So through my years of being a player I've played with a wide amount of people and noticed a few themes with those I've played with repeatedly. I have a friend that no matter who we play they end up being really great friends. A loner sorceress and a bubbly monk, a pretending to be stupid fighter and sassy bard, an sweetheart arcanist and sarcastic assassin. Even if their personalities are quite different we always end up being best of friends by the end of our adventures.
I have another friend, who is now my boyfriend, our characters got together romantically. Even if we don't intend them to be. This could be because of our own relationship.
I just wanted to hear stories of other people's experiences of this types of situations and how they played out! I would love to hear them and how your characters became friends or even more!
Well i can describe some of the more common types of players i see:
There's always the "powerflamer" for whom the idea of chosing a base class is unnaceptable. They spend a long time outside of sessions finding obscure rules and things that they dont fully understand, then insists the rules arent sufficient for what they want to do (or in their favor). They argue with the GM over the obscure rules they have found, who is trying to keep them happy by making something up on the spot. They usually end up playing synthesist summoners, alchemists or go magus to pick up all the traits to make an ungodly shocking grasp at level one.
There's always the guy that plays a fighter or similar magicless core class, and believes he should be devoid of personality and interesting traits because he's not a magic user. This guy very rarely talks, and when asked questions give short answers that lend nothing to the roleplay. He insists he's enjoying himself, but remains stony faced.
There's always a guy that's playing a class "WITH A TWIST", usually as a sorcerer that doesnt know hes a sorcerer, a fighter that pretends to be a paladin, or a familiar with a pet person. They stick to the core classes even if a different class specifically represents what they want to do, because they feel comfortable. These are usually the driving force of role play, who know more than they let on and are generally the glue of the group.
Then there's the guy who chose bard, because he decided long ago that every party needed precisely a bard and a cleric and nothing else would do, and people rarely play bard (and he didnt want to play the cleric), he usually plays the role of chirpy little bastard that pisses off NPCs or bites off more than he can chew, but makes wonderful diplomacy checks so the party has to be ok with it. He's usually the guy roleplaings that his character is scared of combat, rarely doing more than singing in the background or stealthing.
Then theres is the guy that leaves it until the last minite to weigh in on what he wants to be, but doesnt want to play a cleric really, but the bard is his good friend that convinced him he had to do it for the good of the team. He shows visible dislike of this, but he doesnt want to cause tension, he's a good team player, but if he ever gets to play what he wants, he turns this on its head, playing a ranger or inquisitor, always as an unhelpful loner, presumably to offset playing cleric. In these cases, he can be found having "grunting" conversations with the personality devoid fighter/barbarian.
Finally, theres the guy who has overthought character concepts pouring out of his ears. In some ways he's like the powerflamer, and the two can be found discussing rules, but for very different reasons. He wants to be a special snowflake, and instead of avoiding core classes, often avoids the core races whenever possible. He becomes possessed with the idea of playing unusual, suboptimal concepts that even at level one has a list of seemingly unrealted traits and feats that piece together to tell the long story of his character's heritage and history. The unusual races he plays, which seem great on paper, stick out among the low-magic setting, and he is often made to regret his choice; unlike the powerflamer, whose more concerned with the next combat.
I am unashamedly the last one.
See I really like the last one. I'm currently playing an Aasimar bard and I'm only putting ranks into skills she used last level because she worked on improving them. While I tend to lean more towards setting up feats to make since I've enjoyed playing her a lot.
If you enjoy playing like that sometimes a low start level would be interesting. What are some of you concepts? I would love to hear them!
I am definitely SillyString's last one. If I could, I would probably just play a crazy homebrewed monster race in every single campaign my home group does. My character concepts have included playing an awakened monkey swarm and a gelatinous cube. I also have this obsession with playing constructs and undead (real undead, not frickin' dhampirs, eww), but I refrain due to not wanting to cause the GM even further headaches than I usually do.
I also tend to want to change characters all the time.
Undead can be fun to play with if the GM allows. One time I played with someone who was undead and kept it hidden from the entire group. Though he always found a way out of it when Detect Undead was used. He passed it off most the time as there must be something undead in his old bag of holding, so if they wanted they were free to go in and find it.
Well, I just think the undead creature type's traits are a bit on the overpowered side for a PC, so that's why I've been loath to play one. I may be playing a disguised skeleton in a future campaign though.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't everybody a disguised skeleton, really?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Mind.
Blown.
Um. I'm a little worried. In a little over two years of PFS, I've played (or in one case am currently building as a GM-baby) every one of Silly's types and I've got another player that I hit the always-buddies checkbox for too.
Uh oh!?!?
Lots of people showing love for non-core races. I like it.
Of course it's much better to not be any of these types of players, they're all negative in their own way. But so many of us are guilty of falling into these categories at one time or another, if you can work out which kind you are then it's a good first step to becoming a better, well rounded player. -In my opinion.
I prefer to think of us as skeletons that have not yet hatched.
Actually lol'd at that for a moment.
hmm, i played a more or less silent grippli alchemist who had a bad habit of throwing firebombs on enemies who were adjacent to the other party members, this was exacerbated by the dhampir sorc finding this so hilarious that he lent his giant bat companion/familiar thing to the frog so he could do this while flying safely out of range of their responses. He died to a fireball, the irony was lost on everyone since the same fireball managed to kill 4/5 party members and then the last one died to the wizard who cast it when she pulled out a scimitar and cut him in half.
then a clinically insane oracle who worshiped rocks. The oracle developed a reasonable hatred of slavery, of course this stemmed from his irrational hatred of chains. He hates chains in any form, but the voices in his head have steered his hatred toward the end goal of freeing slaves, they are all happy.
then a devious kitsune mesmerist (actually that one was an npc who was doing things at the pc's for a long time without them knowing who was the cause of all their annoyances). he is still running around the edges of the campaign doing secret things that may or may not affect the PC's directly. (the GM has resumed playing this guy since i decided i wanted to play an actual character in that game)
then a dwarf fighter/soldier/merc who later cracked under the weight of his ptsd (he got a level of barb out of it though). he enjoys arranging the corpses of his enemies into interesting arrangements, most often spelling out school lunch-box "i love you" napkin notes from his long dead mother
theeeen a half elf witch who is determined to "achieve greatness" in some form before his human father kicks the bucket (this has lead to some questionable choices and he may end up an evil bastard in the end). The witch has recently caught wind of the sun orchid elixir and is hell bent on procuring it for his father's use so that he will have more time to "achieve greatness" before his old man kicks it
Someone diagnose my playstyle, I can't see any patterns
One always plays his characters very recklessly (Incidentally, he's also the one with most deaths, he's also the one who gets the most butt-hurt about everything, which makes it all so much more hilarious).
I probably am closest to this guy when I play, although the "butt-hurt" bit is more me making jokes and acting offended at my character's untimely demise. I'm sure not a lot of players will share my opinion on this, but i grew up on a steady stream of "deathtrap dungeon" style books, so i'm rather fond of unique and memorable deaths. Playing less cautiously (eating mushrooms, checking out what that strange crying in the darkness is etc.) allows for more unique deaths than "on the 9th time the goblin hits you with a spear you fall to negative x hit points, you're dead." No risk no glory and all that!
@Ridiculon, No race twice I see? you could be the last type on my list, same as me.
One always plays his characters very recklessly (Incidentally, he's also the one with most deaths, he's also the one who gets the most butt-hurt about everything, which makes it all so much more hilarious).I probably am closest to this guy when I play, although the "butt-hurt" bit is more me making jokes and acting offended at my character's untimely demise. I'm sure not a lot of players will share my opinion on this, but i grew up on a steady stream of "deathtrap dungeon" style books, so i'm rather fond of unique and memorable deaths. Playing less cautiously (eating mushrooms, checking out what that strange crying in the darkness is etc.) allows for more unique deaths than "on the 9th time the goblin hits you with a spear you fall to negative x hit points, you're dead." No risk no glory and all that!
So... you clearly take the risks... do you end up with the glory?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... you clearly take the risks... do you end up with the glory?
Not so much most of the time, but it's my thinking that a lot more rookie adventurers set off than return as heroes. And that's how I like it, I never know how far any of my characters will get in the quest.
I seem to always end up with one power gamer, a gamer who is only there because their significant other plays, and one person who constantly rolls lousy until the roll doesn't matter. Her only natural 20 thus far came up in a pie eating contest.
While not really a player style (I do somewhat fit into SillyString's last thing, though I don't have a problem playing a dwarf or half-orc, but prefer the non-core races), But I am the guy that always, ALWAYS rolls terribly for initiative and gets to go last (if I even get to go at all). 3 years running and I am basically always at the bottom of the order.
|
I like variety. I go for unusual character types, but not so completely out there that it seems like a "look at me!" cry for attention.
Just to give you an idea, I'm up to 22 PC's in Pathfinder Society. I've got every PFS legal alignment (no evils allowed), 11 different races (all core races, plus aasimar, tiefling, nagaji, and sylph), and every Society faction.
While I do have a lot of classes, I have an odd tendency to stick to the Core Rulebook classes much more than others, for some reason. I have an oracle, warpriest, two inquisitors, and a Halfling Opportunist (prestige class from Halflings of Golarion), but that's really not that many non-Core classes for that many PCs. So 17 of my 22 PC's are core classes, and only the one with a prestige class is multi-classed.
But I do use a lot of odd archetypes, bloodlines, domains, etc to vary how those classes play, and tend to avoid the most popular stuff just because it's popular. For instance, how many PC's have you ever seen with the Knowledge (Memory) or Magic (Divine) subdomains? Or sorcerers with the Deep Earth bloodline? Or fighters that specialize in thrown weapons? I've got all of those. And while I've got two druids, both have odd archetypes, and neither has an animal companion.
My recent trend is looking through the Golarion gods for ideas when trying to come up with personalities and back stories for my PC's, so I've been leaning heavily towards divine casters lately. That's why I have two inquisitors among my recently created PC's, along with a rogue and fighter who are both fairly religious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wife and I always end up bickering in character before a campaign gets too far along. It doesn't seem to matter what kind of concepts or personalities we start with, our characters just never seem to get along. It has run the gamut from friends needling each other to bickering like an old married couple to barely being civil, but it's always there.
The funny part is that our actual marriage is nothing like that. We have a very healthy relationship where we work out our differences openly before they have time to fester, and only behave like this in character.
While not really a player style (I do somewhat fit into SillyString's last thing, though I don't have a problem playing a dwarf or half-orc, but prefer the non-core races), But I am the guy that always, ALWAYS rolls terribly for initiative and gets to go last (if I even get to go at all). 3 years running and I am basically always at the bottom of the order.
I had a character like that way back in the day. He was just a dwarf fighter or something, but literally (and i mean literally) every combat I'd go last in order.
7/10 combats I'd do literally nothing, 2/10 I'd kill a rat or a goblin or 1 of the smallest most swarm-y thing that attacked us, and the other 1/10 was when we reached the boss ... Then it was usually my time to solo the encounter because no one else could damage the sucker.We'd do individual experience and I'd end up with about 1/4 what everyone else had, then for the boss they'd all say: "We'll split the experience for the boss". By the time we stopped playing my character was level 4 and everyone else was level 7-8 ... I feel your pain.
The trick if you're going last is to be able to hit REALLY hard when your turn comes around (harder to do in pathfinder than some systems). (Edit: The other trick is to use group exp, not individual exp #bitter =P )
(PS This wasn't a pathfinder/DnD game, can't remember the name of the system, but if I remember within the next hour I'll edit this post.)
I've got a friend who only plays blasty magic types. So any campaign that doesnt allow that, he pretty much does not show any interest in.
I'm a weird type. Not necessarily race/class wise, more in personality. I love silly characters, like my current "barbie barbarian" type in shadowrun.
|
In my observations:
One player almost exclusively plays women with rather... fanservicey character pictures.[1]
A second player likes playing monks when able.
My best friend tends to play younger characters.
As for myself, I lean towards "extremely violent sociopaths."
Interestingly, the characters my best friend and I play usually wind up becoming very good friends (Curse of the Crimson Throne, Legacy of Fire when my character isn't wandering out into the desert to die-- long story, Carrion Crown) or, in the case of Iron Gods, eventually married and had a child (despite the DM for that saying we all died in a thermonuclear explosion.)
[1]Thankfully, I haven't had to threaten to run HoL; there's a rule in that game that specifically says your character must be male "because no woman has ever been unlucky or stupid enough to wind up here."
I have a friend who almost always rolls up a good-aligned female religious type. Her characters have been like: Human female LG paladin. Human female NG cleric. Halfling female NG paladin. In a slight departure, human male LG warlock with a homebrewed warlock pact where he made a pact with an angel. Et cetera.
I have a friend who always plays reckless-but-good-at-heart characters. His last attempt at playing against type was a cowardly rogue.....who happened to be cursed to have to rush headfirst into heroism.
I have another who always plays an amoral, in it for himself loner. It's not as bad as it sounds; the player always serves the party even if it is only about loot and glory for the character.
One always likes to play a wide eyed innocent. She is currently playing a young teenage monk in our ongoing game.
One guy always ends up being the group's butt monkey - but only because the player just makes bizarre decisions that are amusing for the players but would definitely be a huge pain in an actual adventuring party.
I like to play basic concepts but against type. A Lawful Good Necromancer with a big heart, a chaotic evil sorcerer who is super friendly, a bard that wields a Falchion and mixes it up in combat. (I forget the Archetype now, but it's about the only Bard I ever want to play again.)
|
I'm the person in our group who always plays elves. I can't help it - unless there's something in the campaign setting or adventure path that makes another race a more appealing choice, or elves aren't allowed, I'm going to play an elf, and it's likely going to be a spellcaster. That's just what makes me happy.
My husband and I game together, but we don't usually make our characters have any relationship to each other, especially not a romantic relationship. We've never roleplayed characters who were a couple. We did once play siblings, and soon I'll be playing padawan to his Jedi Knight, but that's the closest our characters have been.
One of my friends likes to play oddballs, not necessarily unusual races, but weird combinations of feats or skills. For example, he's been running an inquisitor/monk whose deity is Cayden Caillean. He took Catch Off Guard and Improvised Weapon Mastery so he could use a beer mug as his weapon. When he casts spiritual weapon, it's a beer mug. Because it amuses him to hit people with a beer mug. In the past he's GM'd a campaign that had a recurring NPC who used a 3-legged stool as a weapon.