[Poll] Bad PC ideas

[AFGNCAAP]

IIRC, this has been sorta touched in some past issues of Dragon, but I thought I'd bring it up for fun.

What do you consider as a bad basis/concept/idea/source for PCs? How often have you encountered these (either from fellow players, players who you DM for, or even your own PCs at the time)? Or, maybe the PC in question was "bad' because it didn't fit the setting well (like an orc-hunter in Dragonlance, land of no orcs)?

Just curious to see what people have encountered in their games.

 

[drothgery]

I gave a definite vote for "depends". Heck, one of the best writers in my PBeM plays a character that at first glance is a Drizzt clone. I borrow heavily from fantasy novels (though it's not always obvious, because I'll take some ideas from one character, some from another character -- often by another author, and then switch the character's race and/or gender...) for both PCs and NPCs.

And I've seen good and bad characters drawn from all the sources above.

 

[Psionicist]

I voted a strict NO. Any idea is a good idea. While I personally wouldn't stand playing a character someone else created, it may be as fun for others as i think it's when I play my own characters. End of discussion.

 

[reapersaurus]

Since this is personal, I really can't stand the PC who has a ton of crippling quirks which tend to dominate the roleplay.

Like, a PC that has a ridiculously debilitating illness or psychiatric disorder that would probably have gotten him killed YEARS ago, yet he pops into the party and can grandstand anytime he wants.
grrrr......

so I guess "Other"...

 

[Kichwas]

I voted for every option except for the last two.

 

[drowdude]

Any character concept is workable so long as it is well thought out and portrayed well.

Generally I dont care what the player rips off from to develop his or her character concept so long as they have fun with it and it doesnt pose obvious problems for the party in general.

 

[Neqroteqh]

[/QUOTE] I voted a strict NO. Any idea is a good idea. While I personally wouldn't stand playing a character someone else created, it may be as fun for others as i think it's when I play my own characters. End of discussion.

I beg to differ on this. There are some terrible character ideas:

1. Any character that goes against the assumed nature of the world that is being played in, and against the DM's guidelines-

Examples: Characters who have mysteriously come out of, say, 21st century earth and landed in, say, Middle Earth or the Forgotten realms are typically a bad idea. (Entire campaigns could be based around this, however, and it has been masterfully done in literature (Moorcock's Erekose is a good example), but it can wreck the flavor of a tightly constructed game).

2. Overpowered magical races that also spoil the game. A pile of half-fiends, half-celestials, half-dragons (what is with all these half-breeds, anyway), giants, minotaurs, and the like as PC's can not only throw off game balance if done improperly, it can be detrimental to low and mid magic settings as well.

3. Characters of conflicting alignments. I've pretty much banned evil characters from my games. I will allow them, but I strongly encourage neutral or good behavior. I play heroic fantasy.

4. Some ideas are just idiotic to begin with, even if they have an excuse. One guy I played with once made a Xaositect for a Planescape campaign who devoted his life to distributing chickens from his bag of holding- everywhere. We'd fight fiends- he'd hurl chickens. We met celestials- he'd give them a dead chicken from his bag. And that was all the stupid Githzerai did! He didn't fight, he didn't contribute to the party- he distributed chickens. It was quite aggravating to the DM (he was kicked out of our group after the third session) and cost a few PC's their lives.

Players can play whatever they want within reason, and the guidelines of the campaign.

If I sound like an iron-fist DM, I'm not. My players have played a diverse and interesting slew of characters, ranging from halfling necromancers bent on becoming vampire-liches to galaxy traveling pimps, from mysterious elven-raised wandering warriors to gnomish artificers with flying, fireball-launching mechanical constructs. I've DMed Dryad Druids, Voadkyn Rangers, Drow Assassins, Wookiee Mechanics and 12 year old Hackers. It takes all kinds- it just depends on the players and the campaign.

 

[BluWolf]

My vote is for any concept that is disruptive to the overall campaign.

I had a player that went nuts when the player's options books came out. He developed these incredibly involved charcters that were nothing more than a collection of nervous twitches and phobias that would have made Froys hug his mother!!

His characters were annoying and disruptive.

He eventually left the group sighting my prejudiced slant against his characters.

All I did was enforce every flaw he took.

I don't mind dirivitive characters from new or younger players. I think its part of the learning curve in the game.

Hell I think my first three characters were probably right outta Middle Earth.

I also have a pet peeve of the "re-incarnation" loop hole some players get stuck in. They essentially recreate the same character over and over again with a different name.

 

[Falcon]

I vote for any character that is disruptive to the campaign, or which overlaps a bunch of other character's abilties, and is always in the face of someone, demanding to be dealt with.

 

[EOL]

I'm much more concerned with characters that are going to work well within the party then judging a character merely on it's own merits. I don't know how many times I've had players design characters specifically to create an unresolveable amount of conflict with another character.

1st Player: My dwarf hates open spaces and attacks elves on sight.

2nd Player: That's okay my elf would sooner die then go underground and the minute you try and attack me I'll cast sleep and cut off your beard.

That's the kind of thing I hate. If I can get a party that works well together the fact that one of them is a Legolas clone is a minor issue.