|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never do that. That is so boring.
I do have a player who used to do that until we forced him to play something else (for our sakes), now he never wants to play the same character ever again.
Watching the same half-elf rogue with the same name, who craves gems, in every single game gets so old.
In Pathfinder, I play humans probably 9 times out of ten. Thinking back over my last 10 PCs, only one was non-human (gnome). I tend to split male/female about 50/50.
I have a slight preference for full spellcasters over noncasters, and noncasters over partial casters.
IIRC, the last 10 PCs I've run were...
(current)
Female gnome sorcerer
Female human witch (cartomancer)
Female human sorcerer
Male human wizard (necromancer)
(previous)
Male human rogue
Male human bard
Female human cleric of Desna (hidden priest)
Male human fighter (3.5)
Female human sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster (3.5)
Male human fighter/wizard/eldritch knight (3.5)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to change it up all the time. Back when I played with my sister and her husband, my sister would nearly exclusively play elves. I think she only had a single non-elf character, and that was back in 2nd edition AD&D, with a human fighter. Her husband plays mostly humans, though he has played others.
Had a friend at the beginning of 3rd edition would play only half-orcs. Of course, he was built like a half-orc and kinda had the personality of an orc. He once played a halfling rogue as a half-orc fighter.
Myself, I usually go for the martial types based on Strength for classes. I don't play the small races such as halfling and gnome. If restricted to the core races only, I go for the dwarf or half-orc, and sometimes will go for a half-elf. If I go with a spellcaster, my spells are typically evocation, transmutation, or abjuration based. Divine casters have healing spells available in addition. I tried a transmutation wizard before, but every single character having a +stat belt or headband invalidated the buff spells.
I have played many classes, and a number of races. Their personalities might all start out the game (shy if I don't already know the people I play with, which is all the time due to only being able to play online and each time it is with different people), but if the game lasts long enough then the personality starts to come into its own.
I agree with RDM42 on the statement he made that had you create this thread.
|
In my 30+ years of gaming, I have mostly sat behind the DM's/GM's screen running campaigns. But the times that I have had the opportunity to sit on the other side of the screen and play, I tend to play half-elven rangers or thieves. That being said, I do enjoy playing other classes and races, and will willingly make a character based upon any restrictions that a campaign may have.
Since third edition i've played mostly humans, but bear in mind most of what i've played was on some kind of track to not being human anymore or had a selection of feats that I stated made the character a half-breed or something else. The Otherworldly feat from FR was quite handy for this.
I used to almost exclusively play elves in 2nd edition. Then in 3.x I started going wild and trying anything the more unusual the better... well nothing ugly, I normally refuse to play an ugly race. I remember my first 3e GM gave me a ultimatum early on banning elves from play. But I quickly fell in love with humans and later on all those wonderful monster options. It's silly to get SO attached to one race or class that you CAN'T play anything else.
Nope. I like variety. Granted, I'll play humans more often than other races, but humans allow for a great variety in personality type, so characters still end up distinct and memorable.
I have played with people back in the day who were like Bob from Knights of the Dinner Table, with their own personal version of "Knuckles the XVI," same class and race as the last fifteen characters who had died before.
I cant remember the last time I didnt play a human. I've never really been drawn to wierd races.
Human fighter are my go to PCs. I love fighters and Humans are by far my favorite race. I've played a few other martial characters, but I haven't play anything but a Human in years, maybe over a decade now.
Back when I played 3.5, I only played full BAB classes, and only as a human or elf. This was not deviated from unless we were gestalts, in which case I still always had full BAB for one class. I never played non-European characters. I was always Chaotic Good.
In Pathfinder I've relaxed from these norms, though I generally only get to theorycraft, not play. I do have something of a penchant for Paladins, though, but I like to find interesting ways not to conform to the stereotypes about them. I usually am Lawful Good or don't use alignment, but I do write up Neutral Good characters or very occasionally do Evil. I never touch LN, CN, or TN. I write up a fair number of Asian characters now.
I always play humans (in any ruleset) and usually play fighters. Having said that, if the DM decided it was "elf only" or somesuch, it wouldnt really bother me.
|
I do have favorites. And yet I rarely play just the favorites. To me it would get boring to just play one class and one race after a time. And yet I do have concepts that I play more often than others. It's just nice to take a break from things I am overly familiar with to try new concepts.
But since the game is about having fun; as long as what you're doing isn't disruptive of everybody elses' fun have at it. If it is, well, there are always other groups. Find one that is cool with your concept.
Magi, but only because I keep coming up with fun ideas for playing them that AREN'T the usual dervish dance nonsense.
I don't really pick only one race or class to play but if I had to pick my most played race would be Dwarf and most played class would be Rogue.
I don't always play them, but I have an affinity for aasimars. I just like the concept of them......plus it's an excuse for my character to have white hair. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... So given these answers, why are some people so philosophically opposed to the idea that certain options might not be on the table in certain games? That not everything will always be available, and that sometimes the answer is just 'no'? If one race or class, or race class combination is not necessary for your fun ... Why is it a problem to just pick something that you can have fun with within the four walls outlined by the setting? Why is it a problem to paint your original picture with the color pallet given to you by the setting?
I tend to shy away from games where the 'theme' controls your choices. As a person who plays mostly humans, if a GM said he wanted to run a campaign where the theme was everyone was a dwarf or everyone was an elf, I'd tell him I'd wait for the next game.
When 'theme' stomps on player agency before the campaign even starts, it worries me. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't tell him he can't run his game... I'd just probably sit out of it unless I felt like being in a campaign with a character I didn't care too much about. If I care about my character I tend to get more involved with the campaign and thats better for the campaign, the story, the setting, the group, and the gm. YMMV.
Four out of my last five characters have been human. But I think I've been a different class almost each time (3.5 bard, 3.5 sorcerer/fighter/dragon disciple, fighter, bard (archivist), warpriest of Sarenrae).
I don't feel tied down to humans, but they are the primary inhabitants of the game worlds I've played in so they were the best choice thematically and logically.
Depends on the DM, and circumstances.
When I submitted a character for Mundane's underwater campaign, for example, she responded by sending a player's guide with all different races from the one I'd picked. She said, "Yours isn't on the list, but it doesn't seem like it's at all problematic, either, so you can keep it if you want."
I replied: "I appreciate it! But it'll be no problem to switch to one of these."
So that's what I did. She was willing to work with me, so I worked with her, and felt good about doing so.
Contrast to the following, when I was asked to join a different campaign previously, by a different DM:
Me: "I'm all excited to play a monk."
DM: "They do not exist."
Me: "Oh. Ummm... would you allow an assassin?"
DM: "Technically anyone is an assassin if they profit from killing somone..."
Me: "No, I mean the class." [this was an AD&D campaign]
DM: "Absolutely not. That doesn't fit my idea of fantasy."
Me: [Seeing how this is going] "That's okay, I may be too busy coming up anyway. Thanks for the interest."
Nope. I have a slight gravitation toward spontaneous CHA-based casters or Paladins or Paladin-like classes (3.5's Crusader, Inquisitor, certain Oracles, etc.), but no real constant. And race I'm all over the wall in, except for refusing to play Human or Elf.
What I avoid is pretty constant, now that I think about it. No Humans and no Elves, and no Rogues or prepared casters with the exception of Magus, Witch, and the 4-level casters like Paladin.
in the case of one of mine that list of races would have gone out with the original proposal. You wouldn't make a character THEN get the player's guide.
That's always helpful -- in her defense, she may have previously included some sort of hyperspacial trail to it that I wasn't able to follow. But she still didn't yell or throw accusations; she attached a direct link. Mundane is a class DM all the way.
Contrast the second example, in which the DM just assumed that everyone knew what he thought "fantasy" included. If a player couldn't read his mind, that was obviously a disruptive player.
That said, I like humans. I'd hate to have to play a dwarf.
I usually try to do something I haven't done before, but there was a point in the mid-naughts where I kept making rogues, and kept getting disappointed with how it played out, and I'd make a different kind of rogue for the next game, and end up disappointed with that one, too. I think I made like 4 or 5 in a row.
For sure!
Anyway, I'm most often DM. I generally only invite people I like to the game. Since I invited them, I always extend a willingness to make allowances for them -- there's a reason I invite them, specifically, and it's not just for a body count.
It's a funny thing, but in my experience, the more I'm willing to make exceptions for them, the less often I end up actually being asked to do so. It's amazing, but if I say up front, "Core races only!" I'm more likely to get requests for kitsune and whatever else. If I say, "I prefer humans, but I'll work with you on anything else," I end up with a bunch of humans. I've never had the "give and inch and they take a mile" scenario that some people on the boards seem so concerned about.
|
My go-to Class used to be monks. Brawlers are also a go-to, but i play other things.
If I'm not playing a monk, gnomes are my go-to race. I just enjoy them, and the flavor of a martial gnome, which throws everyone off. But again, when appropriate or neccesary I play other things.
As a side note, as a GM I have made race or class restrictions (like Base book only) for flavor reasons, and always have the player that can't play a base race or class because they are 'too boring'. They make widely divergent characters, but refuse to use the CRB races and/or classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll confess I'm one of those, at least as far as races are concerned. With the exception of Paizo's take on Gnomes, I am pretty bored/tired of the core races.
In another thread, RDM42 asked:
I just have to wonder how many players there are out there so married to one race or class that they just can't play anything else and enjoy themselves?
I'm being completely serious - is there anyone here who always and only plays one class or one race and nothing else?
I thought it both a bit off topic and an interesting question on its own, so ... here it is.
My answer below.
Here is one of my favorite stories about a guy that plays 1 class.
story timePersonally, I usually try to play something completely different from anything else I have played recently. I actually have found myself de-optimizing a concept because I don't want to repeat a race or class that I have recently used. If race or class is the same (or even similar) I try to make everything else about them as different as I can manage.
Having said that...
Several people have been asking me for help building characters recently. I have been finding that usually the best class for what they say they want to do is an inquisitor.
So I guess I would have to say inquisitor is becoming my favorite class. But only 2 out of 17 characters I've played in PF are inquisitors.
I expect you as the player to contribute work into making it fit the campaign
When I used to adopt this kind of attitude, people were always demanding exceptions. When I started going all softball with my approach, "Oh, no problem, I'll work something out for you..." then suddely the instances dropped off dramatically. It's like people just want to see how willing you are to make exceptions for them, but don't really expect you to do it unless you give them a hard time about it.
That mindset is so utterly alien to me, Kirth. I mean, I believe you that it's how your players apparently act. I just for the life of me can't understand why.
That mindset is so utterly alien to me, Kirth. I mean, I believe you that it's how your players apparently act. I just for the life of me can't understand why.
People are programmed to reciprocate in social situations. Show that you're willing to work with someone, and they'll feel obligated to work with you in return. (The closer the people are as friends, the stronger the urge for reciprocation, so if you're grabbing people off the street, this may not apply at all.) Start off with a no-negotation stance, and people will meet it with demands of their own.
NOTE: I can say from experience that these generalizations do not apply to 9th graders.
I guess I'm just too much of an exception to follow. I designed my campaign world specifically to allow just about everything for the express purpose of the fact that I'm almost always the guy wanting those kinds of exceptions, who takes them (with thanks) whenever offered, and who has severe difficulty adjusting a concept to fit within a set of restrictions. The idea that if they're offered freely or easily that people will stop making use of them is utterly bizarre to me.
EDIT: Reworded. "Taking advantage" sounds like too negative of a wording for what I mean.
batting things back and forth until something we both like that fits the setting emerges.
I think that, ideally, this is what we should all be shooting for, even if the starting point/direction we take to get there is different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So ... unless options you aren't even going to play are available you aren't interested in playing? Just the concept of every single thing not being on the table prevents you from enjoying a game? Why do you want to limit yourself so much in the sorts of games you play?... So given these answers, why are some people so philosophically opposed to the idea that certain options might not be on the table in certain games? That not everything will always be available, and that sometimes the answer is just 'no'? If one race or class, or race class combination is not necessary for your fun ... Why is it a problem to just pick something that you can have fun with within the four walls outlined by the setting? Why is it a problem to paint your original picture with the color pallet given to you by the setting?I tend to shy away from games where the 'theme' controls your choices. As a person who plays mostly humans, if a GM said he wanted to run a campaign where the theme was everyone was a dwarf or everyone was an elf, I'd tell him I'd wait for the next game.
When 'theme' stomps on player agency before the campaign even starts, it worries me. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't tell him he can't run his game... I'd just probably sit out of it unless I felt like being in a campaign with a character I didn't care too much about. If I care about my character I tend to get more involved with the campaign and thats better for the campaign, the story, the setting, the group, and the gm. YMMV.
Because I have a full and fulfilling life full of activities to choose from, so when I sit down to game I want it to be my kind of game. The number of fun things I can spend my time on are not limited, so when gaming competes for my idle time, it needs to be something I personally enjoy. I say ymmv because not everyone has the luxury and there seem to be plenty of tables where 'your fun ruins my fun' seems to come up. I dont have that problem. If my fun ruins your fun, have your fun. Maybe I'll listen in. Maybe I'll go play a console... Life's full of options.
The same would be true if we were talking about class instead of race. Lets say my gm wants to run a campaign where the 'theme' is 'everyone is playing a rogue in the thieve's guild'... I hate playing rogues. I've got better things to do. I've been a tabletop gamer for 3 decades. I know what I like and what I dont. The reason you 'limit yourself so much' is because life is too short to play everything, and way too short to play something you wont enjoy. When I'm in the gm chair I have plenty of chances to play fighters and rogues and orcs and everything else under the sun, but those are all for the sake of my player's enjoyment. When I'm a player, its for the sake of my enjoyment.
I've had countless opportunities to give the gm setting/thematic control and not once in three decades has that resulted in 'wow, that turned out better than I expected' and 95% of the time turned out 'even worse than I expected'...
Plus its easy to live under such limitations when you spend nearly all of your gaming career as a gm. I might be super stoic about what I want to be as a character because i'm always the gm... The second I'm able to choose a character for myself, it's gonna be me for me. Out of 3 decades of gaming I've probably been a player less than a dozen times. So that might flavor my point of view.
I get all the 'variety and wierdness' out of my system in the gm chair. So theoretically 95+% of my gaming life is playing a world that caters to the players, and when I'm a player I expect the world to cater to me because now its my turn. I expect the gm to tell the player's story wether the gm is me or someone else. I run simulationist sandbox campaigns when I'm running the game because when its time for me to be a player instead thats also what I want to be a player in. I dont run tight narrative or tight themed campaigns because I wouldnt want to run them and I wouldnt want to play in them.