This is proving difficult for me to articulate, but an observation I have made over the years and something I have been trying to avoid recently in my own play.
Players like playing the same role/character-type/archetype/stereotype (I assume). NOW, nothing wrong with that. I love playing thieves in AD&D. But sometimes it's nice to change class/role and do something different at the table (I assume). It is also nice to give the character a different personality and different way to engage with the game world than the last character, or characters. Maybe this is just me. Variety is the spice of life.
When we played Dragonlance back in the day, I played Tasslehoff and Tanis at different stages. Both rewarding experiences (depending of course on what end of the Kender experience you are on...).
TL;DR - I propose that playing different characters in an RPG can be rewarding.
So
Why do people end up playing the same character/personality in any number of games (regardless of system used to support play)? This can be intentional or accidental. One explanation I can think of is a comfort zone in operation. Using the term 'bad' sets up a lot of issues surrounding enjoyment and legitimacy of engagement with RPGs. People want to do what they want to do and enjoy it. Good for them.
Another idea is that of catharsis. Perhaps certain players need or want to play out certain characters because they have unresolved issues that they can only tackle though playing 'the thug' or 'the crazy doctor/surgeon'? It is an enjoyable outlet, and who am I to take that away from them?
But does the repetition of archetypes and generic personalities used by players get boring for others? Is there a problem, and if it exists where does the problem lie?
TL;DR - Getting players to do something different other than play out the same old tired fetishes week in, week out. How to?
At a guess for some people the in-play experience is so vastly more important than "character" that it's basically a throw away choice as to what type of character they want to play so why not go with the familiar/easy?
I tend to find that RPGers play some extension of their own personality. It can exaggerated, altered or selective, but it has some basis from which they can work from. This tends to give most RPGers between 5 to 10 personality types.
I don't know if this is a bad thing, as playing a PC with a personality that completely unlike the players in any way is unlikely to be very satisfactory. I think the main thing is to keep pushing the "usual" personality types and keep them refreshing. I actually like random PC creation systems like WFRP or life path PC creation systems like Traveller as they tend to do this.
Quote from: Skywalker;694985I tend to find that RPGers play some extension of their own personality. It can exaggerated, altered or selective, but it has some basis from which they can work from. This tends to give most RPGers between 5 to 10 personality types.
I don't know if this is a bad thing, as playing a PC with a personality that completely unlike the players in any way is unlikely to be very satisfactory. I think the main thing is to keep pushing the "usual" personality types and keep them refreshing. I actually like random PC creation systems like WFRP or life path PC creation systems like Traveller as they tend to do this.
I like this answer it agrees with my own point of view!
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694983TL;DR - Getting players to do something different other than play out the same old tired fetishes week in, week out. How to?
You're starting from the assumption that everyone is the same. This is an error. Some people will enjoy some variety. Some do not. I know people who just won't play if they can't play what they want. And they always add to the game when they do play.
I find players are more apt to try out "new roleplay experiences" with one shots than campaigns, especially with pregens who have pregen personalities written on their sheet.
Quote from: taustin;694994You're starting from the assumption that everyone is the same. This is an error. Some people will enjoy some variety. Some do not. I know people who just won't play if they can't play what they want. And they always add to the game when they do play.
Very valid point. I am not saying that those who 'revert to form' or tread a known path have nothing to offer. Maybe I am saying 'where are the people on the same page as me?' (bingo)
The idea that there are different personality types rang a bell in my head, or should I say sounded interesting. I know of Jung's archetypes, but I am now thinking of taking the idea of personality types and exploring those in NPCs as well as characters.
In my longstanding observation, there are two types of people in the world: those who Know Better than other people, and enjoy telling others what to think and do; and those who can't be bothered.
How many of you would deliver the following lines?
"It bugs me that each and every time we hit an ice cream stand, you order nothing but chocolate chip. I enjoy lots of flavors; you should too."
"You know, it's really rewarding to listen to all kinds of music. So you shouldn't just listen to classical. You should listen to 80s pop and hip-hop and fusion jazz and nautical folk too."
"Yeah, I know you've been a football fan going far back. But you should try other sports too. It ruins my fun that you won't try hockey and NASCAR and baseball."
Honestly, when it comes down to it, I like what I like. I perform classical music, I don't perform rock, I don't feel the need to justify my choice, and I don't apologize for it. I like hockey and soccer, I'm indifferent to auto racing and basketball, I don't feel the need to justify my choice, and I don't apologize for it. I like most seafood that has fins, I don't like seafood that lives in shells, I don't feel the need to justify my preference, and I don't apologize for it.
And around a gaming table, I've got certain preferences as to system, archetype and milieu, and there are systems I don't play, archetypes I don't touch, and milieus I can't stand. Not up for debate.
Definitely a tangential hit on Gaming Geek Fallacy #4. (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html)
TL;DR - How do I get people to ditch their preferences and try the things I want them to try if they're digging in their heels? Answer: you can't. Don't try.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;695002Maybe I am saying 'where are the people on the same page as me?'
Well, now, that's a different question, and a good one.
You ask.
After all, wouldn't you do that in soliciting any gaming group, or in searching for a game yourself? Someone who posts "I'm looking for a D&D 4e group, high fantasy only, and I like to play fighters" is stating his preferences in no uncertain terms. Someone who says "I'm looking to put together a group of people who like to try new things and new systems, and who don't mind mixing things up and changing their paradigms" is doing the same.
Quote from: Ravenswing;695005In my longstanding observation, there are two types of people in the world: those who Know Better than other people, and enjoy telling others what to think and do; and those who can't be bothered.
How many of you would deliver the following lines?
"It bugs me that each and every time we hit an ice cream stand, you order nothing but chocolate chip. I enjoy lots of flavors; you should too."
"You know, it's really rewarding to listen to all kinds of music. So you shouldn't just listen to classical. You should listen to 80s pop and hip-hop and fusion jazz and nautical folk too."
"Yeah, I know you've been a football fan going far back. But you should try other sports too. It ruins my fun that you won't try hockey and NASCAR and baseball."
Honestly, when it comes down to it, I like what I like. I perform classical music, I don't perform rock, I don't feel the need to justify my choice, and I don't apologize for it. I like hockey and soccer, I'm indifferent to auto racing and basketball, I don't feel the need to justify my choice, and I don't apologize for it. I like most seafood that has fins, I don't like seafood that lives in shells, I don't feel the need to justify my preference, and I don't apologize for it.
And around a gaming table, I've got certain preferences as to system, archetype and milieu, and there are systems I don't play, archetypes I don't touch, and milieus I can't stand. Not up for debate.
Definitely a tangential hit on Gaming Geek Fallacy #4. (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html)
TL;DR - How do I get people to ditch their preferences and try the things I want them to try if they're digging in their heels? Answer: you can't. Don't try.
Well played, sir! Ultimately it is of no major consequence as I have the option not to play, choose a different system or suck it up and chill out. As you said 'don't touch, don't play'.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694983TL;DR - I propose that playing different characters in an RPG can be rewarding.
For you. Different players are at the table for different reasons.
QuoteTL;DR - Getting players to do something different other than play out the same old tired fetishes week in, week out. How to?
You can't make someone roleplay if they don't want to, and you can't stop someone roleplaying if they do. Are you enjoying playing with this group? If so, if everyone else is happy, it's all good.
Quote from: Ladybird;695024Are you enjoying playing with this group? If so, if everyone else is happy, it's all good.
And this folks, is why I took a months absence after a patchy appearance previously. The shoe doesn't fit right now. First time I've encountered this to be honest (lucky boy!). Yeah some systems haven't been a good fit, but the whole playstyle thing not grokking (whilst old hat and discussed into the ground elsewhere) is unfamiliar territory up close.
I always play a variant of myself, my personaliy used is usually my own (i may tweak it a bit sometimes, though).
However, i find my interests versatile enough so i can play a warrior, cleric, fighter, mage, assassin, mad scientist, maid, ... or a mix between two or several (the scientist and the maid variants must be mixed).
I can manage a pregen, but not if there is an enforced personality to it.
If i can't play myself, or a variant thereof personality-wise, then i won't play.
I get my "playing very different characters"-quota filled when i GM, i do not want to play as something different when i am a player.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694983mething different other than play out the same old tired fetishes week in, week out. How to?
You're not going to make anyone play something different. But it might turn out that people will consider playing something different under the right circumstances.
Firstly, are you the DM?
If not, there's nothing you can or should do. If you're not having fun there really isn't much you should do except politely find a new group.
If you are, you should evaluate your play style. Making up a personality is work. Some old school players either won't do it at all (Mike the Fighter XV, Mike the Fighter XVI) or reserve their investment of a character personality when they start to hit 'survivable levels'. If you're running a murder-treadmill with the characters, you're discouraging playing something new.
Even if your characters are surviving, is there anything that makes them 'unique'? Consider offering backgrounds or character customization options that provide some benefit. Perhaps a player that was always Mike the Fighter before will be inspired by 'nobility in hiding while gathering forces to reclaim her throne' and will be more willing to play a character they hadn't before. If you go this route, try to include the background option in the players advancement... If someone chooses this background, give them options to perform adventures that move them toward recovering their throne. If they recover their throne by 6th level, well, yes, they have resources they didn't have before - but they also have obligations. While they might have access to the treasury, they also need to pay the legions and what have you... It can expand the game rather than 'break' it. In that case, by expanding a character role beyond what they've had before (again, based on their chosen interest) you're likely to find they have a new personality.
Ideally (for you) if someone has a chance to play a really developed character, when that campaign ends they'll feel that whatever they play next, they want a 'change of pace'... But even if they don't, with a different background and/or customization options, they're likely to end up different by the end of the campaign.
I'd say that's really what you should limit your actions to: trying to provide variety within the game that stimulates different paths of character development.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;695025And this folks, is why I took a months absence after a patchy appearance previously. The shoe doesn't fit right now. First time I've encountered this to be honest (lucky boy!). Yeah some systems haven't been a good fit, but the whole playstyle thing not grokking (whilst old hat and discussed into the ground elsewhere) is unfamiliar territory up close.
Eh, it happens. There's people in our club I'll avoid playing with, for the same reason... they're happy doing their thing, so that's fine (And there are people who are happy playing with them, so that's fine too), it's just not a thing I want to be in a group with.
Then there are other people who also stick to type, but are still fun to play with. I have seen people try to change them, but it... just doesn't work, to varying degrees. For some people, it just fails; for others, it ruins the game for them, which in turn makes it worse for the rest of us.
Have you tried talking to the group about it, though? If you don't have a pool of other players to play with, it might be worth doing that before doing something like leaving the group.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694983Another idea is that of catharsis. Perhaps certain players need or want to play out certain characters because they have unresolved issues that they can only tackle though playing 'the thug' or 'the crazy doctor/surgeon'? It is an enjoyable outlet, and who am I to take that away from them?
I'd tend to shy away from this kind of analysis since it encourages some individuals to either try to change behaviour that they feel is undesireable through RPGs (and that might be just playing a woman in a chainmail bikini) or ostracise players, and through much the same process winds up with games which are politically correct, whatever that flavour happens to be this week.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694983TL;DR - Getting players to do something different other than play out the same old tired fetishes week in, week out. How to?
Randomise chargen and character class choices, like in WHFRPG. I mean nobody
really wanted to play a ratcatcher. :D
When I played point-buy, I tended to create characters I could role-play easy. But with random chargen systems, I find it more challenging to role-play the character I generate.
I tend to stay away from GMs that lock random monsters in rooms and then hope that I unlock them. That's just as bad as players that role-play the same fighter dude every time.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;695039That's just as bad as players that role-play the same fighter dude every time.
But why? How does the guy playing the same fighter damage
your game? Is it something about the character, the player, or something else?
Quote from: Ladybird;695040But why? How does the guy playing the same fighter damage your game? Is it something about the character, the player, or something else?
He just wants to kill everything he sees and loot every single corpse. Bogs down the game with combat rounds we didn't need to be doing, and waiting for his thinking about what items to write down in his items box. Fighters tend to play different games than the rest of the group.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;695041He just wants to kill everything he sees and loot every single corpse. Bogs down the game with combat rounds we didn't need to be doing, and waiting for his thinking about what items to write down in his items box. Fighters tend to play different games than the rest of the group.
Fair enough. I can see why that would get really annoying, really fast.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;695002Very valid point. I am not saying that those who 'revert to form' or tread a known path have nothing to offer.
There was a comment about other players being bored with someone always running basically the same character.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;695002Maybe I am saying 'where are the people on the same page as me?' (bingo)
The idea that there are different personality types rang a bell in my head, or should I say sounded interesting. I know of Jung's archetypes, but I am now thinking of taking the idea of personality types and exploring those in NPCs as well as characters.
Unless you are the most amazingly creative GM who ever lived, and your players equally amazing in their imagination, you absolutely should use the archetypes, at least as a starting point. I've read books on the subject. It's the fastest way to establish a picture in people's heads of an NPC (One GM I play with uses photo from Google as illustrations, too, which does help the visualization). It's easy to take it too far, and have all your NPCs turn in to cardboard cutouts (and not very many different ones of those), but anybody who shows up more than once will rapdily start to develop a personality of their own anyway.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694983TL;DR - Getting players to do something different other than play out the same old tired fetishes week in, week out. How to?
Mu.
In forty years of D&D I've played one elf, three magic users, a cleric, and more fighters than I can count.
I gave up on the elf, the cleric, and the magic users at about level six or seven because they were boring.
I've never found playing a fighter to be boring. Yet, teh INTARwebs are full of "How do we make fighters not boring?"
Different people like different things. And right now, I'd like a beer.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;695041He just wants to kill everything he sees and loot every single corpse. Bogs down the game with combat rounds we didn't need to be doing, and waiting for his thinking about what items to write down in his items box. Fighters tend to play different games than the rest of the group.
No, that is not "fighters tend to play different games," that is "guy playing fighter is being a dickmonkey."
It takes two to Tango.
I like playing characters who have depth and evolve over the campaign run to become different than how they were when they started. However, the GM running the game may just want a bunch of Player characters who like to kill things and take their stuff. It is not just a matter of the Player making the choices, those choices must also be compatible with the setting assumptions put forth by the GM.
Quote from: Old Geezer;695177No, that is not "fighters tend to play different games," that is "guy playing fighter is being a dickmonkey."
this. Also, the argument, "the way so and so plays his character makes the game boring for me." strikes me as very odd.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;695185this. Also, the argument, "the way so and so plays his character makes the game boring for me." strikes me as very odd.
Yeah. Especially when I've seen it move to "Jane always plays a barbarian and Joe always plays a wizard and it bores me. If Jane plays a wizard and Joe plays a barbarian that would be perfect."
My reaction varies from "What?" to "Tongue my pee hole, shit-for-brains." But I admit I'm showing an extreme case.
Quote from: Old Geezer;695188Yeah. Especially when I've seen it move to "Jane always plays a barbarian and Joe always plays a wizard and it bores me. If Jane plays a wizard and Joe plays a barbarian that would be perfect."
My reaction varies from "What?" to "Tongue my pee hole, shit-for-brains." But I admit I'm showing an extreme case.
Not so extreme as all of that. The concept of people who want frequent change for the sake of frequent change ... well, that just seems endemic in our culture. (At least as long as the corporations that run ad campaigns want it that way. Can't sell the 2014 New! Improved! Model! if people are still happy with the one they bought five years ago, after all.)
If player is happy with their character and the choice is not disruptive to the rest of the group what do I care if its always the same character type?
After all, the player is the one assuming the role if he/she gets bored with it they will be the one suggesting a change.
I think it would be interesting to have a game mechanic which encouraged players to try new classes and characters.
I am toying with the mechanic at the moment in an emsemble/Dune-esque game.
Quote from: Lawbag;695363I think it would be interesting to have a game mechanic which encouraged players to try new classes and characters.
I am toying with the mechanic at the moment in an emsemble/Dune-esque game.
This goes beyond making sense to me. Does the system track what you played before?
Personally, when I start a new game, I start a new game. Anything that tries to relate to the last game (or last character) would be blithely ignored.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;695361If player is happy with their character and the choice is not disruptive to the rest of the group what do I care if its always the same character type?
.
Yep. Disruptive players are one thing, but how does it affect my game if Joe always plays a fighter because that's what he likes?
It's like a lot of the stuff you hear from the "modern" D&D player: The implication that without a ton of character choice and shiny bells and whistles, then the game is horrible because it's boring.
A lot of people don't care about bells and whistles, but care about interacting with the game world.
People will play what they are comfortable with.
Some will experiment untill they find an archetype they like.
Some just have a specific ideal they want to play. Possibly based on a movie, book, game, etc.
A-lot of players who play the same character from one game to the other just happen to be attached to that character. They KNOW that character and and are comfortable with it. They may have invested a-lot of time into the character and so are not inclined to branch out. And some just like the Swiss-Army Knife fort of character that can be dropped into any setting running. No prep time needed hardly.
And some just carry over the name and possibly some personality quirks, or play the same class over and over because... well... they LIKE that class a-lot.
From experience over the decades though, given time, some of these types will branch out out of curiosity. Some even follow a certain branch with one recurring character and another branch with another recurring character.
There are just as many players who MUST play a different character every game.
Let the player go with what they are comfortable with. Do not try to force them to change.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;694983Why do people end up playing the same character/personality in any number of games (regardless of system used to support play)?
Apart from obvious reasons of comfort, I think the biggest reason is that some people look to RPGs as a way to be an idealized version of themselves. Their characters are less individual characters with their own motivations and background, and more a representation of themselves thrust into the game world as a personal avatar.
I don't see a problem with this. It's just my observation. I care about this kind of thing far less than I care about disruptive behavior.
I had a friend we played with back in high school that we nicknamed "Rent-a-Rogue". He always played a Rogue or Thief of some type in every game we ever ran.
It was never disruptive, and he liked playing that type of character. Who were we to tell him to do anything different.
Quote from: Lawbag;695363I think it would be interesting to have a game mechanic which encouraged players to try new classes and characters.
I think you should absolutely play any class or character archetype it suits you to try. If you're really that fond of variety, you shouldn't need to be compelled/enticed into doing so.
I think you should, by contrast, leave the decision of what I'm going to play to me. If I want your input, I'll let you know.
As long as it's not disruptive bullshit like "I must play a samurai in every game, regardless of setting" then it is just a playstyle issue.
If their redundancy is getting under your skin, start another group and run games with chargen that lead to essentially randomized character class/build. Most people tend to cope when people have different circles of friends and acquaintances.
Quote from: robiswrong;695485Apart from obvious reasons of comfort, I think the biggest reason is that some people look to RPGs as a way to be an idealized version of themselves. Their characters are less individual characters with their own motivations and background, and more a representation of themselves thrust into the game world as a personal avatar.
I don't see a problem with this. It's just my observation. I care about this kind of thing far less than I care about disruptive behavior.
This strikes me as a very true statement.
What started as a muddled rant about a bunch of people essentially playing themselves in a variety of settings has drilled down into some of this in a fascinating way (without snark or bitching which is very nice. It is appreciated. It makes a change from other places...).
None of it strikes me as disruptive in play. Less than satisfying if one is looking for something different, but not badwrongfun for those getting off on it.
Bemusingly there are a few RPGs out there where you essentially play yourself. Villains and Vigilanties comes to mind as one of the earliest to take that route. I am not sure - but I think Torg was another one with that as an option.
Quote from: Omega;695603Bemusingly there are a few RPGs out there where you essentially play yourself. Villains and Vigilanties comes to mind as one of the earliest to take that route. I am not sure - but I think Torg was another one with that as an option.
I think it'd be cool to have run a DCC game (or D&D, whatever) where the starting characters were essentially the players. Oh, you wanna be a wizard? Well, can you cast any spells? Considering how people rate their attributes, everyone on here would have an 18 INT and 16 CHA or something, but I think it'd be fun, anyway.
Quote from: Brad;695882Considering how people rate their attributes, everyone on here would have an 18 INT and 16 CHA or something, but I think it'd be fun, anyway.
Ha! Good one! :)
I'd say its for the same reason there are character actors. Some people like to try something really new and different every time, while others just really like one type of role, and stick to variations of the same.
Quote from: RPGPundit;695948I'd say its for the same reason there are character actors. Some people like to try something really new and different every time, while others just really like one type of role, and stick to variations of the same.
Exactly.
I tend to favour Magic Users, with occasional experiments with Bards and Monks. With rare forays into trying a Druid. But primarily Im usually the mage of the group. In SF settings I am usually a scientist or engineer. Rigger in Shadowrun. I also tend to get pegged by the other players as the groups spokesperson/diplomat.