How do you deal with a player who keeps proposing the same character over and over?
How do you deal with a player who keeps proposing the same character over and over?
How do you deal with a player who keeps proposing the same character over and over?
Tell them to frick off back to their own board?
Why is this homosexual so upset? Maybe he should frick off to reddit.
Shalom!
Mostly, I don't care, everyone has a role they prefer to play, that's fine. If they keep making a character I don't want to see, I'll just throw an specific counter enemy at them over and over til they make something else. or just tell them. depends if they'll sperg out over a direct confrontation or not.
Makes sense.
The issue is mostly that it gets boring when it leads to the character being played the same every time. Drawing from anecdotes, this one guy plays a character with turboautism every time, his characters just hyperfixate on one thing and pursue it at all costs due to whatever deranged childhood he came up with in this iteration. It was decent the first time since he's a good roleplayer, but even if the subject of his fixation is different it starts to feel a bit samey.
So what? It's not his job to entertain you, homosexual. You're not paying him.
Playercels like you don't understand that I'm the one in charge; get out of my game.
Nah, I'll kick you out of your own house, b***h. Nice wife btw. I'll enjoy raping her to death.
I don't think your heard me man, I'm the one in charge. Present you bussy immediately or I hold you at gunpoint until the cops show up.
>it's boring
It isn't the job of the other players at the table to entertain you, but that said, watching someone without a single creative bone in their body try to play a "unique" character is worse than boring
the GM doesn't play the character so what's the issue? If the GM makes everything that happened to the first character happen to the second one all over again (and then has to replay the same npcs saying the same dialogue again) it's his own dumb ass fault.
>Otherwise, they're just a bit boring because they always play the same character.
This only matters if they're being put into the exact same situations as before.
>It's a "problem", because we had hipster era, circa 2007-12, when being special snowflake (but not in the TTRPG terms) was the goal of everything
this answer at least makes sense.
Maybe the gm doesn't want to see gayass Mcturdballs in his 7th iteration. Your response clearly shows you've never GMed. Of course there's no consideration that the gm might find it boring ant tiresome.
I'm not autistic enough to have this problem
>autism is being annoyed by someone playing the same homosexual ass character regardless of campaign and campaign theme
The autism is clearly on the player's part, since they feel the need to play the same boring ass shit regardless of campaign. Good try though.
>It isn't the job of the other players at the table to entertain you
Yes it is. Why do people think otherwise? If you aren't interesting and entertaining, nobody will want to play with you. It's my obligation to be interesting to you, and your job is to do the same. That's the essence of collaborative roleplay.
No, it's the game that's supposed to be the interesting part. If you play RPGs to be entertained by the other players and not the actual gameplay, you're doing it completely wrong.
You play the game with multiple people for a reason, any roleplaying game is a collaborative effort concerning everyone involved, its not the GM's sole responsibility, its the whole table's.
The "Game" is the ruleset that allow for this collaborative effort, but it won't matter if the people involved put in no effort.
I disagree with you, but ultimately it's subjective. I would feel bad for any DM engaged with players who think like you though, honestly.
>loweffortbait.jpg
Won't even bother with opening the bait folder to select an image
>Drawing from anecdotes, this one guy plays a character with turboautism every time, his characters just hyperfixate on one thing and pursue it at all costs due to whatever deranged childhood he came up with in this iteration
That's not an archetype that's just only thinking of one dimensional characters
1.) Suggest that humans and gnomes can be kind of like dwarves
2.) Fail
3.) Let him play another dwarf
I've never understood why this is an issue.
Playing archetypes is central to rpgs as a concept, and if someone is comfortable with a specific archetype, and that archetype fits the game, then more power to them.
>if [...] that archetype fits the game
People who want to play only a single archetype never respect this condition. That's why they're so disliked.
Otherwise, they're just a bit boring because they always play the same character.
Are they having fun? Does it work with the campaign?
If it's "yes" on both, then I couldn't care any fricking less.
It's a "problem", because we had hipster era, circa 2007-12, when being special snowflake (but not in the TTRPG terms) was the goal of everything. Meaning that if you are reusing concepts, you are a fraud hack and should have a nice day, while all the super-original people laugh ironically.
Hence, it's not a real problem. What's surprising is the residual damage this shit made and how even complete underage newbies struggle with this, because they can readily find online all the b***hing from that era.
Right, because the GM's enjoyment is meaningless, so he should just accede to the same shit over and over.
One of the main problems is when that player not only makes the same character over and over, but also makes the same exact decisions during the game to the point you can predict exactly what he or she is going to do no matter what game you're playing. Even the bad decisions that failed the first few times he tried.
You mean like across multiple campaigns or after they have a character die?
If it's the first, I don't really see much of a problem. I always enjoy when one of my players plays a radically different character from their last campaign, but there's nothing wrong with playing a reliable type. I've got a guy who's played a Lovecraft-esque hypochondriac shut-in archivist in one campaign and then played an outgoing and neighborly sheriff in the next and in both of those campaigns I had another player who was a conman because he loves playing as conmen and he's great at playing them. I don't really see much of an issue with that.
If it's playing an identical character after their character has died I can understand why that might be annoying. I usually have a mandate that if you die you have to play as a different class. That doesn't necessarily stop them from playing the same type of character, but it usually makes it feel different enough.
>I've never understood why this is an issue.
it can be kind of repetitive I guess, and if it's playing basically the same character after death, it can be mildly annoying because it could feel like they are ignoring the consequences of their actions.
If they're playing it well, I don't give a shit. if they're playing it badly, I have other problems.
Also keeps using puns for names
>Get it, he made off with their money?
>Bank Man Fried
What do you mean "deal"?
I'm still laughing that this doofus got backstabbed by his equally-scummy girlfriend who looks like Gollum raped a goblin.
>backstabbed by his equally-scummy girlfriend who looks like Gollum raped a goblin
Stealing billions gets you a Golum GF? It's almost not worth it at this point.
>OSR
>Human Only
>Random Name Generator
"You're outside a dungeon with your friends, you're here to try your luck, what do you do?"
*3 rooms later take arrow to chest*
So begins the tale of Dave with the doughnut half plate.
By not noticing things.
I can't help but nootice
Hmmmm
Too based
As I am that player I refuse to be dealt with. Until I am satisfied with exploring every possible Monk build, I will never not play Monk.
I don’t care if they keep playing the same guy but I’m not going to put in any effort for their character.
Is it disrupting the game?
Yes: I tell them it's disrupting the game and they need to switch it up if they want to keep playing at my table. I'll even present them with three viable concepts that are on the borders of their pet character.
No: Don't care as long as everyone is still having fun. Doesn't mean they won't be mocked for being uncreative mono-brains but the game carries on.
Honestly I haven't seen this very often. It's usually players that talk about how great a previous character was and what they'd do in X situation or somebody having this huge backstory and head-canon that does not mesh with the game we are playing. I give those people a few sessions to get right and if they don't they're not invited back. And all of that is really rare too because I don't play with randos and I have a firm talk about social contract and expectations at the beginning of any campaign.
>it's usually players that talk about how great a previous character was
Or they're players who just play builds, instead of developing and concept and working into it mechanically.
We have one like that and the group has collectively urged them more than once to try something different. I think that is mostly because said character is a charisma voided personification of the AOL dial-up noise, more power fantasy than personality.
>character is a charisma voided personification of the AOL dial-up noise,
this is my next CHA stat dump character, TY
Why should I do anything? He's been cordial and a good player at the table and brought snacks. I'm not gonna kick him our because he's sticking to shtick. If that's how he wants to play then that's how he wants to play. You want something different YOU play something different.