Yeah, I would simply and nicely tell the player that what's been conceptualized won't really work well in this situation. If he's a good dude, he won't mind changing it. If not, then you nipped a problem child in the bud. Everyone's time and energy is at stake, no one gets to ruin it with an unworkable gameplay request.

Quote from: LagiaDOS;1093884- A relatively standard dragonborn paladin, concerned on protecting the crown and helping inocent people
- A young elf mage too pure for this world
- A honorbound warrior seeking a way to restore her families honor and help people
- and... an artificier that doesn't feel anything that puts a façade of a happy person and would have no problem in hurting innocents (without killing them) in exchange for eternal life. Also he would push a button that explodes the world just for curiosity.

The objetive of the campaign is simple: kill four demons that are ravaging the world and save it, "you are the light that will clear the darkness", as they are refered in-game, as a profecy marked them as the ones that will save the world from this demons (there is a bit more to it, but it's irrelevant to this topic). They all knew this before making the characters, by the way.

What if instead of asking for a complete rework, you started by offering some ways to adapt the premise to something closer to what fits in your campaign?

Just spitballing here:

- the artificer has some goal he's trying to reach with his immortality. Perhaps he witnessed some terrible cataclysm that cost him dearly and is at risk of happening again unless he acts to prevent it, but he needs time beyond the mortal lifespan to finish his work
- intellectually he realizes that his anhedonia puts him at risk of becoming insane before he achieves either immortality or his goal
- his development of exploding the world out of curiosity is a first sign of his decreasing stability
- he is growing increasingly desperate to resolve this flaw so that he can get back on track to achieving his goal
- a powerful, holy patron can help restore him in exchange for clearing the demons. Their encroaching darkness is cutting off the channels of holy power
- for the meantime the best the patron can do is provide the artificer doses of sanity, perhaps, to stave off the decline
- the demons might also tempt him with a twisted bargain of their own: maybe immortality now, at the cost of immediately being insane
- you and the player can track the artificer's descent and gradually introduce it to the party as makes sense

Not knowing all your detailed plans it's possible there's just no way to make it fit, but if the player is willing to cooperate, perhaps this could be an interesting time pressure / escalating stakes part of the campaign (for example)?

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1094148What if instead of asking for a complete rework, you started by offering some ways to adapt the premise to something closer to what fits in your campaign?

Never works. You think you've reached a compromise. The contrarian player will continually push the boundaries of the compromise, and the game becomes a chore of trying to keep him between the lines. It's no fun for the GM, it's no fun for the players, and it's no fun for tthe contrarian.

Here's the best solution: Ask him to make a new character that works with the campaign premise. If the second idea is also garbage, get rid of the player.

Quote from: Aglondir;1094149Never works. You think you've reached a compromise. The contrarian player will continually push the boundaries of the compromise, and the game becomes a chore of trying to keep him between the lines. It's no fun for the GM, it's no fun for the players, and it's no fun for tthe contrarian.

Here's the best solution: Ask him to make a new character that works with the camlaign premise. If the second idea is also garbage, get rid of the player.

Yeah, I guess what it comes down to is whether this is "an overall cooperative player who got attached to a cool idea" or "the first warning sign that this player is going to be a pain throughout the entire campaign".

I have had a couple of friends who were in the first bucket and I was able to work with them on making things fit. Of course that will depend a lot on the player.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1094007Why? You tell your players what the general thrust of the campaign is so they can make characters appropriate to it.

For instance I ran a game around an artifact called the slaying stone once, with the pitch basically being to the players that they were going to play a group that was trying to destroy it LOTR style. I also provided various themes and plot hooks for them to build their characters around.

That saves you from having to force a party that has no business being together, together.

[Yoda]This is why you fail.[/Yoda]

NOTE:  I am not telling you that you are bad wrong fun or anything similar.  I am explaining a rationale of gaming you appear not to understand and you specifically asked for my opinion.

You shouldn't have to "force" a party to be together.  If the campaign is going to be about a serious, world-ending threat, then anyone who isn't a coward or a psychopath should see the logic in ending the threat, especially if no one else can or they are somehow foretold to do this.  

In the end, the only meta-concerns that should exist are those shared by all RPGs.
1. This is the campaign the GM is running.
2. The rest of the players will get along with or without you.

In the OP example, the setup declares the PCs are prophesied to be the saviors of the world.  You don't need to "force" anything, you just need to do the GM's job...play the world.
How are the big bads going to view the prophesied saviors?  They're going to try and kill them.  Now the players who don't give a shit about the world can decide to end the bad guys before they end them, or can keep hoping they get lucky.

Your thinking is too simplistic and pigeonholed if you think the dichotomy is "you're going to be playing these roles in this specific campaign" and "sandbox dungeon crawl".  I suspect the issue is you've never really experienced a World in Motion campaign.

There's nothing wrong with "we're going to tell this specific story", it's just way too meta for me.  I've experienced campaigns that give me a better roleplaying experience and so I prefer them.  I don't care how many other people do whatever, I hear Transformers movies do well too.

I'll admit to sometimes having been the problem child in games... making contrarian PCs... but it's just about always been in reaction to groups who try to read the GM and go along with what they think 'The Story' is... even when the GM obviously has no story planned. I just stopped playing with groups like that, I'm a bad fit.

Quote from: LagiaDOS;1093884Also he would push a button that explodes the world just for curiosity.

This is the part that concerns me. I can deal with amoral characters. But suicidal ones will tend to get themselves killed and drag the party with them.
Kinda like Kender in Dragonlance, who are too dumb to survive an adventure without DM fiat.

Quote from: LagiaDOS;1093884Well, I'm getting ready for a 5e campaign, and I have the characters, but one of them doesn't fit the campaign nor the party.

So far the party consists of:

- A relatively standard dragonborn paladin, concerned on protecting the crown and helping inocent people
- A young elf mage too pure for this world
- A honorbound warrior seeking a way to restore her families honor and help people
- and... an artificier that doesn't feel anything that puts a façade of a happy person and would have no problem in hurting innocents (without killing them) in exchange for eternal life. Also he would push a button that explodes the world just for curiosity.

The objetive of the campaign is simple: kill four demons that are ravaging the world and save it, "you are the light that will clear the darkness", as they are refered in-game, as a profecy marked them as the ones that will save the world from this demons (there is a bit more to it, but it's irrelevant to this topic). They all knew this before making the characters, by the way.

Yeah, you can see the problem, I guess. Is it a dick move to ask him to modify the character so it fits better?

It is your DUTY to tell that player to change his character for the good of the group.  Do not be afraid of being called a dick, asshole, or some vile scum by that player if they do go that route.  Trust me from experience you do not want to feel bad for the player because a few had abuse my good will.  Tell this player to change his character and if he/she whines about it tell that person that there is always the door.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1094160This is the part that concerns me. I can deal with amoral characters. But suicidal ones will tend to get themselves killed and drag the party with them.
Kinda like Kender in Dragonlance, who are too dumb to survive an adventure without DM fiat.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1094160This is the part that concerns me. I can deal with amoral characters. But suicidal ones will tend to get themselves killed and drag the party with them.
Kinda like Kender in Dragonlance, who are too dumb to survive an adventure without DM fiat.

Well, I want to know where that sentence comes from.  
Is that the GM's characterization?
Did the player either write or say that exact phrase?

If you tell the player...You are going on a quest to literally save the world.
He makes up a character and specifically writes or says...He would push a button to blow up the world out of curiosity.

Then that player is "probably" being a passive-aggressive asshat who is telling you I am going to fuckup your game. He needs to be flushed.  I don't think the player actually said that, I think the OP is paraphrasing, in which case the player is probably salvageable, he just needs a talking to.

Quote from: Aglondir;1094149Never works. You think you've reached a compromise. The contrarian player will continually push the boundaries of the compromise, and the game becomes a chore of trying to keep him between the lines. It's no fun for the GM, it's no fun for the players, and it's no fun for tthe contrarian.

Here's the best solution: Ask him to make a new character that works with the camlaign premise. If the second idea is also garbage, get rid of the player.

This is exactly what happens when you have a Paladin in the party, all of a sudden you need to have some kind of "group think" with everyone moving in lock step and I tell you that purity tests are not far in the future.

The DM needs to put on his big boy pants and just let the Players actually **shockhorror** play their characters,

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1094150Yeah, I guess what it comes down to is whether this is "an overall cooperative player who got attached to a cool idea" or "the first warning sign that this player is going to be a pain throughout the entire campaign".

I have had a couple of friends who were in the first bucket and I was able to work with them on making things fit. Of course that will depend a lot on the player.

I should have said Seldom Works rather than Never Works. Results of too many games crashing due to contrarians. But if the player is an honest broker rather than a jerk it can work.

Quote from: Shasarak;1094177This is exactly what happens when you have a Paladin in the party, all of a sudden you need to have some kind of "group think" with everyone moving in lock step and I tell you that purity tests are not far in the future.

The DM needs to put on his big boy pants and just let the Players actually **shockhorror** play their characters,

Or perhaps inform said player that this is going to a good align campaign first and thus avoid the whole bullshit to begin with.  GMs are the referee of the game and telling players that their character's don't fit so make a new one is well within the rights of the GM.

There's always a Mind-Wipe spell you can create, or something like that which alters the PC's personality to the GM's approval.
It's a dick move, but one good dick move deserves another, heh heh

Quote from: CRKrueger;1094171Well, I want to know where that sentence comes from.  
Is that the GM's characterization?
Did the player either write or say that exact phrase?

If you tell the player...You are going on a quest to literally save the world.
He makes up a character and specifically writes or says...He would push a button to blow up the world out of curiosity.

Then that player is "probably" being a passive-aggressive asshat who is telling you I am going to fuckup your game. He needs to be flushed.  I don't think the player actually said that, I think the OP is paraphrasing, in which case the player is probably salvageable, he just needs a talking to.

*shrug* It's a pretty specific thing to paraphrase. I can only comment on what the OP has told us.

Quote from: LagiaDOS;1093884Well, I'm getting ready for a 5e campaign, and I have the characters, but one of them doesn't fit the campaign nor the party.

So far the party consists of:

- A relatively standard dragonborn paladin, concerned on protecting the crown and helping inocent people
- A young elf mage too pure for this world
- A honorbound warrior seeking a way to restore her families honor and help people
- and... an artificier that doesn't feel anything that puts a façade of a happy person and would have no problem in hurting innocents (without killing them) in exchange for eternal life. Also he would push a button that explodes the world just for curiosity.

The objetive of the campaign is simple: kill four demons that are ravaging the world and save it, "you are the light that will clear the darkness", as they are refered in-game, as a profecy marked them as the ones that will save the world from this demons (there is a bit more to it, but it's irrelevant to this topic). They all knew this before making the characters, by the way.

Yeah, you can see the problem, I guess. Is it a dick move to ask him to modify the character so it fits better?

I think you should find out how the player thinks this character is going to work with/within the party, but it's certainly not unreasonable to ask him to make a more thematic character. A character who is motivated by wealth or ambition could well work out; Han Solo joining the Resistance.

If it turns out the one with the elf who is too pure for this world is the problem player, the irony would be too delicious and if it happens, you must, must, must tell us about it.