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

[Mark]

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.”

Unless it is something you don't allow in your game at all, or a hard and fast rule like no cross-gender (which some people find uncomfortable) than it seems kinda mean to say that someone doesn't have the chops to even try a concept.

 

[S'mon]

Most players can play any PC acceptably well IMO. I have a tolerancev threshold but it's pretty low, you have to have some fairly major personality disorders before I'd say you weren't allowed to play PC type X due to your inability to play it properly. In 4.5 years GMing 3e I've only really seen this (player playing PC embarrassingly badly) once, and there's no way I could have predicted it beforehand. I would not have allowed that player to play the same type of PC again.

 

[HeavyG]

I've told tons of players that they couldn't playa certain kind of character becasue they were incapable of pulling it off (Largely jokesters who wanted to play Malkavians in Vampire: The Masquerade)

I see nothing wrong with it. This isn't a classroom, and I don't think valauble play time should be lost while someone without the natural inclination wreacks everything with antics becasue they can't RP.

Same here.

Not that I'm a roleplaying nazi that forces players who want to use Diplomacy to convince me with their flowery prose or anything.

Mostly, it's when I know that the player won't bother trying to roleplay his character in a consistent manner, then I won't let him play that. Well, in theory, at least. In reality, I'm too soft and will let a powergamer play a cleric of a god of peace, then watch him scoff at the Merciful mace in the monster's treasure because he likes killing bad guys.

But yeah, Malkavians, been there, banned that.

 

[S'mon]

- In any case, this was a player I was better off without.

 

[Jdvn1]

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.

Just wanted to add my two cents.

There was a thread about a guy wanting to play a female character. At the time, I said I'd allow it. I want to qualify that, though. If they're serious about the character, it's fine. I've known a lot of guys who want to play loud, obnoxious, lewd women. Their male characters aren't like that, the player is just being immature.

In that sense, I hold female characters to the same standard as male characters. Don't be annoying. Try to have a semblance of realism in your character's personality.

 

[Darkness]

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.

Isn't 3.) redundant, i.e., already included in 1.) and/or 2.)?

 

[reanjr]

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.

Well, you can increase RP ability in general without playing any particular PC concept. I warn players if they are going to play something out of their league, because experience tells me that when they do, they are usually unhappy with the results. I don't disallow it but I see the argument.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

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.

Let's look at this situation from the opposite angle. Is there some individual that you'd allow to play something that's usually banned from your table?

I dislike evil characters. They're not allowed in my games. Evil characters tend to be disruptive, delve into themes that I don't want to address, and so on. But I would let one of my roomates play an evil character. Why? He'd be responsible and mature about it. He'd have a reason for adventuring with the party, and he'd understand that this group is his ticket to power.

So, for him, I'd make an exception because he can role-play it well, and in a manner that's good for the game.

Do other people have players they'd let do something they don't let everyone else do?

If we turn the premise back over, does that mean I'm excluding everyone else from being an evil character because I believe they can't role-play it well enough?

 

[Meadred]

I'd like to put a slightly new spin on this thread. If we adopt the idea of "practice makes perfect" and allow a player to roleplay a concept/class/whatever that is slightly beyond his/her current capabilities, how can the rest of the group and the DM help that person to get "perfect practice" so that he/she actually improves?

I'll give you an example: A friend of mine likes to play swashbuckling heroes, like the main character in almost any Errol Flynn movie, and he generally does it well. In our current campaign, however, he's decided to play a swashbuckling fighter/cleric. The swashbuckling part goes rather well, but sometimes I wish he would pay more attention to his choice of spells and how he uses them during combat. He doesn't seem to read the spell descriptions beforehand and his knowledge of what spells are available seems to be a wee bit narrow. His character has memorized spells that didn't work the way he wanted them to, he has forgotten to cast "cure spells" on badly damaged characters in combat (our DM dislikes OOC-advice during combat, so we can't tell him 'my character needs healing ASAP'. We're allowed to say things like "Meadred looks badly damaged, and won't hold up much longer". Talking hit points left is a no-no. ) and so on. I would like to get him to focus on how to utilize his character's potential better, but I'm unsure of how to do it in a manner that will let him continue enjoying the game.

So, what is your advice?

Cheers,
Meadred

Edit: Clarification of OOC-statement.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

<snip>
he has forgotten to cast "cure spells" on badly damaged characters in combat (our DM dislikes OOC-advice during combat, so we can't tell him 'my character needs healing ASAP'.), and so on. I would like to get him to focus on how to utilize his character's potential better, but I'm unsure of how to do it in a manner that will let him continue enjoying the game.

So, what is your advice?

Cheers,
Meadred

Personally, IMO, this is poor DM'ing. So what the DM is saying is that the Cleric of the party just happens to not notice when say the 2 fighter-types in your party are limping, bleeding, bruised, and generally in a sorry state, all the way to your next encounter (be that 10 minutes to 6 hours later). I find it ridiculous personally.