D&D General PC creation freedom and campaign setting fit

[TheSword]

Our main group is a big fan of themed campaigns. Maybe a byproduct of having played for so long. As such it’s nice to have some direction.

I see occasional buck-the-trend-outsider-observer type character as fine. A weird class or race alongside a standard party is interesting. A whole party of such characters just becomes annoying. As does the same player insisting on it every time. It progresses towards snowflaking.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm primarily a player these days, and I voted "Other." In our gaming group, the DM is expected to give the players a list of approved resources, and the players are expected to use that list to create our characters. So that's what I wanted to vote for.

 

[ccs]

I choose "other".
That way PCs creation can alter as needed per campaign/game/DM/group.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am usually a DM and are all-in on Option #4. I set up the game we are playing and those that agree to play will come up with characters that fit pretty snuggly into the baseline of that game.

And there are several very good reasons for this and why I do it the way I do.

1) Every campaign I run is different. It's rarely the same world twice, the styles of the campaigns are pretty varied, and on the the few times I return to a setting (like say Forgotten Realms) the adventure locale is far enough away from the previous one that there's little to no cross-over to worry about. And thus this means that my players know that if they desperately NEED to play a certain character and it doesn't fit the game we are going to do right now... they can hold onto the idea for the next game that comes up soon where it will.

2) My circle of potential players is rather large. As a result, they all know I have plenty of options to fill out my table and thus if I'm making a specific request for types of PCs... they know to jump in on my ideas with both feet if they really want to play it. They aren't going to waste their time or my time being wishy-washy about the theme and whether than can play something further outside of it because they don't really want to embrace it.

And 3)... perhaps the most cynical reason of all and the one that admittedly puts ME looking in a pretty bad light...

...most players just aren't that good at roleplaying character (in my opinion).

What does that mean? It means that for all the hullabaloo about players having these grand ideas about these super-specific character concepts... oftentimes using all the bizarre choices for races and/or race/class combos, and backstories that make them out to be these esoteric and mysterious and out-there special snowflakes...

...when they actually get to the table, the way they play the game is almost exactly the same way they would play if they were playing a human fighter farmhand who picks up a sword and goes adventuring.

They just don't play differently. They play the same way regardless of who or what they are playing. For all the weird and wild choices players pull from any of the player-centric tomes out there with which to create a character... those basically become merely a bunch of different game mechanics to use, NOT new ways to roleplay their character in any way, shape, or form. And anyone who knows me here on the boards knows... I care not one whit about new game mechanics.

The reason why two fighters in AD&D appeared different in play was because of how the players themselves roleplayed their characters with interesting and different quirks, foibles, wants, needs, hatreds and so forth-- NOT because they had different game mechanics to use (cause as we all know, an AD&D fighter pretty much only had their six scores, HP, AC, some saves, and a weapon choice to mechanically be different than another AD&D fighter.) The mechanics would not differentiate the two of you... your character's personalities and how you played them did it.

And because of this... in my game if you want your PC to be a special snowflake... you will have to roleplay them as such. How your character integrates and reacts and dives into the story will create your special status, NOT what weird options you took when building it or what odd times you roll dice in whatever combinations you've found to do so. Thus as a result... you should not bother at any time ask me to play these weird combinations you've come up with (unless I have specifically said for the game that anything and everything was open and available.) Instead, you will impress me more by taking the gosh-darned most basic and typical concept for the game to make a character out of... AND STILL manage to create your special snowflake through playing that character by being awesome.

But yeah... that's hard. And quite often, my players AREN'T that. Instead, their Tabaxi Outlander Sun Soul Monk ends up looking, feeling, and playing exactly as if they were playing merely a human warrior. So all their "really cool" options they went looking for end up not meaning a thing. So just don't. Instead, if I offer a small pool of options because I want the PCs to be forcefed into being within the theme I'm interested in running in... if you really want to play that badly, just go with it. Because if your roleplay ability is only going to fall within a certain narrow parameter anyway, I'd rather your character concept at least be right in the middle of what works for the game.

 

[Voadam]

But yeah... that's hard. And quite often, my players AREN'T that. Instead, their Tabaxi Outlander Sun Soul Monk ends up looking, feeling, and playing exactly as if they were playing merely a human warrior. So all their "really cool" options they went looking for end up not meaning a thing. So just don't. Instead, if I offer a small pool of options because I want the PCs to be forcefed into being within the theme I'm interested in... if you really want to play that badly, just go with it. Because if your roleplay ability only falls within a certain parameter, I'd rather your character concept at least be right in the middle of what works for the game.

It is not clear to me how restricting PC options will address your dislike of undifferentiated roleplay. Are you saying you'd prefer undifferentiated roleplay characters to be human fighters instead of other warrior types because it fits human fighters better?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm almost exclusively a DM, and I prefer a collaborative approach - to a point.

Typically, I'll work up one or a few campaign concepts, and put those to the players. Those concepts will generally have some guidance as to character concepts - which might range from "anything goes" to something very limited "all dwarves", with my default being "anything from the PHB" (and the main setting sourcebook if we're playing in a published setting). Once the players buy in to the concept, I expect them to live within that guidance. (The flip side of that being that if they prefer to play something else, that's absolutely fine. Not all my ideas are good ones, so if the players don't like an idea, I'm happy to let it go.)

I don't mind a player asking for an exception to those guidelines, especially if he or she has a really good story in mind. But the key word there is ask - if there are agreed limits there may well be a good reason for those, so you can't necessarily assume they can be bent or broken.

Unfortunately, I have found that there is a certain breed of player who will view any restriction as a challenge, no matter what it is. So once the party agrees "PHB only", they will immediately decide they have to play a Goblin. Or if you're playing Vampire, it'll be a werewolf. Or if you say "you can be anything other than a gnome", you can expect half a dozen character suggestions, all of which are gnomes. (Oddly, that player personality seems more likely to buy in to a campaign with limits than to "anything goes" - the attraction seems to be specifically about being somehow unique.) I'm afraid I've reached a point where I'm no longer as tolerant as I was, so I no longer play with such players.

I'm mostly a player and I'm also in favor of this approach. I expect (I don't require) the DM to have a campaign idea in mind, and my decision to join the game includes a decision to go along with the DM's general idea.

On the other had, I massively prefer the ability to do a little worldbuilding to make my character concept work. But that needs to flow from and build off of what the DM has given me. Sometimes this means make a character the DM didn't originally account for, in which case I'll give them an outline for how I see them fitting in. But it still needs to fit.

I didn't select option #5 because it was phrased as a requirement - I prefer more collaborative worldbuilding, but I don't require it to play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It is not clear to me how restricting PC options will address your dislike of undifferentiated roleplay. Are you saying you'd prefer undifferentiated roleplay characters to be human fighters instead of other warrior types because it fits human fighters better?

I'm saying that knowing my players are going to be roleplaying in a very narrow look anyway... I'd rather have them at least have their characters fit into the theme and baseline of my campaign as best as possible so that they can navigate the world and open up more avenues for adventure for me as a DM.

Any attempt at creating some weird, wild, at the margins type of character within the setting (because they think it makes them special) ends up being pointless if the weird, wild, marginal character is played no differently than a "normal" character from the setting. The only difference is me as DM having to keep trying to justify this bizarre choice over and over again with NPC reactions and the like. It may not matter to them as players, but it does to me as a DM.

But like I said... this attitude does make me look like bit of a dick, admittedly. It's a cross I bear.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They just don't play differently. They play the same way regardless of who or what they are playing.

I wonder if your expectations are very high for what amounts to “roleplaying differently”, or if we just have exceptionally different groups.

 

[prabe]

I wonder if your expectations are very high for what amounts to “roleplaying differently”, or if we just have exceptionally different groups.

Not picking a fight, here, but it could be both--in fact, it's probably how I'd bet, not knowing either of you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not picking a fight, here, but it could be both--in fact, it's probably how I'd bet, not knowing either of you.

Yeah probably. I’ve got players in a decent range of how different their characters are, but I’ve also met DMs for whom a a player is either a melodramatic method actor, or isn’t roleplaying anything differently from character to character.