You can't play that, you don't RP well enough

[Dæmon]

I have found something disturbing recently. In several places people have been saying “I will not allow players to play a pc concept they don’t have the role playing ability to pull off.”

This I find counter productive, surely they are never going to be able to “pull off” concepts that are “beyond their ability” if never given the chance to play them and increase their familiarity with the concept.

 

[der_kluge]

You'll get no quarrel from me.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Apparently many people are of the opinion that you can actually improve your roleplaying skills by not challenging yourself. Fortunately I am not one of them, I feel that if you want to be a good roleplayer, you have to be more than "the guy that always plays the lawful good male paladin" or some such thing - which I have a cousin who was like that for many years. We always knew what he was going to play. Luckily we have convinced him to broaden his horizons. Now he is playing a NG female cleric in the WLD I am running, and over the past year since he has tried new things, I have noticed a marked improvement in both his skills as a roleplayer AND his enjoyment of D&D as a whole.

 

[Belen]

I have found something disturbing recently. In several places people have been saying “I will not allow players to play a pc concept they don’t have the role playing ability to pull off.”

This I find counter productive, surely they are never going to be able to “pull off” concepts that are “beyond their ability” if never given the chance to play them and increase their familiarity with the concept.

And a GM has the right to say no if it will:

1.) Be offensive or disturbing to other players.
2.) Negatively impact or disrupt the campaign.
3.) Serve as a "pedestal" to force others to listen to the views of the player.

Just because someone is a player does not mean they can do anything they want. The game has a set of rules for mechanics and a group/GM can have a set of rules that covers what the book does not.

A player could have a concept for "a half-dragon fiendish troll" yet the GM allows core races only. Therefore, the player would need to play something else.

I have no trouble with it. If a player has issues, then I can help them find another game.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Playing Devil's Advocate...

An old coach I had once said: "Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." In other words, just doing something over and over may make you worse if you're not doing it right.

For example, I hate playing evil. If a DM made me play an evil character, I doubt I would get better over time. I would probably end up either playing it poorly or stealthily migrating over to chatoic good.

Again, I'm just taking up the other side for the sake of argument. I would never prevent a player from taking up a role.

 

[Belen]

Apparently many people are of the opinion that you can actually improve your roleplaying skills by not challenging yourself. Fortunately I am not one of them, I feel that if you want to be a good roleplayer, you have to be more than "the guy that always plays the lawful good male paladin" or some such thing - which I have a cousin who was like that for many years. We always knew what he was going to play. Luckily we have convinced him to broaden his horizons. Now he is playing a NG female cleric in the WLD I am running, and over the past year since he has tried new things, I have noticed a marked improvement in both his skills as a roleplayer AND his enjoyment of D&D as a whole.

There is a big difference between trying new things and trying things that will be disruptive to the group or campaign.

I am willing to bet that almost everyone who restricts based on whether a player can "handle" a character does so based on the concept being disruptive. And you can usually tell if someone would be the disruptive type or be wanting to play the concept to expand their horizons.

 

[diaglo]

those that can do

those that can't teach.

so when do you agree that someone just doesn't have it in them? after 1 session, 2, 50?

the truth is sometimes brutal

 

[Crothian]

There is a big difference between trying new things and trying things that will be disruptive to the group or campaign.

I am willing to bet that almost everyone who restricts based on whether a player can "handle" a character does so based on the concept being disruptive. And you can usually tell if someone would be the disruptive type or be wanting to play the concept to expand their horizons.

This is pretty much it. It has nothing to do with about somneone's ability to role play, it has everything to do with them role playing it in a way that disrupts the group.

But it is nice to see that there is a need for a third thread on the topic for people to proclaim how superior they are to others. :\

 

[Kanegrundar]

I can see disallowing something if it's going to be disruptive. However, if it's just along the lines of "you can't play an elf because you're not any good at it" well that's just crap. It's a game. If someone think he/she'll have fun with a certain type of character, let them play it as long as it doesn't impede the overall fun of everyone else playing.

Kane

 

[Kirin'Tor]

I have the exact opposite problem - I announced I was running a fantasy game, and Player K said he wanted to play a paladin, because he's never done anything like that (he always plays a shifty type - Rogue, Druid - Always Morally Neutral or Chaotic).

Then I said I was running it with Grim Tales (think d20 Modern if ya don't know) and he decided that, at 1st Level, Charismatic was a good choice. (I pointed out that Dedicated migth be a better choice for a Paladin type - it also has access to smite, and has 3/4 BAB instead of 1/2 BAB for Charismatic. But he's stubbon and it's his choice.)

Anyway, then I explained what alliegances were, and asked what God or Holy Order his Paladin wanted to serve. He decided he'd rather not take any. I presented the concept of a Knight - very similar to a D&D paladin, but with alliegance to a lord or king instead of a god or church.

He again refused, he explained (for both options) that his character was (as always for him) very counter-society, shunned and outcast, and is too greedy and loner-esque to serve or honor anyone but himself.

He won't even take an alliegance to Good or Law. He said he'll "probably never bother to take smite, because he'd have to have an alliegance for it to work." (Smite only works against somone with an alliegance opposite one of yours).

Now, this leads me to a hyopthetical conculsion, and a conclusion:

1) (Hyopthetical) K wouldn't have played a Paladin in the roleplaying sense, just in the rules context, and would skirt his LG toward N\CN constantly in D&D.

2) K refuses to play anything reall different than a Rogue. His Druids always focus on stealth & stealth spells, so that's a wash.

His character concept changed from "Front\Mid-Line Paladin Devoted to Good and Justice" to "Back Line\Non-Fighter with no capacity outside Herbalism. Why does he refuse to stretch himself, why can he only (or will he only) play a greedy, self-interested sneak??