What is your least favorite character archetype?

[Falcii]

Hey. I strongly dislike a particular character archetype in rp. Do you? Don't mean to offend if this is your absolute favorite, I'm just genuinely curious what other people feel about character archetypes.

I super duper hate the person who screams "for justice!" As they run into battle. They are steadfast to the point perfect inflexibility on their morals which are without fail black and white with no regard for the culture or circumstances of the people involved. They are self important above all but the law or their god or whatever which is only slightly better than them and if you don't agree with both statements then you are subhuman and are treated as such. It's zealotous stupidity taken to an extreme which is funny for a one off character but it's so incredibly grating and awful for any campaign with even the slightest bit of realism and RP. In the real world, those people are treated like crazies and are avoided. People don't put up with it for more than ten minutes at a time. How am I supposed to justify putting up with it for months on end in an adventure when I want to reach over and smack the paladin every time he talks?

[A_S]

I'm generally down on character concepts that have "doesn't play well with others" baked into them as part of their core identity. Includes:

Chaotic Stupid characters who steal from/attack/mess with party members for My Guy Syndrome reasons.
Terminally inflexible Paladins who interpret their code of conduct as requiring them to fight with their party about everything.
Kender.

[Psyren]

I'm generally down on character concepts that have "doesn't play well with others" baked into them as part of their core identity. Includes:

Chaotic Stupid characters who steal from/attack/mess with party members for My Guy Syndrome reasons.
Terminally inflexible Paladins who interpret their code of conduct as requiring them to fight with their party about everything.
Kender.


Yeah, basically that - any concept that requires antagonizing the party is a non-starter for me.

The other one I personally dislike is the Big Dumb; I find it really hard to make a character with less than 10 Int.

[Krazzman]

I dislike playing the dedicated Spellcaster... mostly because I seriously suck at doing that.

My problems are Analysis Paralysis and my general lack of tactical thinking.

My most liked character so far was a dumb (despite 14 int) illiterate Totemist. I like being the dedicated melee dude or the support caster.

[Buufreak]

I'm a not so big fan of thieves. Might be I've never been a fan of stealth in rpgs, or the need to compulsively steal, which admittedly isn't all of them, but I think the point gets across. I also think it contributes to a lot of slowdown, regardless of the medium.

[mastermisha1]

I personally despise the overly intelligent types who are more or less "I knew you would do that so I prepared this." More or less the Lelouch or Kira types.

[Zanos]

It's definitely a taste thing, but a lot of Chaotic character archetypes make me fray. If you would describe a character as "tricky" I probably wouldn't like them. Especially Fey. I maintain that Fey are a plague and must all be destroyed.

[Psyren]

I personally despise the overly intelligent types who are more or less "I knew you would do that so I prepared this." More or less the Lelouch or Kira types.

I like those two because generally (a) they fail a fair bit too and (b) when they succeed, usually it's against people who deserve it, either for being even bigger jerks or overly naive.

The archetype of this particular trope that I despise is Batman, specifically how he is just assumed to be able to curbstomp anyone in the DCU except a crazy gangster in makeup.

[Falcii]

Ooh I hadn't even thought to do ones I dislike playing. I really dislike playing the wizard without limitation. Like... I can teleport to anywhere in the world, shatter mountains, fracture continents, raze cities and still have energy left to be a better fighter than most fighters, why would I ever bother hanging out with these useless layabouts?

I feel like the most important thing in character design is hurdles and challenges. A wizard 20 with no to reason not to use their full power, is basically a god to mortal men. Give them teleportation anxiety and an obsession with a cool but low power spell (I like defenestrating sphere) and their preoccupations make them fun to play and easily enough skip the spells that you should cast but ruin games.

[SirNibbles]

Usually issues occur because players are lazy and don't bother to come up with an interesting character, instead resorting to only the bare bones of an archetype.

The Stupid Brute- "I'm very stupid and I break stuff."
The Greedy Rogue- "I only care about gold and loot."
The Paladin- "We have to do everything as I say, otherwise you are evil and I have to kill you."

An interesting, well thought out character has a past that shapes their beliefs and motivations. It's your responsibility to your fellow players to make a character which immerses them into the game.

[Karl Aegis]

The character that raised their expectations of them by declaring they could explode enemies into a shower of gore while being decidedly hard to kill themselves and don't deliver. They stand around and waste party resources getting hit squarely in the gut and never actually explode enemies into a shower of gore. It would be fine if they didn't demand healing so they could take a part of the loot at the end for themselves, but they expect us to carry them around. While delivering neither gore nor explosions.

[Dagroth]

I played in a game where one character was both "the dumb brute" and "the righteous Paladin" at the same time. This was back in AD&D 2.0 and I was playing a CG half-elf Ranger/Cleric. In game, the Paladin often frustrated my character to no end... but as a Player, I enjoyed the game immensely. Because the game progressed. There was a situation where we were attacked by a group of Drow. One of them, because of three fumbles in a row, was captured by the Paladin. Both myself and the Elven Fighter/Thief/Wizard wanted to just kill her. The big-hearted Paladin wouldn't hear of it though and claimed she could be redeemed.

My character kept a wary eye on her... ready to fill her full of arrows if she stepped out of line. The other Elf often discussed killing her in her sleep when the Paladin was asleep as well (he was CN). Since we were in an area that was dangerous to all of us, we decided to let the Drow warrioress fight along side the Paladin.

Strangely enough, every time she got into combat... she'd cry out "in the name of Lloth!" and the GM would roll a 1 or 2. No hidden rolls, it seriously happened! Finally, the DM decided that she'd had enough and yelled "By Athena's Grace!" (the Paladin was a Paladin of Athena) and... no lie... rolled a 20.

My character, of course, was never truly convinced she'd turned good... but by the time the campaign ended she'd married the Paladin, my character married a woman who'd formerly been a Genie and we'd all had a great time.

Because, even the "big dumb brute" can be a fun character in a group. Even the "righteous Paladin" can be a fun character in a group.

Heck even our Fighter/Thief/Wizard, who was obsessed with collecting gems and hand a Portable Hole (back when it created a 10'x10' pit when unfolded) filled with racks for his gem collection, was a fun character in the group.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I truely despise "I'm totally not Evil mwahahahahaha I mean hehehe" characters. This is more of a player thing who tries to get around playing an Evil character in a game where that shouldn't fly. It's always disruptive.

[manyslayer]

The lone wolf. This is a game about a party doing things together. If your character is going to go of on his own all the time, then you won't be a part of the story that is involving everyone else.

[TheBrassDuke]

It's definitely a taste thing, but a lot of Chaotic character archetypes make me fray. If you would describe a character as "tricky" I probably wouldn't like them. Especially Fey. I maintain that Fey are a plague and most all be destroyed.

Sounds like my evil prince Clovis!


[SNIP]

Ok, now that that's out of the way, the suggestions. First, I am a firm believer that villains need a motivation besides just "I want to torture life because I'm evil!" Even if they are pretty much pure evil, they should have a goal to what they do, even if the goal is as simple as "I'm bored and this could be entertaining." For Clovis, it sounds like he has serious issues with both of his parents. He hates his fey heritage, but his father made him feel like he was worthless. His goal is to basically prove himself, to show that he can be a worthy successor to the human kingdom. Unfortunately, he got in his head that a good ruler should use Machiavelli's The Prince as a handbook, hence all of the cruelty.

I would also suggest that you make his fey heritage have a very tangible effect on him besides just having wings and looking prettier. Namely, he is physically incapable of saying something he knows to be untrue. He can mislead people, let them come to false conclusions, but he cannot outright lie. This could be a constant source of frustration for him, since he sees it as part of the weakness of his fey heritage, but he has learned to be very, very good at misleading without outright lying over the years.

Next, you need a reason for him to still be the ruler. Why haven't the people rebelled against someone who publicly tortures and displays fey and human alike? Why hasn't one of his underlings stages a coup against him, counting on the people welcoming being freed from the cruel tyrant? My suggestion is to take a page from the North Korea's Dear Leaders: he's fostered a massive cult of personality around himself, and the people have been brainwashed and pretty much worship him as a deity. Unfortunately, also like North Korea, his totalitarian regime is not very economically sound, and the once flourishing empire is now facing severe economic problems. He could use the fey as his societal scapegoat, blaming them for all of the empire's problems. This would also explain why he publicly tortures fey and humans: the fey are obviously an inferior race trying to sabotage his empire, and the humans he tortures are obviously fey collaborators. Of course, he does have the problem that he himself has fey blood, but he would imply and have underlings claim that is just a scandalous rumor spread by the fey. Anyone who openly speculate that is clearly in league with the fey, trying to spread doubt about his regime, and will be summarily and publicly tortured for a "confession" and executed.

[SNIP]

Also,
I played in a game where one character was both "the dumb brute" and "the righteous Paladin" at the same time. This was back in AD&D 2.0 and I was playing a CG half-elf Ranger/Cleric. In game, the Paladin often frustrated my character to no end... but as a Player, I enjoyed the game immensely. Because the game progressed. There was a situation where we were attacked by a group of Drow. One of them, because of three fumbles in a row, was captured by the Paladin. Both myself and the Elven Fighter/Thief/Wizard wanted to just kill her. The big-hearted Paladin wouldn't hear of it though and claimed she could be redeemed.

My character kept a wary eye on her... ready to fill her full of arrows if she stepped out of line. The other Elf often discussed killing her in her sleep when the Paladin was asleep as well (he was CN). Since we were in an area that was dangerous to all of us, we decided to let the Drow warrioress fight along side the Paladin.

Strangely enough, every time she got into combat... she'd cry out "in the name of Lloth!" and the GM would roll a 1 or 2. No hidden rolls, it seriously happened! Finally, the DM decided that she'd had enough and yelled "By Athena's Grace!" (the Paladin was a Paladin of Athena) and... no lie... rolled a 20.

My character, of course, was never truly convinced she'd turned good... but by the time the campaign ended she'd married the Paladin, my character married a woman who'd formerly been a Genie and we'd all had a great time.

Because, even the "big dumb brute" can be a fun character in a group. Even the "righteous Paladin" can be a fun character in a group.

Heck even our Fighter/Thief/Wizard, who was obsessed with collecting gems and hand a Portable Hole (back when it created a 10'x10' pit when unfolded) filled with racks for his gem collection, was a fun character in the group. I wish my group was more like that! They would never think about sparing the Drow, let alone marrying her later on...I like RP that digs deep into the setting, and makes a home for PCs.

[etrpgb]

The whole "casting is better than anything in everything" concept that is so permeated in d&d. When you read the fluff of the magic classes it seems they are making fun of your intelligence.

Sentences like "Wizards need... " no they don't. "Rogues can support" a wizard do it better....

[Zanos]

Well, it's not like the company is Fighters of the Coast...

[GilesTheCleric]

A lot of these seem like problems with players, rather than character archetypes. I won't deny that some archetypes definitely draw problem players to them.

I really dislike: kender, edgelords, and kick-down-the-door types. I almost always play a more circumspect character that benefits from preparation, so kicking down the door only robs both the other characters and myself from the benefits I could grant.

[Shadowscale]

What did the poor kender do everyone?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I hate "lolrandom" ANYTHING.


The Jew Rogue- "I only care about gold and loot."
What the CRAP, dude?

[GilesTheCleric]

What did the poor kender do everyone?

I think the question is what didn't the rich kender do to everyone. They're fine in fiction, but not so hot in a team-based game.

[Martin Greywolf]

I, for one, don't have a problem with two personalities in party composition clashing, I'll happily play a scheming character in a party with door-basher and use his antics to further my plans.

Character concepts that are just a way for problem players to walk all over others aside, there aren't many archetypes I dislike. One major dislike for me is characters that are nothing but their archetype - if I want to interact with StabbersMcStabby, the dagger using fighter who uses daggers to stab and has nothing else going for him, I'll go play Diablo. Play it straight, subvert it, but for all of our sakes, make it interesting.

The one archetype I genuinely don't like is the "Broody McEmo" - you know the type, tragic backstory, keeps brooding and probably writes bad poetry about how all is woe. Then and again, when I encounter one of these in actually game, I'll just proceed to mock them/endlessly screw with them for my amusement perfectly in-character, so it's all god in the end.

[Dagroth]

What did the poor kender do everyone?

Actually, I have to say I dislike the written description of Kender because it makes everyone I've encountered playing one a total ditz/griefer/party disruptor.

[Dromuthra]

The ones I dislike seeing have mostly been posted, but I'll call out a few:
1. The Chaotic Stupid character that constantly does things that cause problems for the party and generally fail to accomplish what they intended to do. I may or may not be playing with one right now.
2. The person who picks the wrong alignment. What I mean by this is playing the Evil character in the Good game, and the Good character in the Evil campaign.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Oh, remembered another. Any archetype that assumes leadership. Mainly because I've never had a game where the party ever had an actual leader, except once and it was only in title. The group still acted as a group when making decisions.

[Geddy2112]

I'm generally down on character concepts that have "doesn't play well with others" baked into them as part of their core identity. Includes:

Chaotic Stupid characters who steal from/attack/mess with party members for My Guy Syndrome reasons.
Terminally inflexible Paladins who interpret their code of conduct as requiring them to fight with their party about everything.
Kender.

This. Any form of antagonism of another PC that is justified as "I am just roleplaying my character" means your character should not exist.

[martixy]

Thread ended by post 2 for all intents and purposes.

Mechanically, the concept I most dislike is the BSF. All unoriginal variations of whack it with a (sharp) stick.

[Stealth Marmot]

The one trick pony.

The guy or character that does only one thing but does it uber well, then when it isn't an option they sit in a corner.

[Zanos]

Not sure what you all are on about. Kender are geeat if cooked well done with a little bit of garlic.

[IcarusWulfe]

A lot of these seem like problems with players, rather than character archetypes. I won't deny that some archetypes definitely draw problem players to them.

I really dislike: kender, edgelords, and kick-down-the-door types. I almost always play a more circumspect character that benefits from preparation, so kicking down the door only robs both the other characters and myself from the benefits I could grant.

Oh I remember the days of D&D in Freshmen year, where everyone save me played the most edgelord characters possible, now that was an interesting party dynamic:smalltongue:.

[the_archduke]

Vow of Peace or anything overly pacifistic. It's great if you believe that IRL, but this is a fantasy combat game. If your whole raison d'etre is that you refuse to harm an enemy... I don't see that playing well in a party.

[Matrota]

My two least favorites have got to be the evil murder hobo and the dopey stupid barbarian. No one loves murder hobo unless it's a very comedic campaign, and it takes a lot of skill to actually pull off a convincing dopey barbarian without being very cringe worthy.

[Flickerdart]

The moving wall. He stands in the middle of a fight, has massive AC and saving throws so all attacks against him fail, but can't do much offensively. Enemies ignore him and go for the squishies, and then he gets a share of the treasure for doing nothing.

[Buufreak]

Pardon the ignorance, but what does being an edgelord translate to?

[Flickerdart]

Pardon the ignorance, but what does being an edgelord translate to?

"Edgelord" is a derogatory term for someone who tries to be as "edgy" as possible. Sephiroth from Final Fantasy 7 is pretty much the poster boy for being edgy - he's a brooding loner with a tragic mysterious past, he kills and destroys without remorse, and he dresses like an emo teen with no parental supervision.

[InvisibleBison]

The Jew Rogue- "I only care about gold and loot."

Speaking as a Jew, I have to say that this sort of anti-Semitic stereotyping is both offensive and unacceptable.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Pardon the ignorance, but what does being an edgelord translate to?

All black clothing, 'life is pain' and similar doom-sayings, tortured past. Oversized blades, scythes, and cursed by a demon are optional but frequently called upon. Basically, that time in middle school where grunge was cool, personified.

[Buufreak]

All black clothing, 'life is pain' and similar doom-sayings, tortured past. Oversized blades, scythes, and cursed by a demon are optional but frequently called upon. Basically, that time in middle school where grunge was cool, personified.

Cloud McMarySue. Got it.

[Stealth Marmot]

"Edgelord" is a derogatory term for someone who tries to be as "edgy" as possible. Sephiroth from Final Fantasy 7 is pretty much the poster boy for being edgy - he's a brooding loner with a tragic mysterious past, he kills and destroys without remorse, and he dresses like an emo teen with no parental supervision.

It's a recently created term so Websters hasn't exactly defined it yet, but "Edgelord" tends to be used by anyone trying to be as "edgy" as possible, usually through trying to say things that are usually taboo. It goes along with dead baby humor or stuff that is "Not politically correct".

99% of the time it's people saying stuff that's racist, sexist, homophobic, or just insensitive just for the sake of shock humor or to prove how rebellious they are when in reality they are just being a jerk. Usually they will cry about anyone criticizing them as "unfair" or "censorship".

[Zanos]

"Edgelord" is a derogatory term for someone who tries to be as "edgy" as possible. Sephiroth from Final Fantasy 7 is pretty much the poster boy for being edgy - he's a brooding loner with a tragic mysterious past, he kills and destroys without remorse, and he dresses like an emo teen with no parental supervision.
Also a black trenchcoat and a 7 foot long katana.

That said I actually like Sephiroth, it's just that people trying to imitate his character miss the parts that actually make him interesting.


It's a recently created term so Websters hasn't exactly defined it yet, but "Edgelord" tends to be used by anyone trying to be as "edgy" as possible, usually through trying to say things that are usually taboo. It goes along with dead baby humor or stuff that is "Not politically correct".

99% of the time it's people saying stuff that's racist, sexist, homophobic, or just insensitive just for the sake of shock humor or to prove how rebellious they are when in reality they are just being a jerk. Usually they will cry about anyone criticizing them as "unfair" or "censorship".
Sorry, what? That isn't what an edgelord is at all. An edgelord is a character created to be unnecessarily dark and "cool". Like Coldsteel. (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTznj2zmH-Djr0T8P87aO4q_Lx5FQ9OzVkKlnjVwCP-Z_c3hXoPj9_l6SA) Or at least, that's what I use it to refer to when talking about characters. I don't think anyone is making actual neo-nazis in this context.

Other traits of edgelords:
Red/Glowing Eyes
Black clothing(especially trenchcoats)
Katanas where they don't make any sense
Demonic Heritage(Especially Wings)
Dual Wielding
Stupid Evil
Unique Powers(A vampire immune to the sun in a setting where vampires are vulnerable to it)
Skull Masks(Or face is just an actual skull)
Dead Parents(Bonus points if the character killed their parents themselves)
Angst(Crawling in my skin)

Stuff like that.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Character archetypes? I don't like good-aligned enchanters, or any enchanters, or anything that argues "but they want to die for me". For me, messing with people's minds is squarely Evil, RAW morality be damned, and my characters will kill you for it. Similarly, I don't buy redeemery through Sanctify the Wicked or that type of magic. Needless to say, the alignment system is not my favourite mechanic, but that doesn't affect classes: alignment mechanics can be reluffed from morality to geopolitics, so there's no problem.

[Strigon]

Other traits of edgelords:
Red/Glowing Eyes
Black clothing(especially trenchcoats)
Katanas where they don't make any sense
Demonic Heritage(Especially Wings)
Dual Wielding
Stupid Evil
Unique Powers(A vampire immune to the sun in a setting where vampires are vulnerable to it)
Skull Masks(Or face is just an actual skull)
Dead Parents(Bonus points if the character killed their parents themselves.)
Angst(Crawling in my skin)

Stuff like that.

Don't forget scars, especially facial scars that don't actually detract from their appearance.
Or a firm belief that they're corrupt, and everyone they love should STAY AWAY!

[ComaVision]

I'm surprised I'm the first to say this:

Healers. They're typically a pretty boring archetype necessitated by (IMO) bad game design. It's terrible when people try to bring that over to D&D 3.5 because dedicated healers (1) can't keep up with enemy damage output most of the time and (2) are largely replaced by fairly inexpensive items.

[Dagroth]

Also a black trenchcoat and a 7 foot long katana.

That said I actually like Sephiroth, it's just that people trying to imitate his character miss the parts that actually make him interesting.


Sorry, what? That isn't what an edgelord is at all. An edgelord is a character created to be unnecessarily dark and "cool". Like Coldsteel. (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTznj2zmH-Djr0T8P87aO4q_Lx5FQ9OzVkKlnjVwCP-Z_c3hXoPj9_l6SA) Or at least, that's what I use it to refer to when talking about characters. I don't think anyone is making actual neo-nazis in this context.

Other traits of edgelords:
Red/Glowing Eyes
Black clothing(especially trenchcoats)
Katanas where they don't make any sense
Demonic Heritage(Especially Wings)
Dual Wielding
Stupid Evil
Unique Powers(A vampire immune to the sun in a setting where vampires are vulnerable to it)
Skull Masks(Or face is just an actual skull)
Dead Parents(Bonus points if the character killed their parents themselves.)

Stuff like that.

You left out habitual Loners.

Lines like "Everyone close to me dies" typify the Edgelord.

Edgelords often have "cool" surnames like "Thunderscar" or pseudonyms like "Walker of the Wastelands"

[GilesTheCleric]

I'm surprised I'm the first to say this:

Healers. They're typically a pretty boring archetype necessitated by (IMO) bad game design. It's terrible when people try to bring that over to D&D 3.5 because dedicated healers (1) can't keep up with enemy damage output most of the time and (2) are largely replaced by fairly inexpensive items.

That's a good one, though I actually don't mind them, especially for someone new to the game or who maybe isn't the most outgoing/ interested in combat. There's worse ways to be a bump on a log than being a healer.

[Falcii]

I mean... Playing a healer is boring sure, but that's not reeeeeally the point. It's about the personality of a healer, which can be really compelling. Maybe they are a charitable "I'll help protect my friends and make them feel better" type or they could do the "someone's got to keep these idiots stitched together to complete my endgame" type, and both are equally valid and cool. Just because a mechanic is bad doesn't mean the archetype is.

[martixy]

I mean... Playing a healer is boring sure, but that's not reeeeeally the point. It's about the personality of a healer, which can be really compelling. Maybe they are a charitable "I'll help protect my friends and make them feel better" type or they could do the "someone's got to keep these idiots stitched together to complete my endgame" type, and both are equally valid and cool. Just because a mechanic is bad doesn't mean the archetype is.

It only gets fun when you're not an hp-dispensing robot.
Knowing who you're NOT gonna heal is what makes those characters. :smallbiggrin:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Speaking as a Jew, I have to say that this sort of anti-Semitic stereotyping is both offensive and unacceptable.
Seriously. Why the **** is no-one else calling this out?

[Buufreak]

Seriously. Why the **** is no-one else calling this out?

Because I reported it the second I saw it and moved on. No chance I'm likely going to sway the mind of a bigot or antisemite.

[Mr Adventurer]

Seriously. Why the **** is no-one else calling this out?

I reported the post.

[etrpgb]

Healers. They're typically a pretty boring archetype necessitated by (IMO) bad game design. It's terrible when people try to bring that over to D&D 3.5 because dedicated healers (1) can't keep up with enemy damage output most of the time and (2) are largely replaced by fairly inexpensive items.

While I agree I have a friend, a rare girl on top of that, that actually played a Healer (from the miniature handbook) and she loved it because every character was always looking for her services!

We did beef up the class adding tons of spells (including lots of buffs) and allowing the use of powers much more often, but it was still pretty much a Healer. I was really surprised.

[ComaVision]

While I agree I have a friend, a rare girl on top of that, that actually played a Healer (from the miniature handbook) and she loved it because every character was always looking for her services!

We did beef up the class adding tons of spells (including lots of buffs) and allowing the use of powers much more often, but it was still pretty much a Healer. I was really surprised.

My girlfriend has played a Healer and enjoyed it. Mind you, she used Sovereign Speaker to expand the spell list. I don't think we ever got a heal in combat because it's just not efficient action use.

The Healer class is super garbage unless you break it out of the Healer archetype.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The Healer class is super garbage unless you break it out of the Healer archetype.
Which, to be fair, isn't hard-- they get all Sanctified Spells automatically, for instance, which cover a lot of bases right there. They also get weird power spikes when new companion choices become available-- a lot of those guys have inherent casting.

[Thealtruistorc]

Honestly, I've dealt with a lot of these types of players and have been okay with them. Psychotic paladins and BSFs tend to lead to great stories to tell later on if they are played up (for example, I still laugh at the time a half-orc fighter yelled "I WILL TEAR OFF YOUR HEAD AND @##%$&* YOU WITH YOUR OWN TAIL!" during a particularly mean kobold encounter).

The one archetype that I cannot stand, however, is the one where the character sits in the back constantly reflecting on how much better they are than everyone else. If they were flamboyant and arrogant about it, it could be fun. However, a character who acts like a snot and doesn't really do anything ends up detracting from the overall roleplaying experience, slowing the game down whenever a situation would call for him to do something. I mean, I get that you are supposed to be some sort of bad@$$, but bad@$$es are only bad@$$es because they do awesome stuff, not because they sit around trying to look cool.

[Honest Tiefling]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but other then edgelords, kender and idiots, my greatest dislike is for elves. I hate elves as they are presented in many settings and by many people.

I don't care if your race is better at stone crafting and metal working then dwarves, or is prettier then anything despite having a hit to constitution. I don't care if your people live in harmony with the wilderness and have immense magical power your stupid chaotic good butts can't be bothered to share with starving or injured people. I don't care if your race never really has to deal with their racial hit to constitution and has more prestige classes then any other.

It's on fire. All of it. All of the fire. All of the fire from the elemental plane of fire has burnt down your entire homeland.

[Quertus]

There's lots of archetypes I don't like. When I see other people playing them, it's generally bad times:

* Chaotic Stupid
* Kender
* The Traitor
* "My way or nothing"
* Mary Sue, DMPC
* Mary Sue, PC
* "Good" characters with no moral fiber.
* The "I can do everything, so I don't need any of you" (see also Mary Sue).
* Any character whose background damages my ability to suspend disbelief (for example, a 1st level D&D character who slew Demigorgan)
* Any character whose interaction with the world damages my ability to suspend disbelief (see also Mary Sue).

Not surprisingly, lot of these have already been mentioned.

I'm on the fence about anyone whose concept inherently takes up an inordinate amount of the GMs time (scout, net runner). And characters who don't interact with the world the same way as everyone else (Mary Sue, net runner).

As for what I don't like to play? Muggles. And "level 0".



I dislike playing the dedicated Spellcaster... mostly because I seriously suck at doing that.

My problems are Analysis Paralysis and my general lack of tactical thinking.

May I suggest playing a character like my signature character, Quertus? Part of the fun of the character is that, unlike me, he is tactically inept, and so uses his "cosmic power" seemingly at random.



Speaking as a Jew, I have to say that this sort of anti-Semitic stereotyping is both offensive and unacceptable.

Yeah, not a fan. However, I would like to point out that it is possible to not realize that using the term that way is racist / offensive. I sadly say that from experience. Of course, I was probably 8 at the time, and would have spelled it "joo" or "ju". What's worse is, the adult I learned it from didn't know better, either. :smalleek:

[Dagroth]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but other then edgelords, kender and idiots, my greatest dislike is for elves. I hate elves as they are presented in many settings and by many people.

I don't care if your race is better at stone crafting and metal working then dwarves, or is prettier then anything despite having a hit to constitution. I don't care if your people live in harmony with the wilderness and have immense magical power your stupid chaotic good butts can't be bothered to share with starving or injured people. I don't care if your race never really has to deal with their racial hit to constitution and has more prestige classes then any other.

It's on fire. All of it. All of the fire. All of the fire from the elemental plane of fire has burnt down your entire homeland.

Yeah, I'm not happy that Elves have so dang much support in PRCs compared to most other races.


Honestly, I've dealt with a lot of these types of players and have been okay with them. Psychotic paladins and BSFs tend to lead to great stories to tell later on if they are played up (for example, I still laugh at the time a half-orc fighter yelled "I WILL TEAR OFF YOUR HEAD AND @##%$&* YOU WITH YOUR OWN TAIL!" during a particularly mean kobold encounter).

The one archetype that I cannot stand, however, is the one where the character sits in the back constantly reflecting on how much better they are than everyone else. If they were flamboyant and arrogant about it, it could be fun. However, a character who acts like a snot and doesn't really do anything ends up detracting from the overall roleplaying experience, slowing the game down whenever a situation would call for him to do something. I mean, I get that you are supposed to be some sort of bad@$$, but bad@$$es are only bad@$$es because they do awesome stuff, not because they sit around trying to look cool.

Edgelords do not have to do anything to do awesome stuff. Their mere existence is awesome stuff. If an Edgelord actually had to do something, the gameworld would explode from the sheer awesomeness of it.

[Honest Tiefling]

Edgelords do not have to do anything to do awesome stuff. Their mere existence is awesome stuff. If an Edgelord actually had to do something, the gameworld would explode from the sheer awesomeness of it.

That, and an Edgelord acknowledging the party longer then it takes to say a single grim sentence in a grizzled voice that makes Batman sound like he took a hit to the nuts means they are no longer lone wolves and we simply can't have that!

[A_S]

Vow of Peace or anything overly pacifistic. It's great if you believe that IRL, but this is a fantasy combat game. If your whole raison d'etre is that you refuse to harm an enemy... I don't see that playing well in a party.
Ooh, yes, should have included this in my "doesn't play well with others" post. Like, I can imagine working out with your party and DM beforehand that you're going to be playing a highly atypical campaign where you all go out of your way to avoid hurting stuff, where the struggle of "how do we stop the bad guys while remaining pacifist" is central to the campaign...

...but if you make a Vow of Peace character without carefully arranging it in advance with the rest of your party, you might as well show up to the first session wearing a T-shirt that says "Haha I'm going to ruin the game for everyone."

[Krazzman]

May I suggest playing a character like my signature character, Quertus? Part of the fun of the character is that, unlike me, he is tactically inept, and so uses his "cosmic power" seemingly at random.

What's a Quertus? :P

I would play an easy bake wizard or a blaster. But I just like playing competent melee and or having something to do/contribute at all times.

Currently I play a Scaled Fist//Oracle and go for smacking things while having utility or gap closer spells.

[Aegis013]

I don't know that this counts as a character concept, or as more of a game circumstance, but...

I dislike chumps. Characters whose full scope of ability to influence the game world and the story is about equivalent to the ability of a single ant to stop the orbit of the planets around the sun. Alternatively, characters whose abilities lie completely outside of all the game topics, or characters intended to be competent, but simply aren't through no fault of their own (a level 12 character who is supposedly a renowned swordsman in his homeland, but it turns out you'll never meet a character who isn't in epic levels, because your character was actually a filthy peasant with delusions of grandeur the whole time).

[Zanos]

characters intended to be competent, but simply aren't through no fault of their own (a level 12 character who is supposedly a renowned swordsman in his homeland, but it turns out you'll never meet a character who isn't in epic levels, because your character was actually a filthy peasant with delusions of grandeur the whole time).
I played with a DM where there was a serious disconnect between the game that was being run and...the game that was being run. As in, our party of level 11 characters was solely responsible for defending an epic level wizard from an epic level ranger assassin. We failed because apparently despite being the grand heroes with enough clout that the king of all the Elven nations wants us to guard him, we're basically irrelevant compared to both him and the guy who assassinated him, who were both in the high 20s. Oh, and the epic wizard we were supposed to defend did literally nothing.

At the same time a level 11 warforged juggernaut was capable of slaughtering roughly 1/3rd of the entire dwarven population on the planet.

[Stealth Marmot]

Sorry, what? That isn't what an edgelord is at all. An edgelord is a character created to be unnecessarily dark and "cool". Like Coldsteel. (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTznj2zmH-Djr0T8P87aO4q_Lx5FQ9OzVkKlnjVwCP-Z_c3hXoPj9_l6SA) Or at least, that's what I use it to refer to when talking about characters. I don't think anyone is making actual neo-nazis in this context.

Other traits of edgelords:
Red/Glowing Eyes
Black clothing(especially trenchcoats)
Katanas where they don't make any sense
Demonic Heritage(Especially Wings)
Dual Wielding
Stupid Evil
Unique Powers(A vampire immune to the sun in a setting where vampires are vulnerable to it)
Skull Masks(Or face is just an actual skull)
Dead Parents(Bonus points if the character killed their parents themselves)
Angst(Crawling in my skin)

Stuff like that.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=edgelord

Like I said, it's a fairly recent term so different people will have different definitions of it and none of them will be "wrong".

That said, I get what you mean about Edgelord CHARACTERS rather than Edgelord PEOPLE.

So basically the ultimate Edgelord archetype is Blade?

[Stealth Marmot]

I don't know that this counts as a character concept, or as more of a game circumstance, but...

I dislike chumps. Characters whose full scope of ability to influence the game world and the story is about equivalent to the ability of a single ant to stop the orbit of the planets around the sun. Alternatively, characters whose abilities lie completely outside of all the game topics, or characters intended to be competent, but simply aren't through no fault of their own (a level 12 character who is supposedly a renowned swordsman in his homeland, but it turns out you'll never meet a character who isn't in epic levels, because your character was actually a filthy peasant with delusions of grandeur the whole time).

I understand this SO bad. It's usually not a player's fault of course, but the DMs. One of the most emotionally draining games I was ever in was like this.

But beyond our characters clearly not having agency and repeatedly being beat down for being tiny fish (despite everything revolving around what we were doing for basically no reason.) there were other problems.

I am going to add an addendum to the "chump" archetype and add the character who is constantly a chump to the rules and guidelines of the world they should be familiar with, such as a wizard getting arrested for using magic in the middle of a populated area when growing up they should have known it was illegal but for some reason (lack of player knowledge due to the DM not mentioning it) they decide to cast a spell in the middle of a town and get arrested or fined.

[weckar]

I hate Swiss army knife characters. Note: not talking about skillmonkeys here. Skillmonkeys are cool. I mean characters whose personality will shift radically to be best suited to any situation. A Raging half-orc barbarian suddenly pulling off a "reason you will lose" speech that would make hannibal shiver... only to right after that also start bouncing around because of some song that got stuck in his head.

[Seltsamuel]

No mention of the lone cowboy yet?

That one guy who sits on the other table, runs ahead (without sneaking) and prefers to hit his head against the wall instead of solving the problem with the group. Or is his a light case of something else? :smallconfused:

[GreatWyrmGold]

My first thought was that you meant character role, and I immediately thought of the "skillmonkey" role (ie, rogue/thief). Most of its utility comes from finding and disabling traps, opening locked doors, finding hidden treasure, and other challenges which exist only to give him something to do, which are resolved with a single die roll. In non-D&D systems, deckers and (arguably) scouts have the same general sorts of problems, but intensified.

But for character personality archetypes...I'd have to go with one that I can only call "my little brother," since I've played with him so long that most examples I can think of are his characters. (Though it's not entirely fair, since the most egregious examples I've played with haven't been his characters. He's gotten a lot better about it, too.) His problem is that he doesn't think things through, at all; he consistently manages to say just the wrong things to provoke the guards of the place we're scoping out or ruin our element of surprise or whatever. There's one campaign I remember fondly where he managed to get in trouble with the law in literally every town we went to, after having complained that his character started play as a prisoner. It doesn't help that my little brother has atrocious luck.
One of the more egregious examples is another player I play with, who not only does incredibly stupid and reckless things, but doubles down on them whenever someone (including the GM) subtly points out that they might not be a good idea.


I personally despise the overly intelligent types who are more or less "I knew you would do that so I prepared this." More or less the Lelouch or Kira types.
Yeah, those don't really work in interactive media.


Oh I remember the days of D&D in Freshmen year, where everyone save me played the most edgelord characters possible, now that was an interesting party dynamic:smalltongue:.
Five Reapers and one overworked Mercy trying to keep everyone alive. Joy.


I'm surprised I'm the first to say this:

Healers. They're typically a pretty boring archetype necessitated by (IMO) bad game design. It's terrible when people try to bring that over to D&D 3.5 because dedicated healers (1) can't keep up with enemy damage output most of the time and (2) are largely replaced by fairly inexpensive items.
It's possible to design healers badly, but they're not indicative of bad game design on their own. Certainly, not being able to keep up with enemy damage output isn't a problem! Healers allow some healing in combat, at the cost of actions, but they're most useful at making sure a party can take more damage over the course of a day than over the course of a single fight.
Being replaced by wands is pretty problematic, though. Probably part of why 5e cut back on being able to easily purchase magic items.

[Dr.Samurai]

I really dislike perpetually quippy or witty characters that are never impressed by the party's circumstances and seem to walk through the world with their anime eyelids have closed. The characters that, no matter how dire things are, always manage to remain cool and collected and throw out a mocking one liner or make a casual remark before making their attack.

I don't mind it in measure, it's fine to play someone that's cool under pressure. But it pulls me out of the game when a character's tone and actions never seemingly reflect the situation the party is in.

[IcarusWulfe]

That one overworked Mercy was an artificer who to this day is the most enjoyable character I've ever played:smallbiggrin:

[Zanos]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=edgelord

Like I said, it's a fairly recent term so different people will have different definitions of it and none of them will be "wrong".

That said, I get what you mean about Edgelord CHARACTERS rather than Edgelord PEOPLE.

I actually think the urban dictionary definition of the term is older than the one used in this context, circa 2014 or so, but as a slang term it warped over time, specifically in RP communities. If you google image edgelord nowadays for example you're gonna get a lot of Sonic OCs and Dante knockoffs, but that wasn't always the case. Still, I think most people around these parts recognize the the trenchcoat wearing moody katanamaster over the Nietzsche wannabe racist bigot.


So basically the ultimate Edgelord archetype is Blade?
Blade is one of the characters that inspired a lot of that stuff to begin with, so I think he gets a pass. Edgelords are typically mishmashes of poorly assembled traits from what the maker thinks are cool characters with some Mary Sue sprinkled in to taste. Turns out you can't just Frankenstein anything together and have it be good.

[Quertus]

What's a Quertus? :P

Ah, sorry.


he is tactically inept, and so uses his "cosmic power" seemingly at random.

My quote really doesn't do him justice. Let me try again.

Quertus is an Academia Mage. He solves problems through thought and careful research. Know those knowledge skills these 3.x kids have these days? Learned them from a book, right? Quertus probably wrote the books the authors of those books read.

Quertus, for all his intellect, understanding of magic, and careful scientific study, just doesn't understand the fundamentals of combat tactics.

You ever played with a player who just didn't get it, who just never seemed to learn, no matter how many characters he went through? Or, failing that, even someone who just never seems to learn in some completely unrelated venue IRL? That's the basis for understanding Quertus and tactics.

Quertus will invent custom spells to handle anything he's ever encountered, and anything he can extrapolate based on his experiences, and anything he has ever heard about in tales told around the campfire. On paper, he seems utterly brilliant, and the best prepared wizard of all time. But get him out in the field, and he has no clue which of his vast array of abilities would be the correct one to use - at least, compared to a playground-approved optimal approach to spell casting. Quertus generally expresses no such doubt. Usually, he uses whichever spell or ability gives him the most information about the target - which is kind of pointless to these whipper-snappers with their newfangled knowledge skills. But back in my day, we earned our knowledge the hard way - and Quertus still follows that tradition, using spells as a means to probe spell resistance, immunities, etc.

Quertus also believes, correctly, that, while a fighter can swing their sword all day, a mage's supply of magic is finite. Thus, he believes in letting the mundane members attempt mundane solutions to problems whenever possible, and saving his magic for things that they can't handle.

Quertus also believes in thinking in terms of magical solutions, and (generally) leaving the mundanes to figuring out mundane solutions to problems.

So, the idea is, you build a character with the best possible toolkit, filled with the best prefab and custom tools imaginable, then you don't care what they build. If your party cares, then they can ask you, IC and/or OOC, to take specific, optimal actions. If your party doesn't care, then you can just have fun seeing how grease or glitter dust or random gravity reallocation or wall of tickles works out in any given scenario.

The idea is for him to be serious, but for you to have fun.

[Dagroth]

No mention of the lone cowboy yet?

That one guy who sits on the other table, runs ahead (without sneaking) and prefers to hit his head against the wall instead of solving the problem with the group. Or is his a light case of something else? :smallconfused:

I think that falls under the category of "Edgelord" or maybe "Edgelord Lite" (Half the edginess, all of the lordness).

[Stealth Marmot]

I think that falls under the category of "Edgelord" or maybe "Edgelord Lite" (Half the edginess, all of the lordness).

Nah the Edgelord is a character created without a three dimensional personality (or much of a personality at all) outside of "dark and cool", the Lone Cowboy is someone who avoids interaction with the other players and acts without the group.

They are different archetypes, but NOT mutually exclusive. In fact they overlap a lot.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think that falls under the category of "Edgelord" or maybe "Edgelord Lite" (Half the edginess, all of the lordness).
"Edgelite," maybe?

[Jay R]

My strongest reaction to threads like this is an overwhelming feeling of sheer luck. I have played with solid parties of intelligent, immersive players virtually always, from 1975 to the present. I have had minor annoyances with some party members, but nothing to match what I'm reading.

[Zanos]

My strongest reaction to threads like this is an overwhelming feeling of sheer luck. I have played with solid parties of intelligent, immersive players virtually always, from 1975 to the present. I have had minor annoyances with some party members, but nothing to match what I'm reading.
Try a roll20 game or just inviting randoms from your local game shop. Degenerates I tell you.

[Esprit15]

I'll jump in the "Big stupid brute" hate train, with the obvious caveat that any cliche well played can be enjoyable. It's just the hardest in my opinion to pull off well. Frequently, it's been the character who doesn't RP much, has little backstory, and is just a large brute, normally with a half (large creature) template, such as ogre or minotaur.

Really, this is symptomatic of a larger problem as a whole, which is characters who don't exist outside of combat. They have no backstory, they have no goals, and they say and do little other than kill things. Having little backstory, but growing and having a clear personality is fine, and can even create more organic characters, but characters who don't do anything besides kill are boring.

[BobsYourUncle!]

TWO CENTS! :)

There are in my estimation 3 categories of people that annoy me.

1: Role "Players"

Examples:

I am alone and brooding and will always have conflict with party members.

I am so driven on 1 thing that if you cant do that one thing with me I have no use for you.

I am so great that I don't even need the rest of you.

2: Combat "Hogs"

Examples:

I have so much to do on my turn that I will take 20 minutes using 90 irrelevant skills.

Necromancers: I mean just no. If you have an army of 100 plus mobs then i'm out. Combat is hard enough sometimes without that level of craziness and book keeping.

Min/Max crazies: I have worked it out so much in numbers that I can one hit everything everytime and no one else will get to play. (Arrogance)

3: 4th Wall Breakers!

Those that also question the DM as to the mechanics of why something happened.
I understand taking damage or a negative effect can be tough but adventuring is not easy and if it was everyone would do it.

Suck it up Butter cup :)

This just slows the game way down!

And just because:

Wizards: they are just a waste. to much meta love that they are better then everything and that no other class can shine their boots. because no matter what wizard is always better always. Those people drive me crazy.

And of Course Pathfinder! A useless system.. A system made by people who thought 3.5 was not broken enough so lets make a system where every race, every class and every decision is meaningless and the same because anyone can do anything and everything is broken all the time!:) ok my two cents.. if you like the system that's cool you should have as much fun as possible with it. This is just my opinion and not meant to imply in anyway that other opinions are wrong. not seeking to start a fight or argument just making a point and moving on.

[Calthropstu]

Captain yolo.

I have shared this story on here before but it bears repeating. Captain yolo occured during a pathfinder society game. It was a 13 year old kid, which explains, but does not condone, the character.

Captain yolo's concept was YOLO. Charge forward, get into combat, and don't stop to think about the consequences. If there was no combat, go look for it. Right off the bat, the party rogue starts looking square by square for traps.

YOLO... charge down the hallway, get stuck in a trap. They try to get him out, gets another character stuck in the trap, and after more hijinks finally get him out.

They tell him "let the rogue go first, there could be more traps."

YOLO charge down the hall... and triggers THE SAME TRAP. The party was not about to let a 13 year old die in his first pfs session so they save him, deactivate the trap and..

YOLO... charge down the hall into *surprise!* ANOTHER TRAP. So they pull him out, again, and he uses his lay on hands (paladin... what else?) and agrees to follow the rest of the party.

So they get into combat he dispatches his opponent first, there's only 2 remaining enemies and a paladin would never get in on another's duel... so what does he do?

YOLO... triggers not one, not two, but THREE more encounters in a single round!

Miraculously, they all survive this, thanks to some serious usage of item charges. So they finish healing up, they decide to start looting and...

YOLO. Guy goes off by himself again and solo triggers the boss fight. Fortunately for him, it's an alchemist who needs to drink his extracts and mutagen.. so he strikes up a conversation with captain YOLO while powering up. The 3 rounds allow the other party members to realize the good captain has wandered off again, and they are able to save him before he's fragged.

Worst character concept ever.

[Blu]

Personally there are 3 types that i see as really bad.

1) Thief type: People tend to a lot of times stereotype that rogues are always thiefs and therefore, stealing from the party is okay. Normally it's bad, it gets worse if the campaign is low magic and/or low level. They don't think of the consenquences of stealing from others, be them mechanics(because WBL) or roleplaying(stealing from the dudes that just slayed a dragon is not smart) consenquences

2) The brute barbarian is the only barbarian: Characters that are overall hard to deal with, they constantly fight or threaten the party if questioned and sometimes may even start PvP or kill a character because the barbarian needs to be the brute/dumb rage driven guy

3) The "I am too cool to interact with others": Lone wolves that normally don't have any reasons at all to stay with the party, are arrogant and normally are hard to deal or cooperate with

[Honest Tiefling]

Here's another type that bugs me: The character that only RPs with the DM. Doesn't bother to learn other people's characters (Sometimes, they don't even learn the race of my character, I don't ALWAYS play a tiefling...), and probably couldn't even remember the name of anyone else in the party. Huge chance they don't even know the profession or class of any given PC. They typically expect to get on with the Adventure despite other people being confused why they are together or where they are going.

But they'll eagerly jump onto anything the DM provides! They'll try to ask any NPC about their past, history, and goals and might even fight to the death for them! Even if that means fighting the very strangers they've been travelling with for a few days. Clearly anything the DM is running is their new best friend, while the rest of the party are just annoyingly talkative scenery. Sometimes, they'll get annoyed when the scenery protests or even calls out the fact that they are indeed, a character, and not background fluff.

[Blu]

Here's another type that bugs me: The character that only RPs with the DM. Doesn't bother to learn other people's characters (Sometimes, they don't even learn the race of my character, I don't ALWAYS play a tiefling...), and probably couldn't even remember the name of anyone else in the party. Huge chance they don't even know the profession or class of any given PC. They typically expect to get on with the Adventure despite other people being confused why they are together or where they are going.

But they'll eagerly jump onto anything the DM provides! They'll try to ask any NPC about their past, history, and goals and might even fight to the death for them! Even if that means fighting the very strangers they've been travelling with for a few days. Clearly anything the DM is running is their new best friend, while the rest of the party are just annoyingly talkative scenery. Sometimes, they'll get annoyed when the scenery protests or even calls out the fact that they are indeed, a character, and not background fluff.

Sounds like the "Snowflake that is the center of the plot", he not necessarily is the main character, but the character sure acts like so.

[Honest Tiefling]

Sounds like the "Snowflake that is the center of the plot", he not necessarily is the main character, but the character sure acts like so.

Less like they act like the main character, and more like they act like the ONLY character. I'm getting mildly sick of my characters expected to join with a group of people armed to the teeth without so much of a 'how do you do?'!

[Psyren]

Here's another type that bugs me: The character that only RPs with the DM. Doesn't bother to learn other people's characters (Sometimes, they don't even learn the race of my character, I don't ALWAYS play a tiefling...), and probably couldn't even remember the name of anyone else in the party. Huge chance they don't even know the profession or class of any given PC. They typically expect to get on with the Adventure despite other people being confused why they are together or where they are going.

But they'll eagerly jump onto anything the DM provides! They'll try to ask any NPC about their past, history, and goals and might even fight to the death for them! Even if that means fighting the very strangers they've been travelling with for a few days. Clearly anything the DM is running is their new best friend, while the rest of the party are just annoyingly talkative scenery. Sometimes, they'll get annoyed when the scenery protests or even calls out the fact that they are indeed, a character, and not background fluff.

I've honestly never seen this - generally we're only too eager to RP with each other (often to the detriment of actually continuing the plot.)

[Honest Tiefling]

Weird! I've seen it often, probably...30% of games I've been in, maybe more? I'm not talking about people who are shy or quiet, but people who just talk to the DM and no one else. Maybe I have had bad luck?

Or I need to steal people from Psyren's groups. One of the two.

[Zanos]

I've honestly never seen this - generally we're only too eager to RP with each other (often to the detriment of actually continuing the plot.)
I've seen it in WoD vampire games, the system kind of attracts pretentious folks.

[Flickerdart]

Less like they act like the main character, and more like they act like the ONLY character. I'm getting mildly sick of my characters expected to join with a group of people armed to the teeth without so much of a 'how do you do?'!

To be fair, you should usually do whatever groups of people armed to the teeth tell you to do. Don't want to make them mad.

[Quertus]

I've seen it in WoD vampire games, the system kind of attracts pretentious folks.

Now I'm torn - do I want to put myself through Vampire games, just so I can hope to experience such utter insanity? Tough call.

[Zanos]

Now I'm torn - do I want to put myself through Vampire games, just so I can hope to experience such utter insanity? Tough call.
Honestly if you're looking for weirdos WoD is a great place to start. My favorite is when people stretch to make literally everything in the setting some kind of sexual metaphor.

I mean, there are some normal...ish people that play WoD. I personally like Vampire depending on who's running and playing in it, and I'm at least capable of pretending to be 80% normal. But each gameline has it's own distinct weirdness it attracts.

[Jay R]

Try a roll20 game or just inviting randoms from your local game shop. Degenerates I tell you.

Are you seriously recommending to me a way I can have a bad experience that I have successfully avoided for 42 years?

Why?

[Zanos]

Are you seriously recommending to me a way I can have a bad experience that I have successfully avoided for 42 years?

Why?
War stories from the worst part of the trenches are the most interesting, aren't they? There's something about truly terrible games that always gives you a great story to tell. Unforunately most bad games turn out to be just run of the mill boring instead of truly legendarily terrible, but you can hope!

[stack]

The naked nyphomaniac chick. You know, the one played by the guy who always plays naked elf (or tiefling) chicks? Dude, we don't care about how much sex your imaginary character is having, can we go kill goblins now?

I'm sure the male version exists too, I just see the female side a lot more often.

[Stealth Marmot]

The naked nyphomaniac chick. You know, the one played by the guy who always plays naked elf (or tiefling) chicks? Dude, we don't care about how much sex your imaginary character is having, can we go kill goblins now?


Just curious, how many are played by guys? All of them and then some?

[Zanos]

Just curious, how many are played by guys? All of them and then some?
I actually had one played by a woman in one of my campaigns, ardent with leather armor and a whip with the pain and suffering mantle. Complained that she got hit all the time. Declined to actually use her heavy armor proficiency to fix it, because then she wouldn't be wearing leather.

And if this sounds enticing to you, trust me, it is not.

[stack]

Just curious, how many are played by guys? All of them and then some?

Well, i dont always know when its PBP, but of the ones i do know, yeah. Guys.

[Flickerdart]

Declined to actually use her heavy armor proficiency to fix it, because then she wouldn't be wearing leather.

Does she know about things like surcoats? Or she could wear leather undergarments, and put armor over them.

[Calthropstu]

Does she know about things like surcoats? Or she could wear leather undergarments, and put armor over them.

Bracers of armor?

[Dagroth]

Bracers of armor?

Arguably less protection than magical Leather armor.

[Zanos]

Does she know about things like surcoats? Or she could wear leather undergarments, and put armor over them.
The kind of person that insists on wearing a leather bodysuit despite it directly impacting their combat performance in a way they find unsatisfactory isn't really the type to accept suggestions that would result in other people not constantly being aware she was, in fact, wearing a leather bodysuit and whipping all of her opponents. For reference the rest of the party was fairly normal. Noble halfling paladin, somewhat arrogant human wizard, and a bumbling druid. Oh, and an angry, ignorant barbarian. Who could forget?

Thankfully that character didn't last that long, she got snatched by a doppleganger that impersonated her for a couple of sessions, and when we found out apparently she had already been sacrificed to the doppleganger's weird god. Klling the doppleganger pretending to be her after we found out was...somewhat cathartic, I guess. Player left after that.

[ComaVision]

Just curious, how many are played by guys? All of them and then some?

Personally, I've never seen guys do that. I've had a handful of guys that try to engage in sexual scenes as a sort of slapstick humour (Cha 4 dwarf gets drunk and tries to hire a succubis hooker).

I've seen girls start their character with a box of dildoes (BoEF), want to play succubi and seduce everyone, want to play other races and fork their way through encounters, and I've seen more female elves with rapiers and leather armor then I can stand.

[Honest Tiefling]

I actually had one played by a woman in one of my campaigns, ardent with leather armor and a whip with the pain and suffering mantle. Complained that she got hit all the time. Declined to actually use her heavy armor proficiency to fix it, because then she wouldn't be wearing leather.

And if this sounds enticing to you, trust me, it is not.

Oddly, my group had one like this. It was a Vampire game, so the group solved it by pointing her in the direction of people to seduce relevant to the plot. It worked! (also was not a heavy combat game).

Other times, the lady in question wishes to build a murder harem. And you have to tell them they can't because that is unbalanced for the game.

[Psyren]

Weird! I've seen it often, probably...30% of games I've been in, maybe more? I'm not talking about people who are shy or quiet, but people who just talk to the DM and no one else. Maybe I have had bad luck?

Or I need to steal people from Psyren's groups. One of the two.

It might help that we're less a "gaming group" and more a close-knit group of friends that happen to enjoy breaking the polyhedral dice out once in awhile. In other words, we don't take the game or our character concepts seriously at all. So when our dwarf wants to challenge the tiefling (who he has a crush on) to a drinking contest, as measured by a series of Con checks which the Tiefling inexplicably wins due to better rolls, and the table erupts into raucous screaming and round of IRL shots, it's little wonder that we don't get very far into the overall plot each session.

[yellowrocket]

It might help that we're less a "gaming group" and more a close-knit group of friends that happen to enjoy breaking the polyhedral dice out once in awhile. In other words, we don't take the game or our character concepts seriously at all. So when our dwarf wants to challenge the tiefling (who he has a crush on) to a drinking contest, as measured by a series of Con checks which the Tiefling inexplicably wins due to better rolls, and the table erupts into raucous screaming and round of IRL shots, it's little wonder that we don't get very far into the overall plot each session.

Sounds like the plot is moving in real time.

[GreatWyrmGold]

To be fair, you should usually do whatever groups of people armed to the teeth tell you to do. Don't want to make them mad.
That seems like it would be less of a factor for someone who is also armed to the teeth.


Thankfully that character didn't last that long, she got snatched by a doppleganger that impersonated her for a couple of sessions, and when we found out apparently she had already been sacrificed to the doppleganger's weird god.
That god must be in pretty bad straits if he's accepting sacrifices that are that loony...though at least this one isn't a hobo.


It might help that we're less a "gaming group" and more a close-knit group of friends that happen to enjoy breaking the polyhedral dice out once in awhile. In other words, we don't take the game or our character concepts seriously at all. So when our dwarf wants to challenge the tiefling (who he has a crush on) to a drinking contest, as measured by a series of Con checks which the Tiefling inexplicably wins due to better rolls, and the table erupts into raucous screaming and round of IRL shots, it's little wonder that we don't get very far into the overall plot each session.
That game sounds awesome. Reminds me of some of the best PBP RPGs I've played.
For the record, I was usually the one watching and occasionally pushing my characters into position for others to rebound off of. (Yeah, I had two characters in one of those games. Some of the other players had close to half a dozen regulars, and we probably had close to a dozen regular players. It was...chaotic. Good times.)