|
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.
wait...so his CG cleric is actually NE? aren't there rules about gods taking away powers for being more then one step outta whack?
|
|
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. :)
And it turns out i'm only partially psychic. The secretary was thinking of me, but I misread it completely...:(
on a side note, the pencil refuses to budge...
|
One of the most obnoxious gamers I ever met would only play Elven Fighter/Magic-User/Clerics. Every campaign. When I ran a campaign set in the world of the Belgariad, which has NO ELVES, he threw a thee hour long hissy fit in which he whined, begged and pleaded with me that he had to play an elf, because it was the only thing he knew how to role-play. Of course, he couldn't role-play to save his life, because he was a total munchkin twink.
A lot of people play within a limited range -- I rarely play spellcasters, and most of my characters are fighters -- but I've always considered gamers who always play the same character over and over to be creatively bankrupt and dull.
They probably think that stretches credibility a lot. But they understand that I enjoy playing that type of character, so they're cool with it.
Oh, sounds good then.
|
|
One of the most obnoxious gamers I ever met would only play Elven Fighter/Magic-User/Clerics. Every campaign. When I ran a campaign set in the world of the Belgariad, which has NO ELVES, he threw a thee hour long hissy fit in which he whined, begged and pleaded with me that he had to play an elf, because it was the only thing he knew how to role-play. Of course, he couldn't role-play to save his life, because he was a total munchkin twink.
A lot of people play within a limited range -- I rarely play spellcasters, and most of my characters are fighters -- but I've always considered gamers who always play the same character over and over to be creatively bankrupt and dull.
That actually sounds pretty cool, the whole Belgariad setting. I suppose if it's forced, the Elves could be those horse nomads (Algarians I believe). it's a bit forced, but i can't think of any other.
How'd you handle that campaign otherwise? like the whole "there's one prophecy and it pertains to... not a single one of you"? or did they play more average citezens in the wars?
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.
I think that is the most insightful comment I've read here so far.
I have often said that role-playing games are essentially symbolic manipulation of archetypal content, and often a player might really find it edifying and satisfying to work on one aspect of their subconscious until they feel they have addressed their needs in regards to that archetype.
Also, I think that with the ADD prevalent in many gaming circles, campaigns tend to fail to see fruition from time to time. Players are left with a sense of a lack of completeness in regards to their favorite character.
As referees we are content to move on to the next thing, having more emotional attachment to the campaign setting or the major storyline, rather than to individual components like PC's or even NPC's (although we all tend to have our favorite NPC's) and players may feel like they didn't get to play a build to its potential or flesh out the amazing story of PC X.
I respect that a great deal. In my group there tends to be a gravitation to set roles, but we also have left many a campaign by the wayside. Some players want to keep perfecting their vision beyond the scope of that campaign.
I can't stress enough that this game accommodates a wide variety of play styles and skill levels. Let the players be in their comfort zone (whatever that may be) as players and make sure they are often challenged as characters.
If a player becomes somehow "too good" at a particular class, or their favorite role is untenable for a campaign, talk to them outside of game and help them see why it would be helpful for them to explore something different in this case, reassuring them that you will come up with adventures so good they won't care what character they are playing.
Well, I tend to gravitate towards certain character classes and types, becuase I do enjoy playing a bard, cleric or rogue more than any of the fighter types...though every now and then it is fun to go to those too (even if I won't stay long).
And I do admit having some sticking concepts, down to the name and history, which I do dig up every now and then...but only among players who haven't seen that yet. Part of it is familiarity, I do get instantly hold of how to play that character, and it is kind of fun to see how the character will do this time or if I end up playing her differently from previous times.
I have seen this done couple of times with different players too, eg. I had one dwarf cleric with rather intricate history and somewhat offbeat philosophy, and one player in that group asked if he could play the same character (in terms of name, history, mentality, not exact stats) in another group. The thing was, I played the character as NG and he played him as LN, and there were some other similar tweaks...
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.
Bingo.
I play mages. Period. Nine times out of ten, it's a human or elven wizard or sorcerer. Sometimes I'll stray into the foreign territory of a warlock, or a cleric. On occaision it will be a gnome. But by and large, it's a human or elven wizard or sorcerer.
Why? Because that's what I've always loved, and that's what my "idealized self" takes the form of. No one's ever had a problem with it, outside of rolling they're eyes and asked "Wizard, right?" But the few times I didn't play the mage, no one else did a decent job of it.
That said, my wizards are always different. I like specialists because it gives a focus to my characters, helps in making the "fluff" match the "crunch," and makes one caster totally different from the others. Whether I liked wizard, rogues, or fighters, I would always strive to have different (and radically, at that) personalities and histories to my characters.
The first non-caster character I created was a half-orc barbarian so stupid (Intelligence 4) he thought he was a wizard! He had a spellcomponent pouch and everything. Every time he clobbered someone with his greatsword, he would shout "Magic!" If someone tried to point out it wasn't, he would brandish the blade threateningly and ask, "You want magic too?"
I've played other characters, but as has been previously mentioned, I get bored. I find myself itching to prepare a spell list, to use some divinations to glean information about my upcoming adventures, to craft a few scrolls and summon some monsters.
I come up with other character concepts all the time, including (even frequently) ones which fall far outside the realm of the spellcaster. But I never have the enthusiasm to stick with those characters for the long haul. I've learned to turn them into NPCs in my games rather than making a flash-in-the-pan PC.
Yes, you could say mages are my comfort zone. But you could also say that mages are my specialty, and within that arena I feel empowered and capable of creativity, both in terms of roleplaying and mechanical constructions, beyond what I would possess with other classes. I would be rather displeased if someone chose to describe my predilection as "laziness," simply because my inclinations differed from theirs.
But I'm not the worst offender of my longest-lived group! So far as I can remember (and I haven't been playing more than five years, so my memory is pretty good in this matter at this point), I have never created the same character twice. I've never recycled a name, though I may have had a character concept or three resurface a few ties, but only when the character never achieved it's "full potential," which is, as Lilith said, the ability to take the character, the archetype, to and through the situations and perform the actions that I strive to live out through them.
However, other players of the group did reuse both name and character concept, not once, but multiple times! I've DM'ed for probably at least five incarnations of one Jherrith Windruner, who has sometimes been a pure ranger, sometimes an arcane archer; sometimes an elf, sometimes a half elf. I've DMed many versions of one Paddock Twiddlespring, a gnome who has been a wizard, a sorcerer, and a bard in verious iterations. One player can't hardly make a dwarf without subliminally calling him Thuridyn Thunderhammer, who has appeared as a paladin, a barbarian, a fighter, and a cleric (and who had a totally different story each time, despite the repeated name and often repeated physical description).
Why? For Jherrith, it actually was a matter of comfort zone. His first character was a ranger, and he enjoyed it more than just about any other character concept he tried (which was a long, diverse, and bizarre list; and incidentally, his longest played and most "famous" character was actually a barbarian/fighter). For Thuridyn, it was a matter of never achieving that sense of fulfillment with the character and wanting to keep at it until he got it. For Paddock? It was another matter of familiarity and comfort zone, mixed with a preoccupation for other concerns. Paddock was an alter-ego of his player, a true embodiment of himself in the game, and he enjoyed it and felt no need to change. This player would also experiment with a wide range of characters, but came back to Paddock time and again. He was thrilled with all the different options the game had to offer and sought to continuously play with the possibilities and situations. The identity of the character was less important to him, and after "hitting his stride" by creating Paddock, he saw no problem sticking with it.
And I never had a problem with any of it. As a DM, I liked knowing what to expect from my players. I came to learn what they would likely do under various conditions and circumstances, learn what abilities they would likely have available in the course of an adventure. I could then play to their strengths, or even exploit their weaknesses if I was feeling blackhearted.
The DM may be able to change rules to force people into playing characters outside their comfort zone, but unless those people are actually willing to change on their own, the end result is 99% likely to be a short-lived, unhappy, forgettable campaign. Some people just have their preferences, and there's nothing wrong with it. My suggestion would be to learn to roll with it and use it as a DM and maybe, just maybe, if you play to them and let them feel fulfilled with their character, they'll change it in the next campaign.
Or they may create Boblius Fighterus IIVX. To each their own.
|
|
The first non-caster character I created was a half-orc barbarian so stupid (Intelligence 4) he thought he was a wizard! He had a spellcomponent pouch and everything. Every time he clobbered someone with his greatsword, he would shout "Magic!" If someone tried to point out it wasn't, he would brandish the blade threateningly and ask, "You want magic too?"
Haha! I have to steal that at some point!
|
|
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.I think that is the most insightful comment I've read here so far.
That's pretty much dead on how I feel about playing Rogues, Wizards, and combination's thereof, I had this great fighter character who I absolutely loved, played him in 4 different campaigns and then I moved on to other things. I personally like playing monster races but have yet to encounter a DM will to let me play a Goblin Artificer, or Hobgoblin Swashbuckler, or a Kobold Mystic Theurge, all of which I'd like to one day.
I'm pretty flexible with my current group, in fact my DM does 1-shots when he doesn't have anything made and we use pre-gen chars if our full group isn't around, it's alot of fun.
|
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.
Except until recently, I've exclusively played human wizards. Reasons include 1) it fits my character concepts (i.e., there's a difference playing a newbie versus a veteran wizard); 2) magic is so diverse that spell choice and, depending upon the game, magical abilities, drastically change the spellcaster concept (e.g., evoker versus tranmuter) and 3) I enjoy it.
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.
It's not about laziness. It's about how different people enjoy the game. You may enjoy exploring different concepts and playing out of your zone, and that's perfectly fine. Some players enjoy playing an uber-optimized character. Others prefer to play the same damn character every single solitary session, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The worst mistake a DM can make is to try and force everyone to play the game her way. Trust me ;-)
If people want to play the same class as last time, I have no problem with it.
If they want to play the exact same character (or an anagram of that previous character) then they can find a different GM.
Oh, another thing...
Also when I DM, I have been using old player characters (mine and others') as NPCs, loaning concepts etc. And like with PCs, I try to avoid doing this with the same players, so there is a mental list of various archetypes of mine and which players have come across what. And then I just hope that groups I have played with don't meet each other and start comparing notes :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I have a metric butt monkey load of unplayed characters and way more concepts floating around in my head. I like coming up with interesting character concepts and then creating a back story to go with them.
The only time I would play the same character is if I really wanted to see how the concept would work and it didn't get a good run. Even then not so much. Ihad a character that I'd spent a week creating to be just right and he died 15 minutes into the session. Slapped together a new character (concept I was working on at the time, so I had the ground work done) and was ready to play a hour later.
Why do some people play the same character over and over? Because some people like monogamy. If I was your significant other, I'd be very worried about your wandering eye. You'll probably cheat, just to see what the other type of person is like.
There. Do you see how unfair that was? But that's the exact same move towards an ad hominem attack that people on this thread are making by labeling players "lazy," "uncreative," etc. If you label people, you're not really trying to understand them. You're trying to find a socially acceptable way of blaming them for knowing what they like and feel comfortable playing and have the time to design.
|
|
Eh I definately have classes I prefer *not* to play that's for sure heh. I generally stick to big armor types. I did rogue a couple of times and while it was fun, I never had the knack for it that another guy in our regular group did. We usually let him rock the rogue when he wanted to.
So yeah, anything that straps on the plate is fine by me ;p
Started RotRL recently, and one of my players wanted to have the same character as he plays in another game.
Not an anagram, not a similar character concept, but the exact same character, a Minotaur with dragon blood. Fighter, Greataxe specialisation. Same name, same background, same everything.
I didn't understand it at all. Still don't. Why would you want to do something you've already done?
But it's no skin off my nose, and it makes him happy. So why not?
|
|
Yeah, I'm quite partial to humans, elves, half-elves, hengeyoukai, fighters, paladins, wizards/mages/magic-users, sorcerers, bards, rogues/thieves, thief-acrobats, ninja, clerics, druids, rangers, samurai, psychic warriors, the various good and neutral alignments (and occasionally an evil one), and male or female characters. I realize how limited my playing style is and I'm beginning to feel stifled, so I might try something different from the usual milieu next time I have a chance.
|
Laziness and a "comfort zone" (as Cuchulainn said).
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.
in play by posts I will push the envelope a bit more, but in table games I usually play a ranger or druid. Why? Because its what I know. I know bot the mechanical aspects and how someone in that role would react. It is my natural boy scout instinct to react the same way. I try to avoid using the same race (currently on a ranger binge, running my first gnome ranger, a catfolk ranger, and a half-orc ranger in various games) They are all built differently, and have different attitudes towards things.
edit: with that in mind I refuse to play as a human, and I switch ranger concepts and challenge archetypes when playing them (ever seen a half orc ranger wielding a great sword? that was my savage tide character)
The way I look at it is that as the GM I do not recycle the same setting, same NPCs and same plot. Thus the players should not recycle their PCs.
The day I do is the day they can too.
|
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).
The problem with this concept is that you're "writing" your template on why you play on someone else.
Why does that person work in a bank instead of as a research scientist. Why did the "geek" join the Army as an Infantryman and serve for 22 years. Why did that lovely girl from what appears to be a well-established family that most likely discussed the dangers of early pregnancy still go out and get "knocked up?"
Because they did.
To paraphrase George Cloony in "Oh Brother, Where art Thou?" = It's a fool who looks for logic in the depths of the human heart.
Me - I can't understand why people play anything outside the main rules books. Everything else seems like so much munchkinism and power creep to me, and yet, I refuse to deny others the opportunity to enjoy gaming in accordance with the style and character they wish to play. I don't understand why folks have to plan out their characters to maximize the benefits of their multiclassed character in accordance with each level's benefits - in my mind it's the ultimate in powergaming and doesn't have a thing to do with role playing, but that's the style of game some like to play, and again, I refuse to comment or degrade them for their gaming style.
If you really have a problem with the way your players approach the game, I think it would be more in line to approach them directly, and discuss your concerns with them. Either they have a reason as to why they do the things they do, or they don't realize the options available to them.
As to your question, I play a paladin in about 90% of the games I play (MMO, D&D, computer RPG, whatever.) Each one has a distinct character, with their own flaws, etc., but, in a nutshell who I was as a young person and who I am today are diversely different persons, and I guess I just want to have that sort of ideal, that sort of drive, and live up to it.
|
|
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
or they canjsut leave the DM table and found a place where they are not messed with their characters...
ok the 3rd one is a nice option... but:
1) just because we like to try different things it doesn't mean our players would (heck i like to change campaigns, settings and EVEN systems... and my players hate that!) if i remember correctly i have done a bit of almost every class... NOT every one... but i think in a cool concept and from there i work... yeah sometimes they are sub-optimal options... but ihave fun playing them... i haveplayeda Kensai, a miriead of rogues with different conpcets, clerics to different gods and different viewpoints of nature and the world, a couple of paladins, even a monk, aranger, multiclass ranger/cleric, wizard/cleric of Kelemvor (weak weak, but fun!), a pair of sisters: scorpion monk and an scorpion rogue that acted like a dragon (clans), wizards; and a few others... right now i am repeating and changing a couple of concepts... i am replaying a Hunter of the Dead whose background i loved... and a Cleric of a god ofJustice (the daughter of another cleric of justice), i have played with male and female (abusing a bit of the female to the point they don't ask my anymore what sex is my character and egt surprised when i say "male elven ranger with an attitude and who hate undeads"),
i haven't played every options, usually because i am the DM and even when i found somethingf interesting to play, sometimes its notso useful as NPC, sometimes it is...
in some of my old tables i could alerady know who wasgoing to play therogue, or the cleric or the barbarian or the wizard orde Samurai... that left for the other players to try otehr things because something new, because a key part was already covered...
i havethe player that almostalways does the wizard... but i would be damned if any of his wizards is similar to the others... instead of trying to test of other classes, he experiments with the schools, with great and fun results... well his almost last character was a rogue... but he sounds more like a ranger for the man-hunter thing... but that is another thing
one player always hated the drow because they have killed his [write family member or friend here], and another player dispared about dramatic pasts because they were wold news to him
and also i have the player that
for me... if he always want to make the same character... its because the player ENJOYS playing like that character, or enjoy said personality...
this is suposed to be a game... and EVERYONE has the right to have fun however they F WANT!
so why people do again and again the same character!
because they are having fun...
playing an RPG or another thing needs to be fun and not another chore, if you have fun creating myriad of concepts good for you, if other players want to play the same character because THEY enjoy it... good for them, they are NOT lazy... they are enjoying themselves... tell my why would you mess with their fun?
mess with that FUN and they might leave your gaming group for one which respects their likings
Oops...my post was meant as sarcasm...
I keep forgetting to put [sarcasm] ...... [/sarcasm]
ups sorry didn't noticed :P
|
|
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.)
the msot i have done is to tell them: here are the new rules (Arcana Evolved) you can from between this clases (60%)... but you can only be human (yeah i got complains) but since it was an experiment in an evolving campaign when other player joined or if they changed their character i let them do from the races and "new" classes theywere discovering
they had fun, but the campaign ended for reason outside game
i don't continue playing with them because they only want me to run Vampire: The masquerade and they play always the same clans and as if they were superhero with fangs...
but i decided that doean't interest me at all... aside of that i now play online :P
Some people prefer to play the same character over and over again. It is also a sort of hero worship. They are playing the perfect "me". I think you should let them, because for those people it is part of the fun of the game.
If you force these players to play another character that what they are used to play, they will probably play them the same anyway. One of my players played a CG cleric in the previous campaign, and now plays a CE wizard, but the CE wizards begins to behave more and more like the CG cleric. So much so, that other players begin to call him by the name of the previous character.
It is just how he is. He likes playing D&D and plays a decent game, so why not let him?
One player in my group plays different races and classes, but always the same character... a coward. I don't mean the character is a coward, I mean the player is a coward... in D&D!
If he starts a combat at anything less than full hit points and takes even one hit, at any level, he runs. If he has full hit points, he needs two hits to make him run.
If he is playing a spellcaster and runs out of spells, he flees. I don't mean whining about resting, I mean run away and hides till the next day.
He once made a grapple based fighter with spiked armor and all these cool grappling feats, but never fought up close. He kept using his bow, for which he had no feats, so he could stay away at range.
-Jack
jajajajajajajaja
well i suppose he isso escared that his characters would die that he just prefer not to use them
one lil question, what is the mortality rate inyour campaign (they may or may not be related)
Our mortality rate is the same or even less frequent than any other games I'm aware of. This guy also built his own server for some online game, I don't remember which, so he could reset it if something bad happened to his character. He's just a chicken.
For years, I never had that problem at all because I ran a consistent homebrew campaign setting. If a character retired, he or she remained as an NPC. All of the players quickly saw how goofy it would be for a current character to meet a previous character... and have the two be identical.
|
|
Besides, playing the same kind of character gets to be just as fun as The Song That Doesn't End.. after a while, it's just not fun.
This is the song that doesn't end
Yes it goes on and on my friends,
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because..[repeat]
For years, I never had that problem at all because I ran a consistent homebrew campaign setting. If a character retired, he or she remained as an NPC. All of the players quickly saw how goofy it would be for a current character to meet a previous character... and have the two be identical.
And yet there are still folks who, if Bob the halfling rogue dies, create a new character called Bobb the halfling rogue (with the same background). And there's not really any problem with that, as long as the people you're playing with aren't too hung up on a realistic campaign world. It seems a bit weird to me, though.
And yet there are still folks who, if Bob the halfling rogue dies, create a new character called Bobb the halfling rogue (with the same background).
I'd rule that, since Bobb is a clone of Bob, then Bobb is a clone of Bob created for purposes that suit the DM. And I can come up with some pretty sinister purposes...
And yet there are still folks who, if Bob the halfling rogue dies, create a new character called Bobb the halfling rogue (with the same background).I'd rule that, since Bobb is a clone of Bob, then Bobb is a clone of Bob created for purposes that suit the DM. And I can come up with some pretty sinister purposes...
At which point Bobb walks off of a cliff and Bobbb the ever-so-slightly-different halfling rogue comes by to take his place. ;-)
|
|
I like nominating 6 classes that are viable for the campaign and then have the players pick out of a hat. I pre create 6 story lines or histories that can draw the players into a party situation and the players then draw one of those each out of the hat. After they have their choices, one back ground and on class they can all trade once, either their class or their background. Each person can only trade once. It works out quite well. The background is not their entire history so the players can fill in their back story as much as they want. Some players do and other who rarely do an in depth back story love that I have something for them to work off.
The players roll their stats before the trade starts so the choices make more sense and if 2 people want to be the paladin there is a good chance the one with the better stats is going to get that class. If the stats don't match the players class he pulled then a trade is automatic, but what are the choices left for those that want to keep their class or want to trade.
I guess you could always trade stats but that hasn't come up yet.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I tend towards the spellcasting classes, but it's hardly to the exclusion of all others. I've been known to play rogues, fighters, and the occassional ranger or paladin. Even a barbarian once in a great while. Most of my group shares my love of diversity and many of us want to fully explore the game's potential. I do have one player, however, who almost always plays a barbarian or a cleric and always, always plays humans. We sometimes give him grief about it, but we acknowledge that that's just his "thing" and let him run with it. Besides, every party could use a barbarian or a cleric, right? It just means that we've got one less "slot" to worry about when making our own characters. :)
To his credit, I recently got him to try out an elven duskblade. He said he enjoyed it. Maybe I'll start a trend.
My wife, on the other hand, is the queen of recycling. She has about 4 characters which she remakes constantly, regardless of which setting we're playing in. A couple years ago, we finally got her in a sci-fi game where none of her previous concepts were applicable, so she created a new persona (which has since been recycled in every sci-fi chronicle since).
|
|
I DM currently, but I am definitely the type that when I do play, it's always something different. I have a "favorite" class that I enjoy most, and it's the rogue, but I'm certainly comfortable in any other class.
My last half dozen or so characters run like this:
Centaur Barbarian
Halfling Rogue
Human Bard
Human Sorceror
Elven Druid
Half-Elven Arcane Trickster
Now, having said that, I totally understand the guys who play the same thing every time. One of the guys in my group currently doesn't like messing with all the spell stuff, so he won't play anything with casting. We got him to play a Druid once, just to shake it up (and because the party needed a divine caster) and he didn't enjoy it, despite being probably the most powerful character in the party.
For some it's like that - they just don't want the hassle of learning a new class and its abilities. Some want to keep trying until they build the "perfect" build for a given class. "The last guy shouldn't have taken 3 levels of X class and Y feat, he would have been much nastier if I had given him Z." Others just relish the role - for some guys there's no greater thrill than throwing a maximized chain lightning spell, and any class that can't do that just won't cut it. Others wouldn't be having any fun if they weren't making constant Move Silently checks. Other people really like playing the flirtatious face man (or woman) of the party, so anything with a low charisma just would not be fun for them.
As others have said, about the WORST thing you can do is try to "force" somebody to break out of their shell. The "random PC" thing is fine, but if you're singling somebody out and saying "stop playing a cleric!" it's not going to be a good thing.
I couldn't confine myself to just one class, I have too many fun concepts for the other ones that would never get tried. I think the next character I want to play is probably a Kobold, maybe a monk. I've never played a Monk in 3 or 3.5 and I think I'd like it. I've never played a Kobold period, and I think it'd be fun to try out some of the Races of the Dragon stuff, plus it's always fun to play a character with the whole racial outcast thing going.
But if the guy at the other end of the table wants to make the half orc barbarian (AGAIN), why not?
My husband and I tend to play one-on-one games with multiple PCs. It's essential in such games to differentiate the PCs strongly, or you get zero roleplaying--just a sort of mass-action glop of mechanics. So a major goal in designing each party is to make every PC different from the previous ones.
I do notice, however, that if something felt unfinished either about the previous campaign in general, or a specific PC's character arc, there's a really strong temptation to recycle bits of that character in the new party. I had a very strong wizard PC in SCAP who was never really able to play out the themes the GM had set up for him. My wizard in CotCT was inexorably attracted to the same personality type, even though that was far from the original conception. Unfinished business, I guess.
I agree with the previous poster who suggested that people who always play the same archetype may be working through something associated with that archetype, and won't let it alone until it's done. I know I do that, though usually I manage to hide it better (I can tell that Catalina the struggling sociology student and Markus the pirate medic are in some sense the same archetype--"seduced by fire"--but I doubt anyone else can tell.)
A lot of the responses on this thread, though, suggest that plain old rules anxiety also gets into it for some players. A suggestion for that: play some easy scenarios! If you get into the mindset "Everyone has to do a really good job or we all die" it can be exciting and dramatic, but for some players also intensely stressful, and they won't take risks on top of that.
Finally, I'd like to say that in 32 years of playing D&D, I have never seen in-game retaliatory measures by the GM have any good effects. If the player has to leave, tell the player to leave: never torment the PC because you want to change something about the player. It just does not work. You're lucky if it doesn't outright backfire. (I'd be interested in hearing any stories about counterexamples: so far I haven't seen one.)
Mary