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

[Lasher Dragon]

That makes sense Umbran. I can see if someone has only played D&D for a short while, maybe only played a few characters, a fighter or 2, maybe a rogue in there, something like a mindflayer sorceror is going to be one helluva stretch.

Babysteps

 

[Fieari]

I have denied a player an alignment choice, because I simply did not believe he had it in him to play said alignment... the alignment being Lawful Good. This was mostly due to the group at the time, and the alignment of the group, which was mostly chaotic nuetral. The player in question was observably a follower, going along with what everyone else wanted to do, and I really didn't think he could keep up lawful good with peer pressure towards chaotic nuetral.

 

[der_kluge]

That way I know that player x isn't playing a rouge because one isn't represented in the game yet.
...
This has resulted in situations where a rouge isn't represented
...
or dumb down the magical traps for the lack of a rouge... etc.

AARGH! Just so more people can hate me.... It's ROGUE. Rouge is something women (and transvestites) put on their face.


But responding to your post, I've not seen too many situations where people attempt to play things that are beyond their ability to enjoy. I don't play Barbarians for this reason, or Rangers. Because I simply don't enjoy those archetypes, and choose not to play them.

 

[der_kluge]

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.

I've never played a female character that fit into any of those. And there are mechanical reasons why one should not allow a half-dragon fiendish troll. Or even campaign specific reasons why that shouldn't be allowed. No dragons, for example, or no trolls. Perfectly acceptable. I've yet to see a campaign world without women. Nor can I think of any mechanical reasons why playing a female would be unbalancing or disruptive.

Do you simply not allow *anyone* to play a female in your game, or do you restrict that policy to the individuals in your specific group, whom you know can't pull it off successfully?

 

[Dread October]

Why does he refuse to stretch himself, why can he only (or will he only) play a greedy, self-interested sneak??

Because in the end, that's what he really likes to play. He may dress it differently everytime you guys start a new campaign but for some people they don't want to expand their horizons and really, why should they?

I won't say that I've never told a player what they are good or bad at because I'm sure I have. I have played with player "MR" for years and in the beginning she always played spell casters. When her turn came, she'd start to pour through page after page of regression charts to find what spell she should be casting as if we were actually playing a video game. Nevermind the fact that sometimes, running was the only real option anyway.

Eventually the group noticed that in a purely roleplaying sense, like interactions w/ NPCs and other characters, she did great but her choice of class sucked. When she played a fighter type, she rocked. I can conclude from this without feeling like she'd been stiffled, that she should play spellcasters BECAUSE the game slows down due to a lack of ability to handle all of those options.

If you know your players because you've played with them, then it makes sense that you are able to evaluate what they bring to the table and what they take away from it. I do not run games so my friends can become better players. I run games because I have fun playing games with my friends. I order to keep it fun, I may have to tell a guy that he blows at playing LG so please pick a different alignment.

Dread October

 

[azmodean]

As has been mentioned, I think the reaction to the statement, “I will not allow players to play a pc concept they don’t have the role playing ability to pull off.” seems to ignore what might be some underlying issues.

As an example, I tried to run a campaign for some newer players, one of which wanted to play a half-dragon. My gut told me not to allow it, but I decided to be lenient. I should have gone with my gut, the player obsessed over the minutae of being a half-dragon to the point of ignoring and/or derailing plot in progress to shop for food or some such. Also despite every appearance to the contrary, he considered himself invincible.

In short, I think the quote in question typically refers to the ability of said player to try to pull off a credible example of the character in question. In my experience it is much more often a question of intent rather than ability.

As an entirely seperate issue, I don't allow a first-time player to play a spellcaster of any kind unless they're a rules maniac from the get-go. (for instance a wargamer who has never roleplayed before)

 

[Ourph]

Can't we just go back to the good old days when "character concept" meant deciding whether your Fighter was going to wield a longsword or a warhammer? Please??

 

[Tinner]

Since I'm one of those who admitted that he won't let male players play female PC's, maybe I should better explain my situation.
For starters, I'm spoiled for players in my games. The local community college has an active gaming club, so I have access to dozens of potential players. I can afford to be picky, and I am.
Since I'm gaming to have fun, I try to only game with people that are going to be fun to play with. I have no desire to play with someone who can't be bothered to bathe, or has such glaring social problems that they can't behave like a normal human in public.
So essentially, I only game with people that I know fairly well. As such, I am well aware of what kind of player they are, and try to build a game that suits them. My players all tend towards the power-gamer end of the spectrum, so I make sure to take that into account when I plan my games.
That said, I try to allow them to play what they want. If they want to try a certain class, o0r race, that's fine most of the time. However there are certain players that I have to be more careful of for the good of the group.
For example, I have one player who simply cannot handle being in a position of authority. He has a mild, meek personality. He's a great gamer, but I'd be doing the group a disservice if I let him take on the role of a swashbuckling military commander. He simply could not consistently pull it off. Likewise, one of my other players simply cannot resist the lure of power. While some players might be able to handle the responsibility of having a powerful PC, or maybe posessing an artifact, I would never give this guy any real power, because he always goes off the deep end with it!
It's the same for my "no cross-gender roleplaying" rule. I know these people. I am 100% certain that any attempt at crossing the gender lines would be disruptive, and detrimental to the group's enjoyment of the game.

Hope that clears up my stance a little.

 

[tetsujin28]

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.”

I'm with you: this has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of in gaming. And with 31 years of it behind me, I've heard a lot of dumb things.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

AARGH! Just so more people can hate me.... It's ROGUE. Rouge is something women (and transvestites) put on their face.

And actors!

Oh, and I'll jump on the "I hate Die_Kluge" bandwagon, too, if that's what you want.

*waves his little hate flag*