|
I have a question which has been nagging on me for some time:
Why do some people insist on always playing the same character. I'm not talking situations where you're playing with a character you've struggled with from level 1 through 20. I'm talking about that player who always plays the elven rogue regardless of campaign setting, who's running it, or what decade it currently is. When I make characters I'm constantly trying to come up with concepts that are new and unique (to me at least, I'm not going to pretend to be 100% original) and to date I've played both genders, nearly every class (except sorcerer), most of the races, and none in any combination that even resemble a similarity. Heck, even when playing CRPGs I wind up switching characters around each and every game I've ever played.
As a DM it's even more frustrating to watch (I DM about 2/5 to half the time) when the same exact character keeps showing up at the table (regardless of campaign). My SO is guilty of it to some extent (her and her damn elves), and I've played with at least two other players who live and breathe off of a certain character.
The idea of playing the same character for every game I'm in just doesn't seem fun and the concept is so foreign to me that I'm just looking for some insight to the motivation behind this kind of mindset.
Indeed, i also think that part of the fun is to play different characters, to explore different personnalities, abilities and so on.
Playing always the same kind of character is quite repetitive and stereotype, like Sean Connery (that i still love), who always plays the same grumpy old mentor guy. A shame, he could use his talent for something different, once in a while.
(A question : What is a "SO" ?)
|
It's not uncommon. In my group, each player has a preferred character, including myself (though I usually DM).
One player loves Elf Psions
One loves Elf Rogue/Wizards
I am partial to Human Bards
You get the drift. I think we as players sometimes get into a comfort zone. Try a campaign with randomly generated characters in sealed envelopes (each player must choose blindly). We did that once and it was a lot of fun.
I ended up with a female human druid that time.
I'm guessing "Significant Other" ?
Oooo, i see...
I learned something today. Thank you :)
Laziness and a "comfort zone" (as Cuchulainn said).
I'm guilty of this from time to time, although more often I start out with an interesting new character concept and sheer laziness/lack of acting ability causes all of my characters' personalities to naturally converge to my own. :)
I have a question which has been nagging on me for some time:
Why do some people insist on always playing the same character. I'm talking about that player who always plays the elven rogue regardless of campaign setting, who's running it, or what decade it currently is.
The idea of playing the same character for every game I'm in just doesn't seem fun and the concept is so foreign to me that I'm just looking for some insight to the motivation behind this kind of mindset.
I know what you're sayin. One guy a played with ALWAYS ran a Drow fighter who was raised by wood elves. He did this in about 4 campaigns running from 1e through(maybe including) 3e. Very dull to me.
Me on the other hand? I like trying new concepts. I've had paladins, dwarf fighters or clerics, DL minotaur pale masters, swashbuckler type fighters, and (my current character) lizard man warlock/druids ... just to name a few. It's the newness of each character type that makes the game fun and exciting to me.
One concept I've been wanting to run is the ascetic ... a guy with the vow of poverty (from BoExD). THAT would be fun to play. However, it looks like my next character is going to be a PFRPG Half-Orc Cleric ... I'm thinking this will be a fanatical convert to Pelor (DM will be using GH).
Now all of that to me is much more cool and interesting than "another [insert cliche character type]", dontcha think?
|
|
I try to play different character types, but I don't play female characters very often. If I play a character I try to role play that character right, and I don't think I can play a woman character right.
The majority time I do choose a female character is when I'm making one of my goofy characters where I think it would be more funny based on the concept. For example, a superheroine named "Trampoline Girl".
|
I play the ideal "me" in the fantasy world. I'll always prefer being male over female, fine-sized over medium-sized, having flight over not having flight, being a thief over being any other class. I don't want to waste my time playing/being something I don't like.
A secondary reason is that it has taken me a long time to sift through the majority of 3.5's books to optimize my thief. If I was to switch to say sorcerer, I would have to do TONS of research, flipping through too many books, gleaning information from websites, etc. and then I'd have to learn through playing (e.g. learn my by mistakes "Ugh, I should have taken Feat X instead of Feat Y) and that would take forever too.
|
|
Laziness and a "comfort zone" (as Cuchulainn said).
I'm guilty of this from time to time, although more often I start out with an interesting new character concept and sheer laziness/lack of acting ability causes all of my characters' personalities to naturally converge to my own. :)
I kinda do that. Each character I make is based on my own personality, but normally just one or two aspects of me, so my characters tend to be more focused on certain things than the average person.
|
|
Laziness and a "comfort zone" (as Cuchulainn said).
I'm guilty of this from time to time, although more often I start out with an interesting new character concept and sheer laziness/lack of acting ability causes all of my characters' personalities to naturally converge to my own. :)
I asked the question because when I see this I immediately think "lazy" and I wanted to know if this kind of opinion was out of line. RPGs are my hobby because I enjoy spending the time reading the books, thinking of fun character ideas, and playing "out of my comfort zone". Players who insist on the same character just scream "lazy" to me (which might be why it drives me nuts).
I wish I could get people who constantly (we're all guilty of it from time to time), to learn to play out of their zone and take risks. No, your character may have been better of having one feat over or another, or that greatclub may not be the "ideal" weapon, but the game shouldn't be ONLY about optimizing characters over each iteration of the same character or constantly making me integrate the same exact concept into each campaign we play.
Now I'm venting, which was not the purpose of my original question.
|
|
Not too long ago, our group decided to honor the recently-deceased Gary Gygax so we all rolled straight stats. 3d6s in order - period. You could play what you wanted, but the stats did tend to dictate things. It made for some interesting combinations, and we all had a great time doing something different.
Another idea is to grab a copy of the Players Handbook II. It has some great ideas for fleshing out PCs. Put different PC backgrounds and character traits in a hat and let the players draw.
A third idea is to roll randomly on the NPC charts in the DMG ppg 110-128. Sometimes I'll do this if I need to make a replacement PC in a pinch or I'm playing at a con, etc. In less than 30 seconds I just randomly rolled a (27)Neutral (47)Monk (62)Human who (29)wears distinctive jewelry. Hmm...interesting.
Nobody likes a heavy-handed DM telling them what to play, but if you can approach it like a one-time gimmick (I saw this great idea and thought it might be fun) then maybe it will open the player's eyes to something new and they will decide to try new things on their own.
One more thing -- some classes I find boring from a mechanical point of view. For instance, I almost always play a character with spellcasting of some kind (or psionics, or vestige binding, or whatever). I'm not really interested in playing a character whose only job is running up to monsters and hitting them with a sword; the more different kinds of things my character can do, the better.
Now I realise that I could come up with an interesting roleplaying idea for a fighter, but I like to have both an interesting personality AND interesting class abilities for my characters.
|
|
No, your character may have been better of having one feat over or another, or that greatclub may not be the "ideal" weapon, but the game shouldn't be ONLY about optimizing characters over each iteration of the same character
I have to optimize. Maybe I'm too anal-retentive. But I can't frolic under the rainbow, hold hands, and sing kumbaya while my character is getting torn to shreds. "Golly gee, I didn't do too well, but I went out of my comfort zone and broadened my horizons." F that.
|
I think people get in their comfort zones and call it good. It falls on the DM to get his point across by doing one of three things.
1) Repeatedly kill the PC until they get the hint. (Not recommended when PC is your significant other)
2) DO the "random characters" with your group, but you run the risk of the crazy person in the group getting the CE Orc Barbarian.
3) Politely ask the player before you play to "try something different, you might enjoy it"...only to watch the crazy person in your group play a LG Paladin of Heironeous PERFECTLY
I usually like to play versatile characters. Since 3.5 has come out, I've played a human ranger in a low-magic, no-treasure campaign, an elf druid archer, a cloistered cleric/radiant servant of pelor, a greatsword wielding ranger/warlock, a dwarf ranger/fighter, an epic-level dark-dwarf warlock in Dragonlance, a scout (one of my favorites), a gestalt bard//cleric in a 3d6 in order campaign, a 1st level spellthief, a 1st level sorcerer with dragon's breath, a 1st level rogue, and a homebrew wolf-shaping warrior-type.
In 3.0 I played an aasimar ranger/cleric, a tiefling rogue/wizard, a human paladin/cleric, and a halfling ranger/rogue.
|
While my players definately seem to prefer certain combinations (elf wizard, halfling rogue, human monk and human fighter) I am at least lucky that they try to role play them in differant ways each time, and occasionally they do do something differant. the fighter played a half-ork shugenja one time and the wizard is expressing interest in playing a thri-kreen next time. I think it just comes down to what they're comfortable with. you get great authors who only write one genre and great writers who span many genres. some like short stories, some like novels, and some choose to be the badly dressed emo kid in the back of the coffee shop that writes bad poetry...ooh i hate those guys with their smug looks...anyhow. ya. what they're comfortable with. you can't force someone to be more creative then they want to be.
|
|
you can't force someone to be more creative then they want to be.
That's not entirely true. As a DM I can enforce whatever rules I see fit in the campaign.
Doesn't mean it's a good idea, but it can be done. Which is why I try to avoid a true heavy-handed approach and try to lead people gently into the realization that I'm tired of being DM to their gnome wizard and they really need to come up with a new concept. About that time they realize that a second concept is usually a better idea than no D&D at all.
|
|
you can't force someone to be more creative then they want to be....As a DM I can enforce whatever rules I see fit in the campaign.
...
Yes, you can. and then people stop having fun (at least in my experiance when i try to force people to do stuff against their will). and then they leave. and then there's no one to run that great new concept you thought up. I've tried the random character choice. i've tried asking them to play differant roles. one time i even took all their characters away, shuffled them and gave them back out at random. the campaigns where i do this last the shortest in my experiance, and the one where i give them free reign last the longest.
i just think it's possible that someone wants to play because he wants to be an elven wizard, and i see no problem in that.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I think people get in their comfort zones and call it good. It falls on the DM to get his point across by doing one of three things.
1) Repeatedly kill the PC until they get the hint. (Not recommended when PC is your significant other)
2) DO the "random characters" with your group, but you run the risk of the crazy person in the group getting the CE Orc Barbarian.
3) Politely ask the player before you play to "try something different, you might enjoy it"...only to watch the crazy person in your group play a LG Paladin of Heironeous PERFECTLY
I don't recommend doing either #1 or 2. Unless the character concept is disruptive to the campaign. The point of role playing games is to have fun and if that player has fun just playing 1 concept why ruin that?
I like too many options in the PHB to just settle on one, but obviously there are players out there who really like specific concepts. That doesn't make them lazy just different.
As for playing outside of a comfort zone...My comfort Zone is change while another player's is repetition. If we're going to ask them to play outside of their comfort zones and change archetypes we should then figure out which archetype we're going to play from now on.
Why is their way of playing automatically worse than ours?
|
|
Why is their way of playing automatically worse than ours?
The one reason I can think of is that it is disruptive. I'm not the only one that notices, and I can assure you that the other four to five people at the table notice too. I've heard comments from people ranging from "ugh, he's playing that again?" to "well at least he's a halfling this time". When a player continually plays the same character, down to motivations, characterizations, and even mannerisms sometimes it can (and has) become an issue at the table.
In a game that involves multiple players and is supposed to be centered around creativity, my experience is that other players do notice and do say things.
|
|
You get the drift. I think we as players sometimes get into a comfort zone. Try a campaign with randomly generated characters in sealed envelopes (each player must choose blindly). We did that once and it was a lot of fun.
I ended up with a female human druid that time.
Excellent suggestion!
And absolutely true, by the way: it's all about Comfort Zones and routines setting in.
|
|
Some of my groups most memorable characters and roleplaying moments have come from when I forced the whole group to roll 3d6, in order of stats, twice, and then make characters. It forced them to play things suboptimally, and to come up with interesting character concepts and backstories. Our fighter has a 3 intelligence and his father is a Wizard with Int 16. Really neat dialogue there.
|
|
Some of my groups most memorable characters and roleplaying moments have come from when I forced the whole group to roll 3d6, in order of stats, twice, and then make characters. It forced them to play things suboptimally, and to come up with interesting character concepts and backstories. Our fighter has a 3 intelligence and his father is a Wizard with Int 16. Really neat dialogue there.
Variation on the Organic roll from the DMG, eh? ya. we've had fun with that one. a wizard with 12 int and 18 dex was fun to watch. (i made them choose races and classes before rolling.)
|
|
Try a campaign with randomly generated characters in sealed envelopes (each player must choose blindly). We did that once and it was a lot of fun.
I tried a campaign where everyone used one of those "What D&D character are you" polls and they had to play the character that they came up with. Unfortunately it collapsed after a few sessions because no one could play their favorite.
As a DM it's even more frustrating to watch (I DM about 2/5 to half the time) when the same exact character keeps showing up at the table (regardless of campaign). My SO is guilty of it to some extent (her and her damn elves), and I've played with at least two other players who live and breathe off of a certain character.The idea of playing the same character for every game I'm in just doesn't seem fun and the concept is so foreign to me that I'm just looking for some insight to the motivation behind this kind of mindset.
People play what they like. I have a friend who 'has' to play first baseman whenever he plays baseball. He can play other positions and perform well, but he prefers first base and actively calls it whenever we get together. I don't see focussing on playing a certain character race or type as any different than that.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I think different people gravitate to different races/classes based on their personality. In my gaming group, everyone has a "preferred" class they like to play. I tend toward Rogue. Always have, always will. I play other classes from time to time, but Rogues will always be my favorite class.
My buddy loves Dwarven Clerics. Whenever we played, he was a Dwarven Cleric. He identified with that type of character, and enjoyed the game because of it. Another friend like Half-Elven Bards.
I'm not sure anything's really broken here. I don't think forcing a player to play a character race/class that they don't want to play solves anything. People play what they like to play. If it's the same race/class combination every time a new campaign starts, it's perfectly fine with me.
My husband is like you and often gets frustrated with me because I prefer to play a particular type of character. He wants to see how far he can push the rules before they break, both at the upper and lower levels. If he has a character that hovers just at the edge of unplayable he's a happy camper and it's never the same thing twice.
Now me, I pore over rulebooks. I know this stuff up, down, and sideways. :) It's all very interesting. And I like to make characters. I can crank out NPCs like nobody's business. But when I play, I like to play human caster types. I have yet to run out of cultural variation there so feel no pull towards other races. I like to pay sorcerer, warlock, warmage, psion, spellborn (homebrew class that has you roll randomly for your spells known and they can be off any spell list). Occasionally I venture into divine casting territory. I have tried to play other types of characters. I have played a rogue, a fighter, a paladin, a barbarian. The end result is that I end up bored. Do you have any idea how bad my ADHD gets when I'm bored?:) End result, bored player = no fun.
Basically, both ways of approaching it are perfectly valid, and you just have to accept that you approach fun differently. If this person has never tried another class, then by all means, gently encourage them to do so. Just don't get too frustrated if they do and then want to go back to playing their favorite. It's not a sign of failure on your part.
From what I've found with my groups is people tend to play the same character type because they're looking or trying to do something with that archetype, and until they do, they're going to keep playing it.
|
|
But when I play, I like to play human caster types. I have yet to run out of cultural variation there so feel no pull towards other races. I like to pay sorcerer, warlock, warmage, psion, spellborn (homebrew class that has you roll randomly for your spells known and they can be off any spell list).
[tangent] You might want to check out Green Ronin's Advanced Players Guide, if you find a copy floating around. It's got an Eldritch Weaver class that's wicked fun for a variant mage, and a Spellmaster that is also pretty fun. Both, IIRC, were written by Skip Williams, who served as 'the Sage' of Sage Advice for quite some time, so the rules are pretty solid.[/tangent]
On-topic, I tend to play something different every time, and I see that as being *at least* as quirky as the person who plays the same character type time and again. In GURPS it became something of an issue when we had a 'reunion game' after a decade of gaming, and my 'original character' was around 150 pts (because I'd played so many other characters in-between) while the others were around 275 pts (this being a game where you'd get 1 to 3 pts at the end of a gaming session!). It was much like dragging an 8th level character along in an Epic game, because I was too busy playing 'alts' while everyone else 'stuck to their main character.' :)
Back in 2nd and 1st edition, I was the opposite, and tended to always play the elven fighter/magic-user or cleric/wizard, if I could find a kit or specialty priest that allowed that sort of thing. Since 3e, it's been amazing how many different classes I've played, from Bards to Rangers, all stuff I never even looked at back in 1st and 2nd editions.
|
|
From what I've found with my groups is people tend to play the same character type because they're looking or trying to do something with that archetype, and until they do, they're going to keep playing it.
Exactly what I experienced. If you, as the DM, let your players get away with some great movments, combats, actions or whatnot, the players seem pleased. My new group (for which I told myself 2 years ago to let them be heroes, and let them do extraordinary stuff) always plays other character classes, except the newbie, who wanted to play another fighter again, to get used to the new Beta rules, after just learning 3.5... ;)
In my last group, one person always wanted to be a kick-ass paladin, while another always favored a healing cleric. I stick to a few favored race/class combinations because they have skills and abilities that I enjoy using. I generally play the same few alignments because when faced with a moral choice, I'm uncomfortable playing too much against my (real) conscience. I try different backgrounds, personalities, and appearances tho.
|
|
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about somebody who feels comfortable in the "fighter" or "druid" zone, I'm talking about the character that literally insists on making the "elf wizard evoker who's an orphan, and likes hurting puppies, only uses a longbow, and wears black all the time" every single game.
We all hit our comfort zones, I'm talking about the people who quite literally make the same character over and over again. That's what I just can't grasp (even with the explanations here).
|
|
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about somebody who feels comfortable in the "fighter" or "druid" zone, I'm talking about the character that literally insists on making the "elf wizard evoker who's an orphan, and likes hurting puppies, only uses a longbow, and wears black all the time" every single game.
Perhaps it's an alter-ego for them, and they enjoy stepping into that character's shoes (boots, sandals, whatever) for a time? I've seen plenty of gamers who, upon confronted with Vampire, try to make a Tremere 'magic-user' or a Malkavian-who-thinks-he's-a-Highlander and carries a katana. It bugs me when someone tries to bring something that doesn't fit the genre in, just because they want to play 'Wolverine' or 'Drizzt' or whomever, regardless of the setting, but there's not much you can do in these situations. Either allow the player to play the character they are stuck on, and allow for it in the game, or point them towards a game more suited to the character they want to play. ("Hey, there's a sign-up sheet at the comic shop, and some dudes are playing Marvel Super-Heroes. Perhaps your regenerating clawed scrapper type would be more appropriate in an X-Men game?"}
I don't see anything wrong with that sort of thing, but if it becomes disruptive to the tone of whatever game you and your group are enjoying, or, as sometimes happen, the person is creeping out your other players (or you), don't be afraid to point them at a crowd that better fits their particular interest.
But if you're playing D&D, and some dude always wants to play an orphaned elven evoker who wears black and uses a bow? Who cares? Good for him, he's found his happy place. Presumably, he'll be darn good at playing that character effectively, if it's his 'thing.'
I hear ya pal... I had a player who even always took the same PC name. That's beyond 'comfort zone'... And I agree, it's quite lazy.
Whenever I play, I take it as a challenge to play what the team needs. I'll roll up a first level character and then see where he takes me. I don't focus on what he'll look like at level twenty, I just go with the flow. Any race, any class, any alignment!
Although I tend to stick to the base classes, as I never seen the need for prestige classes. My characters are SO different, even if I were to play another fighter after the first one dies, I swear it wouldn't be the same experience.
And it's not true that just because you don't play a half-orc barbarian with 20 strength that you'll get your ass kicked... Dudes, I could play a halfling ranger with 11 strength and still find tons of ways to beat the enemies.
Ultradan
|
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about somebody who feels comfortable in the "fighter" or "druid" zone, I'm talking about the character that literally insists on making the "elf wizard evoker who's an orphan, and likes hurting puppies, only uses a longbow, and wears black all the time" every single game.
We all hit our comfort zones, I'm talking about the people who quite literally make the same character over and over again. That's what I just can't grasp (even with the explanations here).
It's the John Wayne effect. He always played the same character in every movie. Most people are bit uncomfortable with change, some more than others. The type of person you describe is one of the latter. They stick to what they know best, just like Wayne.
|
|
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about somebody who feels comfortable in the "fighter" or "druid" zone, I'm talking about the character that literally insists on making the "elf wizard evoker who's an orphan, and likes hurting puppies, only uses a longbow, and wears black all the time" every single game.
We all hit our comfort zones, I'm talking about the people who quite literally make the same character over and over again. That's what I just can't grasp (even with the explanations here).
Again, for me, I play my ideal character, which is not only race and class, but background, personality, etc. too. It's ideal/perfect. It doesn't change just because we started a new campaign or because my old character died. To change it would be settling for less than perfect and I don't want to waste my time.
Again, for me, I play my ideal character, which is not only race and class, but background, personality, etc. too. It's ideal/perfect. It doesn't change just because we started a new campaign or because my old character died. To change it would be settling for less than perfect and I don't want to waste my time.
I was following you up to playing the same character in a new campaign, but how do you play the same character with the same background in the same campaign after dying (outsider of Raise Dead, Resurrection, etc.)?
|
|
Again, for me, I play my ideal character, which is not only race and class, but background, personality, etc. too. It's ideal/perfect. It doesn't change just because we started a new campaign or because my old character died. To change it would be settling for less than perfect and I don't want to waste my time.I was following you up to playing the same character in a new campaign, but how do you play the same character with the same background in the same campaign after dying (outsider of Raise Dead, Resurrection, etc.)?
It's easy, the character comes from an isolated mountain family with 20 siblings who were all raised by extremely forgetful parents who mistook each child as the last, therefore they all have the same names. the identical toys and surroundings leads each of them in turn to choose the identical same path for themselves. ;)
|
|
It's easy, the character comes from an isolated mountain family with 20 siblings who were all raised by extremely forgetful parents who mistook each child as the last, therefore they all have the same names.
I'm not that bad, i.e. I don't give them all the same name. But I do start them all with the same letter. :)
I meant that the new guy I bring in is essentially the same as my old PC who died...same race, same class, same favorite weapons, same background, same hometown, same type of family (no brothers, 3 sisters), looks identical to the old PC, etc. Probably the only thing that is different is his name.
The other players don't think that stretches credibility a bit?
|
|
The DMG II wasn't that useful a book, but the one thing I really took away from it addresses this topic. It says, essentially, that the player who always wants to make the same character shouldn't be frustrating, because they obviously do it for a reason. That's the character they really enjoy playing, so what's the harm in it?
It was a very minor epiphany for me, but it has changed my perspective. Playing D&D is about having fun and telling a good story, so if Player A does that with his eighth incarnation of an elven rogue, so be it.
|
|
I have one guy in my group that won't play anything except for a CG human cleric. His reasoning is humans are the best race ever, and "someone" has to play a cleric.
I've tried to have him play something else, but he always threatens to quit playing.
Nothing to do with the above, but when he says CG he means CN. And my CN he really means NE.