;860379Which can indicate the player has misconceptions of the game or setting rather than having a set ideal they want to play.

It's one of the many options there, to be sure, but far from the only one.

Quote from: Bren;860386If you mean the maybe historical warlord Arthur, that guy is 5th/6th century. Roland and Charlemagne's other Paladins are three centuries later than historical Arthur. Medieval knights a la William the Conqueror or the First Crusade are 11th century. And Pendragon ends up with King Arthur + Gothic Plate (ca 1440AD).

That's what I get for posting late at night!
My reasoning was that the knights, as a class, exist since 8th century. So, remembering Arthur spans the 6th century, I gave them a generous approximation and made it a century and a half. I might have lost a few years in the approximation;).
Still, it doesn't matter for the argument whether it's one century, three, or nine to the Gothic plate. Just as it doesn't matter whether the samurai even existed in the form they're popularly known before the Gothic plate.

QuoteThe chronology is not the problem. The problem is the genre mashup that this requires. If I'm playing Pendragon it's so we can all play Arthurian knights. If I want to play Samurai I'll suggest we play Land of Nippon instead.

Yes, indeed. But there's a Saracen knight. If I wanted to play a Saracen warrior, would you suggest we play Nights of the Crusades instead:p?
Note that I would not mind playing NotC, but I'm just asking about your reaction;).
And well, a knight-analogue from one place that's to the East, from a class that doesn't exist yet, meeting PCs from a social class that doesn't exist yet, either.
I wouldn't call it a bigger genre mish-mash if the same PCs (from a social class that doesn't exist yet, remember) were to meet another knight-analogue from another place that's to the East, from a class that doesn't exist yet, either. But I'd call it a genre mish-mash if anyone wanted to play a stealthy killer, even if the killer was trained in a close-by place.
So we agree on the ninja. I might be more lenient on the samurai...but only if you can demonstrate understanding of the actual samurai codes.
(BTW, if I mention that caveat, most people that know me will quietly start making the PCs from the allowed type:D).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860389It would take a lot to convince me that this exists.  If I want to run PENDRAGON as a game of Le Morte d'Arthur and somebody doesn't want to play a Knight of the Round Table I'm going to have a hard time believing they're interested in the concept and the setting.

The character types are part of the concept and the setting.

You mean I don't exist, Gronan:D?
Because that was me, when first invited to play, AD&D2e from what I remember. I couldn't reconcile how the system worked, or at least how the would-be DM assumed it worked*, and what he kept repeating the setting was.
So I asked him about character options. And read through the books he was willing to lend me before the campaign even began. And then we sat down and I explained him why this simply doesn't work. In the end, we had to create a custom class.
(The subsequent failure of the campaign had nothing to do with anyone getting bored with the mechanical options...when all your players are fans of the genre you're running, and they all end up voting with their feet at the end of session 2 or before the end, you can guess where the blame is to be laid).

*I can assure you, Hide in Shadows was used for sneaking, and nobody but a thief could do such a heroic feat. Except maybe a ranger, in wilderness. A fighter sneaking? Nonsense...if you asked the would-be DM, that simply didn't happen in the genre!
Yes, despite all the evidence to the contrary we easily quoted. I said we were fans of the genre, right?

The game I have seen the longest character background write ups for is Amber. I have had players who prepare whole exercise books of detail. Details of their shadow worlds allies, items, historical snippets from their background, full colour artwork etc etc. I have in online games run flashback sessions in full depth that add detail to some names events, allies or whatever.
Amber is also the game in which I have seen the most immersive roleplay with players meeting or phoning each other outside session time to have PC to PC interactions which are then documented and passed to the GM.

I have had Amber players that struggle through char gen and emerge with a 'non-Amberish' PC so I tend to have an extended conversation with each player just to make sure their concept of what an Amberite is gels with my game world but its never been a case of I can't think of anything more a case of I thought of too many things and the outcome feels wrong (to me Amberites should be more archetypal with a strong does of Shakespeare)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860388Those are both sub-cases of "not interested in the concept."  If I pitch a game of Comic Book 1970s Superheros and you want to play an Elf, you're not interested in playing Comic Book 1970s Superheroes.

Not necessarily. They might want to play a superhero elf.
The player might be interested in the concept. But still want to play an elf in it. Then the question becomes can the setting handle an elf? TSR MSH can. Or if not. Then is the player ok with emulating an elf within the system without actually being one?

And there are a few examples in comics from outright elves to elf-looking metas.

Personal example: I play magic users quite a bit. First thing I check out in MSH is can it handle a Doctor Strange style magician? If not then such is and I work out something else that catches my interest from reading over the rules.

But a Doc Strange character IS part of the "comic book superhero" concept, so if the rules can't handle it then the rules are flawed.

Quote from: AsenRG;860478You mean I don't exist, Gronan:D?
Because that was me, when first invited to play, AD&D2e from what I remember. I couldn't reconcile how the system worked, or at least how the would-be DM assumed it worked*, and what he kept repeating the setting was.

That is a case of unclear communication and/or unclear concept.  Did the REFEREE realize that what he said about the system contradicted what he said about the setting?

Or for that matter one could argue that "playing D&D 2e in this setting" is the concept... the entire package, not just the setting.

It's still "not liking the referee's concept for the game."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860423If I say I'm running 1970s four color comic book Comics Code superheroes... well... I have a certain obligation to mean what I say.

Not to derail too much, but the other obligation is to explain what that means. My players, three women 21 (a friend from Aikido), 28 (my wife), and 30 (her sister), are not going to know what that means. I'm 45 and know what you mean only because I've been researching role playing games and read enough super games to know what you mean. 6 months ago I would not have known what you meant.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860489That is a case of unclear communication and/or unclear concept.  Did the REFEREE realize that what he said about the system contradicted what he said about the setting?

Yes, he kept telling us that it will all fit in its place once we start playing. We started playing, and it didn't fit any more than before.
Mostly because we all approached the characters as, you know, characters that actually have reflexes and coordination:).

BTW, after I left midway in the second session, the other ones reportedly drove him to tears of frustration by brutalizing his pet monsters. This also lead to the immortal words "you totally killed my Spider, you jerks", uttered after a 1st level party of Thieves killed the Giant Spider or Whatever Spider it was. I suspect they were meant to run from it:D.

BTW, I use Referee for people that are actually at least reasonably good at it. So it shall remain "would-be DM".

QuoteOr for that matter one could argue that "playing D&D 2e in this setting" is the concept... the entire package, not just the setting.

I didn't expect you to utter the words of Forgists:p!
And either way, it wasn't explained like this. The concept we agreed to play was "you can be like the fantasy heroes, or other heroes if you like other genres better, and you can go on adventures, maybe even save the world". Not a word about mechanics there.
Instead, there was lots of talk about the abilities of characters we were . And they included things not covered by the current classes. So we told him - and not just me - "give us mechanics that actually allow us to have or at least to gain such abilities".

QuoteIt's still "not liking the referee's concept for the game."

No, because there was an explicit concept for the game. And it didn't include any mechanics;).

Quote from: Tod13;860497Not to derail too much, but the other obligation is to explain what that means. My players, three women 21 (a friend from Aikido), 28 (my wife), and 30 (her sister), are not going to know what that means. I'm 45 and know what you mean only because I've been researching role playing games and read enough super games to know what you mean. 6 months ago I would not have known what you meant.

Well, yeah.  Of course I'd expect a player to at least say "I don't know what that means."

Jargon is useful, but obviously only if it's known.