Distinguishing characters, mechanically & personality

[Tanarii]

When you're creating a new character for a game, do you drastically distinguish your characters mechanically from previous ones? Different races, class? Is having different subclass or background sufficient? Or is having a fairly different personality enough?

For example, would you find playing two Human Rogues back to back too similar, even if they had drastically different personalities?

What about in the same party? If you found out another player had made a Fighter, is that enough to make you pick another class? What about if they had an esoteric race (Tiefling or Dragonborn)? Do you avoid sharing backgrounds?

[Angelalex242]

I've played variations of the same Paladin for years. Sometimes he's human, more often he's an aasimar, on rare occasions I get away with Half Celestial, but he's always more or less the same righteous do gooder. In 3.5 he got to exalted status and abused Fist of Raziel.

[Mortis_Elrod]

i avoid the same class as someone else im playing with at all costs, out of respect for the other player. I don't want block my friends from glory by doing what they try but better.

This is how i do and most of us do things for all ttrpgs we play, though for shadowrun that goes out the window and its more focused on roles and filling in the gaps.


But if i'm free to choose whatever i try to do something different than last time. Rogue can be played different from each other based on subclass, but not much different. Fighter has enough variance to do it though, so does druid, sorcerer, bard, monk. The best class that has enough variance in it i think to be played consistently in different enough ways to be a completely new character is Warlock. It has essentially 18 different sub classes and thats without including invocations which change play style dramatically more than a simple spell.

[Afrodactyl]

I generally try to write up some backstory well in advance, and then work out the class/race afterwards, molding and changing them over time until they feel right and fully fleshed out.

I will also try to avoid using a similar class/character to the rest of the party. I'm generally also quite flexible and am willing to alter my characters to fit around less experienced players who want to give something new a try.

For example, my sorcerer for Out of the Abyss started life as a human bard, but over time as I've developed and reworked the backstory he's eventually become a half elf draconic sorcerer, with the background written so that by replacing a handful of words he can be a half elf Great Old One Warlock if needs be.

And I generally like to use something different from campaign to campaign, unless the campaign dictates that I need to bring back an old character. My human Warlock Tark from a few campaigns back will be brought back when we revisit that world after we're done with Out of the Abyss and Curse of Strahd.

[snowman87]

I've never believed class mattered nearly as much as how you play them. Two people can play a wizard in a party but one has all blasty spells and the other control spells. One could be all about attaining ultimate knowledge, the other might just want to earn enough money to settle down with his beloved in a cute cottage. I believe it all comes down to personality.

Personally, I want to see an entire party of bards. It would be the most awesome espionage campaign ever!

[EvilAnagram]

When you're creating a new character for a game, do you drastically distinguish your characters mechanically from previous ones? Different races, class? Is having different subclass or background sufficient? Or is having a fairly different personality enough?

I tend to play extremely different characters. I like to let my characters have their own complete stories, then move on to another story. Reverb when I play the same class more than once, the personalities and races are different because I enjoy mechanical variety.

[Contrast]

I usually try to build a character I'll find mechanically interesting and then figure out how they got that way in terms of backstory.

This usually means I won't play the same class/theme twice in a row to explore new mechanics. I would also typically try to avoid doubling up on classes so everyone has their individual cool thing they can do but I wouldn't mind if someone else was doubling up. Part of this is because while I do have some preferences I'm happy to play any class and I'm content I can always pocket an idea for later/come up with a new character concept if needed and be equally happy playing that.

[strangebloke]

Start with the backstory, come up with a few ways to build it, and then see what fits with the party composition.

For my next character I have like six ways to build her depending on how session zero goes. (Whenever my DM gets around to getting his game together. We've been in 'prep' for the next campaign for six months.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Years ago, I got into a bit of a rut with hobbit/Halfling thieves. After about the third one I realized that I was playing the same character with each one. Hmmm, needed to stretch the muscles.

Best thing I did to get out of that rut was to play a cleric. (Which almost nobody wanted to play in our groups). And then a straight fighting man.

[ZorroGames]

If my character is not a Mountain Dwarf or a Variant/Standard Human check my ID...

Developing personalities via backstory does differentiate my characters mostly.

That said, I have statted out a Mountain Dwarf for each class plus a few subclasses that I plan to play out plus a few MC combos (Fighter 1-2/Warlock X) I want to play.

Back in OD&D when Dwarf was a class, not a race, I found my myself wishing I could go past the level cap with my character. Now There is no gimping because you are not Human so I take advantage of that.

And they either have no accent or a Spanish or horribly mangled pseudo-Germanic one. :smallsmile:

[Raif]

So I have a penchant for playing sorcerers in pretty much all the campaigns I play, to the point where my friends all make fun of me for only playing sorcerer.

However, each sorcerer that I've played has been very different from the other both mechanically and, most importantly, how they roleplayed.

For some examples:

Currently playing a sorlock phoenix sorcerer who is a hotheaded, loving, over friendly, living life to the fullest, pyromaniac who has had 6751 lives which she remembers and tries to make those around her love life and stop and smell the roses. She has terrifying melee capabilities with twinned GFB with mantle of the flame and hexblades curse, but is a control based debuffer who sticks to mid range to shape the battlefield
I have an upcoming melee, holy warrior, pseudo paladin sorcerer/warlock who is intelligent, calculating and wants to prove himself worthy of his twin sister, the chosen one, who he is in love with. He has the tenants of the Devotion Paladin and is very stealthy, persuasive and deceptive. He is a great sword warrior using smites and holy weapon to get his way in combat with healing and support.
Also have a sorcerer/wizard necromancer who is very into the deep, forbidden knowledge and attempts to justify his use of evil magic to do good. He raises the villainous, the rapers, murderers, killers, but doesn't realize he's bringing evil spirits and not actually punishing the dead.
And my final one - Thor. A 2 tempest cleric/storm sorcerer who is pretty much using a hammer to use twinned/quickened booming blade and a home brewed extended list to call lightning and rain storms of vengeance on his foes. Looks for a challenge and his only goal is to prove to his father he is worthy of his name.


The classes are mainly irrelevant, they're just chassis to create a character. I always start with a concept and build from there with whatever class matches what I look for.

[Dr. Cliché]

When you're creating a new character for a game, do you drastically distinguish your characters mechanically from previous ones? Different races, class? Is having different subclass or background sufficient? Or is having a fairly different personality enough?

Depends.

Sometimes I'll try a race/class I haven't played before, just for the sake of trying something different.

Sometimes I'll use a race/class I've played before because I really enjoyed it and want to either try a variation or else have a different personality to go with it.

It often depends on what actual character ideas I have in mind, and which one I think will work best for the campaign in question.



For example, would you find playing two Human Rogues back to back too similar, even if they had drastically different personalities?

To be honest, it would probably depend on my mood at the time. If the first rogue lasted until the end of the campaign, I might feel 'rogued-out' afterwards and want to play something else. However, if they died early on (or got kicked out of the party), but I'd enjoyed them until then, then I might well want to play another rogue.




What about in the same party? If you found out another player had made a Fighter, is that enough to make you pick another class? What about if they had an esoteric race (Tiefling or Dragonborn)? Do you avoid sharing backgrounds?

In my group, it depends - sometimes we'll talk about our races/classes prior to the game, other times we'll keep them a secret. Backgrounds are almost always kept secret.

In cases where races/classes are shared, I might cosider swapping my class if someone else is using the same class. Especially if we're both using the same sublclass (I once played a Lore Bard in a party that already had a Lore Bard, and I just ended up feeling like a third wheel). It would probably depend how attached I was to the character in question, how much effort I'd put into his story, and whether or not I had any potential replacements on-hand.

I never change races based on what races others are using (then again, I think I'm the only one who uses Tieflings, and no one in our group uses Dragonborn :smallwink:).

[2D8HP]

When you're creating a new character for a game, do you drastically distinguish your characters mechanically from previous ones?(....)


Nope, I've played nearly identical PC's back-to-back multiple times, especially 5e D&D characters, until I don't and try something else, but everyone of my 5e PC's had swords, and most had bows.


(...)What about in the same party? If you found out another player had made a Fighter, is that enough to make you pick another class? What about if they had an esoteric race (Tiefling or Dragonborn)? Do you avoid sharing backgrounds?


If someone else has a Fighter, I'll usually play a Rogue, and vice versa, and if someone else is playing both I try and make my PC's distinct some other way, or I just don't play.

[Tanarii]

I generally try to write up some backstory well in advance, and then work out the class/race afterwards, molding and changing them over time until they feel right and fully fleshed out.


Start with the backstory, come up with a few ways to build it, and then see what fits with the party composition.Haha you guys made me realize, I didn't even address backstory. That's how little I care about it, as a differentiator or for any other reason, compared to personality and motivations.

But also, I stopped thinking up D&D character's personality & motivations before race & class a long time ago. Whenever I did that I'd usually end up with a Human, and a Fighter, Thief, or Fighter/Thief. IMO other races and classes are require some consideration to their D&D-lore specifics when designing personality and motivations for them.

Edit: to put it another way, if I'm designing a Pirate's personality & motivations, a Human Fighter or Rogue will easily result from it. A Dwarf Druid takes some thought, and I'd be unlikely to arrive at it going from personality --> race & class as opposed to the other way around.

[Slayn82]

I play the character I envision, even if another player made something similar. I never has been an issue in my groups.

Back in 3rd edition, a friend liked to play with Sorcerers in our campaigns (even always using the same name), while I played a Cleric, a Wizard and a Chameleon/Factotum.

The Cleric, Haggen, was a human on a low magic campaign, and he was a follower of the Goddess of Justice/Destruction. He was a neutral good peregrin priest, who had to oversee several small, understaffed sanctuaries in a large desertic region, and adventured to obtain money to improve those sanctuaries so the power of his goddess could protect the people of that country. He used Divine Meta Magic to make his spells Persist for 24 hours, mostly self buffs, making him a powerhouse, and later sacrificing magic treasures that we didn't have use or anyone to sell in order to obtain the support of Outsiders on the battlefields or on the protection of the sanctuaries.

The Wizard, Yori, was a chaotic neutral human, specialist transmuter, with a good complement of blasting spells. Was always polymorphed as a Troll, eventually stacking hundreds of Polimorph other spells on himself, so it couldn't be easily dispelled. He also liked to fight on melee, casting Tenser's Transformation, and he searched for treasures that increased his combat strenght while on a jorney to save the world. If the enemies could be blasted, he would blast them, and against magic resistant enemies he would take them on melee. If anyone complained about him walking around as a Troll, he would polymorph that guy to a Troll too. For him, the ends justified the means, so he would not hesitate on causing small catastrophes if it meant avoiding greater, iminent disasters. Like incinerating all allied troops, dead or alive, because he discovered the enemy was ready to raise a massive amount of undead. Or taking all the damage from a Dragon's Breath without bothering to make a save, so his party could take cover behind his Huge, enlarged Troll form. He also was an enthusiastic eater and drinker, and a terrible singer.

The Factotum/Chameleon, Buttler, was a Lawful Neutral agent of the kingdom, traveling the realms looking for any menaces to the peace of the land. Turns out, there was a big menace brewing, and when pieces of an artifact started causing battles and uprisings, he got seriously worried. He also was a stoic devote from the God of Death, carrying with him a sacred amulet with the permanent effect of Protection from Good. He rejected more than once being rewarded with one of those artifacts, instead resorting to his own abilities to hold up on the battlefield. Both things were pretty handy, when those artifacts turned out to be pieces of an Outsider entity who was trying to invade our world, and could posses the artifact owner -, whose life was used to power its revival. Ended up reanimating his former teammates as undead, and taking them on a battle against the avatar of the Outsider.

[strangebloke]

Haha you guys made me realize, I didn't even address backstory. That's how little I care about it, as a differentiator or for any other reason, compared to personality and motivations.

But also, I stopped thinking up D&D character's personality & motivations before race & class a long time ago. Whenever I did that I'd usually end up with a Human, and a Fighter, Thief, or Fighter/Thief. IMO other races and classes are require some consideration to their D&D-lore specifics when designing personality and motivations for them.

Edit: to put it another way, if I'm designing a Pirate's personality & motivations, a Human Fighter or Rogue will easily result from it. A Dwarf Druid takes some thought, and I'd be unlikely to arrive at it going from personality --> race & class as opposed to the other way around.

Well, I'll illustrate what I'm talking about with an example.

I have a character in mind. He's a big guy (STR build), with two swords who has has a divine connection, (So some kind of divine flavor is cool) is highly cynical, is neither bright nor stupid but has street smarts, and hates being in a leadership position (so middling to low charisma)

Zealot is probably the best for this, but I could roll him as an aasimar rogue or fighter as well.

Another one. She's a princess who ran away from a political coup with a trusted knight. She was disguised as a boy, posing as the knight's squire. They signed on with a small-time noble... and then the knight got sick and died, and another of the noble's knights took her her on as a squire, with no one knowing her true identity. She was highly educated as a princess, but physically she will never grow to be as strong as her peers. She compensates with some level of magic.

A "Knight" is generally a paladin or fighter, but I could throw some hexblade levels in if I wanted to complicate the narrative and emphasize her social skills (which she will have, by necessity)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I either start with an interesting concept or an interesting mechanical interaction and build outwards from there. The characters are different every time, though they often have a sort of "don't worry, if this goes wrong we'll just hop out the window" insouciance in common.

I don't care about backstory except as a mechanism for hooking the character into the adventure. My DM is starting Storm King's Thunder - I don't know what the character's backstory is yet, but it'll have something to do with hating the Zhentarim, because that's a fact that the DM can use later on.

[EvilAnagram]

I've played variations of the same Paladin for years. Sometimes he's human, more often he's an aasimar, on rare occasions I get away with Half Celestial, but he's always more or less the same righteous do gooder. In 3.5 he got to exalted status and abused Fist of Raziel.


Nope, I've played nearly identical PC's back-to-back multiple times, especially 5e D&D characters, until I don't and try something else, but everyone of my 5e PC's had swords, and most had bows.

Genuine question: why? This seems very boring to me. I can't imagine being satisfied with a single character for such a long period of time.

[Pelle]

Since I'm mostly GMing, I have long list of potential characters that would be fun to play one day. I am not really happy about players optimizing combat builds, and then creating backstories to justify them. I think the character should come first. It's therefore interesting to reflect on what I do myself to check if I'm a hypocrite or not :)

I think I mostly look at the classes first, and think if I can think of a fun character concept, being inspired by them. Sometimes the race is a part of the concept, sometimes not, but always chosen for the aesthetic, not the bonuses. For example, after looking at the Warlock, I have a concept I want to play: An ambitious fiddle player, that has lost his soul to the devil after betting it in a fiddle battle (Fiend Tome Warlock, Entertainer, Human). When making the final build I will consider more in detail what stats and skills fit best with the concept.

I don't really care about detailed back stories. I like short ones, establishing the broad lines, and I like the details to be developed during play. Same for personality. When it comes to selecting a character for a game, I think it is important to fit the premise, setting, group etc. Thus I choose a concept that I think will fit, either developed independently or specificly for the game. Preferably something fresh, but that's almost a given. I couldn't care less about distributing party roles; playing a game without a healer is fun, and two identical Human Champion Fighter builds can be roleplayed completely different.

[mgshamster]

For me, it's almost entirely random what method I use.

Sometimes, I just really want to try a mechanic. This happened when I wanted to try the tortle race, and ended up with a Tortle Ancestor Barb, with the Noble background.

Sometimes I'll be listening to a song and have a PC be inspired by it. Listening to Megadeth has brought about multiple characters, including my halfling thief (Dread and the Fugitive Mind) and my bareknuckle brawler (Crush 'Em).

Sometimes I'll roll on the trinket table and come up with a PC. This happened with my water genasi coastal druid when I rolled up a silver tear drop. The item inspired a story, which in turn inspired the character.

Sometimes we roll for stats, and I let the results dictate the PC. This is how I once ended up with an 18 str/dex/con, 5 Wis half orc barbarian. And I tried to build his personality around his stats. He was a very trusting individual; he'd believe just about anything anyone told him.

Sometimes I like to play a character that the Optimizers claim you should never play, just to see how they work out in the game. This is how I ended up with my 8 con beastmaster and my 14 str/dex TWF lizardfolk.

So I guess I do have extremely different characters, both mechanically and personality-wise. But it's not intentional.

[Tanarii]

Well, I'll illustrate what I'm talking about with an example.

I have a character in mind. He's a big guy (STR build), with two swords who has has a divine connection, (So some kind of divine flavor is cool) is highly cynical, is neither bright nor stupid but has street smarts, and hates being in a leadership position (so middling to low charisma)Okay, so that's really character concept + some personality, as opposed to backstory.

I still tend to do character concept the other way around, or at least in conjunction with all the mechnical selections. But only because, as I said, when I try to think up character concepts independent of race or class I have a tendency to close out many D&D-specific class concepts. That's because I read lots of stories, and RPG-specific characters and Story-specific characters don't really mix very well. Characters based on specific RPG magic systems or Races (and vice versa for story-specific ones) especially.


Nope, I've played nearly identical PC's back-to-back multiple times, especially 5e D&D characters, until I don't and try something else, but everyone of my 5e PC's had swords, and most had bows.

If someone else has a Fighter, I'll usually play a Rogue, and vice versa, and if someone else is playing both I try and make my PC's distinct some other way, or I just don't play.
You were one of the first people I thought of when one of my players asked another: how he can stand to play so many Human Fighters and Rogues, don't they all feel so the same?

He responded something like "nah, they're all totally different people." :smallamused:

[Dr. Cliché]

I still tend to do character concept the other way around, or at least in conjunction with all the mechnical selections. But only because, as I said, when I try to think up character concepts independent of race or class I have a tendency to close out many D&D-specific class concepts. That's because I read lots of stories, and RPG-specific characters and Story-specific characters don't really mix very well. Characters based on specific RPG magic systems or Races (and vice versa for story-specific ones) especially.

Could you give some examples of this?

(Not disagreeing, just curious. :smallsmile:)

[Tanarii]

Could you give some examples of this?

(Not disagreeing, just curious. :smallsmile:)Not sure how really. What I mean is, any non-magic-using character from a story is going to clash with the majority of D&D magic using classes. And those that use magic in stories are rarely anything like D&D's vancian wizards or clerics. Let alone Druids, Bards or Sorcerers.

I mean, I suppose if you wanted to use Rand Al-Thor as a character concept, you could make an EK. But it's only aligning at the most loose concept level, "guy who fights and uses magic".

Of course, Al'Thor is a Hero's Journey character, so he really didn't have much in the way of personality until the story progressed. That's fine and dandy and works absolutely fantastic for D&D characters, IMO far better than the opposite. But it does mean that you're not really being inspired much beyond: basic personality + character concept (race, class, background.) And you can already get those by thinking of combinations of those things directly from the PHB.

I always did personality last for my 5e AL characters, but that's because I often directly used or was heavily inspired by the PHB background personality traits.

[strangebloke]

Not sure how really. What I mean is, any non-magic-using character from a story is going to clash with the majority of D&D magic using classes. And those that use magic in stories are rarely anything like D&D's vancian wizards or clerics. Let alone Druids, Bards or Sorcerers.

I mean, I suppose if you wanted to use Rand Al-Thor as a character concept, you could make an EK. But it's only aligning at the most loose concept level, "guy who fights and uses magic".

Of course, Al'Thor is a Hero's Journey character, so he really didn't have much in the way of personality until the story progressed. That's fine and dandy and works absolutely fantastic for D&D characters, IMO far better than the opposite. But it does mean that you're not really being inspired much beyond: basic personality + character concept (race, class, background.) And you can already get those by thinking of combinations of those things directly from the PHB.

I always did personality last for my 5e AL characters, but that's because I often directly used or was heavily inspired by the PHB background personality traits.

IDK, I think most character concepts can be represented pretty well by mechanics. Edward Elric is a lore bard with monk levels. Bigby's hand -> stone hand, he inspires people with speeches, and loves conjuring weapons for himself. Harry Dresden is a Red Dragon sorcerer with the investigator background and warlock levels. Like obviously there are problems with all of these builds, but I really think going deeper than broad strokes for a character is all you should really want anyway.

[Tanarii]

Harry Dresden is a Red Dragon sorcerer with the investigator background and warlock levels. Like obviously there are problems with all of these builds, but I really think going deeper than broad strokes for a character is all you should really want anyway.
lol yeah that Harry Dresden analogy is exactly why I can't do it that way. I'd never end up with "Red Dragon Sorcerer/Warlock". :smallbiggrin: Edit: and I'm impressed that you managed to.

[Beelzebubba]

and hates being in a leadership position (so middling to low charisma)

Charisma has to do with their natural aptitude for leadership, not whether they like it or not.

If he hates being in that position, it's probably because he always finds himself in it, because he has high charisma, and just doesn't like the responsibility of it?

If he had low charisma, then his hating it would be some kind of 'I don't care if you didn't invite me to the party because I didn't want to go anyway' kind of rationalization, because people wouldn't ever offer it to him in the first place.

See what I mean? :smallbiggrin:

[Dr. Cliché]

IDK, I think most character concepts can be represented pretty well by mechanics. Edward Elric is a lore bard with monk levels.

I have to say, if I was going to try and create Edward Elric, I doubt I'd have ever come up with that combination. :smalltongue:

I think I would have started with Transmutation Wizard or Forge Cleric.

[strangebloke]

Charisma has to do with their natural aptitude for leadership, not whether they like it or not.

If he hates being in that position, it's probably because he always finds himself in it, because he has high charisma, and just doesn't like the responsibility of it?

If he had low charisma, then his hating it would be some kind of 'I don't care if you didn't invite me to the party because I didn't want to go anyway' kind of rationalization, because people wouldn't ever offer it to him in the first place.

See what I mean? :smallbiggrin:
Ha! No, but the character in question definitely has low charisma.

I have to say, if I was going to try and create Edward Elric, I doubt I'd have ever come up with that combination. :smalltongue:

I think I would have started with Transmutation Wizard or Forge Cleric.

those work too! It's just that he punches things a lot and definitely has a stellar charisma, but really there's any number of ways you could do it. The mechanics, ultimately, are just whatever suits your fancy. You can stat Mulan as an arcane archer and have a great character.

[Beelzebubba]

As far as the OP, I always choose a unique class when joining an existing party, only because it's more fun to have more mechanical variety as a team.

I 'build' new characters with the Standard Array, then play around with class, archetypes, skills, etc. until a believable 'career path' arises. I then choose one aspect to go against type, to give them a bit more dimension. It's always a bit sub-optimal, but it tends to make the game more fun.

[Scripten]

I tend to come up with a concept for my character before I actually build them. That way, I find that if something doesn't fit what I want to do with that character, it's a lot easier to change class or background. There are a number of ways to introduce certain character archetypes so that you are useful mechanically without sacrificing your character's... well, character.

Of course, I am a proponent of playing fairly down-to-earth adventures with grounded characters as opposed to high fantasy heroes, so it is generally a little easier to express their abilities with different combinations of class, race, and background. If I was preoccupied with creating a character with a power, or set of powers, that had to be "just so", I doubt I would find it quite so easy.

[DarkKnightJin]

I have the fortune of being part of 2 tables. To make things easy for myself, I stay away from playing tue same class at different tables. First table is a Cleric? Then no Cleric'ing for me at the second one. I'll play a Paladin no sweat.

It's not so much about making sure the characters are different, as it is a foolproof way to avoid confusing myself about what happened at which table.
In the case of the Cleric, the prepared spells for every day.

Beyond that, I'll try and make every character idea O have a distinct personality, which makes it easier to keep them all apart.
Which helps a lot when you have between 7 and 12 different ideas in your head..

[2D8HP]

Genuine question: why? This seems very boring to me. I can't imagine being satisfied with a single character for such a long period of time.


Eh, it doesn't seem like a long period to me, as most games flame-out before too long.

If I was fortunate enough to play a single PC for long enough I'd probably try more variety, but that hasn't happened also, I'm a slow learner, so mechanics that take others minutes or days take me months to master, and I want to get to the part where the DM says, "What do you do?" quickly, without trying the patience of everyone else at the table, and by only incrementally changing the mechanics of the PC's I play, my limited rules mastery isn't as much of a hindrance to playing.

Besides, exploring different characters doesn't excite me as much as exploring a fantastic world with new lands, civilizations, and exotic creatures that me PC's then puts arrows in

[Laereth]

When you're creating a new character for a game, do you drastically distinguish your characters mechanically from previous ones? Different races, class? Is having different subclass or background sufficient? Or is having a fairly different personality enough?

For example, would you find playing two Human Rogues back to back too similar, even if they had drastically different personalities?

What about in the same party? If you found out another player had made a Fighter, is that enough to make you pick another class? What about if they had an esoteric race (Tiefling or Dragonborn)? Do you avoid sharing backgrounds?

The game I currently DM has two Paladins in the group and both have such radically different personalities that I almost forget they share the same base chassis, their only differences mecanically are their Oaths (Devotion and Ancients). Then again my POV is that of the DM not one of them as player.

I personally prefer not to play the same class/race combo back to back. Just for the sake of variety. I could see myself play 2 Human Rogues but with different subclasses and playstyles, say a wizard academy reject Arcane Trickster and a daring swashbuckling duelist. Both would play differently enough for me to feel as two different characters.

My acting range is too narrow to give justice to characters' motivations and personnality (they then to muddle and resemble from one character to the other, against my best wishes), I need their playstyle to lean on to help me differentiate them.

As for playing the same class as a fellow tablemate, I'd rather abstain. Unless again we both play, say Fighters, but with very different playstyles (he's an elvish arcane archer and I'm a dwarven battlemaster with axe and shield). This is more to try and provide cover every roles in the party. Another example, I'd rather be the Rogue if no one wants to be one, than play a Sorcerer if we've already got a Wizard (or another Sorcerer). I just like to see a well rounded(-ish) party so that everyone has an area they can exploit.

[EvilAnagram]

Eh, it doesn't seem like a long period to me, as most games flame-out before too long.

If I was fortunate enough to play a single PC for long enough I'd probably try more variety, but that hasn't happened also, I'm a slow learner, so mechanics that take others minutes or days take me months to master, and I want to get to the part where the DM says, "What do you do?" quickly, without trying the patience of everyone else at the table, and by only incrementally changing the mechanics of the PC's I play, my limited rules mastery isn't as much of a hindrance to playing.

Besides, exploring different characters doesn't excite me as much as exploring a fantastic world with new lands, civilizations, and exotic creatures that me PC's then puts arrows in

That's an interesting perspective. I have an acting and writing background, and my games typically move through to the end, so I have a very different approach. I'm glad that people can approach it in such drastically different ways and still have fun, though.

[Tanarii]

That's an interesting perspective. I have an acting and writing background, and my games typically move through to the end, so I have a very different approach. I'm glad that people can approach it in such drastically different ways and still have fun, though.
Given your background, I find it very interesting that you wouldn't look at two identical characters in terms of race/class/subclass/background, and yet find them to be completely different due to wildly different alignment and personality traits.

Edit: actually, looking back at the posts you quoted, the implication was that the posters in question not only are playing the same non-personality mechanics, but also the same basic personality. Now your question makes a lot more sense to me. You're not asking what I originally thought you were asking at all.

[ZorroGames]

As far as the OP, I always choose a unique class when joining an existing party, only because it's more fun to have more mechanical variety as a team.

Snip...

When I started playing 5e I tried doing that in AL play. Now I decide what what character(s) I want to bring to a game and play what I am in the mood for since it is my character.

Last time was a low Second Tier party of 4 with no full casters and a invisible teleporting BBEG. PIA? Yes. Harder? Fer Sure! Did we have fun and achieve the rescue of (6/7ths of) the people we went into the cesspool of evil to get? Yes. Players can make up a lot of missing pieces in a party.

[Tanarii]

When I started playing 5e I tried doing that in AL play. Now I decide what what character(s) I want to bring to a game and play what I am in the mood for since it is my character.
Yeah, AL I definitely saw a lot of duplicate classes in drop-in games. Not so much if it's an organized group doing it and coordinating characters beforehand. Nor would I expect it from a group doing a campaign path, although I've never done that in AL myself.

[Beelzebubba]

When I started playing 5e I tried doing that in AL play. Now I decide what what character(s) I want to bring to a game and play what I am in the mood for since it is my character.

If I played AL, I'd probably do that too, since it's less about developing a rapport with a specific set of other characters long term.

[Zalabim]

Well, in order, I've played (not all 5E) a Human Fighter (archer), a Human Sorcerer (daggerspell mage), a Human Sorcerer (noble/silver dragon-type/disguise master), changed the archer to Aasimar Monk (archer), Half-orc Wilder, Halfling Bard, Human Barbarian, Tiefling Ranger, and now Dwarf Warlock. Each of those has a story of how it came about, and I think for about half of them that story starts with a random generator.

The first, main character, the archer Atross (shortened from Albert Ross/albatross, which was not "Conan" enough), well that story spanned for 14~ real life years. I was joining a group in progress, so I looked at what they were lacking and settled on ranged damage, so I made an archer determined to be the best archer ever, gave myself three key words as "important to him somehow" and fleshed it out over time from that quick start. I've forgotten what those key words were though. It was Birds, Elves, and something else. Flying, or maybe just archery or feathers or sky or the sun or something. Must not have been that important, right? Eventually I wrapped up all the mechanics and little quirks from mistakes I'd made (I left "Hair" blank for months, so he's bald) into a fully comprehensible story for the character from where he started to where he'd end up. Died when we were fighting a lich, got reincarnated as an Aasimar with feathers instead of hair. It was too good an opportunity to pass up.

The daggerspell mage came about as an alternate campaign within the campaign, so I decided I'd make a character as different from an archer as possible, a melee spellcaster. Eventually time shifted, planes scrambled, and Calehan (fudged from Cold Hand) was lost but not forgotten.

The human noble was the winner/survivor of a few concepts I started for a new campaign. The DM told us one of us had to be a noble, we drew straws, and I got the short straw. So I decided I'd make a character who could be in disguise as not a noble. I came up with a story of Ruth running away from an arranged marriage to go on adventures, like finding her brother Senasten, playing different disguises all the time, but I frankly was not up to playing this character well and the campaign also didn't last long due to schedule conflicts.

The half-orc wilder was made for an Isle of Dread/morrowind kind of campaign with the condition that all the starting PCs be prisoners in jail, guilty or not was up to each of us. Long story short, he was in jail for kinda eating a noble. Tausk was quite an animal. Campaign ended due to lack of time.

The halfling bard was inspired by a megadungeon-tower campaign introduction. So I turned to, and churned through, a random generator, and the story of a halfling looking for his father's lost treasure struck me as very usable. Figured dad went into the tower before, got out with some wealth, lives the good life, sends the kids to college and all, and now this kid grew up on stories and rumors of the tower, of how there's all this treasure left behind, and goes back to prove it. It was a lot of fun acting the know-it-all while really not knowing anything. Eventually the DM and campaign disappeared though (roll20).

I also found someone wanting to run the Shackled City adventure path updated to 5E on roll20. I loved reading the adventures back in the magazine, so I came up with an alternate I didn't use, but actually played a heroic barbarian tanner/doctor. He wasn't any good as a hunter, trapper, or tracker, but if you needed something or someone stitched up or pounded flat, you could count on Thos. It was a lot of fun including all the character styles and quirks from his place in his tribe to his personal habit of chewing mint and experimenting with different tanning mixtures. Sadly, campaigns on Roll20 are like radioactive decay and this one timed out too.

The next campaign started character-first, so of course I was stumped. So I went back to that random generator and it spat out "decisive Tiefling Ranger from Dank Hollows who was written out of the family will." I said I can work with that, someone else said "hey, I'm going to be a tiefling sorcerer from a noble family, maybe you're my brother" and the rest is history. I picked a name from the book, set him up as sort of a too-much-of-a-go-getter detective who needed to get out of town now, and the road trip began.

Lastly, one of the random characters I'd plotted but not used was a dwarf trying to rebuild after failing his noble family. I didn't have much of a lead-in to the current campaign and I wanted someone who would adventure, be fun, and have something to do and care about, so I went back to this idea. As I finalized the character backstory in session 0.5, I had an 'issue'; it didn't demand or suggest a certain class or skillset. I settled on Dwarf Warlock, a jewelcrafter with themes of precious metals and gems, for my own purposes, figuring I'd be different enough from the other person playing a warlock.

Haha you guys made me realize, I didn't even address backstory. That's how little I care about it, as a differentiator or for any other reason, compared to personality and motivations.

But also, I stopped thinking up D&D character's personality & motivations before race & class a long time ago. Whenever I did that I'd usually end up with a Human, and a Fighter, Thief, or Fighter/Thief. IMO other races and classes are require some consideration to their D&D-lore specifics when designing personality and motivations for them.

Edit: to put it another way, if I'm designing a Pirate's personality & motivations, a Human Fighter or Rogue will easily result from it. A Dwarf Druid takes some thought, and I'd be unlikely to arrive at it going from personality --> race & class as opposed to the other way around.
For my latest character, I didn't start with personality, but with circumstance or goal. So his story starts, "My granddwarf received help from a human, soldiers and workers to clear and build a new mine, and in return promised to construct for that human a home to last for generations, a clanhold fit for a dwarf. Which he did. Later, he sent his son, my daddwarf, to check up on things. He made repairs, additions, alterations, and finely upheld the promise, making it a tradition. Now it's my turn to check up, but when I got there, it's a ruin. No one's living there and the place is a wreck. Honor demands I make things right, rebuilding the home if possible or hunting down the ones who destroyed it if not." Dwarf generations are a lot longer than human generations, and humans don't live that long, so now 100 years after it was first built, I've got to track down a descendant of the original person, reclaim and rebuild the original building (or make a new one), and get the descendant living there as a home in order to preserve my and my clan's honor. Basically, I'm a dwarf whose goal is to win at Sims, so it can be as entertaining to be bad at it as to be good.

The story relies on being a longer-lived race, and I imagine an elf would take the situation very differently.

[ZorroGames]

If I played AL, I'd probably do that too, since it's less about developing a rapport with a specific set of other characters long term.

Flip side, I say “Fighter” everybody expects a meat shield. In leather with a Longbow or Heavy Cross Bow equipped, think again.

If I MC (fighter) to get armor then at 2nd level when I say “Wizard” everybody wants to replace my scale or chain clad figure with their robed sage figure. Uh, no.

I say Cleric and I get ”Healbot!” Just no, I carry minimal healing spells on my Life Cleric. Mountain Dwarf and Battle Axe cleric. “Let us kill the badguys first...”

No one wants your rapport as much as xp at first tier levels in AL.

Such has been my experience.

[Tanarii]

Lol yeah time to burry your class in a pile of blather.

I'm a Shield Dwarf Pirate Swashbuckler Str-based Rogue in Medium Armor from the Inner Sea Region, with twin cutlasses and a penchant for gutting those who make me tell them what class I am.

[ZorroGames]

Lol yeah time to burry your class in a pile of blather.

I'm a Shield Dwarf Pirate Swashbuckler Str-based Rogue in Medium Armor from the Inner Sea Region, with twin cutlasses and a penchant for gutting those who make me tell them what class I am.

I am so going to use that, preferably with permission... wait, I am a pirate! I don’t need stinkin’ permission!

[EvilAnagram]

Given your background, I find it very interesting that you wouldn't look at two identical characters in terms of race/class/subclass/background, and yet find them to be completely different due to wildly different alignment and personality traits.

Edit: actually, looking back at the posts you quoted, the implication was that the posters in question not only are playing the same non-personality mechanics, but also the same basic personality. Now your question makes a lot more sense to me. You're not asking what I originally thought you were asking at all.

This is why I like you. Instead of arguing past each other for a week before we realize it's just a misunderstanding, you paid attention and corrected the error. The internet needs more of that.