Stuck in a stereotype - is it bad?

[Stuebi]

Hello Playground. It's not exactly a big problem, more me being torn on an issue. Bear with me on the rather lengthy introduction, and feel free to share your thoughts.

Since i've started my journey trough the world of RP, I played a LOT of characters. There were allways some minor things that would often carry over to each one, some minor personality quirks flowing from me, to the Guy I played. It never bothered me, as long as the Character was fun and the general response to him was positive (From an OOC standpoint of course).

However, a few days ago, one of my good friends commented on the new Character I had made in Star Wars, a big warrior-type. It was something along the lines of sarcastically stating "Stuebi allways plays SUCH innovative character designs, it's staggering.". While obviously only meant as a goof, it bothered me.

You see, I play a LOT of big guys. A huge Blacksmith that fights with a big axe, an armored Bodyguard using a big sword, a Foresttroll from World of Warcraft which was also a Warrior. Most of them having a relatively open, joking personality and posing as the "Big Brother" of the group. They had different flaws, difficulties and quirks, a thing I usually keep an eye out for, but the basic type was the same. And for one of the sessions coming up, I made an Animalwarrior that can transform into a Bear, where the joke came up again.

It's not like I instantly Default to these Dudes, mind you. I just had fun playing them. I usually shy away from other things for a variety of reasons.

We're playing The Dark Eye currently, and my DM managed to completely kill off any interest I had in playing a mage. He and some of the more veteran players BOMBARD me with giant amounts of lore, rules and tidbits I appearantly have to look out for, and correct and adjust every form of personal touch I try to add (because they usually have much bigger background information than me, and thus find 50 reasons why my idea wouldnt fit into the world.), until I eventually just get bored or loose interest. At the end I just throw up my arms and go "Screw this, I can play a Warrior without having to read 4 Novels worth of this stuff."

Afterwards, I tried to live things up with different races. But that was even worse. My DM almost hits the ceiling every time I even dare to mention a Lizardman. When Trying Orks they usually "Mhh" and "uhhh" around the idea until they managed to talk me out of it.

Following this, my DM tried to talk me into playing a Social Character (Think something like a Bard, someone that's more about socialising than hitting things with sticks), but I cant see myself playing one of those, I find the Concept of someone being all talk not fitting the things I like and I really dont hink my acting skills would get it across decently.

Last but not least, I just read down the Profession List and tried to make up a range of different choices that seemed interesting to me. Around 80% were shot down with the usual "Doesnt fit the setting / Why would someone like that be here in X where we play?" and the other 20 % get the above "Your idea is cool, but consider the following historical fact / Systemrule /thing I know."-treatment until the idea wanders off to drown itself in a river.

Now, also consider that the above happened in one big 4-5 hour Skypecall, that ended with me angrily stating "You know what? F this. Im recylcing my Blacksmith. Tired of this cr*p.". It's sometimes VERY exhausting to sit in a conference with 3 people, that know the world (And a ton of historical facts) up and down, while everything you try to add is just utterly CRUSHED beneath their adjustements and professional changes. They mean well, and it's probably just frustrating for me because im so very new compared to them.

To give a few example of ideas getting shot down or critiqued:

- Vanilla-Mages didnt really seem attractive the way the DM explained them to me, so I wrote on an Air-Elementalist that wanted to learn Swordsmanship and eventually combine the two arts. Got killed off by "Too snowflakey." and "He would have no reason to come down here."

- Bounty Hunter / Ranger, scrapped because yet again "No reason" and "he wouldnt have any work in the Plot anyway."

- Orc/Lizardman-Shaman. "OHDEARGODPLEASEDONT."

- Druid. "Would have no reason to follow the group."

- Swordmaster. "That's basically just a Warrior again!"

There's a lot more, but I cant remember all of them. Im basically just tired of even trying to bring something up, and jsut default back to a Concept I KNOW I like.

[Sartharina]

Hmm... saying someone's character wouldn't think that way/want to do that is bad form. The motivation is supposed to be up to you.

[Spore]

Bring a concept. Let the DM see it. If he doesn't like it he can improve things but not change or say no. If he still insists for you to "reroll", you say: "You either take me and my character or none of both." If he begs you to change your concept, end the conversation with the sentence: "I will join if I get to choose my character."

Then wait. Yes, you need to be patient but more likely than not it will pay off.

[Airk]

Uhm, this might be a dumb question, but why DON'T you seem to know anything about the setting? Presumably this information has been made available in some way? If it has, bloody well read it. If it HASN'T, then throw that back in the GMs face with a "Well, how am I supposed to make a character that 'fits the world' if you don't tell me anything about the world?"

Also, I would start responding to some of these criticisms with "Why not?" Because honestly, "A character of that class would have no reason to <do thing>" is the dumbest excuse imaginable. What if your brother was another member of the party? Do you still have "no reason" to come play with the rest of the group? Have you tried pointing this out? On the other hand, weird races are much, MUCH harder to integrate with sanity, so you probably DO want to stay away from those.

While there's nothing wrong with playing basically the same character over and over again, it's not very exciting for the rest of the people at the table. And, well, I sortof get the feeling you're not really trying very hard to explore the possibilities of some of the other ideas that have been bounced around. (Social character <> "someone who is all talk" etc.)

So at the end of the day, it sounds like everyone shares some blame here. Sounds like it's adult conversation time again.

[Krazzman]

Are you only playing the Dark Eye at the moment? Because if yes then I can understand that.

DSA is basically a system where you need to be able to write a scientifically thesis on how the rules work in order to play with certain individuals.

For example:
I played a Nivese (nomad) Gjaskalländer (basically Viking guys that believe in strenght and a giant whale that battles the armageddon snake and thus need strenght of the dead which need to get in touch with salt water after death [superstition].) Pathfinder.
I knew nothing about the setting as I was a fairly new player as well as the setting except I knew some traits being good for this sort of thing.
I wanted him to fight with his Spear at first, and then go for Crossbow use later. After one crossbow exploded into my face I dropped that and when we had the opportunity to be granted a wish: he chose being taught the way of the sword (as he beliefed the more combat skills he has the more useful he will be in the afterlife) which was deemed a) hilarious by the other players, b) actively laught at and c) being made fun of.

What finally killed it for me was that the dm said no mages but confronted us nearly all the time with magical stuff which brought one player to let his animal handler rest and come again with a more combat focused guy.

About the stereotype:
there are things worse. Basically being told repeatedly that you are a powergamer just because I read guides about how a magus works or being told that you are a powergamer just because you try to remake a certain build of another player in another campaign (which you found interesting to play yourself).
Or being told that if you DM the game that everyone just needs to pay attention to Combat as your campaign will be a Hack'n'Slash only.

Maybe next time playing SAGA play an Bounty Hunter (ranged weaponry) maybe you find a build that suits you as it will break away from your stereotype. Also decline to join any further DSA campaigns as that system seems to just don't suit you in combination with your DM/Other Players.

[Odessa333]

It seems quite odd that they would shut you down from new things while teasing you about doing the same thing. I would likely suggest talking to GM/DM about your concerns, give him an idea or ideas) that appeal to you, and try to make one of them work without making your head explode.

As posted above, making a character work for a game can be quite simple. From the 'other PC is an old friend/family/lover' story, to the 'chosen by fate/prophesy/demon/god/etc' story, or the classic "I was rescued by a PC and I must repay the debt while we slowly become friends I would help afterwards anyway" story. Making the story is a big part of the fun, and shutting it down is just cruel in my book. Give me a paragraph of the setting, and I'll write you a ten page background that fits the world ;)

[Drachasor]

I find the whole "it's wrong to enjoy a similar/small theme in your characters" to be pretty awful. Almost everyone has something, whether mechanical, personality, or whatever that sticks around in all/most of their characters. I know I've been hit with the same thing for liking to play characters who know things (knowledge skills/etc). You like big guys. Who the heck cares?

And I've experienced the same people shooting down all my other ideas too.

Mostly it just seems like the standard BS "real roleplayer" crap that some people try to pull. Well, it's a bloody game that's supposed to be fun and if someone likes playing characters with trait X, then more power to them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's no more wrong than liking certain genres of books, games, or whatever.

You do get bonus points if you ever DM and do your best to enable any character concept they have, and they never return the favor.

[erikun]

There's nothing wrong with playing a similar or familiar character.

As for your group, if they insist on you playing a different character, then insist on being able to play a different character that doesn't require you to memorize pages of setting lore just to create the character. It sounds like a lot of your ideas were shot down by the "no reason to be there" excuse, in which case I'd wonder why they're stating that without having any understanding of the character's personality. (which should be the reason the character is there)

[The Oni]

Seems to me the problem is with the group, not you. Maybe they're just screwin' with you. I wouldn't put up with it TBH. Might want to just outright ask what they want you to make (whether you intend to or not) because writing up concepts and having them vetoed constantly sounds annoying as hell.

[GPuzzle]

I think it's important to mention that perhaps the reasons they chose were the wrong ones. You see, a good roleplayer does not come up with a reason on why his character wouldn't want to do something like raid a dungeon - he comes up with a reason on why would his character want to raid that dungeon. It can be that he's in search for a fragment of ancient lore about the spirits, he could be trying to defend the world from whatever's inside that or it could simply be that he's an old friend of one of the adventurers who have a reason - simply being friends is one of the best reasons - after all, you're generally sitting around a table playing a game with whom? Your friends, because you spend saturdays together with them playing RPGs when you could, dunno, be walking in the park or something.

[Krazzman]

Give me a paragraph of the setting, and I'll write you a ten page background that fits the world ;)

The problem is also with DSA. It has a rather hard tacket mainplot and... if you want to read everything (starting at age 20) you'll probably be in your late 20s when you are finished.

There is a weekly magazine that advances the main plotline... for the past 20 years?

About going for another archetype:
Try a bard. But don't go just about talking. Make him do more and better. If you play DnD 3.5 maybe go Bard/Virtuoso/Sublime Chord. Or just focus on buffing.

Or Instead of playing the big smasher:
Play a Human, Dex focused Swordsage that goes into Shadow Blade. And then maybe into Shadow sun ninja or something like that.

Might be a different way of being a certain type of character. Or try playing a Duskblade or generally a gish (but instead of a big two-handed weapon just use a light one handed.

Or maybe just play an archer or ranged combatant for a while.

[da_chicken]

They seem awfully protective of the campaign setting. In my own experience that can be problematic if you don't understand the source material. I'm not saying you need to go read the novels, just that I can understand why it's a source of conflict. I wouldn't like a player running a lizardman or orc in my Greyhawk campaign, because that race is kill-on-sight to most of the towns the players would interact with. The campaign world is just highly xenophobic. I wouldn't like a player running an Elf in a Song of Ice and Fire campaign, either, since as far as we know it's a human-only world (who knows what The Others are). I dislike that it sounds like this is the campaign setting always used, however. Sometimes it's fun to change things up a bit, and that gives you a chance to play a character you normally wouldn't. It probably helps that my group rotates DMs.

Honestly, at this point I'd ask them what they expect you to play without being told how to play your character all the time. You shouldn't have to read the books to play in the game, but it sounds like your play group has determined there is One True Way™ to play the game. The fact that the DM keeps saying "I can't make that character work" when you're looking to play seemingly completely acceptable characters (rangers, druids, normal races) is indicative of supremely narrow thinking. He's literally saying, "I can't be creative enough to make that work." Is he telling a story to be consistent with the campaign setting, or telling a story that the players can enjoy? I think that's one thing that 4E did right: encourage DMs to adopt what their players want to do rather than forcing them to play the roles you've got lined out.

If they keep picking on you, just tell them that the warrior is the only class you enjoy playing that you don't get harassed for. Yes, it's rude, but they're not being polite, either.

[Jay R]

John Wayne always played tough guys; Woody Allen always played neurotic city-dwellers. That's not a knock on either actor's abilities.

Play what you enjoy, and don't apologize for it.

[BWR]

John Wayne always played tough guys; Woody Allen always played neurotic city-dwellers. That's not a knock on either actor's abilities.

No, the fact that they aren't terribly good actos is a knock on their abilities.

There is nothing wrong with liking certain types of characters per se, but it can get really old to see the same person play essentially the same character for the Nth time. Try something new, move a bit outside your comfort zone once in a while. Play something radically different - maybe you'll like the new flavor or at least find out it isn't terrible.

In defense of fluff-heavy settings: yes they can be a pain to get into and finding something that fits if you are not familiar with them can be hard, but I have found they are worth the effort to get into and learn the details and play with the restrictions and expectations of the game rather than complaining that it doesn't support everything. Put some effort into learning the basics and have those more familiar explain why a given character does or doesn't fit into the setting. Once you have basic information like that you can start with questions like "under what circumstances would character class/type X be going on adventures, and can I do that?"

[Drachasor]

No, the fact that they aren't terribly good actos is a knock on their abilities.

There is nothing wrong with liking certain types of characters per se, but it can get really old to see the same person play essentially the same character for the Nth time. Try something new, move a bit outside your comfort zone once in a while. Play something radically different - maybe you'll like the new flavor or at least find out it isn't terrible.

There's really no good justification for forcing that on someone though. It's the same as saying they are playing the game wrong. It's like saying John Wayne was being an actor "wrong" because he largely just played one sort of character.

Encouraging someone to play something new is fine. Asking them to do so is fine. Forcing them to do so is not. The game is about having fun, not forcing other people to play the game the game one particular way. And yes, playing a very wide variety of characters that have little to nothing in common is a kind of play style, and not everyone likes to do that for themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Be more accepting of others.

[Jay R]

No, the fact that they aren't terribly good actos is a knock on their abilities.

Both were extremely successful. Both had multiple Best Actor noms. (Wayne won the Oscar and Golden Globe, Allen was nominated for both.) I will have to accept the opinions of the audiences, and the professionals who vote for awards, over your opinion.

There is nothing wrong with liking certain types of characters per se, but it can get really old to see the same person play essentially the same character for the Nth time. Try something new, move a bit outside your comfort zone once in a while. Play something radically different - maybe you'll like the new flavor or at least find out it isn't terrible.

Why? My friend Glen only wants to play the big, staunch, John Wayne fighter. So why shouldn't Glen just play a fighter? I like to play lots of different classes, but Glen's choices should be based on what Glen finds fun, not what you or I do.

Telling him his choices are not acceptable is no different from disapproving of highly successful actors who aren't to your taste.

[Knaight]

Both were extremely successful. Both had multiple Best Actor noms. (Wayne won the Oscar and Golden Globe, Allen was nominated for both.) I will have to accept the opinions of the audiences, and the professionals who vote for awards, over your opinion.

It's worth noting that the demographics directly involved there drastically differ from those of the general population, and there's no particular reason to think that movie viewing is closer to the Oscar and Golden Globe nominee population than the general one. It's not the audiences, it's a subset of them that is pretty far from a random sample, and that does lessen the value of the awards.

Why? My friend Glen only wants to play the big, staunch, John Wayne fighter. So why shouldn't Glen just play a fighter? I like to play lots of different classes, but Glen's choices should be based on what Glen finds fun, not what you or I do.

Telling him his choices are not acceptable is no different from disapproving of highly successful actors who aren't to your taste.

It's hardly comparable. The disapproval put forth is merely considering them inept and nonetheless successful, which is an entirely reasonable position. Stating that someone else playing a game in the way they prefer should play it your way instead because your way is better is substantially less reasonable.

[Gamgee]

Might I try an alternative suggestion? Play what makes you happy. Joke about some stupid **** they do. Everyone gets along and plays the game. Honestly it seems like they may have just been trying to bug you and somewhere along the way it got way too big.

If the GM absolutely won't allow something then keep thinking of stuff until he does, and if he doesn't like it? Well screw him. Neither you or the other players have the time to wait for a primadonna GM. So the first idea you like that he will allow play I suggest you take it and enjoy it. It doesn't matter what their opinion is if they like it or not. I don't like playing big warriors for the most part. Does that mean I'm suddenly going to rail on someone for doing it? My one player has been a warrior type of player since the dawn of his rpg career. He started playing when he was seven, currently going on seventeen soon. I've known players who played rogue types consistently for 10+ years. All it means is your going to have an edge in that style of play over someone who doesn't.

Edit
As a player it is not your job to entertain them. There is no social contract you must make a character that everyone else finds fun and you think is boring as hell. If they like them so much they can play them. Any suggestion that you need to consider what would be fun for others is absurd in this situation considering all the work and thought you have put into it. I can sure as hell tell you I don't put that much thought into it. If I do put thought into it, typically it would be for my benefit. Okay if everyone is playing x, y, and z what do I need to be most effective? To have this group and thus myself working like a well oiled machine. This is just what I happen to find fun. It may on occasion reject immediate fun for long term fun. So playing a specific class verses a well balanced party that goes on to conquer a planet. Would not have been able to do the later if I did not forsake my short term happiness of playing a certain class.

[Stuebi]

Uhm, this might be a dumb question, but why DON'T you seem to know anything about the setting? Presumably this information has been made available in some way? If it has, bloody well read it. If it HASN'T, then throw that back in the GMs face with a "Well, how am I supposed to make a character that 'fits the world' if you don't tell me anything about the world?"

Also, I would start responding to some of these criticisms with "Why not?" Because honestly, "A character of that class would have no reason to <do thing>" is the dumbest excuse imaginable. What if your brother was another member of the party? Do you still have "no reason" to come play with the rest of the group? Have you tried pointing this out? On the other hand, weird races are much, MUCH harder to integrate with sanity, so you probably DO want to stay away from those.

While there's nothing wrong with playing basically the same character over and over again, it's not very exciting for the rest of the people at the table. And, well, I sortof get the feeling you're not really trying very hard to explore the possibilities of some of the other ideas that have been bounced around. (Social character <> "someone who is all talk" etc.)

So at the end of the day, it sounds like everyone shares some blame here. Sounds like it's adult conversation time again.

The information is avaiable, and im spending a substantial amount of time digging trough it. Krazzman pointed it out tough, the amount of Knowledge avaible is ENORMOUS. It's not uncommon for certain professions to have their very own Booklets, same for races, locations, classes, noblehouses etc. pp. Now we have the addiotional fact that the DM has been playing this since the very first edition, and can often tell even fine Details from memory alone. Two of the other Players played it for a few years. Im playing it for a good 4 months now, and I just cant boast that im able to digest the sheer amount of Knowledge in that time, and then use it to write Concepts and Background that meet up with the standard the three of them are used too.

The thing is, I suspect they're doing it on purpose, because the party composition is missing someone with social skills. I was on vacation for two weeks, and when I came back, I was the only one missing a Character. I've talked for a good two hours with the DM about it, and appearantly the Party would really need someone with connections, persuasion, haggling, that sort of stuff. We rolled the Character, and now I'm stuck with a Nobleman-Diplomat sort of guy, who probably couldnt even defend himself against an aged Goblin with brittle-bone desease. As I pointed out, I couldnt be bored more with this type of character, but i'm probably gonna take the Bullet for a few sessions, try to squeeze at least some enjoyment out of it and let them play their setup. There's still the chance that there's at least some aspects im gonna have fun with. I dont wanna be the one guy that halts the entire thing because of Character-creation.

I'm just gonna continue learning the system, and if stuff like this keeps on happening, i'm probably gonna jump to another group for a few adventures. It might just be that tension is a bit high. We've been arguing all the time about stupid stuff for the past week, and it definelty cant be good if im not even really looking forward to the sessions anymore.

A sidenote on the "Motivation to be at x"-thing. Its something that I encounter all the time, and it weirded me out in the past as well. You're writing the Background yourself and it's fiction. You can write up an excuse for about anyone being anywhere at any given time, if you wanted to. Still, sometimes I get the feeling that people in some settings never leave the square 15 mile-radius they were born in.

[Knaight]

As a player it is not your job to entertain them. There is no social contract you must make a character that everyone else finds fun and you think is boring as hell. If they like them so much they can play them. Any suggestion that you need to consider what would be fun for others is absurd in this situation considering all the work and thought you have put into it.

To some extent, it is your job to entertain them. The group as a whole is responsible for the time the group as a whole has. This means players proactively doing things for their own fun, but also proactively doing things to enhance the game for others. It's not the job of the GM to bring all of the life to the game which the players then passively consume. Nor is it the job of the players to generate what fun they can have with the GM and GM alone, letting the rest of the group do what they can. The game is a group endeavor, and should be treated as such.

This is not to say that "you must make a character that everyone else finds fun and you think is [extremely boring]". The idea is not that everyone tries to make everyone else have fun to the detriment of themselves. I'm also not saying that the stance of "you shouldn't play that character, you've played a bunch like that" is particularly reasonable as a restriction. Both of these are cases where the balance is distributed very unevenly towards the group, where the former involves distributing it too much towards everyone else and the second too much towards ones self (I'd consider quite a lot of telling other people what characters to play in that category). Neither of them indicates that considering the group is bad.

[BWR]

Both were extremely successful. Both had multiple Best Actor noms. (Wayne won the Oscar and Golden Globe, Allen was nominated for both.) I will have to accept the opinions of the audiences, and the professionals who vote for awards, over your opinion.



Why? My friend Glen only wants to play the big, staunch, John Wayne fighter. So why shouldn't Glen just play a fighter? I like to play lots of different classes, but Glen's choices should be based on what Glen finds fun, not what you or I do.

Telling him his choices are not acceptable is no different from disapproving of highly successful actors who aren't to your taste.

1. Popularity and typecasting doesn't equate to skill or quality. I'm sure we can find plenty of things you consider of poor quality yet are to you inexplicably popular. Perhaps Twilight or Justin Bieber, just to go with some of the more popular punching bags of the day.

2. And as I said, there is nothing wrong with playing what you like per se, but trying something new can be a good thing I have seen certain players stick to their one thing all the time, and you are stuck with a set of one character with different names - not unlike John Wayne's or Woody Allen's characters. Asking them to try something new can do everyone a favor. We had a player who always played the biggest, gruff, slightly impolite, most muscle-bound bruiser he could find. Every game, every character. Sure there were minor variations when it came to race, class, schools and clan, etc. but essentially the same character every time. Then he up and surprised us (with a little urging, I think) with an elegant, rich, classy, spoiled 'wussy' duelist. The character was great and everybody enjoyed him, doubly so just because the player tried something new.

[Drachasor]

1. Popularity and typecasting doesn't equate to skill or quality. I'm sure we can find plenty of things you consider of poor quality yet are to you inexplicably popular. Perhaps Twilight or Justin Bieber, just to go with some of the more popular punching bags of the day.

I think you can have limited range and still be a good actor. Or perhaps have good range, but be typecast and still do a good job at one kind of role.

Though I agree with someone that said this is kind of neither here nor there.

2. And as I said, there is nothing wrong with playing what you like per se, but trying something new can be a good thing I have seen certain players stick to their one thing all the time, and you are stuck with a set of one character with different names - not unlike John Wayne's or Woody Allen's characters. Asking them to try something new can do everyone a favor. We had a player who always played the biggest, gruff, slightly impolite, most muscle-bound bruiser he could find. Every game, every character. Sure there were minor variations when it came to race, class, schools and clan, etc. but essentially the same character every time. Then he up and surprised us (with a little urging, I think) with an elegant, rich, classy, spoiled 'wussy' duelist. The character was great and everybody enjoyed him, doubly so just because the player tried something new.

It's fine to encourage someone to try something new. I don't think it is ok to try to force them or insult them for not doing it. Trying new character type works for some people some of the time and for other people it might never work.

I grant this is a bit of a sore spot for me since I like playing knowledgeable, ethical, and flexible (T3 in D&D or more) characters. Now, I've played them when they got taken over by their evil side (Wraith), and I've DM'd evil characters, but I still like them to be ethical at their core. I just have an extremely visceral dislike of evil. And I just enjoy having a scholarly type character too -- now that might be like Indiana Jones, a Jedi, a Wizard, or Robot, or whatever, but knowledge is fun. Partly because it gives more choices and options a lot of the time, and that, imho, lets me be more creative.

But I think within that there's actually a wide range of characters and personalities possible. Similarly, even within the "Big and Dumb" there's a big range. If it "Big and Melee" or "Big and Tough" then there are also huge ranges of options. A particular player might think they'd dislike going outside of that range and be wrong, but another one might be right. It varies from player to player. If someone wants to stay in their comfort zone, then let them, I say. If a little non-harassing nudging lets them try something new, then that's fine too.

Of course, it is a totally different thing if they have lots of different ideas and they all get shot down. Then people declare they always play the same guy. That seems to be where the OP is. This irks me a lot. As a DM I work hard to enable people to play the sort of character they want and make sure it works. When I ran a D&D 4E game, for instance, I adjusted the rules as necessary to help make sure people got to play what they liked, be effective, and have fun. In some systems this is more work than others and it might involve tweaking during the game, but I think that's part of the job of a good DM. Especially since a lot of systems provide mechanically bad options for choices that should work well within the setting.

And personally, if that means I need to tweak the lore of the setting or give someone a bit of special snowflake status because ALL swashbucklers (or whatever) from society X and behave like Y, then I do so. I think that's what a good DM should do rather than play settings lawyer on everything. In my admittedly somewhat limited experience, this does a lot to encourage role-playing, fun, and experimentation. Sometimes a person just sticks with something because they know how to make it work. Letting them know you are on their side as DM helps grease the wheels.

Now, I suppose hypothetically if you KNEW they'd have a lot of fun trying something quite different and that it would increase their overall enjoyment of the game and/or quality of life. Then forcing the issue (if you knew that would work) would be ok. A little bit of discomfort for long-term gain is worth it. In practical terms, that is not something you can ever know for sure, so it just makes you a jerk. (I am not saying or implying you are a jerk, this is a generic "you").

It's one thing to know what you like. It's one thing to enjoy a particular playstyle. It is quite another to try to force it on other players. That kind of intolerance the game doesn't need. It's supposed to be about fun for everyone. Granted, some playstyles are incompatible with each other, but I think that's a bit different from intolerance. In short, the OP's group displeases me. I am sure they feel my vast and impotent displeasure at this very moment.

[Gamgee]

To some extent, it is your job to entertain them. The group as a whole is responsible for the time the group as a whole has. This means players proactively doing things for their own fun, but also proactively doing things to enhance the game for others. It's not the job of the GM to bring all of the life to the game which the players then passively consume. Nor is it the job of the players to generate what fun they can have with the GM and GM alone, letting the rest of the group do what they can. The game is a group endeavor, and should be treated as such.

This is not to say that "you must make a character that everyone else finds fun and you think is [extremely boring]". The idea is not that everyone tries to make everyone else have fun to the detriment of themselves. I'm also not saying that the stance of "you shouldn't play that character, you've played a bunch like that" is particularly reasonable as a restriction. Both of these are cases where the balance is distributed very unevenly towards the group, where the former involves distributing it too much towards everyone else and the second too much towards ones self (I'd consider quite a lot of telling other people what characters to play in that category). Neither of them indicates that considering the group is bad.

You have some good points. In most ordinary groups it can reach an equilibrium without any sort of talk needed. It's just non verbal communication and societal expectations. Except in the case mentioned they have decided this flow is not enough, and to begin hassling him. Putting demands on him and giving nothing in return other than their own selfish wants. In this case given that he has gone so far out of his way to try and appease them (something I would never do from the start just a personal aside, but I would never go out of my way to have others appease me either. I will offer constructive criticism. People can take it or leave it) compared to everyone else I feel it's more than past the point to tell said players to cram it and play the characters they keep suggesting so much.

Hey I forgot to mention all of those players were incredibly grateful for me playing said character and went on to be ludicrously wealthy. I sent the GM for such a spin he hasn't seen a player do something like that in ages. Sometimes greed can be incredibly good. They didn't just work with me because I was being selfish. I was being selfish, but also giving them their cut. All worked out. I guess in a sense that is not selfishness... of a sort. In the grand master plan it was definitely selfish. I gained far more than any other character in game, am the highest level, and have the most in game social mobility. Still they didn't seem to mind it one bit when the tiny things they asked of me for were met. Then again I do this so I can appease them and have a group that will listen to me.

Human interaction can get pretty cold when you start digging. Which is normally why I don't go talking about this stuff with most ordinary people. It digs too deep for them and unsettles them. They begin to question why they do anything. Most groups I've been in work fine. Don't need to say or state any of this. Have been exceptions.

[Knaight]

You have some good points. In most ordinary groups it can reach an equilibrium without any sort of talk needed. It's just non verbal communication and societal expectations. Except in the case mentioned they have decided this flow is not enough, and to begin hassling him. Putting demands on him and giving nothing in return other than their own selfish wants. In this case given that he has gone so far out of his way to try and appease them (something I would never do from the start just a personal aside, but I would never go out of my way to have others appease me either. I will offer constructive criticism. People can take it or leave it) compared to everyone else I feel it's more than past the point to tell said players to cram it and play the characters they keep suggesting so much.

I do think that some sort of talk can be helpful in reaching this equilibrium - I'm not saying that specifically outlining the degree to which characters are made for the group and such is at all helpful, but things like making characters together very much are. I would also agree that this is the sort of thing that generally doesn't need to be thought of all that much, as it's something that is just done, and that in the case mentioned the demands from the rest of the group abandoned reasonable territory a long time ago - particularly as none of the alternatives ever seem to be acceptable either.

[Gamgee]

I do think that some sort of talk can be helpful in reaching this equilibrium - I'm not saying that specifically outlining the degree to which characters are made for the group and such is at all helpful, but things like making characters together very much are. I would also agree that this is the sort of thing that generally doesn't need to be thought of all that much, as it's something that is just done, and that in the case mentioned the demands from the rest of the group abandoned reasonable territory a long time ago - particularly as none of the alternatives ever seem to be acceptable either.

Agreement, savor the moment. It's a rare experience on the internet.

[Averis Vol]

Man, I can't say I would be taking the situation as well as you are. Without fail in every game I play in, I'm some kind of strong headed warrior. This may take the form of different classes, even making supportish classes like bard (hello warchanter!) into melee powerhouses who scream the song of their enemies defeat into their faces while he, well, defeats them. I am told it's pretty demoralizing (Or that I'm an *******, I'm cool with either one.)

And I can do this because I play in a group with friends. We have no reason to be try-hards who just want to win the game, we just have fun, it makes me wonder what your relationship with the other people in your group are. Because, at a glance, they seem more like a gaming group you just picked up instead of friends you would want to see outside of the game table.

(This is all serious speculation mind you, I have no idea what your groups like obviously.)

[Metahuman1]

Ok, I seem to have missed it in this somewhere, but, what system are you running? Depending on the system, we can correct this by helping you build a new character that can be the social monkey for the party while doing other things on top of that.

[GungHo]

Ok, I seem to have missed it in this somewhere, but, what system are you running? Depending on the system, we can correct this by helping you build a new character that can be the social monkey for the party while doing other things on top of that.

He's playing The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge, DSA). It's a German game.

[Themrys]

Have you considered playing a cleric of Rondra? Would be a fighter, basically, so fun for you, but any cleric is a respectable member of society and you wouldn't have to roleplay social skills, just honesty and respectability, and you'd have an advantage in social interactions. (Actually, that kind of character can break "you witnessed a crime and nobody believes you" plots, since everyone would believe them, so it may not fit.)

You need a lot of background knowledge for that, too, but at least it would be fun for you?

I see no reason why you shouldn't play a fighter if that's what you like to do.

Regarding the wizard idea ... there IS a wizard academy that produces fight-wizards, who can wield a sword. Academy of sword and staff or whatever it is called in English. Maybe that would suit you and your group? That academy has a good reputation, so you would have an advantage in social interactions that relies on honesty and straightforwardness, not good talking skills.

[Jay R]

I'm sure we can find plenty of things you consider of poor quality yet are to you inexplicably popular. Perhaps Twilight or Justin Bieber, just to go with some of the more popular punching bags of the day.

I never suggested that popularity alone made them good actors. The audiences thought that they were good actors (good box office). The critics thought they were good actors (good reviews). Their peers thought they were good actors (awards). But somehow you know that they weren't good actors, and managed to hide it from everyone who saw them act.

I'm sure we can find plenty of things you consider of poor quality yet are to you inexplicably popular. Perhaps Twilight or Justin Bieber, just to go with some of the more popular punching bags of the day.

Sorry. They aren't to my taste, but I don't sneer at actors or shows that don't appeal to me. Your examples don't have the full complement of box offices, positive reviews, and record of awards that Wayne and Allen did, and don't appeal to me, but why should I care?

2. And as I said, there is nothing wrong with playing what you like per se, but trying something new can be a good thing

It can be a good thing, yes. And it can be a bad thing. Only the player can make that call. Being compelled to play a character you don't want to play is clearly a bad thing, totally apart from what kind of character it is, or what the motives of the compellers is.

Asking them to try something new can do everyone a favor.

"Asking" them is irrelevant to this thread:
"my DM managed to completely kill off any interest I had in playing a mage..."
"My DM almost hits the ceiling every time I even dare..."
"Im basically just tired of even trying to bring something up, and jsut default back to a Concept I KNOW I like. "

This is a player who has been beaten down by the group. He doesn't know the rules as well as the others, and is more comfortable as a fighter - but they won't let him do it.

They aren't asking him; they're bullying him.

We had a player who always played the biggest, gruff, slightly impolite, most muscle-bound bruiser he could find. Every game, every character. Sure there were minor variations when it came to race, class, schools and clan, etc. but essentially the same character every time. Then he up and surprised us (with a little urging, I think) with an elegant, rich, classy, spoiled 'wussy' duelist. The character was great and everybody enjoyed him, doubly so just because the player tried something new.

Did he try something different, or was something different forced on him? You appear to be assuming the former, when I think the situation we're discussing is the latter.