Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5374570" data-attributes="member: 19675">While I can honestly say I don't remember ever having barred a PC due to non-campaign reasons, sometimes I've wanted to: its not about the concept, but the way it gets played.The closest I ever came was with a good buddy of mine.&nbsp; I've been gaming with him since 1984 or so, and 85% of his PCs are Wizards.&nbsp; Their spell lists- up until 4Ed- have been virtually interchangeable.&nbsp; He plays them virtually identically.At one point, I just got fed up with this, and almost forced him to play something else, but I decided against it for 2 reasons:1) There is something to be said for someone who can play a role in a completely expected way- he's reliable; he won't make many mistakes.&nbsp; He's easy to plot for as a DM.2) Never once has anyone in our groups complained that they couldn't play a Wizard because he was.&nbsp; IOW, nobody who has wanted to play a Wizard has ever felt they couldn't because he was.I suspect, though, with some of these stereotypes, they're not getting barred for being boring, but for someone creating disharmony within the group because of them.In the same group as the above player, we have another one who always plays some kind of ranger/sniper variant.&nbsp; We always let him because everything else he tries ends in disaster: in one campaign, his attempts at playing a &quot;Face&quot; type PC nearly got that PC killed on multiple occasions, which often led to the party getting shot at as well.Were he to ask to repeat that experiment, I'm sure the vote would be 9-1 against.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 5374570, member: 19675"] While I can honestly say I don't remember ever having barred a PC due to non-campaign reasons, sometimes I've wanted to: its not about the concept, but the way it gets played. The closest I ever came was with a good buddy of mine. I've been gaming with him since 1984 or so, and 85% of his PCs are Wizards. Their spell lists- up until 4Ed- have been virtually interchangeable. He plays them virtually identically. At one point, I just got fed up with this, and almost forced him to play something else, but I decided against it for 2 reasons: 1) There is something to be said for someone who can play a role in a completely expected way- he's reliable; he won't make many mistakes. He's easy to plot for as a DM. 2) Never once has anyone in our groups complained that they couldn't play a Wizard because he was. IOW, nobody who has wanted to play a Wizard has ever felt they couldn't because he was. I suspect, though, with some of these stereotypes, they're not getting barred for being boring, but for someone creating disharmony within the group because of them. In the same group as the above player, we have another one who always plays some kind of ranger/sniper variant. We always let him because everything else he tries ends in disaster: in one campaign, his attempts at playing a "Face" type PC nearly got that PC killed on multiple occasions, which often led to the party getting shot at as well. Were he to ask to repeat that experiment, I'm sure the vote would be 9-1 against. [/QUOTE]

Verification