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

[Gunton The Terrible]

I agree that letting a player develop their RPing skills through playing different PC concepts is the right thing to do and can be entertaining for DM and Player alike. However, I have gamed long enough, about 25 years, to know that sometimes a player will never be able to pull off certain character concepts.

I have a player in my group that occasionally DMs. I enjoy playing in his games. However, EVERY female NPC in his game is portrayed as a typical shy 14 year old girl who has a crush on one of the PCs. No matter the NPC's age, experience, or power level. One female NPC was actually a polymorped dragon, but she had the exact same cardboard cutout personality.

Now when it is my turn to DM will I let him play a female PC? Ahhhh...no.

Skill with anything has a finite level of expertise. Maybe this guy has peaked with his skill to play a female PC. :\

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

same people, same types of posts, different thread.

color me annoyed.

anyway:

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

not good. not nice. not at my table.

"id ask you not to play that, because i dont feel it fits well within my campaign"

perfectly fine.

if you, as a player, dont agree - then hit the bricks and find a group that will let you do whatever it is you feel like doing.

W.P.

 

[Cergorach]

I can see it happening. The problem is that although a person might enjoy trying to roleplay a female or an Ogermage Samurai, the rest of the group might not enjoy those attempts. "You can't play that, you don't RP well enough" is a simple sentence that inacurately describes a complex subject. In my experience it really depends on the group's experience in rpgs and the relationship between people in the group and what they're comfortable playing (with). 15 years ago we decided that no one in the group should roleplay a female, because 13-14 year olds (however mature for their age) tend to give a 'wrong' impression of females in general (and to be honest we didn't need to becopme more socially inept then we already where with girls ;-) 5 years ago someone played a female charecter (and an evil one at that) and did it well. Reason it workd, we were no longer in puberty (atleast that's what i keep telling myself).

 

[Lasher Dragon]

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

not good. not nice. not at my table.

"id ask you not to play that, because i dont feel it fits well within my campaign"

perfectly fine.

if you, as a player, dont agree - then hit the bricks and find a group that will let you do whatever it is you feel like doing.

W.P.

Agreed 100%

 

[ST]

If a player wants to be disruptive, they can easily do that with an off-the-shelf character. I believe in constraining character generation to fit the theme of a campaign, but not to stop a player from doing something that they can do anyway.

Now if the player had a character concept that made the group uncomfortable, yeah, we'd better nix it, but after talking about it together. I view that stuff as a social contract issue, in that there's stuff that everybody's not comfortable dealing with in a game context, and we're sensitive to those concerns.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Reason it workd, we were no longer in puberty (atleast that's what i keep telling myself).

Perhaps that IS the big difference.. I'm 29, the majority of the people I game with range in age from 25 to 40. While I don't know if I would necessarily classify us as "mature" , we are by no means immature when it comes to a lot of the situations I see described. (all the me-so-horny female PCs)

 

[Dæmon]

same people, same types of posts, different thread.

color me annoyed.

anyway:

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

not good. not nice. not at my table.

"id ask you not to play that, because i dont feel it fits well within my campaign"

perfectly fine.

if you, as a player, dont agree - then hit the bricks and find a group that will let you do whatever it is you feel like doing.

W.P.

The other thread is the most recent of several I have encountered.

If the concept would be disrupting, the player has proven repeatedly that they cannot improve their portrayal of it, or it does not fit the feel of the game then I have no problem with it being disallowed. But it irritates me no end if the only reason is "your not good enough" or "you didn't play it well enough last time" when it has only tried a few times.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

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. :\

Agreed. This sums up my opinion nicely. Thanks Crothian.

 

[Umbran]

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 going to assume, for the moment, that the quote there is a paraphrase. Let's not focus on specifics of delivery, because we weren't there to hear how it was said. We're not in a position to discuss how politely it was presented, so let's loot at the ideas that might be behind the words...

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.

I will make an analogy to athletics: I cannot run a 4-minute mile, currently. If I were required to do so as part of a group activity, where other's enjoyment were contingent on my ability, I'd be a detriment to the group. I can certainly walk a mile in 15 minutes. And, I can probably jog a mile somewhat faster than 15, but slower than 4.

If I want to improve my ability, I don't shoot for the extreme height that I know is far beyond my ability. I don't aim for the 4-minute mile right off, because I will blow my lungs out on the sidewalk too quickly, reducing the amount of real exercise I get. If I want to improve, I need to stretch beyond my known ability, but no so far as a rip my hamstrings.

Roleplaying is similar. You improve by reaching. But if you reach too far, you'll injure the game.

 

[twofalls]

Sometimes the Shoe Just Doesn't Fit

I'm one of the many long time role players that post here on the boards. I've been running games and managing small groups for 26 years. People game for a lot of different reasons, and each player brings something unique to the table. I'm adamant about people playing what they want to play "within the boundaries set by my campaign proposal that everyone reads before they agree to play". I'm so intent upon folks playing what they want to play as opposed to what they perceive that the game needs at that moment that I don't even allow the players to discuss their class and race choices before the game starts. 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 a priest. In those cases the game is simply adjusted to allow for those absences... I use healing herbs and extra potions to make up for the lack of a priest, or dumb down the magical traps for the lack of a rouge... etc. However everyone is playing what they wanted to play. Often what happens is the first player who looses a character steps back in as the missing piece of the party and I have to readjust again.

That having been said, there are some players (people who I've been gaming with for all those 26 years) who aren't suited for certain classes. I have one player who would simply find the appropriate use of spells and the complexities of the spell system to be too much of a challenge in game. What he he really enjoys is to bashing things with his dwarven war axe without having to think too much. I'd hesitate if he asked me to let him play a Mage. Would I refuse him the chance... no, I don't think so, but I would certainly adjust the game as the potency of the group as a whole would be reduced by his playing a character so alien to his experience and abilities within the game.

Going back to what I opened with, everyone plays for different reasons, but the universal goal is to have fun. As GM its my responsibility to make sure everyone has as much fun as I can without stepping down too hard on any one individual. This may mean suggesting to a player that the Mage might not be the most enjoyable character class possible for them... but I've not been in a situation where I've had to say absolutely not to a player based solely on ability. Yet.