Why Inapplicable PCs?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do some people always want to play a PC that just doesn't match the campaign or world? Or PC's that don't behave the way they are built.

Ok, there are certain special cases. I get that. One time I was in a group with a bunch of very noob players. Yes, I brought a specialized character that didn't really fit in because I didn't want to show up everyone else.

For Example (changed slightly to protect the idjits):

1) GM says the campaign will start in a small town on the coast in a well developed country (think farm town near Absalom) but will culminate in an adventure in the Drow under cities.
Player brings a rhino cavalier / true primitive barbarian.
Uhmm what...

2) Player builds a two-handed weapon max dpr barbarian. But in most fights he drops his weapon to grapple and capture alive. Then gets upset because he keeps getting clobbered for grappling without the correct capabilities.
Uhmm why...

3) GM says the campaign is urban courtly intrigue and mystery.
Player brings a lizardfolk swamp druid with an ooze companion.
Yeah right, that will work well...

4) GM says the world/country has outlawed arcane magic and exterminates magical races. The party is starting as one of the religious zealot mage hunter teams.
Player brings a brownie wizard.
WTF...

5) Player builds a sneaky, backstabber, fragile, hit-n-run character. Then plays it like a invulnerable rager. Constantly charging straight at the biggest threat by himself. Then of course getting upset that he always get knocked unconscious.
Surely not...

6) GM says the campaign is largely undead and constructs (at least as concentrated as Carrion Crown).
Player 1 brings a telepathy psion.
Player 2 brings an illusion/enchantment wizard.
Seriously...

These are not all the same player or even the same group. Just things I've observed over the years that I just don't understand.

I just don't get it. What is this weird attraction/obsession some people have with playing a character that just can't hardly function in the campaign? Or why a character that you build to be bad at what you actually do with it?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

These examples are at various levels.

Characters that end up useless? I can't explain that.

But a swamp druid in an urban mystery campaign?
Should function fine, probably does well in sewers.
There's probably a bunch of bards/investigators/sorcerers already, and a druid could play a different angle to contribute.


Yeah all different levels. Though I have rarely played to really high levels. So I don't think any of those were in the 15+ range.

The swamp druid wasn't completely useless, but was clearly the least effective character in the group. But the player (not the PC) did always get mad when someone wouldn't let him bring his ooze into the meeting or didn't want to be the friend of a lizard from the swamp.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There will always be players who fall in love with a certain character concept and ignore how that concept meshes with either the other characters in the group or the campaign as a whole.

I don't know if this would help, but when I run a game, I prefer my party to work together as a group during a gaming session to conceptualize and create their characters as a group while I am present. This way, I can decide upon borderline interpretations before they become in issue in-game, approve any requested exceptions to rules if necessary for character concept and campaign setting, and ensure there is not too great a degree of character-type overlap. It also allows more experienced players to help less experienced players avoid character creation pit-falls. Lastly, we can discuss character back-story ideas, decide the various character's motivations and goals, and determine how all the players know one another before the first session. {I've always hated having to spend the first x-number of hours role-playing out how the characters become an adventuring group. It's a complete waste of time.}


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some players just don't understand how certain things work. The GM should know what people are playing before the character is even made, and let them know why it will be a bad idea. Sometimes he may just need to say "no".


Saldiven wrote:
There will always be players who fall in love with a certain character concept and ignore how that concept meshes with either the other characters in the group or the campaign as a whole.

This. Generally, there's a mismatch between what the GM wants to run and what players want to run, and rather than talking it out, they just make incompatible stuff.

Basically,
* Rhino-riders are cool
* We're playing Skull and Shackles and most of the game takes place aboard a ship

There's no obvious reason why either vision needs to be the one that compromises.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not quite. Or at least not always.

The guys I'm talking about only wanted those characters because they don't fit.

If we had been in a campaign on the savannah, he would not have wanted a rhino cavalier.

The other guy only picked the swamp druid because we were going to be interacting with nobles.

The gal specifically built here own character as a sneaky mc-stabbert, then intentionally tried to play it as an in-your-face front line combatant.
.
.

wraithstrike wrote:
... The GM should know what people are playing before the character is even made, and let them know why it will be a bad idea. Sometimes he may just need to say "no".

Many/most players I've met in recent years are extremely resistant to this. What they are considering is a big secret and they get very upset if you try to tell them it isn't allowed or doesn't fit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is the GM even bothering to pick a setting before finding out what his players want to play?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is why it is important to remember that pathfinder is a group game. The game does not belong to the GM, it belongs to everyone at the table.

I always advise that groups get together and decide together what kind of game they all want to play, rather than having one person dictate what shall be played with a bunch of other people conforming, denying, or leaving the table (all of which have the potential to be bad).

I, as a GM, will either give my group multiple options, or discuss with them as to what kind of game (anywhere from seriousness of play to which AP or even which gaming system). And even in times where my players want to play something seemingly inappropriate, I always try to find a way to make it work or converse with the player to alter it enough to it does work AND the player is happy with what they want to play.

For example, in my Carrion Crown game, a player wanted to play Dean Winchester, from the TV show Supernatural. Instead of denying my player the ability to play a very modern character in a very fantasy based setting, I had Dean and Sam be teleported to the pathfinder world and then separated. The entire campaign, the player would have her character, Dean, make modern references that no one else understood, commoner on missing Sam and send out NPCs to find him, and generally act like Dean in the TV show (such as pouring salt over ghostly remains to forever end the supernatural threat).

I'm running Iron Gods right now, and one of my players is playing an android gunslinger modeled after MegaMan. He dresses all in blue, and I'm having his character be small in size for the first half of the campaign, then grow to medium. He still plays his character seriously. Another player is playing an android modeled after Data from Star Trek.

There's almost always a way to bring a players desire to play a specific character concept in a game; the GM just has to work with the player and both have to allow for a little leeway.

And that lizard folk swamp Druid in an urban campaign - how come the city isn't already used to a large variety of races from all over? Most metropolitans in D&D like settings are.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Why is the GM even bothering to pick a setting before finding out what his players want to play?

Before starting my current homebrew, this is exactly what we did.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Why is the GM even bothering to pick a setting before finding out what his players want to play?

You are not catching it. In all but one of those examples; the players were part of the discussion, had input on, and agreed to the campaign concept. Number 3) was a person that joined the group in process. But knew all about what had happened before making his character.

They did not want to play a different type of game, they intentionally and specifically picked something that did not match with the game. They would have done so no matter what the game was like. It is what some of those players often do.

It is an underground campaign? Ok then I am going to play a strix. what you changed it to an rural forest campaign? Well then I will change to Druegar.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:

Not quite. Or at least not always.

The guys I'm talking about only wanted those characters because they don't fit.

Then, IMHO, they deserve whatever unhappiness or dissatisfaction the experience during the campaign. They're setting themselves up for failure. It's like a guy becoming a virtuoso at the shamisen and them complaining that no symphony orchestra has any good parts for him.

It's completely ok to try to create a character that is outside the norm for the campaign in mind, as long as the characteristics that separate that PC from the campaign norm do not cripple their effectiveness.

A Rhino-rider starting in a small, civilized coastal town then going into dungeons has set himself up for failure. If he really wanted to be different from the setting, there are countless other ways he could have been "different" from the settings norm without crippling his own character's ability to succeed. He could have been a different kind of barbarian that travelled from different lands (along the lines of Conan), for example, dropping the massive mount.

Sometimes, people are going to be contrary just to be contrary. They deserve what they get.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:

Not quite. Or at least not always.

The guys I'm talking about only wanted those characters because they don't fit.

If we had been in a campaign on the savannah, he would not have wanted a rhino cavalier.

The other guy only picked the swamp druid because we were going to be interacting with nobles.

The gal specifically built here own character as a sneaky mc-stabbert, then intentionally tried to play it as an in-your-face front line combatant.
.
.

wraithstrike wrote:
... The GM should know what people are playing before the character is even made, and let them know why it will be a bad idea. Sometimes he may just need to say "no".
Many/most players I've met in recent years are extremely resistant to this. What they are considering is a big secret and they get very upset if you try to tell them it isn't allowed or doesn't fit.

Having read your other post about them going out of their way to be different, the answer is they want to feel special. Depending on what other problems they did or did not cause I would either not run for them as a GM or run more open adventures that would allow more things to fit in.


There are actually 2 different kinds of problems in your examples, though both show a similar short-sightedness.

Bringing a bad character to the table is one thing, bringing a good character and then playing it badly is another. It seems like the first is usually the result of someone having a good (at least to them) idea for a character, and the other is likely the result of someone else making a character for them.

Or ADD. I've made plenty of good characters that fell apart because the player either couldn't be bothered to learn the system or couldn't stay focused on any one character type. But them's the breaks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can understand wanting to be special. I think every character I have ever played is special.

I don't think failing at what you try to do is special.
.
.

boring7 wrote:
... and the other is likely the result of someone else making a character for them. ...

Number 2) might have had someone else make the character. I don't know that player very well. I am very sure all of the others made their own character.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

some people just want to watch the world burn
well, at least your game world


Of course we want to be special. Why do you think we're playing high fantasy adventure instead of just being ourselves, where special is basically impossible?


boring7 wrote:
Of course we want to be special. Why do you think we're playing high fantasy adventure instead of just being ourselves, where special is basically impossible?

I think you misunderstood his use of special.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Elter, I see where you're coming from and I empathize with you. There is a big difference in playing an unique/special character and playing a disruptive character which impacts the entire group. These players seem intent on playing disruptive characters for whatever reason. I find players like that to be a bad fit for a group game.


Players bring their own interest into a GM's world.

One of my GMs is obsessed with guns. Nearly no one builds a character that can use guns. This is not really an issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:
The guys I'm talking about only wanted those characters because they don't fit.

Your question answered itself.

Many, many people want to be exceptional. They don't want to be yet-another-human-pirate in a tropical swords, sail, and pistols setting. They don't want to be yet another paladin of Iomedae walking into the worldwound to smite devils. They don't want to play yet another earth elemental druid/summoner gestalt half-drow draconic bloodline construct-hunter in a world full of those.

It is fundamentally easier to roleplay misfits. Peecee the unicorn bard is easy to play in the land of orc barbarians. You can basically do whatever you want, however you want, and you're special.

This is a game about standing out and drawing attention. Most of us want characters that are memorable and special, and being unique little snowflakes will always do that. Even if the snowflake has no business on the elemental plane of fire (where the GM has set the entire game).

There is no fix for this because there is no problem. It's just human nature.


I sometimes like to play PCs who come from a faraway land so that they can speak with a ridiculous accent, use words improperly, have bad grammar, etc. Characters with low Int can sometimes fill a similar role. Anyhow...

#1 - That guy sounds awesome. Drow tend to live in big caverns. I don’t see the problem here.

#2 - Maybe somebody should have suggested a sap or even a greatclub and the Bludgeoner feat (plus Enforcer and Hurtful for the win)

#3 - Lizardfolk are capable of participating in social interactions. The ooze companion might even be an interesting conversation piece, especially if it could do some entertaining tricks.

#4 - Maybe the player was just trying to rebel against the DM’s oppressive story?

#5 - We have a Ninja like this is a current campaign except that when his PC gets KO’d he usually just giggles a lot instead of getting upset. Other times he complains that my Fighter is too powerful.

#6 - Maybe the players wanted a tougher challenge, or maybe they were just really eager to play those particular PCs and figured that if the campaign isn’t boring there would be at least some variety to the foes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Why is the GM even bothering to pick a setting before finding out what his players want to play?

In my group we almost always decide a campaign or module first.


The last low-to-no Magic game I played in, one of the players played a cleric who worshipped the God of magic.

After the GM got over being pissy about a player playing a high magic character in a lows gif world, she changed the game world so that PCs were trying to bring magic back to the world - which made the player's character fit for the campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't help but feel the OP's summary is an extremely one-sided account of events. Some players are just 'That Guys' and awful, but more often I find troublemakers stem from overly restrictive/railroad DMing, making the players feel like the only way they can express themselves is by rocking the boat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basic human nature. The instant most people are told they can't/aren't supposed to do something, that's immediately what they want to do. Tell someone 'don't open this door', and they'll be all 'gotta open this door, gotta open this door'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've played with a few people that seemed to think the game was to have the rest of us cajole them to join the group or to convince them that the rest of the characters were worthy of their company. It felt as if they didn't come by to roleplay a character or even roll some dice but to see how many buttons they could press, how far they could push and how much they could manipulate the rest of the group. Needless to say, I have had to ask a few people not to return to our game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
I've played with a few people that seemed to think the game was to have the rest of us cajole them to join the group or to convince them that the rest of the characters were worthy of their company. It felt as of they didn't come by to roleplay a character or even roll some dice but to see how many buttons they could press, how far they could push and how much they could manipulate the rest of the group. Needless to say, I have had to ask a few people not to return to our game.

They were playing a much different game than the rest of you.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I was and still kind of am one of those inapplicable players. I like playing monstrous looking characters, or just straight up monsters because very humanoid or almost entirely human races generally didn't ever do it for me.

I always wanted to play a Stryx for example, but my old DM would never allow it because 'they hate humans' and 99% of all APs and modules are largely human in scope in terms of NPCs.


I can understand playing against the campaign theme (though I don't think you should sulk about the inevitable poor consequences - you take the good with the bad, in my view).

Building a two weapon fighter without grappling ability and then getting upset at the result of throwing your sword away sounds weird though. Who does that??


I wonder if a party ever role played just leaving a team member behind. You could get them really drunk at an inn and then just not be there in the morning. Or you could just outright kick the character out of your group. Not the player but the character.


Melkiador wrote:
I wonder if a party ever role played just leaving a team member behind. You could get them really drunk at an inn and then just not be there in the morning. Or you could just outright kick the character out of your group. Not the player but the character.

We have.

Never with a player, but when our party was smaller we ran with a GMPC. The first one was a human cavalier-- I forget the archetype's name but it's the one that gets gun stuff. A few sessions in the GM decided he didn't like the character and when we all got arrested but the human empire with serious racism issues, he was sent to one prison while the non-humans were sent to another. Haven't seen him since.

Picked up another GMPC afterwards. She was a lot more interesting and the GM seemed to enjoy her, but our party was growing (went from two players to three with a fourth interested), and the GM offered us the choice of keeping the GMPC or picking up gestalt. We went for the latter, so that character actually did leave us at an inn in the middle of the night.

Knowing the GM, the second one is probably going to show up again at some point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
I wonder if a party ever role played just leaving a team member behind. You could get them really drunk at an inn and then just not be there in the morning. Or you could just outright kick the character out of your group. Not the player but the character.

I've done that with a player before. GM's teenage son was playing with us, and he played a very bloodthirsty killer character. The introductory session for the campaign had his character stabbing NPCs in the bar because they wouldn't accept his taunts to join a bar fight.

We explained to the young man that not only was his play style inappropriate for the style of game we were playing, but also that our upstanding characters would never allow his character to join our party and we would feel obliged to either kill or capture his character and turn him over to the law. He refused to change characters, so we subdued his character and turned him over to the law; left him in prison as we went on our way. This forced him to either make a new character or simply not play with us.

He chose to make a more appropriate character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

actually, i have had a lot of flak from one guy who was overly vocal on how, nobody should reskin because it cheapens the integrity of the race or class. what i generally do, is i reskin races or classes to tailor them to the setting without sacrificing much of my anime cuteness aesthetic. the same aesthetic found in touhou, kantai collection, vocaloid and anything by compile heart

while i might make a character with a demihuman heritage such as a half nymph or a tiefling, i will generally make them as close as i can to the regional common races as possible to prevent the spotlight stealing that would come from the special snowflake factor of playing "half nymph" or "tiefling" in their proper enviroments

it is actually more of a mary sue practice to make your tiefling a freak than it is to make them look human when they legitimately can do to being a human hybrid

in my own opinion, it isn't the race or class of the PC that matters as much as the amount of spotlight they intend to steal through their race or class without earning it. in fact, reskinning to avoid baggage is a good thing because it prevents the spotlight stealing that the fish out of water pretty much provides for free the moment they make it obvious they are an outsider

reskinning a barbarian as a samurai for a japan themed game is perfectly fine, as is playing a half nymph that happens to be a reskinned half elf and looks very much like a half elf, and was raised by human parents, the real problem is when you are running a eurocentric setting and somebody makes a young adult female half elf ranger who wears a bunny eared hairband with black pajamas and reskins her gladius as a wakazashi because the rules didn't say there were no black pajamas or bunny eared hairbands when you clearly didn't want that aesthetic


Sometimes, players are just bored with the 'standard' selections. I literally cannot be in any game that's core only. I am physically sickened thanks to the intense boredom with the old Yet Another Typcial Adventuring Party (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue)....

I've been playing that crap for 20 years now. Gimme somethin' new nag dabbit! *strokes neckbeard*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you read various GM tips sections of rulebooks, most of them will adress the issue of players who get their kicks from disrupting the game. It is not necessarily a matter of a player really wishing to play a rhino rider, it's a player who wants to disrupt the dungeon crawling with endless discussions about how his rhino squeezes through the corridors. Or, how the stinking lizard man shaman aggravates nobles at the parties they will be attending. The more they can get the GM to break suspension of disbelief, the happier they will be.

Players like this are something you need to be aware of, and act accordingly. Like bratty kids, it doesn't help to fight it, or to let them have their fun - both reinforce it. Either talk to the player, kick them out if they won't stop, or, I suppose, simply do not give their antics the spotlight. "No, you can't bring the rhino into the dungeon. Sorry. Leave it behind or stay behind. Now, what are you guys doing?" or "The nobles don't let a stinking lizard man in to their party. What are the rest of you doing?" would be the appropriate way to adress it. Soon enough, the player will hopefully get the hint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So...the players had input in the setting, but everyone was expected to just show up with characters made that the GM has no idea of? What?

In every group I've been in and DMed especially, I work with the players at every stage of creation. That goes from base concept to build and background/storyline. It helps them immerse themselves better in the world and helps me make them a better part of it.

I've never had this come up once since all it takes is a little communication when you ask what they want to play and the ideas they have. If I absolutely can't make it work for whatever reason (hasn't come up often admittedly), I say so then and we work it out. I'm sort of boggled this is an issue for others honestly, I couldn't imagine running it a different way. Sounds like it would be painful as a DM.


ElterAgo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
... The GM should know what people are playing before the character is even made, and let them know why it will be a bad idea. Sometimes he may just need to say "no".
Many/most players I've met in recent years are extremely resistant to this. What they are considering is a big secret and they get very upset if you try to tell them it isn't allowed or doesn't fit.

I'll admit, that idea confuses me greatly. Why would someone NOT want the DM to know what they are playing? What fun is it to play 'Gotcha' with a character that may or may not even be playable?!

EVERY character I play I am certain to talk it over with the DM first. USUALLY I write up a backstory and give out some story hooks for him to mess with me.

That's FUN! :D

Rhino rider? Swamp Druid? both of those could be awesome in an urban game just BECAUSE of how hard they are going to be to play... but you got to give the DM a few weeks to think about it and plan for it..


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have you tried asking the players why?


As for the characters that don't fit the theme of the campaign - another possible reason is that the player may have looked online, found some build that sounded powerful, and decided that wanted to play that.

As for the characters that are intentionally played sub-optimally, assuming these are experienced players, I would guess that they're just trying to hog the spotlight with their crazy antics.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
In my group we almost always decide a campaign or module first.

Same here. The idea that a GM should check with the players first to see what they want to play works in some situations, but not others. Think of an online recruitment post of players. What sounds better, a detailed description of the campaign world, races, cultures, etc., with a general plot hook.

Or "who wants to play some kind of campaign?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A couple of those guys might be just trying to disrupt the game. Not sure. But I don’t think most of them are. I’m pretty sure they would be shocked if you said you thought that was what they are doing.
.
.
I have asked them several times. I get a response like several have posted above. I want something special. It’s fun to be different. I need something new.
I don’t say it, but when I watch them play all I can think of is Failure isn’t special, different, or new. It is as common as dirt.
.
.
I’m probably not explaining myself very well. I will give it another try.

Dak:
One of my personal favorite PC’s of all time was DakTakLakPak a thri-kreen druid back in 3.x times. I had a blast with it. Looked like a monster and terrified people. (Think how many of the old horror movies were giant bugs.) Though he could understand them, his mouth could not make the sounds to speak other languages. So until he got the magic items to handle it, he couldn’t talk to most people. Once he could shape change, he spent a lot of time pretending to be one of the other PC’s pet/familiar. Until then, he got run out of town several times. So he had to carefully sneak into town and watch things from the shadows.
Not a part of the culture where we were adventuring. Gave him lots of troubles. But I found ways to make it work for me or ease around the problems. When I couldn’t I had fun dealing with it. There were at least 2 missions where I didn’t get paid because I was a monster. Once the authorities decided I was the criminal since people were being poisoned by a giant insect.
But I could jump over city walls and was a buzz saw of multiple attacks in a fight. Had some weird abilities that were sometimes useful. It was a lot of fun.

counter 1):
I could understand how it might be fun if number 1) had some weird back story of why he was in the area then tried to figure out ways to make use of the rhino or at least magic to be able to take it along to use later. He didn’t. His entire build including purchased items was centered around a trampling charge. Then he would be upset when he couldn’t take the rhino inside building or narrow caverns. Yes, it might have been useful in the Drow city if he could have gotten it there. He made no effort to try and figure out a way to do that. Just complained when we got there and he didn’t have it. He wasn’t a totally useless character. Full BaB and reasonable weapon damage. But he wasn’t quite as good a combatant as another character’s cohort bodyguard since most of his special abilities were centered around mounted combat.

counter 2):
I can see role playing a not formally trained instinctive angry fighter like number 2) and I have done so. But it would be perfectly in character to assume that a person that continually gets into unarmed combat situations will get better at it through trial and error. Even without any formal training you would get better at it. So after a couple of levels take one of the rage powers that would help in a grapple or the improved grapple feat. But he didn’t do that because his build was about the two-handed weapon damage and those abilities would detract from that. I could still sorta see it if he only did it occasionally and was willing to take the consequences. But he did it really often (even when we didn’t need/want a live captive) and always seemed very upset that it wasn’t working well.

counter 4):
I could see a lot of potential - though it would be exceedingly difficult - with number 4) if the player had some kind of arcane caster that hid his abilities so he could infiltrate and change the organization or status quo. He didn’t. The character had zero capability to disguise or hide what it was. He had prepared/considered nothing to say how he could possibly be a part of the organization that was trying to kill him. The GM eventually said he could be a slave of the church that was being forced to hunt for them. Neither the player nor the GM was really happy with it, but no one could think of anything better.

counter 5):
Number 5) could have had some back story about how she was forced to be trained as a covert agent. But never wanted that and was rebelling against that earlier training that didn’t fit her personality. As she gained levels she could multiclass into a martial class and learn to fight aggressively. Again learning by trial and error or getting combat training. There is a whole series of novels about a character like that. She would still have some decent sneak capabilities if ever needed, but she could have learned to do well what she was always trying to do anyway. But she didn’t do that. She was a member of the Grey Cloaks (or something like that) and they were sneaky blades. So that was all her build was about even though she almost never actually did that.
Group didn’t have a healer so she spent a lot of recovery money at the church. Also complained about that when buying gear.

There are probably many ways that any of the examples could be made to work in the campaign, be interesting, be successful, and still make sense in-character. But these players weren’t doing that. They were intentionally picking something that didn’t work in the campaign or at least didn’t succeed the way they were playing it. And as far as I could tell they were making little-to-no effort to figure out a way to make up for or enjoy those disadvantages.

I don’t understand how they thought that would be fun.
.
.

phantom1592 wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
... The GM should know what people are playing before the character is even made, and let them know why it will be a bad idea. Sometimes he may just need to say "no".
Many/most players I've met in recent years are extremely resistant to this. What they are considering is a big secret and they get very upset if you try to tell them it isn't allowed or doesn't fit.

I'll admit, that idea confuses me greatly. Why would someone NOT want the DM to know what they are playing? What fun is it to play 'Gotcha' with a character that may or may not even be playable?!

EVERY character I play I am certain to talk it over with the DM first. USUALLY I write up a backstory and give out some story hooks for him to mess with me.

That's FUN! :D

Rhino rider? Swamp Druid? both of those could be awesome in an urban game just BECAUSE of how hard they are going to be to play... but you got to give the DM a few weeks to think about it and plan for it..

When I first started playing, we never checked anything with the GM. Back in 1st Ed. There really wasn't that much difference/choice in the characters. GM's rarely modified the world they had created for the PC's. The crime lord did what seemed logical to him within his resources. The PC's had to figure out how to deal with it or die trying. (Usually die trying.)

With the Skills & Powers in 2nd Ed, we started working with the GM and rest of the group a lot more. There were suddenly so many possibilities that things could get weird without some coordination.

Some time in the last 5 to 10 years things seemed to change. Most groups I've seen do not do any coordination during creation. GM says what he is running (usually with a fair amount of group discussion). Then the players show up with PC's at the first game session.

I have been trying to get my current groups to spend a bit of time coordinating to create a team so they have the main abilities covered and the GM has some idea what to expect. But there is a lot of resistance to that whole concept.

The first time we had a character generation session, everyone had a complete character (with full level progression and item purchase plan) when they walked in the door and almost zero intention of change or compromise. It was very nearly a complete waste of time.

The second time worked a little bit better. But there is still resistance to any hint of you should/shouldn't do X.


Sounds like a group issue and possibly a player issue if they are doing it on purpose. If you keep running it this way there is always going to be that chance of it happening again and again.

Personally it is still kind of mind boggling to me this was how some DMs run things...that or I've been very lucky with my DMs and groups so far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My suggestion: Pitch a dark, brooding and mysterious investigative game with lots of social interaction and intrigue, with perhaps a few romantic betrayal possibilities.

Then, when they all show up with their raging drunks and razor-wielding psychos, run the pure-combat Orc Invasion game you were really planning on all along.


Yeah, if your players are just trolling you, there's nothing we can say that will help, really.

Best of luck with it!


ElterAgo wrote:
Why do some people always want to play a PC that just doesn't match the campaign or world? Or PC's that don't behave the way they are built.

Beats me. My players/friends are good players and not nutbags.


ElterAgo wrote:

A couple of those guys might be just trying to disrupt the game. Not sure. But I don’t think most of them are. I’m pretty sure they would be shocked if you said you thought that was what they are doing.

.
.

Are you the DM or another Player?

I'm having trouble determining if it is your game that other people's choices are ruining... or if your just along for the ride and annoyed at the other players at the table.

Frankly, it sounds like a DM/Player issue. If the DM can roll with the punches and the players are able to deal with the responses to their choices... then I don't see a problem. Sounds like everyone is having fun.

If your sitting there as a player upset because everyone else at the table isn't as optimized or makes the same game choices as you want them to... You probably need a different group. Sounds like they are playing a different type of game.

Honestly the Thrikreen druid sounds MUCH more disruptive to a game then the swamp druid does... but you had fun with him and made him work.

ElterAgo wrote:


When I first started playing, we never checked anything with the GM. Back in 1st Ed. There really wasn't that much difference/choice in the characters. GM's rarely modified the world they had created for the PC's. The crime lord did what seemed logical to him within his resources. The PC's had to figure out how to deal with it or die trying. (Usually die trying.)

Sounds like your groups miss out on a LOT of fun. We usually have a few weeks to a month before starting a game. The DM knows our backstories and twists a few things in his plot to make it more personal to our characters... the Players all talk to each other and decide who knows who, who's related to who, how they met, and start the game fully engrossed in character.

Five random people showing up at a tavern and deciding to get together... based entirely on the merits of who the player brought that night... It's been a LONG time since we've done that.


phantom1592 wrote:

...

Are you the DM or another Player?
...

Those examples are from 5 different groups over the last 7-8 years. I was GM for 2 of them.

phantom1592 wrote:

...

I'm having trouble determining if it is your game that other people's choices are ruining... or if your just along for the ride and annoyed at the other players at the table. ...

Not really annoyed, just confused.

phantom1592 wrote:

...

Frankly, it sounds like a DM/Player issue. If the DM can roll with the punches and the players are able to deal with the responses to their choices... then I don't see a problem. Sounds like everyone is having fun. ...

I'm not sure they are having fun or why they thought it would be fun.

phantom1592 wrote:

...

If your sitting there as a player upset because everyone else at the table isn't as optimized or makes the same game choices as you want them to... You probably need a different group. Sounds like they are playing a different type of game. ...

The only part of it that upsets me a little bit is when they start complaining about the problems that are very specifically the results of their inexplicable choices.

But that is relatively minor.

phantom1592 wrote:

...

Honestly the Thrikreen druid sounds MUCH more disruptive to a game then the swamp druid does... but you had fun with him and made him work. ...

It probably could have been, if I hadn't worked pretty durn hard at making sure that didn't happen. I did everything I could possibly think of to make sure I was always able to contribute in some meaningful way and almost never made things more difficult for the rest of the group. The few times it did, I played along with it well so everyone found it amusing not annoying.

phantom1592 wrote:

...

ElterAgo wrote:


When I first started playing, we never checked anything with the GM. Back in 1st Ed. There really wasn't that much difference/choice in the characters. GM's rarely modified the world they had created for the PC's. The crime lord did what seemed logical to him within his resources. The PC's had to figure out how to deal with it or die trying. (Usually die trying.)

Sounds like your groups miss out on a LOT of fun. We usually have a few weeks to a month before starting a game. The DM knows our backstories and twists a few things in his plot to make it more personal to our characters... the Players all talk to each other and decide who knows who, who's related to who, how they met, and start the game fully engrossed in character.

Five random people showing up at a tavern and deciding to get together... based entirely on the merits of who the player brought that night... It's been a LONG time since we've done that.

Like I said, that's the way we did it 30 years ago. Then in the 20-25 years ago range. We did try to organize things much more extensively. Then I fell away from the hobby for 12 years.

Since I came back, most of the groups I've seen are back to the 5 people show up in a bar and ...
Where backstories don't matter or aren't used much and building a coherent team with the rest of the players and the GM rarely happens.

Not sure why, but that is just what I've seen.


ElterAgo wrote:

Since I came back, most of the groups I've seen are back to the 5 people show up in a bar and ...

Where backstories don't matter or aren't used much and building a coherent team with the rest of the players and the GM rarely happens.

Not sure why, but that is just what I've seen.

I would argue that it is due to the fact that the game and the players have changed. Back in the day it was more about experiencing a fantasy story and being able to do whatever you wanted as a player (and facing whatever consequences) instead of being limited to certain actions.

It seems to have moved to more of a heroic wish fulfillment style of game. In this style of game, its more about special powers, snowflaky characters, and bigger and bigger numbers.

Both styles have their merits and can work, but if you have players used to different styles in the same group, expect a lot of friction.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Why is the GM even bothering to pick a setting before finding out what his players want to play?

In our group a setting is chosen by the group, but we play APs so everyone collectively agrees we will do what ever particular AP next, then character creation occurs,

That doesn't prevent a similar sort of madness. Although our madness tends to take the form of the role playing persona of the character just not meshing well in a party. Although I'm guilty of bringing an illusionist to an undead campaign, it was actuall undead aberration, but I regretted the choice, loved the character.


ElterAgo wrote:

Why do some people always want to play a PC that just doesn't match the campaign or world? Or PC's that don't behave the way they are built.

Ok, there are certain special cases. I get that. One time I was in a group with a bunch of very noob players. Yes, I brought a specialized character that didn't really fit in because I didn't want to show up everyone else.

For Example (changed slightly to protect the idjits):

1) GM says the campaign will start in a small town on the coast in a well developed country (think farm town near Absalom) but will culminate in an adventure in the Drow under cities.
Player brings a rhino cavalier / true primitive barbarian.
Uhmm what...

2) Player builds a two-handed weapon max dpr barbarian. But in most fights he drops his weapon to grapple and capture alive. Then gets upset because he keeps getting clobbered for grappling without the correct capabilities.
Uhmm why...

3) GM says the campaign is urban courtly intrigue and mystery.
Player brings a lizardfolk swamp druid with an ooze companion.
Yeah right, that will work well...

4) GM says the world/country has outlawed arcane magic and exterminates magical races. The party is starting as one of the religious zealot mage hunter teams.
Player brings a brownie wizard.
WTF...

5) Player builds a sneaky, backstabber, fragile, hit-n-run character. Then plays it like a invulnerable rager. Constantly charging straight at the biggest threat by himself. Then of course getting upset that he always get knocked unconscious.
Surely not...

6) GM says the campaign is largely undead and constructs (at least as concentrated as Carrion Crown).
Player 1 brings a telepathy psion.
Player 2 brings an illusion/enchantment wizard.
Seriously...

These are not all the same player or even the same group. Just things I've observed over the years that I just don't understand.

I just don't get it. What is this weird attraction/obsession some people have with playing a character that just can't hardly function in the...

This sounds like different things. In a couple cases the player may not fully understand how to use their abilities in play or what expectations playing a certain set of abilities places on their PC. In other cases it sounds like "special snowflake syndrome" or basically deliberately making something odd ball to the setting in order to stand out in the crowd and command greater story time. Others may simply have become wedded to a specific character they want to try without thinking of the consequences like playing a concept that is countered by undead or constructs in an undead heavy game. Or lastly... there are "those guys" you know the ones, who always have to be difficult regardless of the situation. They will play the cleric and then set up their character to avoid healing, or they will want to go left when the group wants to go right, or the players are setting up for naval adventures and he brings a large land mount based PC.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why Inapplicable PCs? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.