Do highly unique characters still get a bad rep; and: how to give them room to exist?

[Swanosaurus]

EDIT: I changed the title to remove a possibly offending term; sorry for that!

I'm not sure if I'm maybe ten years behind here, but I do remember that there has been some harsh critique of players wanting to play characters who, in their respective settings, would be considered highly unusual; where this critique was justified, I think, it was mostly about spotlight hogging - the assumption that if a player wanted to play a "snowflake" [EDIT: Here's the offending term, I wasn't aware of how it's used these days - I'll leave it in so that the other posts remain comprehensible], the underlying reason was actually that they wanted the game to be all about them.
I suspect by now, most people in gaming would be aware that the actual problem in that case is not "snowflaking" but "spotlight-hogging" and that's what would need to be called out (you can hog the spotlight without playing a snowflake, after all, and you can play a snowflake without hogging the spotlight).

So far, so good, but the question remains about what it means if a player wants to play a character that goes against the grain? Most current fantasy games seem to default to being permissive, which is great. Want to play a lawful-good orc paladin? There you go. A halfling barbarian? No problem. But the thing is that often, that comes accross as if none of this is anything out-of-the-ordinary, so it might actually defeat the purpose of playing an orc paladin. If no one says, "you're a halfling, I don't think you people are supposed to run round chopping people's heads of with a big axe ...", you might feel that you're not getting what you're looking for out of playing a halfling barbarian.

I think there's a point for making the rules as permissive as possible in terms of ancestry/class/alignment combinations, but also to present settings that leave room to go against the grain. I understand that that can be really difficult without resorting to offensive stereotyping, but I also wouldn't want to lose the chance to play a character that is, within the bounds of the setting, obviously more than a little bit unusual.

 

[Reynard]

First of all: "snowflake" might not have the connotations you want for this discussion.

That aside: I think that players choose unusual/unique/weird characters to play for various reasons. I have one player that just liked weird ideas. I have another that is an unrepentant optimizer. Both will come to the table with weirdos for different reasons.

In general, i don't make a big deal about the characters' uniqueness in the moment of play. The days of everyone being suspicious of the gnoll every time he walks into town are long gone. It isn't worth the fuss, and I don't particularly like worlds where everyone is a xenophobe.

 

[payn]

My worries are well in the rear view on the topic. All the perceived "snowflake" issues I had were due to power seeking. For example, 3E had no dragonborn so folks wanted to be dragonkin or half dragons that came with powerful templates that threw them out of balance. Another example was drow had a write up, but they also had "noble" template which meant regular drow was never good enough for the power seeker. This has largely died away as power levels have lower gaps and/or strong design points to keep them in check.

As for being unusual, I dont care if a player wants to explore that. As a GM, I try to cater to the interest of my players and provide them with opportunities. Though, if somebody goes through painstaking effort to make sure that everyone knows that their unusual character is unusual in every possible moment of every session, im going to be greatly annoyed. Your Pc is one of the main characters in a group about a story of happenings related to all of them. YMMV.

 

[Swanosaurus]

First of all: "snowflake" might not have the connotations you want for this discussion.

Not sure ... I think that term was thrown around a lot a few years (or decades?) ago in RPG circles, but maybe in a more offensive way than I realized.

Basically, the current talk about Greyhawk remembered me of the whole thing. I'm not even sure if a "xenophobic" world would be the key operator here, it could just as well be about surprise to see something ... basically, I just think it's nice to have options to be something truly unexpected, also in terms of becoming a legendary character. Back in our The Dark Eye game when we were teenagers, one of our players came up with an orc character long before orcs were playable, and it was really cool that at some point it was: "No, wait, don't you know? That's Ukbar, the legendary orc hero." That's what I was thinking of, among other things.

 

[Meech17]

First of all: "snowflake" might not have the connotations you want for this discussion.

Yes... I came in here expecting a MUCH different topic.

I think I get the gist of the OP. If everything is unique and special, then nothing is unique and special.

In the original Everquest MMORPG, there were restrictions as to what races could be which classes. Only Humans and Iksar(The race of Evil ((So evil that other evil races hated them)) Lizardfolk) could be Monks for instance. There was a Web Comic called WTF Comics based on the game, and one of the minor antagonists were a squad of Gnome Monks. It was funny, and weird, and cool because it was abnormal.

In EQ2 they removed the race/class restrictions.. So now Gnomes, Ogres, Elves, or any other race could be Monks. Introducing a Gnome Monk antagonist would lack the lack the shock factor that came in that original comic run.

Ultimately I think this is a change for the better. Being able to play what you want is a good thing. This is a game about playing pretend right? Why have limits on your imagination?

I will say that I do think there is another downside, aside from the Gnome Monk thing. The fact that there are so many of these "Unique" options available, have made the standard fare, stereotypical ones seem even more standard fare and stereotypical. Tiefling Warlocks? Elf Rangers? I can't possibly play one of those can I? They're so expected.

 

[MGibster]

Not sure ... I think that term was thrown around a lot a few years (or decades?) ago in RPG circles, but maybe in a more offensive way than I realized.

There are a lot of phrases whose meanings change over the years. A while back, a social justice warrior was someone who couldn't help but shoehorn their pet cause into any discussion they were having but it started to be applied to anyone who had any criticism or concern about racism, sexism, etc., etc. Likewise snowflake started out meaning someone who was, or at least believed themselves, to be unique or special and has since shifted to meaning someone who is easily offended or overly emotional. More than a decade past, I didn't mind referring to characters that didn't fit the campaign parameters as "special snowflakes," but I stopped becuase that has a different more negative meaning in the wider context of American society.

For me, I'm perfectly fine with a PC being unique and special just so long as they fit within the parameters of the campaign. If you agree to play a regular person in my 1930s Call of Cthulhu game, do not come to me with a time traveling fighter pilot as a character concept. Yes. This is an actual example. My typical example of what I would have called a "special snowflake" back in the day, is a person who insists on playing a mage or a werewolf in a Vampire campaign.

And I know, a lot of people say, "So what? What's wrong with letting someone play a mage or a werewolf instead of a vampire?" In a moral sense? Well, nothing. But since werewolves and mages have different abilities from vampires, it does require more work on the GM's part to include them in a campaign. If I have a big scene where the vampires are all hanging about at the Elysium, how does the werewolf participate when he's not going to be welcome by the other vampires? It increases the burden on the GM and they might not want that.

I have to say I only very rarely encounter someone who doesn't want to make a character that will fit the campaign. In fact, I think it's been about 15 years since I've run into that problem. Typically I'm more than happy to enter into a little give & take with players to ensure they can play the type of character they want.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm a big fan of "unique" characters in my campaign. In a game where every bartender is a retired high-level fighter, everyone who goes to church has levels of cleric, and every village locksmith is a ranking member of the local Thieves' Guild, I want the heroes to stand out. And the way they do that is usually through customization and optimization.

The druid in my group wanted a more "force of nature" vibe instead of "animal lover," so the player asked me for ideas on how to make that happen. I created a "Circle of the Storm" for her, using the Storm Sorcerer subclass as inspiration, and let her permanently trade her Wild Shape feature for the Metamagic feature.

The rogue in my group was frustrated with the Assassin subclass, and how difficult it was to get the abilities to trigger. I worked with the player to develop a "poisoner" themed Assassin that trades the Assassinate, Infiltration Expertise, and Imposter features with alchemy, poison-crafting, and poison-slinging features from the Alchemist subclass and our own imaginations.

I've had players ask to make their own custom ancestries too--a player wanted to roleplay as a medusa, so I pointed them to the rules in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything for building it. Same thing for the player who wanted to RP as a harpy, or the player who wanted to be a "were-spider."

I love stuff like this.

 

[Arilyn]

I will say that I do think there is another downside, aside from the Gnome Monk thing. The fact that there are so many of these "Unique" options available, have made the standard fare, stereotypical ones seem even more standard fare and stereotypical. Tiefling Warlocks? Elf Rangers? I can't possibly play one of those can I? They're so expected.

Well. I felt my character was really unique in a game I was in because he was a normal human ranger with a very mundane background. The other three characters were very non-standard, with unique backgrounds, so I stood out.

Having said this I enjoy having weird or unique characters too. Often, it just depends on who strolls into my head during character creation.

 

[Swanosaurus]

There are a lot of phrases whose meanings change over the years. A while back, a social justice warrior was someone who couldn't help but shoehorn their pet cause into any discussion they were having but it started to be applied to anyone who had any criticism or concern about racism, sexism, etc., etc. Likewise snowflake started out meaning someone who was, or at least believed themselves, to be unique or special and has since shifted to meaning someone who is easily offended or overly emotional. More than a decade past, I didn't mind referring to characters that didn't fit the campaign parameters as "special snowflakes," but I stopped becuase that has a different more negative meaning in the wider context of American society.

[...]

I have to say I only very rarely encounter someone who doesn't want to make a character that will fit the campaign. In fact, I think it's been about 15 years since I've run into that problem. Typically I'm more than happy to enter into a little give & take with players to ensure they can play the type of character they want.

Thanks for the clarification, being a non-native speaker, I think I was still stuck with the older, probably less offensive meaning.
And sorry for any increased heart rates I might have caused!

 

[Pedantic]

Not sure ... I think that term was thrown around a lot a few years (or decades?) ago in RPG circles, but maybe in a more offensive way than I realized.

It's not the RPG angle that's the issue, the term is politically charged and part of the stock standard set of conservative insults. You seem to be using it in honest ignorance of that context, which is a pleasant surprise.