Uncreative Character Concepts

[hobbitkniver]

How do you deal with players who use refrences or names from movies or literature? My current game has a rogue name "Joe K Verr" if you heard it outloud, you'd hear it as "Joker". He is playing (loosely) the joker from Batman. We also once had a bard named Tom Bombadil. He didn't actually try to act like him except for the name though. I'm not sure why this bothers me so much, but when people say they're excellent at roleplaying while their character is made to be a cliche, I silently blow my brains out. I'd never tell anyone that they were wrong or that it was bad, but I always make a unique character. Do cliches ever ruin your games?

[marcielle]

Not really. Especially if you read Terry Prattchet. Then again, I'm not that serious a roleplayer.Not that I don't like roleplay, I just believe it shouldn't get in the way of fun. Then again, I really don't like it when a character steps on another players toes for any reason(unless it's fun all around)

[sirpercival]

I think using characters from literature or film for inspiration is great, as it gives you a starting point for your character with little effort. The trick, though, is to make it your own, and not just parrot movie lines.

[tribble]

Frankly I'd prefer that brand of non-imagination. My group has an Eladrin nerd mage, you know, the character that is just "yeah, I'm a wizard, I like knowledge. Woo, knowledge.", a ranger with all the personality of a rock, I don't think he even talks in character, and Sir Generic Paladin the proud honorable warrior. Admittedly they're very good about staying on the rails and the paladin did obsess over a random encounter in a way that let me make it into a plot hook, but still, the concepts are dull.
Our dragonborn warlord, at the very least, doesn't have the burden of some fifty years of fantasy stereotype to avoid.

[Mooncrow]

I think using characters from literature or film for inspiration is great, as it gives you a starting point for your character with little effort. The trick, though, is to make it your own, and not just parrot movie lines.

This, x100. I don't think I've ever played a character, either as a player or DM that wasn't in some way based on a character from something I've read or watched. It makes starting out that much easier, and then you can make the character your own as the plot goes on.

Silly characters, on the other hand, regardless of the source, are very much campaign dependent. If you're looking for a more serious tone, then it doesn't really matter if the guy is cribbing from the Joker, or has made up their own ridiculous character - it's going to come off as inappropriate.

[arguskos]

I'm playing a character based pretty heavily off of Ezio, from Assassin's Creed 2. I don't call him Ezio, nor does he act like Ezio or have the same motivations as Ezio, but I took thematic elements from Ezio and duplicated his combat style pretty effectively. Does that make me uncreative?

Really, it depends what you do with the character. I have no issues with someone playing a Joker-like character, as long as the character is fundamentally their own and is only influenced/loosely based on the Joker. If you just play the Joker, then we have an issue. Otherwise, we're fine.

[Ravens_cry]

There is nothing wrong with uncreative concepts as long as you role play them well.
And as a newbie, you take inspiration where you can get it.
We have a young lady in our group whose first character was named, no joke, Batman.
No, not in the military sense, no they were not like that Batman in any way, their characters name was just Batman. Hell, my first character was a halfling rogue named Bob. Eventually Bobwise, but yes, I started with Bob.
Eventually though, you run out of movie quotes and quips and you got to start thinking about how your character would react in this situation. And when you do, you know your a role player.

[hobbitkniver]

The character that plays the joker has, as he says, "Played since the 90's", so he doesn't really deserve new player immunities. He brags about how long he's been playing.

[sirpercival]

Then he's being a ****. I've played since the 90's too, and I'm able to adapt character concepts from published media without plagiarizing (unless of course the game is silly and stuff like that is acceptable or even encouraged).

[Zaq]

Here's the thing . . . it's impossible to really make your character act and feel exactly like their inspiration. You can make anyone who's aware of both your character and the source of the inspiration link the two, but it's impossible to just flat out clone a character in every way. Eventually, the character will noticeably diverge from the source material. It might be obvious sooner, it might be obvious later, but eventually, Joe K. Verr is going to do something that The Joker would never even consider doing. That might even become a thing. Just as it's impossible to make a truly original character, it's also impossible to make a character who's truly unoriginal—especially if you're playing D&D, where you can't quite perfectly mimic the abilities of whatever character you're drawing from (you can sometimes come very close, but you can't keep it up forever).

Ever since I realized that, I've been less uptight about basing my character concepts off of existing fiction to a greater or lesser degree. Sometimes the personality change happens nearly immediately; I once played a ripoff of Inspector Gadget. Everything he did had a "Go Go Gadget" attached, he wore a trenchcoat, and he was a detective/investigator. (Oh, and he was a warforged, so he was always on duty!) Beyond that? Different character. He wasn't wildly incompetent, for one, and he had goals and motivations that the real Inspector wouldn't, even in the D&D universe. We all knew that he was an Inspector Gadget ripoff (hell, his name was "The Inspector"), but he was also my character.

Sometimes it takes a little while longer, too . . . another character I played was based on Kenji Matsuda's character from the movie Versus. Despite not being a yakuza leader fighting zombies in a forest, I did a competent job of aping his combat style and personality for a while . . . but eventually, it didn't fit anymore. I kept some of his mannerisms and his combat style (such as it is . . . we don't have guns in D&D, at least not the campaign I was in), but our paths diverged after a few sessions, because we were different characters. It's going to happen sooner or later. And that's good. That means that your player will be bringing his or her own personality to the table before everything's said and done. The character's influence will never go away, but they can't maintain a deathgrip on the character's personality and actions forever. It's nearly impossible to make a character with NO outside influence anyway (we don't live in a vacuum, and you can't avoid tropes), but no matter how obvious the influence is at the beginning, it won't be there by the end, unless you're playing a one-shot or other really brief campaign.

[marcielle]

When it comes down to it, this is a game of fantasy. And if your friends fantasy is to be the Joker... no, actually that might be a problem...

[Godskook]

How do you deal with players who use refrences or names from movies or literature? My current game has a rogue name "Joe K Verr" if you heard it outloud, you'd hear it as "Joker". He is playing (loosely) the joker from Batman. We also once had a bard named Tom Bombadil. He didn't actually try to act like him except for the name though. I'm not sure why this bothers me so much, but when people say they're excellent at roleplaying while their character is made to be a cliche, I silently blow my brains out. I'd never tell anyone that they were wrong or that it was bad, but I always make a unique character. Do cliches ever ruin your games?

I had to go archive diving to find this:

http://xkcd.com/794/

Basically, *EVERYONE* makes references in their creative content. Its the way of the world, and you can't get away from it in D&D no more than you can in pop culture. And by your own words, this player, while referencing the Joker, has made the character his own, someone completely distinct. My suggestion is get off your high horse, understand how literature works, and enjoy playing with someone who *DOESN'T* use cliches as a character concept(cause just a name isn't enough). Also, if you've read too much TvTropes, you might be under the misinpression that *EVERYTHING* is a cliche, cause that's what reading TvTropes does to you.

[Diefje]

If they copied a famous character, but played him really well (as in true to the original) that would be fine. Copied or original, ultimately everything has been done before. What is important is that you stick to the character you've created.

[hobbitkniver]

I had to go archive diving to find this:

http://xkcd.com/794/

Basically, *EVERYONE* makes references in their creative content. Its the way of the world, and you can't get away from it in D&D no more than you can in pop culture. And by your own words, this player, while referencing the Joker, has made the character his own, someone completely distinct. My suggestion is get off your high horse, understand how literature works, and enjoy playing with someone who *DOESN'T* use cliches as a character concept(cause just a name isn't enough). Also, if you've read too much TvTropes, you might be under the misinpression that *EVERYTHING* is a cliche, cause that's what reading TvTropes does to you.

I don't think a comic about inside jokes counts as understanding "how literaure works". Also, I would not say it is just a name. The second example was a person just using the name, but the second one is not. Perhaps I did not add ample information, but that doesn't warrant making hasty and offensive posts. He did not make the character his own, he tried to replicate it but failed. He sometimes excuses his actions by saying, "The joker would totally do that." It bothers me because it takes away from the role playing and ruins my immersion. I do not think that this is unavoidable.

Looking back, you may have mistaken what I meant. Tom Bombadil did not act like his character, but Joe definitely did.

[Godskook]

Could you give more specific examples?

Also, does this help?

[Mnemnosyne]

Some players have no problem with constant in-jokes and direct and repetitive references to the character that inspired them or others. These tend to be what I might call 'comedian' roleplayers - they take the entire game in a very non-serious mood and don't much care to deeply explore their own characters and come up with their own motivations. They see something they think is funny, so they use it. Your Joe K Verr player appears to be this sort of player.

The problem with this sort of player arises when another player or the DM is a more serious roleplayer. While they may enjoy a joke or two from time to time and laugh at them, for the most part they want a serious tone at the table and a comedian roleplayer that's constantly making references to the Joker or to a movie character or whatever else, is disruptive for their style of play. The only choices at that point are for the players to either not play together, or compromise as much as they're willing to. The comedian can tone it down, make their characters a little less obvious and referential, and avoid constantly pointing out the connection, and the serious roleplayer can accept more of that sort of thing than they would optimally prefer. Consider Zaq's 'Inspector Gadget' motivated character. I'm more of a serious roleplayer, but I could probably accept that character as described. The reference would probably grate on me from time to time if used too much, but the differences and the fact that he takes the character seriously makes it a character I could play with, without rolling my eyes every other time he opens his mouth.

If one or both refuses to compromise, or they simply cannot find a place where they're both comfortable, well...some people just don't mesh together as players very well.

The Tom Bombadil player, on the other hand, seems to have just taken the name. Which to be quite honest, is fine. Consider real naming conventions - there are very, very few people with a truly unique name, and a large majority of people's names are simply because they were named after someone else. A significant mythological or historical figure (consider, for instance, how common "Jesus" is as a hispanic name) or simply the name of an ancestor. I'll be honest, it can bug me just a bit to hear a highly recognizable name as someone's character, but there's nothing wrong with that.

[Calanon]

The character that plays the joker has, as he says, "Played since the 90's", so he doesn't really deserve new player immunities. He brags about how long he's been playing.

Nothing says "Change your name" like a classic Spelltrap (Mindrape)

That being said, I actually derive my characters names from Draconic and Elven Translators... You can say I'm not creative but I like those languages (If they had a Loross Or Netherese translator I would use that instead ) Ah well... The greatest inspiration for all of my characters have been the Netherese Arcanist, In most games you can expect me to probably want to be the caster or something like that (OMFG I LOVED SECOND EDITION ARCANIST! *FAPFAPFAPFAPFAP*) but when I don't I don't mind it because I will still be using a Draconic name...

A recurring name for a character is often a good thing, it means they had so much fun with the previous character that they want to continue the story with them.

Of course an uncreative name like, Nada ("They Live"), Batman, or something else ridiculous is completely absurd... atleast have a name that you fancied yourself

[hobbitkniver]

Yeah, Tom Bombadil didn't cause any problems, but It was the only other example I thought could be explained easy enough. I suppose I'm good at coming up with names or at least have a greater desire to come up with something unique.

[CactusAir]

Wait you mean there are games where the players don't quote monty python or the princess bride at least once per encounter? Mind = Blown

[Sception]

I usually use original names, and when I don't, the character I'm playing generally has nothing to do with the character I got the name from (ie, 'Goreshade the Bastard', nothing to do with the Privateer Press character, I just liked the name for my dual bastard sword wielding fighter) but I don't always go for original characters. Sometimes you just like a character from this book or that movie, and want to play them. And sometimes the cliche's are just fun - one of the funnest characters I ever played was a cliche big dumb half-orc barbarian named Thugg.

Sometimes you just want a change of pace, remind yourself that your there for a fun game of pretend with a board game attached. It doesn't have to be Hamlet every time.

It doesn't annoy me when other people play outright copies of established characters. Frankly, I'm just happy when I'm playing in a group that will actually use each others' character names, instead of just referring to the players names. If naming/basing your character 'Riddick' or 'Gandalf' helps you remember to speak in character, then that's great, imo.

[hobbitkniver]

I usually use original names, and when I don't, the character I'm playing generally has nothing to do with the character I got the name from (ie, 'Goreshade the Bastard', nothing to do with the Privateer Press character, I just liked the name for my dual bastard sword wielding fighter) but I don't always go for original characters. Sometimes you just like a character from this book or that movie, and want to play them. And sometimes the cliche's are just fun - one of the funnest characters I ever played was a cliche big dumb half-orc barbarian named Thugg.

Sometimes you just want a change of pace, remind yourself that your there for a fun game of pretend with a board game attached. It doesn't have to be Hamlet every time.

It doesn't annoy me when other people play outright copies of established characters. Frankly, I'm just happy when I'm playing in a group that will actually use each others' character names, instead of just referring to the players names. If naming/basing your character 'Riddick' or 'Gandalf' helps you remember to speak in character, then that's great, imo.

In my group, I'd be glad if they didn't just call each other by class.

[Dr.Epic]

I'm not sure why this bothers me so much, but when people say they're excellent at roleplaying while their character is made to be a cliche, I silently blow my brains out.

Creativity doesn't equal roleplaying. Roleplaying is how well you get into character and can talk with other people in character. Creativity is how well you can think of something new and interesting. One reason he might be able to roleplay so well is he's a huge fan of the character and has seen enough incarnations of him to play it right.

[Hecuba]

Creativity doesn't equal roleplaying. Roleplaying is how well you get into character and can talk with other people in character. Creativity is how well you can think of something new and interesting. One reason he might be able to roleplay so well is he's a huge fan of the character and has seen enough incarnations of him to play it right.

This. A acting and authoring are not the same skill.

[hobbitkniver]

Creativity doesn't equal roleplaying. Roleplaying is how well you get into character and can talk with other people in character. Creativity is how well you can think of something new and interesting. One reason he might be able to roleplay so well is he's a huge fan of the character and has seen enough incarnations of him to play it right.

I suppose that I have an alternate idea of roleplaying that perhaps should be called something different.

[Diefje]

I suppose that I have an alternate idea of roleplaying that perhaps should be called something different.

I think i get it. And you should totally be able to ask your players to tone down the copying. They should be playing their character, and not playing a character that is playing another character.

Like: playing a guy who calls himself Batman, who is a vigilante type. Fine. Playing a guy who calls himself Batman, who is a vigilante type, but also a millionaire with a butler, drives around a black cart that he calls the Batmobile, only talks in a hoarse voice. Maybe not.

[Aegis013]

Wait you mean there are games where the players don't quote monty python or the princess bride at least once per encounter? Mind = Blown

My group makes many monty python references per session, and even more male genital jokes. When the druid wildshapes, we unleash torrents of bear puns... we get the DM to laugh so hard he has to stop the encounter for a bit.

[Siosilvar]

Wait you mean there are games where the players don't quote monty python or the princess bride at least once per encounter? Mind = Blown

There are no groups that don't quote Monty Python or the Princess Bride.
It's a matter of how obvious their quotes are.

And now for something completely different...

[hobbitkniver]

Just noticed, Aegis mentions bear puns and Silosilvar has a quote about bear puns in his sig.

[AslanCross]

Occasional references, I don't mind at all. There's a game I'm about to join where it seems that every single character was pulled from the pages of TvTropes. There's a hot-blooded, accidental pervert (with red spikey hair no less), a little girl psion who is Really 700 Years Old, a genderbent action girl soulknife, a halberd-wielding warforged berserker. My own character is a greatsword-wielding war veteran who also doubles as a wise mother figure to the somewhat crazy party. And you know what? It sounds like a lot of fun.

Just because a character can be categorized into one trope or another means it's a bad and "unoriginal" character. There is frankly, no such thing as an original character, in any case. There are characters based on archetypes, and deconstructions thereof.

I'll also have to agree with the comment that poor writing (character creation) isn't poor roleplaying (which is more acting than character creation). It just so happens that the writer and actor are the same person.

That said, I'm not fond of outright cut-and-paste plagiarism (name, background, appearance, everything), but even as a DM I insert references to pop culture in my games. They're usually played for laughs, and aren't complete copies.

[hobbitkniver]

Just because a character can be categorized into one trope or another means it's a bad and "unoriginal" character. There is frankly, no such thing as an original character, in any case. There are characters based on archetypes, and deconstructions thereof.

It's not that he fits into a single trope, he is both named after and modelled to be the joker. As for the game you mentioned, that could be fun, but characters that can't be summed up into one phrase each would probably be more interesting in the long run. That said, if the DM is good and the player click, you should be entertained enough with the actual game that it won't even come up.