The 5 RPG Characters We Should Stop Playing

[Neal Litherland]

The whole point of RPGs is storytelling and escapism. Different players want different things out of the game. And, with enough time and thought, it's possible to get good RP out of almost any concept. However, these 5 archetypes are ones that I think we can agree aren't ones that a lot of players (and particularly players new to RPGs in general) can pull off.

What experiences have you had with The 5 RPG Characters We Should Stop Playing? Namely:

- The Racist
- The Joke
- The Mute
- The Hedonist
- The Misanthrope

[Oddman80]

I've played the racist before... but it was more just a sour-faced Halfling Barbarian trying to compensate for his size. He didn't believe any of the vile things he would say - it was a coping mechanism... I don't think anyone at the table thought the character was underdeveloped. In fact he earned quite a number of fans, and people were sad when i chose to retire him after he completed a mission to rescue his childhood love interest from not only her capture, but an abusive relationship she had been in with a halfling bard...

As for the other character types, i have had to deal with all of them as a DM. WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP TAKING VOW OF SILENCE?!?!?!?!

The biggest problem i have with "The Joke" is that the players rarely commit to whether or not the character ACTUALLY did that silly thing they said, until after they see the initial response form the DM (i.e., me). I am not opposed to silliness at the table or making jokes - but when half the time the character ACTUALLY does the unbelievably idiotic things, it seems like you are BS'ing me if you say "I was just joking -He doesn't REALLY do that" when start describing the ramifications f the actions.

My concern everytime a player comes in with a clear cut misanthrope, is that this is going to end in PVP... sigh....

[Kullen]

Neal Litherland wrote:

The 5 RPG Characters We Should Stop Playing?

Stop having fun wrong!

[knightnday]

I've had a great deal of experience with the Racist aspect of characters, primarily with Shadowrun. What I've found is that people were actively against being racist -- we've been programmed in society to at least try not to appear racist, so much to the point that 9 out of 10 characters would react negatively at any perceived racism. This was a game with hundreds of people playing, mind, and most were just unwilling to be overtly racist, or were so subtle in it that you couldn't tell.

The main takeaway with any of these types of characters and others mentioned is probably to talk to the others at the table and let them know what you are doing and ask them to let you know if you go too far. Everyone wants to play to have a good time, and even if your good time is being the Jokester and hammering in that joke, others may just want to strangle you. Some moderation should be practiced regardless of what character traits you try.

[The Joke]

Nobody gets The Joke. :-(

[HyperMissingno]

You're not clickbaiting hard enough. It's The 5 RPG Characters YOU Need To Stop Playing! Seriously, how can you clickbait without caps lock?

Seriously though, a better title would have been The 5 RPG Characters We Do Poorly. Also there's no true mute character unless they also have no hands and at that point they are unplayable. Either grab a chalkboard or sign language and you can communicate in limited fashion, and you still have body language and expressions.

[Ventnor]

I think that, at the very least, Mute characters can be pretty viable in play-by-post games.

[Lamontius]

jason bulmahn hates them
this one weird trick with armor spikes will change your life

click here

[DualJay]

HyperMissingno wrote:

Also there's no true mute character unless they also have no hands and at that point they are unplayable.

Just be a synthesist and have your eidolon have hands for you.

[N. Jolly]

Neal Litherland wrote:

- The Racist

- The Joke
- The Mute
- The Hedonist
- The Misanthrope

First of all, this sounds like the worst Cobra unit ever.

Second, your description of the racist includes enough references to misogyny there where the title doesn't even really make sense for the character archetype you're attempting to chastise. I'd also state there's a very real line between hating a fantasy group that in itself is a stereotype (elves/dwarves/halfings/etc) and actual races, which this piece seems to gloss over. Sure if you're playing shadowrun or something that has the possibility of dealing with different real world races (or you're playing a fantasy game that's primarily human with strong corollary races to real world ones), this is important, but there needs to be more of a distinction here.

The joke I agree with, it goes into my table rule of comedy (if something isn't funny after the second time it's done/mentioned, don't base a character around it.)

Didn't know people actually tried to play mute (it's a terrible oracle curse...)

I can agree with the hedonist and misanthrope too. Really, it's just a matter of playing someone who'll work with a group.

HyperMissingno wrote:

Also there's no true mute character unless they also have no hands and at that point they are unplayable. Either grab a chalkboard or sign language and you can communicate in limited fashion, and you still have body language and expressions.

Might I direct you to the cinematic powerhouse that is Canhands from Deafula.

[Lamontius]

just add The Baroness and it becomes the best Cobra unit ever

[Neal Litherland]

Kullen wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The 5 RPG Characters We Should Stop Playing?

Stop having fun wrong!

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

You decide you want an orc-hating dwarf, who views all persons descended from orc blood with a blind, atavistic hatred. You're so caught up in this character flaw, that you don't bother to check and see that two other members of the party are half-orcs.

The responsible thing to do, at this point, is to either keep the prejudicial attitude, but tone it down when people can see and hear you, and slowly overcome it as part of a character arc. One should also recognize possible friction in the game based on character choices, and talk to the DM, and any other players caught in the crosshairs, to be sure that YOUR fun isn't going to come at their expense. Especially because, while you might have a very well thought-out concept, if the character refuses to work as part of a team, they're likely to get kicked out of the adventuring party.

That same statement is true for pretty much all 5 archetypes mentioned. The behavior, when played to the point that it impacts other people's fun and the game overall, should lead to the PC being left behind while the others move on to actually complete the quests in question.

[Neal Litherland]

N. Jolly wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

- The Racist
- The Joke
- The Mute
- The Hedonist
- The Misanthrope

First of all, this sounds like the worst Cobra unit ever.

Second, your description of the racist includes enough references to misogyny there where the title doesn't even really make sense for the character archetype you're attempting to chastise. I'd also state there's a very real line between hating a fantasy group that in itself is a stereotype (elves/dwarves/halfings/etc) and actual races, which this piece seems to gloss over. Sure if you're playing shadowrun or something that has the possibility of dealing with different real world races (or you're playing a fantasy game that's primarily human with strong corollary races to real world ones), this is important, but there needs to be more of a distinction here.

The joke I agree with, it goes into my table rule of comedy (if something isn't funny after the second time it's done/mentioned, don't base a character around it.)

Didn't know people actually tried to play mute (it's a terrible oracle curse...)

I can agree with the hedonist and misanthrope too. Really, it's just a matter of playing someone who'll work with a group.

HyperMissingno wrote:

Also there's no true mute character unless they also have no hands and at that point they are unplayable. Either grab a chalkboard or sign language and you can communicate in limited fashion, and you still have body language and expressions.

Might I direct you to the cinematic powerhouse that is Canhands from Deafula.

Regarding "The Racist" it was the easiest, simplest method of communicating "The Unnecessarily Prejudiced Character". It expands to any form of prejudice that will impact the game, whether it's sniffing contempt for humans from the aasimar, a condemnation of sexual choices from the cleric, etc., etc.

That character often ends up being a lampoon, played to the point that the hatred and bias is cartoonish rather than genuine. Worse, it often comes from lazy sources like, "my parents were killed in an orc raid." Depth of character, and character growth, are key to making problematic traits actually work.

[Lincoln Hills]

Neal Litherland wrote:

...What experiences have you had with... The Racist, The Joke, The Mute, The Hedonist, The Misanthrope...

Most players I've met who run a dwarf have fallen into the Bigot (as I suppose we should call the Racist, to make it clearer) or the Misanthrope character patterns. It's a simple behavior pattern, and has a long history dating right back to the dwarfs of Scandinavian myth. Come to think of it, a lot of elf characters fall under Bigot as well. I'd agree that it never really makes the characters seem interesting - just narrow minded.

The Joke characters - I think every player passes through this phase, but a sad few stick there. These people are toxic at the table. They're only happy when they're the center of attention, and since their characters are neither realistic nor interesting, the other players aren't really interested in being sidekicks for the whole campaign.

Thankfully, most players start playing a Mute thinking it'll be interesting, and eventually give up in disgust and decide that the character just hadn't said anything yet.

The Hedonist isn't much of a problem for other players, but he's frustrating to GM for. All he wants to do is indulge himself in whatever pleasures are available. Which doesn't make for interesting role-play: "You're still on your feather bed, being fed chocolate by damsels. Meanwhile the rest of the group is in the dungeon..." The one good thing about a Hedonist (from a GM's standpoint, anyway) is that they're suckers for traps that other people wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

[Kullen]

Neal Litherland wrote:

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

[Kalindlara]

Kullen wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

I read it as more of a 101. Sure, we all know*, but newer players who don't know any better might need a more thorough approach. ^_^

*I actually had a great experience playing a Mute in a Gurps game way-back-when.

[knightnday]

Kalindlara wrote:

Kullen wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

I read it as more of a 101. Sure, we all know*, but newer players who don't know any better might need a more thorough approach. ^_^

*I actually had a great experience playing a Mute in a Gurps game way-back-when.

I remember after the movie Heavy Metal everyone wanted to be a mute like Taarna. It didn't always work as well as they thought it would, but it made the table a little quieter. ;)

[Kalindlara]

knightnday wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Kullen wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

I read it as more of a 101. Sure, we all know*, but newer players who don't know any better might need a more thorough approach. ^_^

*I actually had a great experience playing a Mute in a Gurps game way-back-when.

I remember after the movie Heavy Metal everyone wanted to be a mute like Taarna. It didn't always work as well as they thought it would, but it made the table a little quieter. ;)

I just did a lot of vigorous gesticulating. :D

[Scavion]

Neal! Almost half your posts are thread starters!

Obviously having a racist character is less good to have if the object of that racism includes your party members...

Of course that could always just lead to..."Yeah you're okay for an orc but I wish the rest of your kind would drop dead!

[Kalindlara]

Scavion wrote:

Of course that could always just lead to..."Yeah you're okay for an orc but I wish the rest of your kind would drop dead!

"No, no, it's OK... he's one of the good ones." :/

[quibblemuch]

Kalindlara wrote:

I just did a lot of vigorous gesticulating. :D

People who've gamed with me for any amount of time will attest that I also do this, whether my character is mute or no. And they would prefer I stop. But gesticulaters gotta gesticulate. Even if it looks like I'm air-throttling a honey badger while dusting the top shelves with an animated Swiffer.

[Valantrix1]

I've essentially played all of these character archetypes rolled all in one. It was one of the funnest characters I ever played. Everyone I played with still talks about "Gar".

[Arctic Sphinx]

The Misanthrope resulted in some really irritating things in campaigns I've been in, so I'm inclined to agree that at least that one has to go.

[Gilarius]

I've played an almost mute...but it wasn't the character, I'd lost my voice (completely for a year; it still isn't good enough to GM after 4 years).

I had a series of pieces of paper to hold up declaring my actions/what my character was saying.

And I do like to play an occasional silly character. My "Gnome Ranger" got vetoed before I'd got beyond those 2 words. My smelly elven witch was forcibly washed by the party paladin before being allowed to join. There have been others...but they did have to be effective characters beyond just being something silly.

We currently have a Hedonist in our group; however, he is a very effective, reliable character when not 'off-duty'.

It's all a matter of proportion and playing as a team.

[Milo v3]

What do people think about characters who do the opposite of "racist" where the player makes a character everyone is going to discriminate against?

[Kalindlara]

Milo v3 wrote:

What do people think about characters who do the opposite of "racist" where the player makes a character everyone is going to discriminate against?

I love tieflings for this reason. Drow, too, although I'm more careful with that one (for obvious reasons).

[Duncan7291]

Just to be silly, can I make a racist, mute Misanthrope? Hmm can you be a misanthrope and a racist? Wouldn't they just hate everyone equally?

[Ventnor]

Duncan7291 wrote:

Just to be silly, can I make a racist, mute Misanthrope? Hmm can you be a misanthrope and a racist? Wouldn't they just hate everyone equally?

Some objects of the character's hatred are more equal than others.

[Mekura]

This may admittedly be a click bait thread, but I actually think there's alot of substance to the question of what sorts of characters tend to go wrong. I think a better title would be, what kind of characters do people tend to crash and burn at?

In response to each-

I've never had any issues with the Racist, whether it was me playing it or someone else. This one is the one I think is the most easily achieved without negative consequences, but could definitely be awkward in the right group. The part people have to keep in mind is not to let the characters adverse preferences or looking down of a specific sort cause the downfall of the group, unless every is perfectly okay with. As someone whose played the haughty, racist/sexist/classist character with a great deal of joy, its all about moderation.

The Joke is one I completely get. There's alot of hilarious concepts you can have, but its hard to avoid the one trick pony result. Partially its due to the nature of humor being subjective. I think the best way to go with this isn't necessarily having this funny element of your character be only a small part, but let it be something that evolves or escalates, something that can provide character development.

The mute is an interesting one. Vow of Silence esque characters can be a mechanically way to just avoid RPing. But I actually think the best way to make this one is actually to talk MORE in your games. How so? Well, go into great detail describing your characters nonverbal actions, making a big point of how they write things down or sign language them out, or perhaps if magically inclined use prestidigitation to conjure icons of what they mean to say. I think this could be a fun way to provide an interesting sort of character, but only if you go out of your way to find a fun way to communicate without your character speaking- Not YOU not speaking.

The Hedonist is another one that I haven't seen go wrong too much. Just find way to make your passions, pleasures, or joys be connected or dependent on the main plot. Got a drug addict? Make it so his fix only comes as a reward for saving the day. Got a woo-them-all bard? Make the object of their wants manipulate THEM back, flirting into aid. Have an impulsive character who does bad ideas? Make them reroll. That's all I got. Though, really, its probably an issue with the player, not the character.

The misanthrope. Yeah. Ouch. I've been on the burn from this one. Its fun to play the snarker, the hater, the downer, the anti-social, because its cool cliche, to be the skeptic and the opposite and the devils advocate and the lackluster. But. YOU NEED. To FIND. A WAY. TO KEEP HIM INVOLVED WITH THE PARTY. Like with the mute, you either need one of the party members or a cause of theirs to be an exception to their normal negativity, or you need to work with your party to have your character dethaw gradually. But no, this one is the hardest, because its so tempting. Ultimately, I have to agree, a character who interested in dealing with others is generally a bad idea for a RP game.

[knightnday]

Mekura wrote:

The Hedonist is another one that I haven't seen go wrong too much. Just find way to make your passions, pleasures, or joys be connected or dependent on the main plot. Got a drug addict? Make it so his fix only comes as a reward for saving the day. Got a woo-them-all bard? Make the object of their wants manipulate THEM back, flirting into aid. Have an impulsive character who does bad ideas? Make them reroll. That's all I got. Though, really, its probably an issue with the player, not the character.

I've had this happen in the past. A one-off comment about how my character slept around turned into a major plot point; turned out I had a different kid in every port, so to speak, including several that were very unhappy with me. Made for some interesting RP and twists.

[Kalindlara]

knightnday wrote:

Mekura wrote:

The Hedonist is another one that I haven't seen go wrong too much. Just find way to make your passions, pleasures, or joys be connected or dependent on the main plot. Got a drug addict? Make it so his fix only comes as a reward for saving the day. Got a woo-them-all bard? Make the object of their wants manipulate THEM back, flirting into aid. Have an impulsive character who does bad ideas? Make them reroll. That's all I got. Though, really, its probably an issue with the player, not the character.

I've had this happen in the past. A one-off comment about how my character slept around turned into a major plot point; turned out I had a different kid in every port, so to speak, including several that were very unhappy with me. Made for some interesting RP and twists.

The Urgathoan in one of my campaigns is a big time hedonist... and as a dhampir, he's old enough that his many indiscretions have had time to grow and become trouble themselves.

Imagine what they'll all do when they find their father is the heir to a nation's throne...

Game of Thrones theme plays

[Alzrius]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Most players I've met who run a dwarf have fallen into the Bigot (as I suppose we should call the Racist, to make it clearer) or the Misanthrope character patterns.

I had a lot of fun playing a bigoted dwarf a few campaigns back. I'd decided to give him a German accent, rather than the standard Scottish one, and one of the players made a crack about his being a Nazi. I decided to run with it, having him complain about how "ze gnomes" were coming in and taking everyone's jobs, and because of that the standard of living was low (illustrated by holding his arm out, palm facing the ground, fingers together), and we needed to raise it heil-, er, high (raising his arm straight from the shoulder).

If only I'd been able to find stats for a wheelchair, I'd have had Dwarven Strangelove.

Milo v3 wrote:

What do people think about characters who do the opposite of "racist" where the player makes a character everyone is going to discriminate against?

I like to combine that with giving said character a massive racial superiority complex. I call it "the master race-baiter."

[Neal Litherland]

Milo v3 wrote:

What do people think about characters who do the opposite of "racist" where the player makes a character everyone is going to discriminate against?

That depends on if the players knows, going in, they're going to be discriminated against.

If you've been told that characters of a certain race aren't treated well in a given area (whether that's half-orcs in Lastwall, geniekin in parts of Quadira, or tieflings in a place like Mendev or Cheliax), then you've been warned there will be adversity to deal with.

Players who can take that, and run with it to create a unique character are awesome. Players who nod, but expect THEIR character to be treated differently because their character is a PC get annoying. Randomly springing social class or unwanted burdens on a player with no warning isn't usually cool, but someone who throws a tantrum because they don't get any respect when they were out-and-out told that was going to happen is a frustrating person to share a table with.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Apparently, I'm the odd person out, because I found this blog surprisingly interesting. People accusing it of claiming "wrongbadfun" didn't read it all the way through. It's not telling people, "Don't play this." It's warning them, "This can be really hard, so be extremely careful and consider these tips on how to improve gameplay with it."

Except for The Misanthrope, but there really are very few ways to play someone who doesn't want to be in the party without disrupting things and forcing other PCs to bend around you. I have no problem with the blog basically saying, "Don't play The Misanthrope."

I'm glad I read this.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I now want to run a PbP featuring one PC for each category, though. Maybe allot the roles secretly so nobody knows which categories the other PCs fit in at first.

[N. Jolly]

Honestly despite my criticism, I didn't actually dislike this article either. Aside from the naming issues of the racist (someone above me proposed 'the bigot'), it was actually a pretty nicely done article in the vein of some of the 3.5 GM books that explained problem player types. So yeah, I'd recommend this article.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Neal Litherland wrote:

The responsible thing to do, at this point, is to either keep the prejudicial attitude, but tone it down when people can see and hear you, and slowly overcome it as part of a character arc. One should also recognize possible friction in the game based on character choices, and talk to the DM, and any other players caught in the crosshairs, to be sure that YOUR fun isn't going to come at their expense. Especially because, while you might have a very well thought-out concept, if the character refuses to work as part of a team, they're likely to get kicked out of the adventuring party.

It helps if your character doesn't see themself as racist. A Chelaxian who sees halflings as lesser beings might still treat them with what they regard as total civility, and might learn to avoid "problematic" language like "slip". That's how I play my racist shapeshifter. She's sort of a parody of That Guy—she doesn't see anything wrong with making halfling jokes, but at least avoids making them because she doesn't want to piss off her halfling teammate.

Also, she totally uses that halfling teammate as a "my best friend is a halfling!" shield.

She's getting better, though.

[Odraude]

Kullen wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

You'd be surprised honestly. Some of the consistently bad players I've come across have unfortunately been Old School Grognards.

The Racist actually brings up a broader issue I see in RPGs. It's when players pick a character flaw that seems like it'd be interesting, but becomes extreme and nigh cartoonish, to the point of parody. Like a character that's greedy is more like Scrooge McDuck than a more human feeling greedy person.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Yeah, I've seen a lot of these—even tried to play one or two, with varying levels of failure.

[Atarlost]

I would tend to worry about anyone not playing a racist. Have you read the Pathfinder bestiary?

Quote:

Although related to the elves, the drow are a vile and evil cousin at best. Sometimes called dark elves, these cunning creatures prowl the caves and tunnels of the world below, ruling vast subterranean cities through fear and might. Worshiping demons and enslaving most races they encounter, the drow are among the underworld's most feared and hated denizens.

Quote:

Thought by some to be invaders from another dimension or planet, the sinister intellect devourers are certainly one of the world's cruelest races. Incapable of experiencing emotions or wallowing in the sins of physical pleasure on their own, intellect devourers are forced to steal bodies in order to indulge their gluttony, lust, and cruelty.

Quote:

Ogre games are violent and cruel, and victims they use for entertainment are lucky if they die the first day. Ogres' cruel senses of humor are the only way their crude minds show any spark of creativity, and the tools and methods of torture ogres devise are always nightmarish.

And these are examples that don't have the evil subtype.

Truly, Golarion is a world of love and tolerance.

[Chengar Qordath]

Odraude wrote:

Kullen wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

You'd be surprised honestly. Some of the consistently bad players I've come across have unfortunately been Old School Grognards.

The Racist actually brings up a broader issue I see in RPGs. It's when players pick a character flaw that seems like it'd be interesting, but becomes extreme and nigh cartoonish, to the point of parody. Like a character that's greedy is more like Scrooge McDuck than a more human feeling greedy person.

I think most people who've played enough roleplaying games have done something like that at some point; that fun, slightly off-the-wall character concept that you thought would be really unique and interesting, but wound up just annoying everyone at the table. The good players are the ones who realize that and change things up.

[Matthew Downie]

Atarlost wrote:

I would tend to worry about anyone not playing a racist. Have you read the Pathfinder bestiary?

Never judge a dragon by the color of its skin!

[DM_Kumo Gekkou]

I have somewhat played the "racist". Mostly a grumpy Halfling living in Cheliax during council of thieves. He got very angry when he found out the Mayor of Westcrown used only human servants. Mostly angry that if you're going to hold a whole race as slaves, you should at least have the decency to use them as your servants.

[Kahel Stormbender]

I've played a mute racist dwarf. He absolutely hated elves with a burning passion. But he had a good reason to hate elves. Drow had wiped out his entire clan, cut out his tongue, then sold him into slavery. Problem: this was a 2nd edition game and the attack happened at night. Infra vision is NOT the same thing as dark vision. All he knew was that elves killed his people, cut out his tongue, and sold him into slavery. Not what kind of elves they were. He'd grudgingly work with half elves, but viewed them with suspicion. The group loved him. He was a quirky character that brought a lot of tense roleplaying. Especially the time we'd had to visit an Elvin village.

I've also played a few hedonists. But when I play one, I sit down and flesh out a full backstory. Why are they like this? What are their motivations? How will they support the party? Is there a way I can roleplay the personality while still being effective?

One example is seducing the trusted lieutenant of the BBEG (that's big bad end guy) to get the information we need instead of us being forced into a fight where we're at a disadvantage. Or using the mage hand spell in... uhm... creative ways to prevent an enemy spellcaster from concentrating enough to cast.

[Balgin]

Milo v3 wrote:

What do people think about characters who do the opposite of "racist" where the player makes a character everyone is going to discriminate against?

Unfortunately it never seems to work. Players just become very bland and accepting because it's another player character and lazy gm's (not all gm's, just the lazy ones) will forget to have npc's react appropriately. Even good gm's will get tired of trotting out the same uninformed ignorant npc reactions time and time again just because these new npc's haven't met you before and are likely to make the same mistake the last ones did.

Ironically this is partly your fault. By creating a "problem character" you are making more work for the gm to do for the sake of versimilitude and believability. I once set out to create a particular character designed to battle a particular social prejudice. The social prejudice did not materialise because for the various reasons I have detailed above and the character suddenly had very little reason to exist. The social prejudice they were designed to overcome simply did not exist because the gm and players couldn't be bothered to envision a society outside of a very bland generic "2nd edition" mindset. We weren't playing 2nd ed at the time but that would be around the time when this bland/generic "society" view seemed to come into existence. It didn't seem to be as much of a problem in 1st ed.

[Balgin]

Unrelated to my above post:

I once played a Dwarf from "another world." Clearly everyone he encountered was trying to trick him - speaking in made up languages and pretending they expected him to understand them and respond in kind. Well he would not fall for this nonsense! In fact, he refused to speak to anyone unless they could address him in a language he recognised from his homeland. Most of the time people thought him to be mute.

This proved to be quite amusing as he was also a travelling smith. He would trade with facial expressions and sign language. Numbers were fun. They often involved scratching tallies in the dirt with a spare crossbow bolt or something similar. He became quite popular for his creative use of various forms of non verbal communication.

Not something I'd recommend people do often 'though. It can be quite draining creatively.

[RDM42]

The misanthrope who hates people save those he shares life and death with - the other party members. Surly, bitter and misanthropic save for them to which he is intensely loyal. They've earned it.

[EldonG]

I wish people would more understand the racism of my world. Only in a pc party do the races get along so well. :P

[Saldiven]

Kullen wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

And some of "us" on these forums have been playing for a few months. The article might not have been directed at you, so you shouldn't take it so personally.

Odraude wrote:

Kullen wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

You'd be surprised honestly. Some of the consistently bad players I've come across have unfortunately been Old School Grognards.

This is very true. I've been playing D&D since 1976. My current group consists of some people I've played with for almost 20 years. Some of them are the exact same, one-note role-players they've been since they first picked up the game. I don't mind because they're my friends, but every character is pretty much exactly the same as the one they've always played.

Being a long time player of role-playing games is not the equivalent of being a good role-player.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Odraude wrote:

Like a character that's greedy is more like Scrooge McDuck than a more human feeling greedy person.

The tragedy being Scrooge is a nice person at heart who will choose his family and friends over greed.

I've now fallen in to playing joke characters since being serious causes me too much stress. I haven't had anyone complain, probably because I say "Feel free to say you stop me" and try to act narrative/gamist rather than simulationist.

That's kind of where I feel so many concepts fall down: players play something like a misanthrope like it would actually happen (refuse to associate with the party). Whereas narratively/gamistly the misanthrope is required to stay with and help the party, so the player should be coming up with meta-game reasons for the misanthrope to do what's needed and only occasionally reminding everyone they don't want to.