TheRPGSite

This 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:

Quote from: Li ShenronFor me it's essential that the players adapt or find another game. In my experience, 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.

This really leaped out at me because I'd noticed something similar. Does this match anyone else's experiences?

Doesn't match my experience. I don't recall ever having a player who would only play one type of character. If I did encounter a player like that, I'd consider that a serious warning sign just as I would any other sort of player intransigence that is contrary to the setting or genre. For example, if I am running Call of Cthulhu, you aren't going to be playing a D&D dwarf. Period.

I presume "thematic restrictions" mean something like "there are no druids in this world" or "monks are only scribes in a monastery, not fighting/mystical types."

Frankly I'd be interested to play in a campaign that had such restrictions, it would mean the GM has put a lotta thought into his world and the shape of it. The more interesting series/campaigns have clearly defined character types. The Dune universe for example has the Bene Gesserit and Mentats. Goodkind's Sword of Truth world has the Mord Sith and Confessors. I wouldn't want such restrictions every time, but it would be interesting to see what a GM comes up with.

I haven't had direct experience with such a campaign, but I have made characters which didn't totally fit the campaign. In one Hero system game I made a guy who was a ship captain and had a bunch of nautical type skills. But the campaign was mostly land based. In another game, a GURPS campaign, I made a mage with a bunch of Informaion College spells. But the way the GM played the game nearly all of them went unused (those spells would have been well used in the Hero game though. I think it's true, the notion that we try to refight the last war in the current one.)

Yes, I can understand a player feeling too restricted if a GM downplays a character concept. The player has to learn not to get too wedded to an idea during character creation.

Makes perfect sense to me.  You start someone out getting preferential treatment as a Special Snowflake you either keep it up and give them whatever they want, or you don't, and they integrate and become one of the party.  Either way, they get bored.

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?

I've seen both examples that would seem to confirm this, and those that would seem to contradict it. The jury is still out, in my book.
That said, anyone who asks me to play the ninja in Pendragon shall be kicked out of the game for not fitting the thematics of the game, regardless of how likely he would be to get bored with the mechanics of the ninja later.

Quote from: Doughdee222;859977I presume "thematic restrictions" mean something like "there are no druids in this world" or "monks are only scribes in a monastery, not fighting/mystical types."

Yes.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860002Yes.

Really? Are those even "players", or "people that didn't get to play"?
I honestly thought it's about creating a character using a build the GM didn't expect, and my previous answer was about that.

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?

I'm still having a hard time picturing the scenario you are trying to discuss. Could you role play the scenario you are picturing? Was it like:
DM: Would you like to join my Roman Galdiator D&D campaign?
PC: Sure!
DM: Okay, do you want to play a gladiator, trainer, aristocrat, scoundral...
PC: A ninja!
DM: Uh...

That's over the top ridiculous, but what have you actually experienced?

Quote from: AsenRG;859996I've seen both examples that would seem to confirm this, and those that would seem to contradict it. The jury is still out, in my book.
That said, anyone who asks me to play the ninja in Pendragon shall be kicked out of the game for not fitting the thematics of the game, regardless of how likely he would be to get bored with the mechanics of the ninja later.

Heck, even samurai would be a better fit for Pendragon; there's enough parallels between knights and samurai in terms of both social position (both are mounted armoured warriors in a feudal system who loyally serve someone higher up the chain) and ethos (both aspire to embody the ideals of a code of honour, whether that be chivalry or bushido) that I could almost consider letting a player play a samurai who's come over to visit Arthur, particularly when you get towards the end of the Conquest Period where Camelot has become a world power. (They could fill the same niche as the occasional saracen knight who came over for much the same reason in Malory.)

My 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.

A lot of casual players just enjoy sitting down and playing a dwarf fighter.  

They already know how to play it

They enjoy playing it

They don't have the time nor inclination to learn the mechanics of another character type for whatever reason, because this one serves them perfectly well.

So, for a casual player, a campaign that is "thematically different" from, for ex, the D&D they grew up with is undesirable; they aren't jaded and looking for a new and improved roleplaying experience; they don't actually play RPGs as their primary hobby.  They are looking to enjoy some old familiar and reliable with their limited time.

I only play male, human, non-white, combatants with no magical powers. The only exception to the last part is empowered martial artists.

I have never gotten bored with my character choices, nor have I ever demanded character options from the GM.

I think I'm in the middle of this right now. One of my Cthulhubusters players came up with the idea of a "black street kid turned muscle" character. Which could work in the 1920s, but in our first session we're already having issues because he's trying to play him like a 1970s Blaxploitation character.

Simply put, Shaft in 1925's New Orleans isn't going to work for me so I expect his character to get imprisoned or lynched any day now...


In 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).

* My D&D Black Muslim character, Hamza, who insisted he couldn't sleep in the tent with the female PCs, let them lay hands on him to heal him, and kept saying they should walk 10 paces behind him when they marched.

* My D&D fighter, Thor, who was a brain-damaged blacksmith who insisted he was the actual god.

* My D&D bard, Giuseppe, who I insisted on having an organ grinder (that only played Pop Goes the Weasel) as his instrument along with his trained monkey JoJo who could pick pockets and fire a hand crossbow (I can't believe the DM let me get away with that one).

* My fantasy Fudge character, Mordath the Contemplator, whose only skill was philosophy and being a nobleman. Because of his noble status the group insisted he was the leader despite the whole joke was he was indecisive to the point of never being able to make a decision (I'd spend 15 minutes saying things like "Well, on one hand..."). To be fair, two other guys had wacky characters as well (one was a rather flamboyantly gay fighter and the other described his character as a "horny pirate").

From my experience, on average, yes.

A lot of it is a big game to test the GM if he's willing to bend or break their own rules even before play. Same reasoning goes behind many pleas to allow XYZ splatbook, especially ones the GM is not familiar with. It's gaming the table before it even starts.

I recommend you wear your big boy pants and lay down the law. The correct social response is "No." It will save you so much heartache in the future.

They will either respect your authority, and thus your world, your players, and so forth in the beginning mutual exchange of trust. Or they walk because they were not interested in your game premise in the first place (be it ulterior motives or stuck with a favorite archetype). Best to clear the air of social insincerity and establish power dynamics in the beginning. You lose nothing from this position and can only gain from its clarity.

Only with long term friendships do I allow otherwise due to a better read of my audience.

Only seen something sorta like this in supers games, in particular the one where everyone (including me) played an ethnic minority in 1947, post-Roswell. It wasn't a huge issue, really. We used our ability to be "invisible" by pretending to be custodians at a business we suspected of secretly dealing with the Nazis.

Then again, all characters in supers games are snowflakes, so this likely is a poor example. I HAVE seen plenty of examples where the gameworld itself is considered humanocentric, and a majority of the party isn't. As someone who wants players to be happy, I eventually solved this by giving humans certain mechanical advantages, which I rationalized as the reasons WHY the world was dominated by them.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;860008That's over the top ridiculous, but what have you actually experienced?

Yeah, it was pretty much like that. An example:

Me 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!

Rest: *Grumble* Well, one exception for exoticism can't hurt that much, right? It's Ravenloft after all, not historical roleplay.

Character stuck around long enough to throw the tone out of wack, then the player wanted to ditch him and have the party to start over in a new realm to restore balance.

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".

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.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860247Otherwise, you just have to tell them "no" unless the other players are all OK with being Fred and Ethel.

"Lucy I'm home!"

Even Ricky is a sidekick.

Of course there is a fourth option -- everybody is weird. But some of us don't really want to turn every game into Superheroes or Metamorphosis Alpha (the good version).

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.

I don't do two-page background write-ups. Why does every discussion about a player who can actually be bothered to think about their PC before the game starts immediately leap to reams of prose?

Here's what I wrote for my Mass Effect character before the game started:

Spoiler

Origins

• Born on Aegis (Attican Beta/Odysseus System/fifth planet) in 2158.
•    Military family; grandfather Hector (Captain - retired), father Julius (Ops Chief - honourably discharged), uncle Alejandro (Gunnery Chief - KIA) and aunt Susana (Staff Commander - active) all served in First Contact War.
•    Mother Ariel is a geologist originally from Aegis. It was her idea to combine her talents with Julius to found their firm.
•    Killed a batarian raider when he was 15.
•    Father opposed joining military, in spite of his own service and setting up a mining business using technical skills the Alliance taught him.
•    Enlisted at 18 just after the Skyllian Blitz in 2176 (wasn't old enough to sign up before then).
•    Older sister Helen signed on to an explorator/prospecting crew and is the XO aboard the MSV Jules Verne.
•    Younger brother Isaac has fallen under the sway of the Terran Defense League, a "pro-human rights" group (read: supremacist militia) in the Skyllian Verge

Military History

• Served in a Marine Recon unit attached to the 4th Frontier Division, fighting pirates and slavers, as well as the odd batarian privateer.
•    Was part of the operation on Torfan in 2178, under Lieutenant Kessler; Kessler got half the company killed and himself mortally wounded. Ortiz managed to salvage the situation and intended to bring the Lt out to be court-martialled for his actions. However Kessler died before they were evacuated, and his influential family applied pressure on the survivors to change their stories.
•    After the operation Ortiz was commissioned 2nd Lt (a letter of recommendation for OCS from Kessler was "discovered" amongst his files) and given a medal for his actions. He spent the rest of 2178 and the early part of 2179 in Officer Cadet School studying and training to be an officer.
•    The remains of his company was split up and reassigned, sworn to secrecy about what happened on Torfan (and all were compensated in various ways to purchase their silence). It only took one "accidental death" of someone threatening to talk to make them realise the necessity of this. No one has really talked since then.
•    While they've all tried to forget it, Ortiz is something of a minor celebrity because of his actions, one of the few "good news stories" they were able to salvage from a thoroughly brutal and unforgiving operation.
•    As a result of his actions on Torfan and following his time in OCS, he was sent to the Interplanetary Combatives Academy in late 2179, passing the N1 course.
•    Was wounded in 2180, spending several months recovering while they grew him a graft-replacement for his injured hand.
•    Resigned his commission in 2181 when the term of his original enlistment was up.

Extra-military history

• Went to Nguye's graduation ceremony from the Grissom Academy in early 2178, where he was introduced to Sam.
•    While on shore leave on Illium in 2180, ran into an Eclipse enforcer and her Blue Suns trouble. Started the night in fatigues with his sidearm, ended it with his appropriated Blue Suns armour and assault rifle on the floor of her apartment. Hasn't seen her since and she never did tell him her name.
•    The man who gave up his armour and weapon was a well-connected Centurion called Cedric Drase. His older brother Louis is chief amongst those who swore vengeance on Ortiz for his death.
•    Kessler was related to the family running Hahne-Kedar; they haven't ended their surveillance and monitoring of Ortiz just because he's no longer in service. One of their venture capital subsidiaries is an investor in Penumbra for this very reason.
•    Went to Omega (to the annual "mercenary's fair") after his discharge to find his asari assignation of the year before. Instead he ran into Sam, their mutual friend Nguye and more Blue Suns trouble. The three of them managed to escape leaving a half-dozen mercs dead and firmly placing them on the Blue Suns shit-list. Nguye still joined Eclipse as a freelancer despite Sam and Russell trying to dissuade him.

No purple prose, no pre-game wish-fulfilment or attempts at self-aggrandisement or wheedling extras out of the GM. It's a process that helps me work out where my character came from, who they are and how they connect to the game world. All vital stuff in orienting them for the game, so they don't start out a blank page where we pluck details out of the air (and likely forget them moments later) as we go.

One or two sentences isn't worth the paper it's written on, something that brief is little better than noting the basic concept verbalised when someone asked you what your idea for a character was. If someone is willing to invest so little effort in thinking about their character before the game, why should we trust they'll be willing to do any more than that during?

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.

I find they emerge much more naturally when you start the game with an idea of where they came from. Rather than just conjuring them out of the aether. I also find inter-relationships between the PCs are much more believable when they've been discussed beforehand.

There's nothing worse than those really tedious, stilted "introduction" scenes some groups insist on boring everyone with, where the game opens with the PCs all meeting for the first time.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860136You 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?"

Roleplaying games aren't writing.

But to address this point, rare is the author who knows absolutely nothing about the character they are writing before they start to write about them. Everyone comes from somewhere, those experiences shape them, that's the whole point of having a background.

There's a big difference between including the character's background in the story and putting something together as part of your preparatory work before you actually sit down to write them. Writing a background is preparatory work, not play.

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.

Without the context of what has come before, the "most interesting period" of a character's life is rather empty and meaningless. No one comes into a situation completely unformed by their past and experiences. It's entirely artificial and leads to unbelievable characters.

It's often little more than the player's own instinctive responses to what is happening until enough time has passed for them to develop their own distinctive voice separate from the player's wishes. Assuming that ever happens, of course. Some players never move beyond their PCs as avatars.

Uh, Kiero, that's like a page just in bullet points. That's like countering that "it's merely 1.5 pages, in 10 pt. font, so there." Just because you cannot condense, let alone refrain from straddling heavily into the GM's role of world building, doesn't mean you're not that type of problem player.

Quote from: Opaopajr;860275Uh, Kiero, that's like a page just in bullet points. That's like countering that "it's merely 1.5 pages, in 10 pt. font, so there." Just because you cannot condense, let alone refrain from straddling heavily into the GM's role of world building, doesn't mean you're not that type of problem player.

It's important points picked out, in an easily-digestible format. It isn't prose which takes effort to read and analyse for the things that matter. Most of them are just establishing facts to pin things down.

I'd hardly call your own character's background, and how they are connected with the world "straddling heavily in the GM's role of world building". Especially not in this instance where it's a pre-existing, licensed property that has largely been created by someone else. In broad strokes at the least.

This all comes down to personal style. In a rare case of game theory jargon actually being easy to understand and useful in describing an aspect of play, what we're seeing here is a clash between the "develop at start" style - Kiero's whole deal where he finds that he needs to put a lot of thought into a character's past before he can really inhabit them - and the "develop in play" style, where after starting from a fairly bare-bones outline a character's particular personality and quirks and outlook becomes more and more defined and distinctive as play progresses.

Both styles are absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned. It's very true that gaming isn't writing, and that means that your character doesn't need to be well-defined and well-realised straight out of the gate; taking some time to get them up to speed is absolutely fine, particularly since it usually takes a little time for a campaign to really start purring like a finely-tuned engine anyway. Similarly, if a player needs to write a bunch of notes to get into character then that's fine, because ultimately that's a bunch of work they do themselves and doesn't necessarily have to add work for others.

You get trouble when these styles heavily clash, but I tend to find this is only a problem if people are being dogmatic about it. If the GM isn't willing to make provisions for the different styles, those who don't follow the GM's preferred style are going to have a hard time. If a player insists that everyone has to handle character development and preparation the same way they do, then that's going to cause friction. If it really, really, really bugs you that someone else has (or hasn't) written up a detailed background for your character, then when that happens you are going to be pissed off.

As always with these things, it comes down to a choice: either let it go and concentrate on your own fun rather than getting pissed at other people's fun, or reach a compromise where you can stop treading on each others' toes, or if you can't do either stop gaming with people whose styles are that incompatible with yours.

None of the above is difficult or complicated so there's no reason for people to get quite this emotive about the subject.

Quote from: Kiero;860269I don't do two-page background write-ups. Why does every discussion about a player who can actually be bothered to think about their PC before the game starts immediately leap to reams of prose?

Here's what I wrote for my Mass Effect character before the game started:
...

For my part, I was just looking at examples I've seen, and trying to connect to the question. I don't think the OP or I were trying to say that literally everyone who wants a weird character is a problem. Just that there is some sort of pattern, and the OP and I were both posting as curious questions and looking for more data and ideas. Not trying to create a stereotype to be prejudiced against in all cases.

Your background example in particular looks great and not weird, and shows that you have thought it through enough that you engaged with it when you wrote it, so it probably is going to end up something you will relate to and will add to your roleplaying that character during play. The things that I've seen tend to detract from immersion are added stuffs and abilities that are mainly just abilities that don't come with a coherent background, such as:

* Has two flaming +5 poisoning rapiers.
* Has psionic pyrokinetic abilities that can heat anything within 1000m by 100 degrees per second.
* Infravision 100'.
* Half-Drow-Elf but looks like a half-Wood-Elf (even though no known elves in game world).
* Female lecher tease (being played by 13-year old male who has no sisters and has not yet even met a horny female in real life).
* Were-jaguarundi (even though there are no jaguars or jaguarundis or were-anything in GM's world).

I'm still curious what the actual dynamics are. I think it's not about specific background length or even munchkin abilities or purple-haired elves per se, but about whether the player is going to immerse in the written details for a character, or whether in fact the details are going to create a barrier for the player's immersion (which does seem to be a thing that happens, and these are some possible clues rather than absolute causes).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860247In my experience a player who wants to break character generation constraints does so for one of three reasons.

The 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: Warthur;860312This all comes down to personal style. In a rare case of game theory jargon actually being easy to understand and useful in describing an aspect of play, what we're seeing here is a clash between the "develop at start" style - Kiero's whole deal where he finds that he needs to put a lot of thought into a character's past before he can really inhabit them - and the "develop in play" style, where after starting from a fairly bare-bones outline a character's particular personality and quirks and outlook becomes more and more defined and distinctive as play progresses.

At the risk of delving into said theory, I don't really see a dichotomy between the approaches. For me "develop at start" facilitates "develop in play", it doesn't replace it. By coming up with that outline, I am better able to develop and add to it, rather than starting from nothing more than whatever the system requires to have a functional character. So it's not an either/or it's a both/and.

Quote from: Warthur;860312Both styles are absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned. It's very true that gaming isn't writing, and that means that your character doesn't need to be well-defined and well-realised straight out of the gate; taking some time to get them up to speed is absolutely fine, particularly since it usually takes a little time for a campaign to really start purring like a finely-tuned engine anyway. Similarly, if a player needs to write a bunch of notes to get into character then that's fine, because ultimately that's a bunch of work they do themselves and doesn't necessarily have to add work for others.

You get trouble when these styles heavily clash, but I tend to find this is only a problem if people are being dogmatic about it. If the GM isn't willing to make provisions for the different styles, those who don't follow the GM's preferred style are going to have a hard time. If a player insists that everyone has to handle character development and preparation the same way they do, then that's going to cause friction. If it really, really, really bugs you that someone else has (or hasn't) written up a detailed background for your character, then when that happens you are going to be pissed off.

As always with these things, it comes down to a choice: either let it go and concentrate on your own fun rather than getting pissed at other people's fun, or reach a compromise where you can stop treading on each others' toes, or if you can't do either stop gaming with people whose styles are that incompatible with yours.

None of the above is difficult or complicated so there's no reason for people to get quite this emotive about the subject.

All true. If my approach didn't work with the people I play with, I wouldn't still be playing with them seven years after joining up.

Quote from: Skarg;860317For my part, I was just looking at examples I've seen, and trying to connect to the question. I don't think the OP or I were trying to say that literally everyone who wants a weird character is a problem. Just that there is some sort of pattern, and the OP and I were both posting as curious questions and looking for more data and ideas. Not trying to create a stereotype to be prejudiced against in all cases.

Your background example in particular looks great and not weird, and shows that you have thought it through enough that you engaged with it when you wrote it, so it probably is going to end up something you will relate to and will add to your roleplaying that character during play. The things that I've seen tend to detract from immersion are added stuffs and abilities that are mainly just abilities that don't come with a coherent background, such as:

* Has two flaming +5 poisoning rapiers.
* Has psionic pyrokinetic abilities that can heat anything within 1000m by 100 degrees per second.
* Infravision 100'.
* Half-Drow-Elf but looks like a half-Wood-Elf (even though no known elves in game world).
* Female lecher tease (being played by 13-year old male who has no sisters and has not yet even met a horny female in real life).
* Were-jaguarundi (even though there are no jaguars or jaguarundis or were-anything in GM's world).

I'm still curious what the actual dynamics are. I think it's not about specific background length or even munchkin abilities or purple-haired elves per se, but about whether the player is going to immerse in the written details for a character, or whether in fact the details are going to create a barrier for the player's immersion (which does seem to be a thing that happens, and these are some possible clues rather than absolute causes).

Don't forget, I'm also a GM, though less frequently than I am a player. So I'm not looking to be that problematic special snowflake, but I'm also quite comfortable collaborating in the world-building.

I don't see that as solely the GM's preserve, not even (or perhaps especially) when I'm the GM. The game-world should be a shared thing that we all have a stake in, not the GM's private ball the players can only kick when they are allowed to.

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.

Yep, I gravitate towards the fifth a lot. I like playing mundane-but-skillful Badass Normals (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal). Fortunately, there are very few games where it's difficult to accommodate, let alone problematic.

Quote from: Kiero;860269I don't do two-xage background write-ups.

Yeah you kind of do. I used a 10.5 pt Times New Roman font and to get what you wrote onto just one page (8.5"x11") I had to remove all spaces between lines except for a space between the three sections and I had to decrease the margins to 0.75" all around. And those 21 bullet points filled that one page.

Quote from: Kiero;860288It's important points picked out, in an easily-digestible format. It isn't prose which takes effort to read and analyse for the things that matter. Most of them are just establishing facts to pin things down.

It’s 21 bullet points, and six of them are three or more lines long. That’s not necessarily a problem. The question I have, as a player or a GM, is “How many of these 650+ words do I need to remember?” Speaking for myself, there is a lot in there and no obvious indication (other than a close reading and analysis of the text) whether any one bullet is more important than any other.

You used a chronological listing which is grouped by pre-military career, military career, and post military career. While that is a great way to do things for you the player (I’ve done the same for some of my PCs), I’ve learned it’s not a great way to organize stuff for other people, especially the GM. As a GM I want to easily pick out five or six categories of stuff from that background: Family, Friends/Allies, Enemies/Rivals, Key Events, and Significant Gear.

You have elements from each of those categories, but they aren’t clearly marked and they are intermixed and spread across multiple bullet points. You have all the family stuff in the first section, so that doesn’t need much, but a clear marking of the family members (bold, underline, italics, double underline, highlight, etc.) would help when the GM is reviewing to remember your uncle's name or your mom's career.

The friends/allies and enemies/rivals are spread across the remaining two sections. That makes it harder to connect the various bullets related to the Kessler family who seem like important enemies or adversaries you have created for Ortiz.

Which reminds me, what is Ortiz’s full name? You don’t actually say.

I’m guessing that Sam and Nguye are two other PCs which is why you don’t bother with their full names, but if not you should really include their full names. Here’s how I would annotate to make it easier for the GM.

Spoiler

Origins

• Born on Aegis (Attican Beta/Odysseus System/fifth planet) in 2158.
  
• Military family; grandfather Hector (Captain - retired), father Julius (Ops Chief - honourably discharged), uncle Alejandro (Gunnery Chief - KIA) and aunt Susana (Staff Commander - active) all served in First Contact War.
  
• Mother Ariel is a geologist originally from Aegis. It was her idea to combine her talents with Julius to found their firm.
  
• Killed a batarian raider when he was 15.
  
• Father opposed joining military, in spite of his own service and setting up a mining business using technical skills the Alliance taught him.
  
• Enlisted at 18 just after the Skyllian Blitz in 2176 (wasn't old enough to sign up before then).
• Older sister Helen signed on to an explorator/prospecting crew and is the XO aboard the MSV Jules Verne.
  
• Younger brother Isaac has fallen under the sway of the Terran Defense League, a "pro-human rights" group (read: supremacist militia) in the Skyllian Verge
  

Military History   

• Served in a Marine Recon unit attached to the 4th Frontier Division, fighting pirates and slavers, as well as the odd batarian privateer
  
• Was part of the operation on Torfan in 2178, under Lieutenant Kessler; Kessler got half the company killed and himself mortally wounded. Ortiz managed to salvage the situation and intended to bring the Lt out to be court-martialled for his actions. However Kessler died before they were evacuated, and [strike]his[/strike] Kessler’s influential family applied pressure on the survivors to change their stories.
  
• After the operation Ortiz was commissioned 2nd Lt (a letter of recommendation for OCS from Kessler was "discovered" amongst his files) and given a medal for his actions. He spent the rest of 2178 and the early part of 2179 in Officer Cadet School studying and training to be an officer.
  
• The remains of his company was split up and reassigned, sworn to secrecy about what happened on Torfan (and all were compensated in various ways to purchase their silence). It only took one "accidental death" of someone threatening to talk to make them realise the necessity of this. No one has really talked since then.
  
• While they've all tried to forget it, Ortiz is something of a minor celebrity because of his actions, one of the few "good news stories" they were able to salvage from a thoroughly brutal and unforgiving operation.
• As a result of his actions on Torfan and following his time in OCS, he was sent to the Interplanetary Combatives Academy in late 2179, passing the N1 course.
• Was wounded in 2180, spending several months recovering while they grew him a graft-replacement for his injured hand.
• Resigned his commission in 2181 when the term of his original enlistment was up.

Extra-military history

• Went to Nguye’s graduation ceremony from the Grissom Academy in early 2178, where he was introduced to Sam.
  
• While on shore leave on Illium in 2180, ran into an Eclipse enforcer and her Blue Suns trouble. Started the night in fatigues with his sidearm, ended it with his appropriated <> on the floor of her apartment. Hasn't seen her since and she never did tell him her name.
  
• The man who gave up his armour and weapon was a well-connected Centurion called Cedric Drase. His older brother Louis is chief amongst those who swore vengeance on Ortiz for his death.
  
• Kessler was related to the family running Hahne-Kedar; they haven't ended their surveillance and monitoring of Ortiz just because he's no longer in service. One of their venture capital subsidiaries is an investor in Penumbra for this very reason.
  
• Went to Omega (to the annual “mercenary’s fair”) after his discharge to find his asari assignation of the year before. Instead he ran into Sam, their mutual friend Nguye and more Blue Suns trouble. The three of them managed to escape leaving a half-dozen mercs dead and firmly placing them on the Blue Suns shit-list. Nguye still joined Eclipse as a freelancer despite Sam and Russell [IS THIS ORTIZ?] trying to dissuade him.
  

Italics for friends/allies doesn't stand out as well as underline, so I actually prefer single underline for friends and allies and double underline for enemies, but I can't do double underline here.

EDIT: Forgot to say, I like the background. It looks interesting, but it also looks like there is an expectation that some of this will be used by the GM in play. Now you probably have agreement from your GM to do just that, which is cool. But someone else showing up who just drops this in my lap and expects me use it without talking to me first is not making my GM job easier.

Quote from: Skarg;860317I'm still curious what the actual dynamics are. I think it's not about specific background length or even munchkin abilities or purple-haired elves per se, but about whether the player is going to immerse in the written details for a character, or whether in fact the details are going to create a barrier for the player's immersion (which does seem to be a thing that happens, and these are some possible clues rather than absolute causes).

For me, it is also about how much of the background the player expects anyone else to know, remember, and use.

As a GM, I want that to be “not too much,” “even less,” and “only what I want” or “only what I want and what is linked to system mechanics like a Contact, Enemy, or Hunted.”

And since I am all about people catering to me, I want it to be as easy as possible for me to quickly skim the player info to find the PC’s Family, Friends/Allies, Enemies/Rivals, Key Events, and Significant Gear. If you want the GM to use that background, then you need to write for that audience.

Quote from: Bren;860326Yeah you kind of do. I used a 10.5 pt Times New Roman font and to get what you wrote onto just one page (8.5"x11") I had to remove all spaces between lines except for a space between the three sections and I had to decrease the margins to 0.75" all around. And those 21 bullet points filled that one page.
It’s 21 bullet points, and six of them are three or more lines long. That’s not necessarily a problem. The question I have, as a player or a GM, is “How many of these 650+ words do I need to remember?” Speaking for myself, there is a lot in there and no obvious indication (other than a close reading and analysis of the text) whether any one bullet is more important than any other.

We have a campaign wiki (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Mass_Effect_Transcendence) - as indeed we do for almost all of our games - so this stuff doesn't have to be remembered. This game, perhaps because it's sci-fi, does seem to have generated a lot more contextual material than many of our other games. It's also much more detail-heavy - you might remember some of the very long threads we've had on here about how we might achieve things like assaulting a base.

Much of the content you see in the wiki has come about as a result of discussions (often quite lengthy ones) we've had about things like our ship, it's crew, how our mercenary company is set up and so on.

Quote from: Bren;860326You used a chronological listing which is grouped by pre-military career, military career, and post military career. While that is a great way to do things for you the player (I’ve done the same for some of my PCs), I’ve learned it’s not a great way to organize stuff for other people, especially the GM. As a GM I want to easily pick out five or six categories of stuff from that background: Family, Friends/Allies, Enemies/Rivals, Key Events, and Significant Gear.

Good point, it isn't necessarily easy to pick out those sorts of things without some work. I did deliberately leave it up to the GM to single out anything that interested him to light upon in-game.

Quote from: Bren;860326You have elements from each of those categories, but they aren’t clearly marked and they are intermixed and spread across multiple bullet points. You have all the family stuff in the first section, so that doesn’t need much, but a clear marking of the family members (bold, underline, italics, double underline, highlight, etc.) would help when the GM is reviewing to remember your uncle's name or your mom's career.

I always make pains to detail my PCs family - partly an aversion to the Loner Complex - but I leave it entirely up to the GM to use or not use them. It's putting them out there to be available if desired. I really don't like those moments in game of "so, uh, what's your character's sister called?"; this circumvents them.

But again, being on our wiki makes them easily accessible in-game if desired. The GM runs the game from a laptop, and we were often jumping onto the wiki to pick out a specific crewman or the like. The PCs now have two ships and two crews, so to preserve any sense of continuity (and our sanity) it all needs to be recorded in some fashion.

Quote from: Bren;860326The friends/allies and enemies/rivals are spread across the remaining two sections. That makes it harder to connect the various bullets related to the Kessler family who seem like important enemies or adversaries you have created for Ortiz.

Yep, the Kessler family is set up as a potential major adversary (but also a backer of the company...complications...), Drase is a one-off option. We'd discussed that.

Quote from: Bren;860326Which reminds me, what is Ortiz’s full name? You don’t actually say.

Russell - the detail is all in his Personnel File (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Mass_Effect_Transcendence/The_Principals#Russell_Ortiz), but isn't on the bio. If you'd gotten as far as the bio on the wiki, you'll have read it already. There's a shed-load of names in the page about the Torfan incident too, again for potential mining if desired.

Quote from: Bren;860326I’m guessing that Sam and Nguye are two other PCs which is why you don’t bother with their full names, but if not you should really include their full names. Here’s how I would annotate to make it easier for the GM.

Spoiler

Origins

• Born on Aegis (Attican Beta/Odysseus System/fifth planet) in 2158.
  
• Military family; grandfather Hector (Captain - retired), father Julius (Ops Chief - honourably discharged), uncle Alejandro (Gunnery Chief - KIA) and aunt Susana (Staff Commander - active) all served in First Contact War.
  
• Mother Ariel is a geologist originally from Aegis. It was her idea to combine her talents with Julius to found their firm.
  
• Killed a batarian raider when he was 15.
  
• Father opposed joining military, in spite of his own service and setting up a mining business using technical skills the Alliance taught him.
  
• Enlisted at 18 just after the Skyllian Blitz in 2176 (wasn't old enough to sign up before then).
• Older sister Helen signed on to an explorator/prospecting crew and is the XO aboard the MSV Jules Verne.
  
• Younger brother Isaac has fallen under the sway of the Terran Defense League, a "pro-human rights" group (read: supremacist militia) in the Skyllian Verge
  

Military History   

• Served in a Marine Recon unit attached to the 4th Frontier Division, fighting pirates and slavers, as well as the odd batarian privateer
  
• Was part of the operation on Torfan in 2178, under Lieutenant Kessler; Kessler got half the company killed and himself mortally wounded. Ortiz managed to salvage the situation and intended to bring the Lt out to be court-martialled for his actions. However Kessler died before they were evacuated, and [strike]his[/strike] Kessler’s influential family applied pressure on the survivors to change their stories.
  
• After the operation Ortiz was commissioned 2nd Lt (a letter of recommendation for OCS from Kessler was "discovered" amongst his files) and given a medal for his actions. He spent the rest of 2178 and the early part of 2179 in Officer Cadet School studying and training to be an officer.
  
• The remains of his company was split up and reassigned, sworn to secrecy about what happened on Torfan (and all were compensated in various ways to purchase their silence). It only took one "accidental death" of someone threatening to talk to make them realise the necessity of this. No one has really talked since then.
  
• While they've all tried to forget it, Ortiz is something of a minor celebrity because of his actions, one of the few "good news stories" they were able to salvage from a thoroughly brutal and unforgiving operation.
• As a result of his actions on Torfan and following his time in OCS, he was sent to the Interplanetary Combatives Academy in late 2179, passing the N1 course.
• Was wounded in 2180, spending several months recovering while they grew him a graft-replacement for his injured hand.
• Resigned his commission in 2181 when the term of his original enlistment was up.

Extra-military history

• Went to Nguye’s graduation ceremony from the Grissom Academy in early 2178, where he was introduced to Sam.
  
• While on shore leave on Illium in 2180, ran into an Eclipse enforcer and her Blue Suns trouble. Started the night in fatigues with his sidearm, ended it with his appropriated <> on the floor of her apartment. Hasn't seen her since and she never did tell him her name.
  
• The man who gave up his armour and weapon was a well-connected Centurion called Cedric Drase. His older brother Louis is chief amongst those who swore vengeance on Ortiz for his death.
  
• Kessler was related to the family running Hahne-Kedar; they haven't ended their surveillance and monitoring of Ortiz just because he's no longer in service. One of their venture capital subsidiaries is an investor in Penumbra for this very reason.
  
• Went to Omega (to the annual “mercenary’s fair”) after his discharge to find his asari assignation of the year before. Instead he ran into Sam, their mutual friend Nguye and more Blue Suns trouble. The three of them managed to escape leaving a half-dozen mercs dead and firmly placing them on the Blue Suns shit-list. Nguye still joined Eclipse as a freelancer despite Sam and Russell [IS THIS ORTIZ?] trying to dissuade him.
  

Italics for friends/allies doesn't stand out as well as underline, so I actually prefer single underline for friends and allies and double underline for enemies, but I can't do double underline here.

Sam is a PC, Pete is a connecting character who joins Russell to Sam in the before-the-game space. Sam and Pete were at school together, and were involved. Pete served with Russell, and made an appearance later as a significant NPC. We nearly got him killed.

Again, they're details elsewhere on the wiki, which is why they weren't specifically included there.

Quote from: Bren;860326EDIT: Forgot to say, I like the background. It looks interesting, but it also looks like there is an expectation that some of this will be used by the GM in play. Now you probably have agreement from your GM to do just that, which is cool. But someone else showing up who just drops this in my lap and expects me use it without talking to me first is not making my GM job easier.

Indeed, we as a group went through a lot of shared prep-work before the game started to make all this possible. Starting with the initial premise - we discussed a list of options the GM presented of what sort of game it might be, and went from there.

Quote from: Kiero;860355Indeed, we as a group went through a lot of shared prep-work before the game started to make all this possible. Starting with the initial premise - we discussed a list of options the GM presented of what sort of game it might be, and went from there.

I 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.

Given 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.

Quote from: Warthur;860015Heck, even samurai would be a better fit for Pendragon; there's enough parallels between knights and samurai in terms of both social position (both are mounted armoured warriors in a feudal system who loyally serve someone higher up the chain) and ethos (both aspire to embody the ideals of a code of honour, whether that be chivalry or bushido) that I could almost consider letting a player play a samurai who's come over to visit Arthur, particularly when you get towards the end of the Conquest Period where Camelot has become a world power. (They could fill the same niche as the occasional saracen knight who came over for much the same reason in Malory.)

My 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.

Well, a kunoichi might work... But for some reason, that's usually not what said players mean.

Quote from: EOTB;860019A lot of casual players just enjoy sitting down and playing a dwarf fighter.  

They already know how to play it

They enjoy playing it

They don't have the time nor inclination to learn the mechanics of another character type for whatever reason, because this one serves them perfectly well.

So, for a casual player, a campaign that is "thematically different" from, for ex, the D&D they grew up with is undesirable; they aren't jaded and looking for a new and improved roleplaying experience; they don't actually play RPGs as their primary hobby.  They are looking to enjoy some old familiar and reliable with their limited time.

And they can play it...in all games where there are dwarves that can be fighters.

Quote from: Skarg;860035Yes, 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.

Yes, this, especially the part in bold. That's why I tend to answer such requests with "I asked about the concept, not the mechanics" (except for the few games where the mechanics are well-integrated parts of the setting).

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?

For that matter, Arthur is separated by the knights with a century and a half, too. So a samurai can work, unless the player just wanted to have an all-cutting katana:D!

Quote from: Spinachcat;860200The problem with RPGs is you have to play with living people and many living people suck.

That's no more a problem for games than for real life.
The problem is if you always play with the same player, and he sucks;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860247In 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.

That's good, but it's missing a couple types I've seen.

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.

Sixth 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.

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.

Which can indicate the player has misconceptions of the game or setting rather than having a set ideal they want to play.

Ran into that with the aformentioned Albedo when I was working on it.

Though it can end up having the same effect or being seen as wanting to be a special snowflake type. Sometimes it just takes sitting the player down and pointing out that the game or setting are NOT whatever misconception they had.

Quote from: AsenRG;860371For that matter, Arthur is separated by the knights with a century and a half, too.

If 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).

The 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.

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. :D
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.

Quote from: AsenRG;860478Yes, 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?

No. I'd suggest an Arabian Nights themed game instead.

The concern is that the Saracen knight may be so unusual that the game is focused on his uniqueness so that the other characters end up being sidekicks or bit parts in "The Tale of the Stranger from the East."

Mallory has Saracen knights, but other then the fact that he says Palomides is a Saracen and presumably he may have a different appearance darker skin, curly black hair or something than the other Knights of the Round Table (though I don't think Mallory ever actually tells us what Palomides looks like), Palomides acts exactly the same as every other Knight. And he's mostly a bit player in some other knight's tale, so the story never becomes all about how Palomides isn't like the other reindeer. So either Palomides being Saracen is no more meaningful (and quite possibly less meaningful) than the color of his surcoat or the game ends up unduly focused on Palomides being different.

Again, the issue isn't whether one or both settings are anachronistic. The issue is that Pendragon has a very specific genre with fairly well defined boundaries. Anything that doesn't fit that the genre of Arthurian Knights is going to provoke a mash up. Which I have no interest in doing for Pendragon. Somebody else might be interested. If so, they should not be playing in my game and vice versa.

QuoteYou 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.

I can’t see that this has anything to do with Pendragon nor, so far as I can tell, with the comment that Gronan made.

Let me try putting it a different way. If I tell you I’m running a game of cape & sword swashbuckling adventure where the PCs are King’s Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s and you say you want to run a Japanese Samurai, then you are not interested in the premise of “the PCs are King’s Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s." The fact that in fact there (briefly) were Samurai in 17th century France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasekura_Tsunenaga) is totally mistaking what the premise actually is.

Note: The premise is not "play anyone who could have been in France in the 17th century." It is "the PCs are King’s Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s." So if you want a PC who is not a King's Musketeer, than you aren't interested in the premise. Depending on how much what you want to run is not a King's Musketeer I may be interested in stretching the premise to accommodate what you want to run or I may not. But if it ain't a King's Musketeer and if it wouldn't fit in a Dumas story or a Lester film, it ain't part of the premise.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860504Well, 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.

I'm more concerned about them assuming they know what it means when it doesn't. One of my other friends, a guy a couple years older than me, would assume it means the original Batman who carried a gun and used it to kill bad guys.

Quote from: Tod13;860526I'm more concerned about them assuming they know what it means when it doesn't. One of my other friends, a guy a couple years older than me, would assume it means the original Batman who carried a gun and used it to kill bad guys.

I am also aware of that Batman, but he was LONG GONE by the 70s.  At some point you have to stop worrying.

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?

Nope.

Each game is different, it doesn't matter if you play the same type of character, they'll come out in a unique way each time.

I've had players who play nothing but human thieves, others Paladins, and every campaign/adventure I'd run, the character was different.

Quote from: Bren;860521No. I'd suggest an Arabian Nights themed game instead.

That's what Nights of the Crusades is.

QuoteThe concern is that the Saracen knight may be so unusual that the game is focused on his uniqueness so that the other characters end up being sidekicks or bit parts in "The Tale of the Stranger from the East."

Or, you know, you can end up with a knight that's Saracen, maybe has a different Virtue set needed to get Religious bonuses, and that would be it.
I suspect that would be it. Clearly this must be tested, so I'm going to notify you when we next play Pendragon, in case anyone makes a Saracen knight. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

QuoteI can't see that this has anything to do with Pendragon nor, so far as I can tell, with the comment that Gronan made.

It's not meant to have anything to do with the conversation about Pendragon.
Since Gronan replied, I assume he sees what it has to do with his comment.

QuoteLet me try putting it a different way. If I tell you I'm running a game of cape & sword swashbuckling adventure where the PCs are King's Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s and you say you want to run a Japanese Samurai, then you are not interested in the premise of "the PCs are King's Musketeers dueling, intriguing, and seducing like in the stories of Dumas or the Lester films from the 1970s."

And that's not a good example of what I'm talking about. Or rather, it's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

If you told me that we need to play the game above, but only some characters, ever, would be able to do intrigue unless they pick a class that instead sucks at duelling?
That would be the example you're looking for.
Samurai need not apply. I'm not talking about "the exotic option", that was a separate conversation.

Instead, imagine that you're* offering me to play a character from the court, except the system prevents him from meaningfully engaging with at least one of the three components you mentioned would be part of the game, maybe two out of three.
My response? "Give me more options to see if we can get him to be at least decent in all the components you mentioned. Maybe if he had a priestly background, he could be at least decent in intrigue without being on almost on a non-combatant's level in a duel? You know, closer to the young Aramis? Is there a Players' Options book or something?"
That's "asking more options because I like the setting, like the premise, but don't see how to play it with the mechanics you're offering". Again, samurai have nothing to do. The Pendragon tangent was a different tangent.

Granted, I don't think that could really happen if you** were GMing. For a start, I don't think you'd pick a system that does what I described, or would know to include it in the campaign's concept.
But I mentioned it's happened. And Gronan answered that he'd need to be persuaded it could happen.
Well, I've been in said position personally. Obviously it can happen. Now I have to think of a way to persuade him;).

*Generic you, as in "you, the guy who offers me to play", not "You, Bren".

**This time used as in "you, Bren".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860487But 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.

For a time it was debatable if Doctor Strange was a part of the mainstream Marvel. He existed mostly in his own setting for quite a while. By the 70s though I'd guess he was.

As for a magician in a comic book setting being a must have. Some comics havent ever had a mystical side. So you could have a game with no magic rules. Though in most comics with magic. It tends to function alot like superpowers and so is fairly easy to re-create.

So if somehow your 70s supers is based on something with no magic. Then asking to play a mage would be possibly outside the realm. Then its up to you to decide if this player wanting to play a mage in a supers game is kosher or not.

IE: There is no magic in Aberrant and so you arent going to ever have a magician in that setting. you can have a Nova who thinks they are casting spells. But its all the MR node powered. Or for example you for some god unknown reason based your campaign off New Universe. Which has no magic. Same factors there to consider.

At some point this ALL comes down to "be as explicit as you can when pitching the game, and be clear what points are negotiable and which aren't."

Quote from: Sommerjon;860143This, to me, is far more common.  Perhaps not the this extreme, but playing a particular concept over and over again.

This I have seen too often.  They even managed to make it into a class for D&D!  The Monk!  The one note song that gets repeated over and over and over again!  It's like that 14 year old kid who always wants to play 'The Ninja', no matter what setting!  It has to have the pajamas, the sword (and it MUST be a Katana, no refluffing anything else!) and he (it's always male too) must be Japanese, as in from 'real world' (Note the quotes) Japan.

I don't mind playing the same archetype (whether in a Class based game, or otherwise) but it has to be able to fit the setting.

Quote from: Kiero;860269Here's what I wrote for my Mass Effect character before the game started:

[snip]

QuoteOne or two sentences isn't worth the paper it's written on, something that brief is little better than noting the basic concept verbalised when someone asked you what your idea for a character was.

I have different preferences. These two sentences do more for me:

Decorated combat vet, PTSD, desperately wants to redeem himself in the eyes of his estranged wife and daughter. His sometimes-uncontrollable anger is his worst enemy; second place would be the family of an incompetent former commander that wants to ruin him.

Your profile lists a bunch of biographical information, but having read it, I don't know who he is, what he wants, who he cares about (or hates), what his flaws or personal challenges are. It may be awesome for you: writing it, or reading over it, this guy might flare to life in your imagination. That's great -- I'd never suggest that it isn't worth the paper it's printed on just because it doesn't do anything for me.

And hell, in some games, I might decide the two sentences is too much. I mean, it's more than a little clichéd after all (isn't it funny how so many of our PCs can be described by tropes like "Badass Normal Guy"?). Maybe instead I just start with "decorated combat vet" and see what emerges in play. Riffing off the GM, the other characters, the choices I make for the character in the first couple sessions, maybe this guy becomes a lot more interesting than whatever I'd come up with in the pre-campaign vacuum. Or maybe he gets capped in the first firefight.

I'll go even further: In some campaigns, I don't even need a whole lot of development from my develop-in-play. Some games are pretty goofy with all the literary merit of a fart joke, but still a lot of fun. I can explore dungeons, brave savage wilderlands, battle monsters and rob tombs with my elf wizard and have a grand ol' time without ever thinking about how he feels about his momma. It doesn't always have to be such serious business.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860552At some point this ALL comes down to "be as explicit as you can when pitching the game, and be clear what points are negotiable and which aren't."

Verily.

I try to emphasize that "this is the setting. There are some things that are not negotiable at all because of the setting. And there are things that can be bent or at least emulated within the setting.

Back on topic.

Sometimes the request for some tweak to a class is essentially cosmetic and can be waived. Or has no major impact on gameplay. Like allowing demi-humans to advance in levels further in AD&D. Or opening up a class that isn't normally open to a race.

All I can think of is a reason in principle: The character is less interesting because it doesn't fit the game.

I've had players who ALWAYS wanted to play something 'exotic', but they were if anything more engaged in the games.

Of course, they weren't jerks about it either. If someone's going to be a jerk, then that's the real problem, and lucky for all if they get bored and bail before we get fed up and toss them out.

Quote from: Omega;860565Sometimes the request for some tweak to a class is essentially cosmetic and can be waived. Or has no major impact on gameplay. Like allowing demi-humans to advance in levels further in AD&D. Or opening up a class that isn't normally open to a race.

I wouldn't say that either of those examples (but especially the first) is necessarily or even usually of no major impact. Without something given up in trade, the result too often is that Elves (or simply "anything but human") are just unequivocally better than the rest. Unless there's an element of luck in getting to be one of those, they come to dominate.

Note that I said "sometimes".

And not everyone plays for the bestest mostest class+race+weapon combo.

Quote from: Greg Benage;860563I have different preferences. These two sentences do more for me:

Decorated combat vet, PTSD, desperately wants to redeem himself in the eyes of his estranged wife and daughter. His sometimes-uncontrollable anger is his worst enemy; second place would be the family of an incompetent former commander that wants to ruin him.

Why do we even need to write it down? Those 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.

Quote from: Greg Benage;860563Your profile lists a bunch of biographical information, but having read it, I don't know who he is, what he wants, who he cares about (or hates), what his flaws or personal challenges are. It may be awesome for you: writing it, or reading over it, this guy might flare to life in your imagination. That's great -- I'd never suggest that it isn't worth the paper it's printed on just because it doesn't do anything for me.

And hell, in some games, I might decide the two sentences is too much. I mean, it's more than a little clichéd after all (isn't it funny how so many of our PCs can be described by tropes like "Badass Normal Guy"?). Maybe instead I just start with "decorated combat vet" and see what emerges in play. Riffing off the GM, the other characters, the choices I make for the character in the first couple sessions, maybe this guy becomes a lot more interesting than whatever I'd come up with in the pre-campaign vacuum. Or maybe he gets capped in the first firefight.

Point is for me it's nailing down details that I don't think have to dream up in-game. It already starts pushing me down certain directions in how I play that character. It makes conjuring details go smoother if I already have a foundation as a starting point.

As I said, the way my group does things, pre-game isn't an (individual) vacuum. It's a (shared) discussion in which all of these things are discussed and defined.

Furthermore, we don't have disposable characters who might be offed in the first session, not how we roll. So there isn't any value in not investing in your character at the start, because they may be immediately replaced.

Quote from: Greg Benage;860563I'll go even further: In some campaigns, I don't even need a whole lot of development from my develop-in-play. Some games are pretty goofy with all the literary merit of a fart joke, but still a lot of fun. I can explore dungeons, brave savage wilderlands, battle monsters and rob tombs with my elf wizard and have a grand ol' time without ever thinking about how he feels about his momma. It doesn't always have to be such serious business.

Different preferences and all. I have better things to do with my valuable game time than play silly games, it's not my idea of fun. For me, getting together to game isn't my socialising time, it's my gaming time. Same as when I go to do martial arts, I'm there to train, not stand around chatting.

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

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. :p

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.

Quote from: Warthur;861091I'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.

Like I said

Quote from: Sommerjon;860218Players are syncing to each other and how you are portraying the setting.

This definitely holds up in my experience.  I've had too many players who were both the guy who wanted to be the weird monster character and the guy who'd get bored, stop listening, and then attack the nearest NPC for it to be a coincidence.  If you present the players with some campaign parameters, let's say, where you give them a little map and you're like "here is the human kingdom, it has three major cities, on the left is elftown and in the north is dwarfsburg (Virginia)," and you have a guy who says "I want to play a  sexy catgirl maid ninja from Japan," he's basically telling you "I don't care about any of your shit, your job is to tell me when I level up fuck you." You need to take a firm hand with that guy: 9/10 times when told to change or get out he'll get out and your game will be better for it.

I've noticed that if you DO engage the player, by allowing them to be whatever it is they want, they tend to stick it out.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861333I've noticed that if you DO engage the player, by allowing them to be whatever it is they want, they tend to stick it out.

In reality I have found this to be true IF what they want isn't related to game mechanics.

Quote from: Spike;861193Based 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.

My own observation runs something in parallel to yours: I've seen a lot of restrictions placed that -- if you grilled the GM until he confessed -- boiled down to "I had a problem once with a guy who ran one of that class/archetype."

Quite aside that there's no class or archetype that can't be abused by a relentless enough minimaxer or boundary pusher, said "problems" seemed fairly often to be personality clashes rather than based around game mechanics.

I am generally a pretty open dude, but there is a definite correlation between problem players (who are problems because of their behavior, not what they play) and hearing "I want to be a catgirl," "I want to be a succubus," "I want to be a minotaur," "I want to be a ninja turtle," or "I want to play Abraham Lincoln," or "I want to play Colonel Sanders and have a chariot of gold and seashells pulled by six nubian slaves" in session 1.

I tried not to come to the same conclusion, but my experience has been similar. I have also known a similar overlap between that type of player and "fap GMs" who want to masturbate their Mary Sues in front of a "live, studio audience," as Spike and Ravenswing experience. I just don't have the patience for sitting with such GMs that long, so spotting and correcting that situation is easier (I walk); as GM I need to suss out that player personality before it disrupts my table however.

Quote from: Ravenswing;861443My own observation runs something in parallel to yours: I've seen a lot of restrictions placed that -- if you grilled the GM until he confessed -- boiled down to "I had a problem once with a guy who ran one of that class/archetype."

Quite aside that there's no class or archetype that can't be abused by a relentless enough minimaxer or boundary pusher, said "problems" seemed fairly often to be personality clashes rather than based around game mechanics.

I personally HATE the D&D Bard, absolutely despise it, because everyone who wants to be one in my experience tries to be the 'Jack of All Trades and Master of EVERYTHING'.  But I don't stop anyone from playing it.  And invariably those who don't realize what a Bard really is in D&D (The party's Face and a support structure) often get bored with it.

And the thing is, it's the way the class is built, they're not actually demanding anything of me, they're just rolling up whatever class/race combo they want.

I think it's more player expectations that gets them bored, if they do.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861492And invariably those who don't realize what a Bard really is in D&D (The party's Face and a support structure) often get bored with it.

That is how I played my bard up until his demise and return as a gnoll which essentially was a re-demise as had to retire him. Support and the group negotiator. And when I got to un-retire the character for one last adventure in a big TSR staff run Greyhawk adventure he ended up the one who completed the quest by just talking to the spectre and finding out what it wanted. Also because I was the support character I got to save the partys dwarf from being eaten by a mimic because no one else was paying attention.

Quote from: Omega;861535That is how I played my bard up until his demise and return as a gnoll which essentially was a re-demise as had to retire him. Support and the group negotiator. And when I got to un-retire the character for one last adventure in a big TSR staff run Greyhawk adventure he ended up the one who completed the quest by just talking to the spectre and finding out what it wanted. Also because I was the support character I got to save the partys dwarf from being eaten by a mimic because no one else was paying attention.

If my crew has watched that silly film, A Knights Tale, I point out that the Chaucer character IS what a bard should do in a game.  Usually works.

Now that I think on it, honestly, seriously think on it, I'm not against the class, I'm against what it got billed as, and unfortunate experiences surrounding it.  But the Bard as the party Voice/Negotiator and the like?  No issues there.

A discussion I had wayyyyyy back with TSR staff come to mind too on this. The proliferation of more and more classes was seen occasionally as players wanting to stand out from the norm.

Others were just honest desires to translate XYZ into D&D terms or fill a percieved gap that sometimes did not really exist or need a class to define it. Dragon got alot of "odd" submissions apparently for classes.

Omega, I think the real problem came with the "character class" concept in the first place.  

In a point-buy system, there's no problem.  You want to play a performer?  You throw a few points as picking up a few music- and/or acting-based skills.  There's nothing otherwise about being a "bard" that should be about -- or preclude -- being a skilled swordsman, being a wizard, practicing burglary, what have you.  I've had minstrel-types in my parties that weren't the party spokesmen: being entertainers defined their roleplay, but it didn't often affect their battle strategies, except in so far as lutes are fragile things you don't want anywhere near a melee.

But D&D being D&D, you had to build a character class around it ... with unique abilities, powers tied to achieving this level or that, the whole nine yards.  There had to be something about "bard" which was every much as valuable a niche as "wizard" or "fighter" or "cleric," and didn't come off as a retread of what other classes did.  That the writers made a hash of it isn't surprising; it would've been very tough for them not to have had, without a radical redefining of D&D's structure.

Seems like annoying player and GM behaviors are the real problem, and sometimes but not always, certain odd things are hints someone may be a problem. Best to investigate by talking to them to get more clues what they're like in play.

Specific examples of odd characters may work out if the player is right and the group and the GM and the game world and agreed play style can handle it. Although the more strange it is, the more likely it'll conflict with something, even if the player is good.

As for GM's excluding certain things, again the examples given were of GMs who turned out to have issues, and the limits could be clues, and again, talk to the GM before joining a game if you want to try to avoid GMs with issues. I think limits are less likely to be a problem by themselves, and can actually be a sign of a great GM. That is, most of the GMs I really like would limit a lot of player choices, or even provide their own very specific list of what is and isn't appropriate for their campaign. In those cases, it indicated the GM has carefully and intelligently designed something interesting and thought about what would and wouldn't be appropriate. I'm concerned if a GM tells me I can pick anything from a massive range of possibilities, and it's going to be a group game. ("A dwarf, an orc, a vampire, a priest, a paladin and an ettin meet at a tavern and form a heroic party....")

Quote from: Ravenswing;861621Omega, I think the real problem came with the "character class" concept in the first place.  

Nah. Classes work fine. Its just that players kept missing the point, over and over an over and over. Or creating whole new classes which were just class X with one or two new quirks. Rifts takes this to the Nth degree while Tunnels & Trolls goes the opposite and distills it down to 2.5 classes.

In Red Shetland I had about 12 classes. This was mainly to tell the GM what the players base concept is and what the character and player identifies with most. From there you were free to dabble in whatever you wanted. You just might not necessarily excel at it as well as someone who focuses within their starting paramiters. The main thing was that say a knight focuses on picking up and excelling at magic then his or her knightly skills will almost certainly fall on the wayside as they progress.

Freeform chargen has its own pitfalls as Gurps and other like games have shown aplenty.

Neither is inherintly better and personally I prefer the middle. Base classes and then freedom to explore outside if so desired.

Ravenswing, character class is a great labor saving device.

1) "I want a guy who does x,y, z ..." When we can identify that as "Oh! A ranger" or a druid, or an illusionist, or whatever, what we tend to do in a points-distribution game is whip out a set of stats we've already worked out and then modify as needed.

Having popular types already done up saves the labor of "reinventing the wheel" over and over.

2) Points systems give the illusion that every possible combination has been thoroughly play-tested when that is not the case. "But the points add up! It's a legal build!" Sooner or later, the GM will have to close a loophole, and it may be a destroyer-sized one.

With a new character class, we know it's in development. Once we've tested it, we know that as well. The scope of variables in the experiment is explicitly limited.

So, maybe one player wants a Bard, another a Skald, and another a Troubador. Starting with one take on the basic concept of a keeper of oral tradition and maker of sometimes enchanted poetry, we can deal with specific variations and adjust them with experience in the campaign.

Character classes work well in abstract games that support strong archetypes.

The fighter class is extremely broad and encompasses a wide variety of character styles within that archetype. A character class is not a profession or even a skill set, it is who your character is.

In the D&D world there are many people and creatures that fight with weapons. Some are better at it than others. A fighter is more than that.

The proliferation of classes to include niche abilities came about because people forgot what a class represents.

If broad archetypes are not interesting to you, then it might be better to play classless systems.

Verily. There was no thief class till later in D&D (Greyhawk).

I'm cool with an overarching archetype and core class for each of the six stats (so far there's only four). The optional classes work for me when major exchanges of power occur, like extra restrictions and expectations in exchange for nifty abilities, and that they remain optional. They give a helpful template to create other setting archetypal concepts that mesh better than the optional offering.

Not every campaign can justify a paladin, illusionist, or bard. But knowing what was traded for what gives an idea on how to make one's own setting relevant specialists. The problem was many people either never tried to make their own classes, or those who did hated the bennies for penalties exchange and just wanted more bennies.

(I need to create core classes for both CON & CHA. I'm thinking Laborer and Organizer. Now I should create 5e archetypes for subclasses...)

Quote from: Opaopajr;861828I'm cool with an overarching archetype and core class for each of the six stats (so far there's only four).

A local heartbreaker kinda sorta did this with Rangers (CON, being hardy  survivors and all) and Bards (CHA).

There doesn't need a CON Archetype, simply because every one of them need CON to survive.  But I would agree that Bard is definitely CHA.

Nah, I still disagree with CON not having one. Everyone needs all the stats, at least at 3 pts of each. I think it's just not a typical "adventuring!" concept.

I'm thinking Laborer as the core CON class, with emphases on professional level labor, like shepherd, farmer, or clerk. Be it paperwork or physical labor, the point is endurance. They are the backbone of civilization's plodding progress.

And I think Bards work fine as a specialist Rogue. They traded quite a bit of thief stuff, and took on several social requirements, for the the benefits of high sociability as an adventuring platform. They gotta see the world and mix it up from high and low, and then get out of any troubles they make alive through deft application of entertaining performance, sleight of hand, and a smile. That's more DEX to me than CHA, even though their CHA smile greases their escapes.

No, I see CHA as more organizational functionaries. Storytellers, wise elders, politicians, gossips, business managers, agitators, those are all varieties of CHA to me. Again they have little reason to "adventure!" as they are often terribly needed as the coordinational cerebellum for the body politic. They sway the herd, pack, mob, whatever, to reach that 11% tipping point where the group decides to change course en masse.

Hmm, the Laborer and the Leader/Organizer. Does the game really need pencil pushers and politicians in the dungeon?... ;) Yes, yes it does. They could cause so much internecine damage among the sentient mosters! :D

"He is hoarding more treasure than you, you know that, right? And he's not even putting it to good use, like investing it in arms, more fighters, or even extra food. Just sitting on it like a pillow. *tsk*

"Here's my secretary's breakdown of your profits lost over the past year through your so-called 'peace'. Don't you feel entitled to your fair share? I mean the whole second floor could use your expansive vision!"

The Bard, to me, is the party 'face' the one that does all the talking, negotiating and charming, collecting stories and knowledge, and imparting to all who would hear them, everything else they do, is in a supportive role, their main focus is their personality, which to me, is Charisma.

This is why I say that Bard works for CHA.  You're welcome to disagree, but I just wanted to explain my choice.

Happy Gaming.

Quote from: Opaopajr;861867Nah, I still disagree with CON not having one. Everyone needs all the stats, at least at 3 pts of each. I think it's just not a typical "adventuring!" concept.

I'm thinking Laborer as the core CON class, with emphases on professional level labor, like shepherd, farmer, or clerk. Be it paperwork or physical labor, the point is endurance. They are the backbone of civilization's plodding progress.

Or an oarsman, if the game-world has oared galleys. Stevedores and other dockworkers, too.

Quote from: Kiero;861908Or an oarsman, if the game-world has oared galleys. Stevedores and other dockworkers, too.

For that matter any "outdoorsman" archetype is probably best fitted in the CON class. Yeah I said ranger.

Barbarians should be the CON representative as they are supposed to be the armourless battlers and you need good CON to back that up.

As it stands.
Fighter = STR
Cleric = WIS
Wizard = INT
Rogue = DEX

Bard = CHA
Druid = WIS
Barbarian = CON (kinda despite saying STR is the primary)
Warlock = CHA
Sorcerer = CHA

Quote from: Bren;861213Applauding.

Apparently you missed that memo.

Indeed.

There was one bright moment about all that.  I sent the GM an Email after I more or less stormed out of the game, pointing out what an utter fail that game was. I was somewhat embarrassed by it, honestly, since I worried I might seem like a bitter whiner, but I heard later from a mutual acquaintance that he took my advice to heart and changed his gaming style, at least somewhat.

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?

Yup, it absolutely does.

Player A: "Lets play D&D?"
Player B: "Sure."
Player A: "Here is the character generation rules."
Player B: "Why can I not play a an Evolved Clam who is a Policewoman from the year 1280 BC armed with a Tetraquad Laser? Why god Why!?!?!"
Player A: We can play Rifts next week...

Quote from: Omega;863114Player B: "Why can I not play a an Evolved Clam who is a Policewoman from the year 1280 BC armed with a Tetraquad Laser? Why god Why!?!?!"

In my DCC campaign, a character like this would be considered inconspicuous.

Of course in that campaign you wouldn't get to choose any of this, almost all character generation would be by random determination. You don't get to pick what kind of a freak you are.

Quote from: RPGPundit;863732In my DCC campaign, a character like this would be considered inconspicuous.

Of course in that campaign you wouldn't get to choose any of this, almost all character generation would be by random determination. You don't get to pick what kind of a freak you are.

omg u r deprotagonizing the clam

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;863774omg u r deprotagonizing the clam

2 minute minor penalty. In the box. :D

Unless this made anybody bleed? :p

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;863774omg u r deprotagonizing the clam

That sounds cooler than a mere evolved clam...

Quote from: Tod13;8637772 minute minor penalty. In the box. :D

Unless this made anybody bleed? :p

I can spot blood.  That's a five minute major, and it'll come up to the league office for supplementary discipline.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;863774omg u r deprotagonizing the clam

Ironically, there are Clam-People in my DCC setting. And they have been largely deprotagonized, in that the party has not yet encountered them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;864840Ironically, there are Clam-People in my DCC setting. And they have been largely deprotagonized, in that the party has not yet encountered them.

Oppressed clams. What is the world coming to? :D

Marginalized Deprotagonized Evolutionalized Clams. Can team them up with the Pre-Teen Dirty-Gene Kung-Fu Kangaroos. :hatsoff:

Radioactive Adolescent Samurai Slugs, for you Animaniacs fans.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;864894Radioactive Adolescent Samurai Slugs, for you Animaniacs fans.

*Ahem*, Immature Radioactive Samurai Slugs was a Tiny Toons thing :p :

http://img11.deviantart.net/9aeb/i/2014/170/e/c/las_inmaduras_y_radioactivas_babosas_samuria_by_donpapi-d7n41ci.jpg

Quote from: RPGPundit;864840Ironically, there are Clam-People in my DCC setting. And they have been largely deprotagonized, in that the party has not yet encountered them.

Not ironic unless you are Alanis Morisette.

It's a little-known fact that most other English-speakers are unfamiliar with, but in fact Canadians use that word differently from anally-retentive dickwads.

Quote from: RPGPundit;865621It's a little-known fact that most other English-speakers are unfamiliar with, but in fact Canadians use that word differently from anally-retentive dickwads.

Yes, yes we do.

Quote from: RPGPundit;865621It's a little-known fact that most other English-speakers are unfamiliar with, but in fact Canadians use that word differently from anally-retentive dickwads.

Ol' Pundit: never admits he's wrong, just changes the topic. Par for the course.

By the way, John/Kasimir/whatever, I can teach you the difference between slander and libel as well, if you like.  Your blog shows you don't know what those words mean either.

Quote from: Matt;865833By the way, John/Kasimir/whatever, I can teach you the difference between slander and libel as well, if you like.  Your blog shows you don't know what those words mean either.

:popcorn:

Quote from: Matt;865833By the way, John/Kasimir/whatever, I can teach you the difference between slander and libel as well, if you like.  Your blog shows you don't know what those words mean either.

Damn it, I was going to challenge Pundit to an amicable showdown over Eberron this week, but with this now going down I'd either get overlooked or blasted with carried-over second-hand rage.

Guess I'll try next week.

As I think someone else noted. I think the more a player demands XYZ it seems the faster they become bored.

Someone who goes "Hey. Can I play an evolved clam in this even though there arent any?" may stick with it far longer than the one whos is just short of telling you he will play an evolved clam. YMMV of course.

But also for some the whatever is just a means to gain more powers than the normal class and race selection would allow.

Multi-armed characters who can quad wield swords or guns is one I've run into a few times.

Pundit is correct, as the other definitions of irony attest. This is known often as situational irony, where the unintended occur outside of normal subjective agency.

Irony (Cambridge Free Dictionary)
Cambridge Free Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/irony)
› a ​type of usually ​humorous ​expression in which you say the ​opposite of what you ​intend:
He had a ​powerful ​sense of irony, and you could never be ​absolutely ​sure when he was ​serious.

› Irony is also something that has a different or ​opposite ​result from what is ​expected:

[C] It is one of the ironies of ​life that by the ​time you have ​earned enough ​money for the things you always ​wanted, you no ​longer have the ​energy to ​enjoy them.
› literature Irony is a ​style of writing in which there is a ​noticeable, often ​humorous, ​difference between what is said and the ​intended ​meaning.

Irony (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
Meriam Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony)
: the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny

: a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected


Irony (Macmillan Dictionary)
Macmillan Dictionary (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/irony)
1 [UNCOUNTABLE] a form of humor in which you use words to express the opposite of what the words really mean
"You've been so kind," she said, her voice heavy with irony.
a touch/trace/hint of irony: His writing contains a cheerful touch of irony.

2 [COUNTABLE/UNCOUNTABLE] a strange, funny, or sad situation in which things happen in the opposite way to what you would expect
tragic/bitter/cruel irony: By a cruel irony, General Franklin was killed at the very moment of his army's great victory.
the irony (of something) is that: The irony is that it would have been faster to have taken the back roads after all.

--------------------------------------------

Since evolved clams, let alone de-protagonized ones, are on the bleeding edge of probability -- and thus intended as hyperbole in the previous statements -- it is actually IRONIC that the SITUATION within Pundit's campaign provides an Unintended, Strange, and Funny, counter-example of what was Expected.

Any other dictionaries you care to disagree with?

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?

In my experience, there's more to it than just an unhappy player with the restrictions. We're the restrictions in place before the player decided to join or are the restrictions based more on just the DMs dislike of said options than a strong thematic reason for them not existing, for example?

I'm of the belief that most options can be incorporated into almost any campaign with a tiny bit effort on both the player and DM

Quote from: Batman;866023In my experience, there's more to it than just an unhappy player with the restrictions. We're the restrictions in place before the player decided to join or are the restrictions based more on just the DMs dislike of said options than a strong thematic reason for them not existing, for example?

I'm of the belief that most options can be incorporated into almost any campaign with a tiny bit effort on both the player and DM

Sometimes it's not about the effort, it's about the player either acting in bad faith or just not getting the premise intended.

If I'm running a game of ancient Greek sea wolves roving the Mediterranean taking ships and raiding towns for profit, I'm not going to torture the premise to find a way to fit in that Baltic lordling with retinue someone really wanted to play. The answer would simply be "no, come up with a concept that fits".

Quote from: Kiero;866030Sometimes it's not about the effort, it's about the player either acting in bad faith or just not getting the premise intended.

If I'm running a game of ancient Greek sea wolves roving the Mediterranean taking ships and raiding towns for profit, I'm not going to torture the premise to find a way to fit in that Baltic lordling with retinue someone really wanted to play. The answer would simply be "no, come up with a concept that fits".

Finding out why being, specifically, a Baltic lordling is important in making the concept work. Maybe being Baltic isn't as important as being wealthy or having a retinue. Maybe a Greek lordling can work?

Quote from: Batman;866053Finding out why being, specifically, a Baltic lordling is important in making the concept work. Maybe being Baltic isn't as important as being wealthy or having a retinue. Maybe a Greek lordling can work?

And among a bunch of sea wolves, you're a "Special Snowflake" and the game becomes about you.

This is "failure to engage the concept" once again.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;866065And among a bunch of sea wolves, you're a "Special Snowflake" and the game becomes about you.

This is "failure to engage the concept" once again.

Nope, not at all. Maybe the Greek lordling ran away on a ship away from his family and took a couple of his friends along and he wants to start a new life. The ship he jumps in on is, as he quickly learns, is a sea wolf. Of course his family sends out a party to find him and bring him back but it's a minor sub-plot to the overall adventure.

Or maybe his ship is raided as he and his retinue leave and instead of killing him outright, put him to work and basically follow their lead or die and as he starts to become involved with the raiding, he starts to like it. It also gives the DM scenarios that might pit the once lordling against his family as they raid one of their homesteads.

Sometimes the player gets fixated on some idea. Really fixated. Sometimes its just that one time. Others its a fixation that crosses over to every game.

Most memorable and vexing was a player who was fixated on dual wielding.

The game was garbage if you couldnt dual wield.
The game was garbage if you couldnt dual wield perfectly.
The game was garbage if you could have four arms and could not dual or quad wield.

He grew out of it. About a decade later.

Or a player fixated on wearing armour over armour. Even after I repeatedly pointed out that this is what several armours are.

Though I did think his idea of putting chain-mail over plate mail was a neet and actually do-able idea.

Quote from: Batman;866069Nope, not at all. Maybe the Greek lordling ran away on a ship away from his family and took a couple of his friends along and he wants to start a new life. The ship he jumps in on is, as he quickly learns, is a sea wolf. Of course his family sends out a party to find him and bring him back but it's a minor sub-plot to the overall adventure.

Or maybe his ship is raided as he and his retinue leave and instead of killing him outright, put him to work and basically follow their lead or die and as he starts to become involved with the raiding, he starts to like it. It also gives the DM scenarios that might pit the once lordling against his family as they raid one of their homesteads.

A Greek almost anything will fit. The issue is not the lordling nor retinue, it's trying to combine playing a Balt with both those two. A foreigner who is a total fish out of water cannot also manage to bring along all the trappings of wealth and connections so far from their homeland. It would be the same if they wanted to combine lordling and retinue with being Indian or Nubian or Sakan.

A single Balt, separated from home for whatever reason, would be a stretch but do-able. But drop the requirement to be a barbarian from distant lands, and either or both of the other two parts work just fine.

Quote from: Kiero;866075A Greek almost anything will fit. The issue is not the lordling nor retinue, it's trying to combine playing a Balt with both those two. A foreigner who is a total fish out of water cannot also manage to bring along all the trappings of wealth and connections so far from their homeland. It would be the same if they wanted to combine lordling and retinue with being Indian or Nubian or Sakan.

A single Balt, separated from home for whatever reason, would be a stretch but do-able. But drop the requirement to be a barbarian from distant lands, and either or both of the other two parts work just fine.

Pardon my ignorance, why doesn't a Balt work?

Edit: a quick Wiki search brings up something called the Amber Way, a trade route from the Baltic Sea region south to the Mediterranean and even to Africa. One could say a wealthy  Balt nobleman might attempt to seek trade further, gaining better Standing within their family and greater wealth. Thus he's sailing on a ship near greece. This ship could encounter sea wolves and he bargains his wealth to spare life for himself and his retinue.

Now such a character would have almost zero political influence due to his nobility, but I think with enough gumption and Charisma, he could survive and even prosper in that environment.

Quote from: Batman;866023I'm of the belief that most options can be incorporated into almost any campaign with a tiny bit effort on both the player and DM

I'm not.

Quote from: Batman;866079Pardon my ignorance, why doesn't a Balt work?

Well, a Balt is not a Greek. Is there some reason the that the player is unwilling to engage with the actual premise and play a Greek like everybody else?

Quote from: Bren;866093I'm not.

I find that a bit of a shame.

Quote from: Bren;866093Well, a Balt is not a Greek. Is there some reason the that the player is unwilling to engage with the actual premise and play a Greek like everybody else?

Doesn't like Greek culture? Doesn't know much about Greek deities, life, or about their culture? Doesn't want to be a cliché 300 Spartan or Athenian? But still wants to be apart of the group and hang out with friends.

Quote from: Batman;866079Pardon my ignorance, why doesn't a Balt work?

Edit: a quick Wiki search brings up something called the Amber Way, a trade route from the Baltic Sea region south to the Mediterranean and even to Africa. One could say a wealthy  Balt nobleman might attempt to seek trade further, gaining better Standing within their family and greater wealth. Thus he's sailing on a ship near greece. This ship could encounter sea wolves and he bargains his wealth to spare life for himself and his retinue.

Now such a character would have almost zero political influence due to his nobility, but I think with enough gumption and Charisma, he could survive and even prosper in that environment.

Sorry, it makes no sense. Why is he leaving his power base far behind to get involved with the distant end of the trade that's completely outside his control? There are so many intermediaries between the Baltic and Mediterranean that make the Amber Route function, how is he expecting to make an end-run round them all by going to the terminus?

If he gets picked up by said sea wolves, and they spare his life, then we've completely invalidated most of the concept. He might be taken as a slave, along with the rest of his retinue. Or his retinue might be killed or enslaved in the bargain. Both the retinue and wealthy parts have been made null right at the start. What was the point in either? A pirate vessel doesn't have room for passengers, if you're not an oarsman, sailor or marine, you're taking up valuable space and threatening the stability of the ship.

A lone Balt, who might be an exiled nobleman, fleeing far from his home, could work. But trying to bring all those connections, and a bunch of people who are largely useless on a ship which has very limited space isn't going to.

Quote from: Batman;866103Doesn't like Greek culture? Doesn't know much about Greek deities, life, or about their culture? Doesn't want to be a cliché 300 Spartan or Athenian? But still wants to be apart of the group and hang out with friends.

Then they need to get with the program. The game is billed as Greek sea wolves; there are plenty of non-Greek, yet still-valid cultural alternatives. They could be Latin or Celtic or Persian or Egyptian or Phoenician or many others who were active in and around the Mediterranean at the time. They'll still have to deal with the fact that the dominant culture they will be interacting with is often Greek or Persian.

What this player has effectively done, by choosing someone from a distant land with essentially land-based agendas, is tried to play a completely different game. Why should everyone else have to endure the game being bent around one person's desires that are at a tangent to the stated premise?

Quote from: Kiero;866113A lone Balt, who might be an exiled nobleman, fleeing far from his home, could work. But trying to bring all those connections, and a bunch of people who are largely useless on a ship which has very limited space isn't going to.

(...) The game is billed as Greek sea wolves; there are plenty of non-Greek, yet still-valid cultural alternatives. They could be Latin or Celtic or Persian or Egyptian or Phoenician or many others who were active in and around the Mediterranean at the time. They'll still have to deal with the fact that the dominant culture they will be interacting with is often Greek or Persian.

Yeah, those would be my suggestions as well. Hell, he could play a time-displaced Koine-Greek-speaking modern-day Westerner for all I care, as long as he's OK with a game of, y'know, Ancient Mediterranean seafaring adventurers.

Quote from: Kiero;866113...

What this player has effectively done, by choosing someone from a distant land with essentially land-based agendas, is tried to play a completely different game. Why should everyone else have to endure the game being bent around one person's desires that are at a tangent to the stated premise?

Quite. I have little sympathy for bending stories to accommodate the surreal metagame desire for a "party that does adventures together" while also allowing that party to consist of random strangers with no reason to be an adventuring party. I tend to disallow it, and to have logical consequences take care of people who get irrational characters in. Land-based agenda man can disembark. In general, when PCs go off doing things that don't really work for the other PCs or NPCs around, I like to see the natural things result, like having them quickly run into conflicts, get rejected by other characters, go their own way, or whatever.

The Baltic lordling and retinue might make an interesting group of passengers to temporarily be the occasion for the PCs' ship to have an adventure or two, but the lordling should act like a lordling and not a generic adventurer who happens to have a pack of guards, and his agenda will probably have him leaving the ship to do his business sooner rather than later, and acting on his own agenda rather that becoming a trusting/trusted intimate ally of the PC group for no reason, etc. I.e., might be a cool guest star, but not a permanent nonsense member of a ship crew.

Quote from: Batman;866103Doesn't know much about Greek deities, life, or about their culture?

But he knows a lot about the Balt culture? That seems really unlikely.

Quote from: Batman;866103Doesn't like Greek culture?

In other words, he is not engaged with the campaign premise of Greek sea raiders.

QuoteDoesn't want to be a cliché 300 Spartan or Athenian?

But the premise was not cliché 300 nor was it cliché Athenians. It was Greek sea raiders. So now he isn't even paying attention to what the premise is.

QuoteBut still wants to be apart of the group and hang out with friends.

Then he should suck it up, actualy pay attention to the campaign premise, and engage with the campaign premise instead of insisting everyone should accommodate his special snowflakeness.

If he won't do that than he should hang out with friends on a different day. Guys who refuse to engage with the premise because they don't like it or who are too lazy to go to the minimal effort necessary to engage with a simple premise (like Greek sea raiders) would better serve the needs of the group by skipping game night and showing up on movie night instead.

I should note that in the straw man I built up for that hypothetical game, I deliberately chose a concept that wouldn't fit with the premise. But it illustrates the point that it isn't merely a case of finding a way; sometimes there isn't a way to be found, because a concept doesn't fit.

Quote from: Batman;866103Doesn't like Greek culture? Doesn't know much about Greek deities, life, or about their culture? Doesn't want to be a cliché 300 Spartan or Athenian? But still wants to be apart of the group and hang out with friends.

In other words, he's a fucknuts at worst, or a casual gamer at best.

If he's so fucking casual that "he wants to be a part of the group and hang out with friends," he can play the god damned game.

Really, do you know how fucking asinine that post of yours is?  "Doesn't want to engage the premise of the game, doesn't want to engage the premise of the game, wasn't paying fucking attention when the premise of the game was explained."

Really, the group would be much better off without him.  He's a buttnugget.

Quote from: Bren;866141If he won't do that than he should hang out with friends on a different day. Guys who refuse to engage with the premise because they don't like it or who are too lazy to go to the minimal effort necessary to engage with a simple premise (like Greek sea raiders) would better serve the needs of the group by skipping game night and showing up on movie night instead.

This.  Mother fucking this.

Don't be "that guy" who fucks up everybody else's fun.

Quote from: Batman;866103I find that a bit of a shame.

I don't.  Forty two years in this stupid hobby with hundreds of people across the continent and two nations has taught me that not sticking to your premise is second only to referee burnout as cause of death for games.  It's why people were telling Greg Stafford they wanted rules for Clerics and Thieves and Illusionists in PENDRAGON.  Had GS been an imbecile, PENDRAGON would have turned into yet another generic fantasy RPG, which we need not at all.

Fortunately, he's not stupid.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;866065And among a bunch of sea wolves, you're a "Special Snowflake" and the game becomes about you.

This is "failure to engage the concept" once again.

No, it doesn't.  It means the GM/DM has to do a bit of work WITH the player.  But if you're not willing to engage your players past presenting the world, then of course it's a conflict.

Roleplaying is the art of the Compromise, you give, you take.  And if either side cannot, or will not, then maybe you should go do something else.

I think there's a point both sides miss regarding the Baltic lordling and the Greek sea-wolves.

If you allow that one player to bring his Baltic lordling on the grounds that his presence can be explained away with not too much work, then if you want to be fair and consistent as a DM, you'll also have to allow the other guy's early Hibernian Celtic Anthropophage, because that too can be explained away with not too much work. And then the third player's Qin dinasty Chinese travelling mandarin, who can also be explained away with not too much work. And the Toltec fisherman who can also be explained away by getting singularly lucky in that massive storm. And at that point you have a campaign about Hellene sea-wolves where NOBODY in the damn party is actually a Hellene. Or a sea-wolf.

A real practical concern.

Quote from: Premier;866191I think there's a point both sides miss regarding the Baltic lordling and the Greek sea-wolves.

Some folks probably are missing your point. I suspect there are a few folks who aren't really very interested in playing in a campaign with a consistent premise. On the other hand, some of us are only too well aware of what happens when one allows the Baltic snowflake in play.

Quote from: Bren;866193Some folks probably are missing your point. I suspect there are a few folks who aren't really very interested in playing in a campaign with a consistent premise. On the other hand, some of us are only too well aware of what happens when one allows the Baltic snowflake in play.

No, you're biased because you decided that the 'snowflake' was out to 'ruin your game'.  Which might actually have been the intent, or simply didn't think it through, or simply wanted to play something against the grain, but was quite willing to STILL work with the party.

If you stipulate the 'rules' of your setting, and someone wants to go against them, ask why.  Always ask 'why?'.  Otherwise, you might seem to be a dick for shutting it down without thinking about it.

And like they say, 'Don't be a Dick'.

But then, I'm obviously the freak here because I both coddle my players and I want to work with them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;866196No, you're biased because you decided that the 'snowflake' was out to 'ruin your game'.  Which might actually have been the intent, or simply didn't think it through, or simply wanted to play something against the grain, but was quite willing to STILL work with the party.

If you stipulate the 'rules' of your setting, and someone wants to go against them, ask why.  Always ask 'why?'.  Otherwise, you might seem to be a dick for shutting it down without thinking about it.

And like they say, 'Don't be a Dick'.

But then, I'm obviously the freak here because I both coddle my players and I want to work with them.

No you aren't a freak. You just don't understand who the dick is.

And the snowflake's motivation is irrelevant when the effect is to ruin the game that is on offer.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;866170No, it doesn't.  It means the GM/DM has to do a bit of work WITH the player.  But if you're not willing to engage your players past presenting the world, then of course it's a conflict.

Roleplaying is the art of the Compromise, you give, you take.  And if either side cannot, or will not, then maybe you should go do something else.

Compromise goes only so far. Every game has the baser requirement that the player buy into the premise and setting presented.

Every DM has to work around the group composition in some manner. But under the expectation that the PCs are fitting the setting in some way.

Example: Albedo: You can not play a cetacian or an insect or primate. you can not play a horse with hands. And especially not a human as none of those exist in the setting. Theres a pretty darn broad range to select from. WHY are you fixated on playing the one thing the game does not allow? Now if you want to play a musician on a touring warship. Then that can be possibly worked with as a musician can be created with the system and setting. I can even think of at least one reason why this musician is on the ship.

As for the Balt in Rome. If I had allowed for such an opening or it was described reasonably then Id allow it sans the retinue. Or with the retinue if it was BX for example. Within reason. But if Id presented the setting as focused on Roman seafaring action. Then I am more likely to say no to something that is far afield.

Quote from: Bren;866197No you aren't a freak. You just don't understand who the dick is.

And the snowflake's motivation is irrelevant when the effect is to ruin the game that is on offer.

Again, you're making an assumption here.  Are you so sure that every attempt is out to ruin your game?  And is your game is fragile that you can't accommodate odd request?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;866215Again, you're making an assumption here.  Are you so sure that every attempt is out to ruin your game?  And is your game is fragile that you can't accommodate odd request?

You keep collating two things. One is "the player is out to ruin your game", which is your strawman. The other is "the player wants to indulge his special snowflake-ness and doesn't give two shits whether your game is ruined in the process or not, which is the actual problem but you keep ignoring it as it undermines your point.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;866196No, you're biased because you decided that the 'snowflake' was out to 'ruin your game'.

From memory, I can't think of anyone who has said that the special snowflake's intention is to ruin the game, only that, in a game based on a specific premise, allowing characters who don't fit that premise is extremely likely to ruin the game, regardless of whether that is the intent or not.

Some games have the premise "this is a kitchen sink world where anything goes", but this is not the premise of all games.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;866196If you stipulate the 'rules' of your setting, and someone wants to go against them, ask why.

Your phrasing this as "rules" makes me wonder...  How would you react if you were running a game of RuneQuest (or some other system where the only function of armor is to reduce incoming damage from hits) and a player said that, because his leather armor is AC 8, it should reduce the chance to hit him by 10%?  Is "I want armor to work like it does in D&D, even though we're not playing D&D" just as much a subject for compromise as "I want to play an elf, even though we're playing in a historical setting where elves don't exist"?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;866215Again, you're making an assumption here.  Are you so sure that every attempt is out to ruin your game?  And is your game is fragile that you can't accommodate odd request?

I'm assuming nothing about the snowflake's motivation.

Quote from: Bren;866197the snowflake's motivation is irrelevant

In my experience, there are a few reasons why this sort of things happens.  A common one is players who just want to be a pain in the GM's ass.

Some players make a game of seeing if they can cajole the GM into letting them play some character that doesn't fit the setting or, even better, is something that the GM has explicitly disallowed.  This sort of player is easy to spot.  If you say that X does not exist and isn't an available option, they will immediately want to play X and try to cajole you into letting them.  If you give in to them, they quickly get bored with the character.  That's because they never gave two shits about it in the first place.  All they ever cared about was haranguing the GM into letting them have their way.  Once they "won" that game, they lost interest.  

Some players want to make a special snowflake character in an attempt to make the game revolve around them.  They want to make their character and, by extension, themselves the center of attention.  The problem (for them) is that things often don't work out that way at the table.  They make a character that is not really connected with the other characters or the setting the game is taking place in.  Their character doesn't have anything to do with the game being played or what anyone else is doing and gets marginalized.  If the GM doesn't respond by making the game all about the special snowflake, this is inevitable.  Since their characters aren't involved in anything, they get bored.

Some players just seem to love novelty for the sake of novelty.  The problem with novelty is that the novelty wears off pretty quickly and they get bored.  The easy way to spot this sort is that they will want to play some special snowflake characters, quickly get bored of it and want to switch to some other special snowflake character over and over for as long as the GM will tolerate their shenanigans.

Another common reason is that the player just doesn't want to do what everyone else is doing.  They don't want to just bow out and not play for a variety of reasons with no other game being available as a common one.  However, they don't actually want to do what you are doing.  Even if they get their special snowflake character, the rest of the game will still be the game they don't actually want to play.  The reason why they want to play The Punisher in your Silver Age superhero game is that they don't really want to play Silver Age superheroics at all.  Putting in that character is an attempt to shift the game toward the gritty Dark Ages anti-heroes game they actually want to play or at least want to play more.

That also applies to players who want to add some widget to a class.

Armour for Magic users is the hands down most common one I've seen as a DM, Player, Playtester, and Game Designer.

Multiple attacks for non-fighters is the other hands down most common one seen.

Spellcasting for non-casters is another. Dont see that as often though.

Swords and other pointy things for Clerics. Any class restricted weapon really. But clerics bitched the most for their swords and spears. Its not really an unreasonable a request though. But I usually just ask why dont they play a paladin then?

That seems a little different to me.  The people I have encountered that push for that sort of thing just want to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to be able to cast spells without having to deal with the weaknesses normally associated with spell casting classes like not being able to wear armor and not having high combat ability.  I have had multiple players come to me with their homebrew character classes that combined all of the virtues of two or more existing classes and had none of their drawbacks.  One came up with some sort of devotee of magic combat sort of class that had all the spell casting ability of a wizard, the option to take cleric spells and combat ability only a bit lower than a fighter including armor and multiple attacks.  I asked him why anyone would ever play the existing wizard, cleric or fighter classes with such a class available.  He just didn't get why I would have a problem with his homebrew super class making making multiple existing classes completely obsolete.  He was rather butthurt when I refused to let him play his baby.

Quote from: Omega;866200As for the Balt in Rome. If I had allowed for such an opening or it was described reasonably then Id allow it sans the retinue. Or with the retinue if it was BX for example. Within reason. But if Id presented the setting as focused on Roman seafaring action. Then I am more likely to say no to something that is far afield.

On a Greek ship, this isn't a Roman thing at all. Romans and seafaring; well that's like a Roman cavalry campaign or something. Another area they weren't favourable towards. Note when Rome had all those issues with Pompey's son the pirate king, most of his crews and men were Greeks.

Indeed the earlier troubles that Pompey dealt with were often remnants of the Diadochi's fleets after the Romans had conquered their territories and defeated their armies.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866297One came up with some sort of devotee of magic combat sort of class that had all the spell casting ability of a wizard, the option to take cleric spells and combat ability only a bit lower than a fighter including armor and multiple attacks.  I asked him why anyone would ever play the existing wizard, cleric or fighter classes with such a class available.  He just didn't get why I would have a problem with his homebrew super class making making multiple existing classes completely obsolete.  He was rather butthurt when I refused to let him play his baby.

Sounds like the genesis of the Warlock/Eldritch Knight.

Theres a create your own class article in Dragon that finishes with an example of a class that can do everything. The downside was they leveld glacially for that.

Quote from: Omega;866380Sounds like the genesis of the Warlock/Eldritch Knight.

Theres a create your own class article in Dragon that finishes with an example of a class that can do everything. The downside was they leveld glacially for that.

Makes sense. As in point-buy systems, where you could theoretically get any abilities but would need to allocate points for them, and if (maybe a big if - it can take a lot of game design work to do a good job) the system is balanced well, trying is a trade-off between strength and breadth of abilities, and doesn't cause a problem. The player asking for a Renaissance Man character may not realize that not only does a system disallow it, it (or the GM) doesn't have a way to balance that choice appropriately - they may not realize they seem to the GM to be asking for something unfair.

Quote from: Omega;866295That also applies to players who want to add some widget to a class.

Armour for Magic users is the hands down most common one I've seen as a DM, Player, Playtester, and Game Designer.

And yet, in D&D multiclassing is like a favourite thing.

Quote from: Omega;866295Multiple attacks for non-fighters is the other hands down most common one seen.

Spellcasting for non-casters is another. Dont see that as often though.

Both things that people want and get in multiclassing.  Often at an unsatisfactory degree.

Quote from: Omega;866295Swords and other pointy things for Clerics. Any class restricted weapon really. But clerics bitched the most for their swords and spears. Its not really an unreasonable a request though. But I usually just ask why dont they play a paladin then?

Because a Paladin is mostly martial while a cleric is often better at magic.

Here's a funny thing, a lot of the weapons have overlap in terms of raw damage numbers, and people just want the visual of being able to use a sword.  After all, if a mace/morning star does 1d8, as does a long sword, what's the point of wanting a sword over a mace/blunt object?  It's not mechanical.

The issue, in this particular case, is 'stepping on another classes toes'.  Namely the Fighter.  And it's also rooted in the belief (valid or not, doesn't matter, it's a belief, it's likely irrational) that if you give another class a sword, you invalidate the Fighter.  Because 'anyone can be a Fighter, it's an everyman's class'.

But that's inaccurate, because depending on the edition of D&D, by allowing magic to be cast almost instantaneously you've already invalidated any class that relies on physical combat.

Personally, I always ask why.  And if the player doesn't articulate it, or has a silly background idea that won't fly, I'll refuse, and give my reasons why.  But I never assume that players want their cake and eat it too, unless they want to multiclass in a game that has classes.

But seeing as I'm playing/running Mutants and Masterminds, the FFG Force and Destiny RPG and OVA Anime games, I don't have that issue.

Nitpick alert.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;866658Here's a funny thing, a lot of the weapons have overlap in terms of raw damage numbers, and people just want the visual of being able to use a sword.  After all, if a mace/morning star does 1d8, as does a long sword, what's the point of wanting a sword over a mace/blunt object?  It's not mechanical.

Here's another funny thing, one I only learned recently. In OD&D, all weapons deal the same damage (which is equal to your Hit Dice). Fighting Men being the only class that got to swing a sword has nothing to do with damage per se (later editions would stat up the sword as a superior weapon in one or more aspects) but everything to do with access to magical weapons — enchanted swords were [strike] the only [/strike] the most likely magical weapon available in the core rules.

There is a mechanical reason, it's just not immediately obvious. ;)

Sorry, enchanted swords were NOT the only magic weapons in the OD&D core rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;866738Sorry, enchanted swords were NOT the only magic weapons in the OD&D core rules.

I stand corrected and edited the post above.

Quote from: The Butcher;866744I stand corrected and edited the post above.

Definitely the most common by a huge margin, to be sure.  And only magic swords got "intelligence" and "ego" and the powers that went with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;866747Definitely the most common by a huge margin, to be sure.  And only magic swords got "intelligence" and "ego" and the powers that went with it.

Which of course made all the axes and spears incredibly jealous. This was widely regarded as an extraordinary occurrence indeed since swords were the only weapons with an ego.

Quote from: Skarg;866654Makes sense. As in point-buy systems, where you could theoretically get any abilities but would need to allocate points for them, and if (maybe a big if - it can take a lot of game design work to do a good job) the system is balanced well, trying is a trade-off between strength and breadth of abilities, and doesn't cause a problem. The player asking for a Renaissance Man character may not realize that not only does a system disallow it, it (or the GM) doesn't have a way to balance that choice appropriately - they may not realize they seem to the GM to be asking for something unfair.

In practical terms in points based systems, there are never enough points for a character to be good at everything unless the GM is running a very high points game.  Trying to do everything results in something like the D&D 3.X/Pathfinder characters I have seen with 1-3 levels each in 4-5 classes at level 10.  You get a character that can do everything and sucks at all of it.

The problem arises when people want to do everything and be good at it at the same time.

Quote from: yosemitemike;867155The problem arises when people want to do everything and be good at it at the same time.

Which is why Multiclassing is the big mess that is for D&D.  It's for those people who want it all.

And you know what?  It has nothing to do with wanting to ruin the game, or being a 'special snowflake', it's nothing more than power gaming.  And everyone I've ever asked why they wanted to multiclass has given me variations on the same answer.

"They want to be able to do it all."  And in D&D, it's often seen as Multiclassing is the legal way to do it, without making demands.  Which is also why I personally frown on anyone who wants it.  You (The general, not specific) can make noises about 'concept' all you want, but really, you just want to fight like the fighter, and cast spells like the magic user, without any of the down sides. (To which I say, play a Cleric.)

A rare few arent in it for the powerz. They just hit the limit of their class and want to explore another without changing characters. And an even rarer few multi-class due to some character development.

Most interesting I saw was a campaign where a player took up Cleric after the town hed worked on developing was just about wiped out by undead. Another player took up Druid after seeing an awesome display of one transforming and rolling out.

Unfortunately 99.99% of the multiclassing players are just in it for the powerz. The extra *whatever* and the wretched endless "dipping". ugh.

Mostly depends on the edition where multiclassing occurrs. In 3.5 Multiclassing is primarily used to nap some quick benefits like Rage (Barbarian 1), Turning (cleric 1), or a bonus feat (fighter 1) among things like skills and proficiencies. In 4e, multiclassing is FAR less power-gamey due to what you instantly get access to. In 5e, it's sort of this weird version where it's not as bad as 3e but not as restrictive as 4e.

Quote from: Batman;867278Mostly depends on the edition where multiclassing occurrs. In 3.5 Multiclassing is primarily used to nap some quick benefits like Rage (Barbarian 1), Turning (cleric 1), or a bonus feat (fighter 1) among things like skills and proficiencies. In 4e, multiclassing is FAR less power-gamey due to what you instantly get access to. In 5e, it's sort of this weird version where it's not as bad as 3e but not as restrictive as 4e.

Thing is, in the past 30 some years I've been gaming, and around the internet and locally (which makes this totally anecdotal, treat it as such), every single time there are a bunch of players whining about how restrictive Multiclassing is in whatever edition they prefer, going all the way back to at least Red Box in my local area.  Which usually causes me to roll my eyes.

You want to do it all, admit it.  And go play a point based system like M&M or HERO or GURPS, which will let you, and still be 'balanced' (or so the systems claim.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;867317Thing is, in the past 30 some years I've been gaming, and around the internet and locally (which makes this totally anecdotal, treat it as such), every single time there are a bunch of players whining about how restrictive Multiclassing is in whatever edition they prefer, going all the way back to at least Red Box in my local area.  Which usually causes me to roll my eyes.

You want to do it all, admit it.  And go play a point based system like M&M or HERO or GURPS, which will let you, and still be 'balanced' (or so the systems claim.)

In the context of D&D, specifically the last 15 years, multi-classing has never let you "do it all" or at least not very well. Not by a long shot. It might give you more versatility in some ways, like 1 level of cleric would allow anyone to wield a wand with a cleric spell (of any level) without penalty or a skill check. But that hardly constitutes "allz the powerz". The fact is, in reference to 3e and PF, multiclassing is largely a trap except in certain situations. In 4e it's even more of a trap since you have to spend feats to do it.

When one of my players wants to multiclass, I ask what and why, mainly so I can make sure their characters don't total suck where it drastically impacts the overall group and because there's usually a better way of going about it without multiclassing.

Quote from: Batman;867332In the context of D&D, specifically the last 15 years, multi-classing has never let you "do it all" or at least not very well. Not by a long shot. It might give you more versatility in some ways, like 1 level of cleric would allow anyone to wield a wand with a cleric spell (of any level) without penalty or a skill check. But that hardly constitutes "allz the powerz". The fact is, in reference to 3e and PF, multiclassing is largely a trap except in certain situations. In 4e it's even more of a trap since you have to spend feats to do it.

When one of my players wants to multiclass, I ask what and why, mainly so I can make sure their characters don't total suck where it drastically impacts the overall group and because there's usually a better way of going about it without multiclassing.

Your right, it doesn't.  That's why the various local players in my area are always bitching about how it's 'never been done right' (note the quotations.)  And that's why to me, this speshul snooflake crap is just that, crap.  It's all about power.

Pathfinder actively discourages a lot of multiclassing.  I have seen people multiclass to try to do everything and the result is always a crappy character that can't really do anything.  There was one character who was notorious for being really weak and dying constantly even in PFS scenarios which are not made for optimized characters and are mostly pretty easy.  This was a character who

a)channeled for 1D6 and healed for 1D8 while having none of the good domain abilities.
b)sneak attacked for 2D6.
c)inspired courage for +1
d) had a 6 or 7 BAB with 2 attacks for a full round action.

at level 10.  He wasn't good for anything.  His heals didn't heal enough to be worthwhile.  His sneak attack didn't add enough damage to matter against cr 10-13 creatures.  He couldn't provide a big enough bonus to matter.  He didn't have enough attacks or a high enough bonus to be any good in combat.

No real, hard opinion on Multi-Classing, but team synergy outstrips what one multi-talented PC can do.  Unless you want you wNt to be the backup F/T/W/C, it's better to take one class and excel in your role, IMHO. And if you want hybrids, there are ways, depending on system (that whole "Eldritch/X" thing in 5E, for example). I know I prefer fast-talking rogues and plain fighters, overall, but in the 5E campaign I play in, I just took a BG that granted me some of the stealthy aspects, pumped up CHA, went with ranged/light armored stuff, and bingo-I'm the group's face, by class a fighter, but mainly a dude who can hang in a fight and still pick a lock.  The rest of the time it's about RPing his fast, smart mouth. :-) Level dips are all about mechanics, I guess. Been lucky not to run into anyone who does that--so far.  But then, I missed  straight 3E/3.5 almost completely, so that's probably why.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;867162Which is why Multiclassing is the big mess that is for D&D.  It's for those people who want it all.

Damn straight.