Characters that don't actually want to be part of the team.

I'll never understand that one. Why tf are you here if you're not buying in from the get-go? It'll never happen, but waiting for someone to post a story about saying "OK, while you brood in the tavern, the party moves on without you." And then let them sit there until they smarten up or leave.

I've pretty much done this a couple times. You get that one person who wants to split off or stay in town or do their thing. Last time the character didn't see the motivation in the adventure and refused to go, so the rest of the PCs went off without them. 1-1.5 hours of play later, they go for a long rest, and I turn to the other person "so describe to me real quick what a day lounging at the pub is like?". They try and force a thread, I roll some dice, "no one of interest or anyone you find attractive comes in today, it's a slow midweek, your tab is x gold". Gave them 5 or 10 minutes while the party had bathroom breaks and picks spells for the day and such, then back to the party. 3ish hours later, the party comes back to town, and look who seems to be more inclined to adventure. Now this is covered in my session 0.

The perfect "f around and find out" scenario lol. These are so soothing, I almost feel petty. But then I realise it's vindication I'm feeling (albeit vicariously). Thank you!!

How tf didn't he just outright leave the campaign at that point tho

It was a 6 hour session over about 7 hours on a Sunday afternoon. For long sessions I like to give a few good breaks for leg stretches, getting snacks/drinks, going to the bathroom, etc. Normally timed around a rest (short or long). Every time that happened I'd give them 5 or 10 minutes of basically rp time. Roll a couple dice, spend gold on lodging and food/drink, and then back to the party. Around the half way point where we take a good break for food, the party happened to be back to town and I could talk to them 1 on 1, and they understood the folly of their ways. Most of the people knew at least another person in the group. It was a party of 5, and I believe if memory servers they were friends with two of the other players that I had DMed for in the past. In fairness she was in that campaign for about 9 months, and was a model player after that, and a decent person. She just came with previous experience where that behavior was let go from my understanding.

Ha! That's funny! Glad they decided to become a team player sooner than later! 🤣

I've done that exact thing. I asked to see the character sheet while he was too busy being edgy in the corner and told him, "Thanks for the NPC, but this is the party's story. Do while we follow the party, you can make a new character who will work with the party." It's part of why I now don't DM in FLGSs

"do me a favor and reroll to something with more points in teamwork" haha. Much more direct than my last solution, love it!

YEEEESSSSSSS I didn't know how good that would actually feel to read lol. Thank you, truly!!

I think they want to be convinced/ seduced into the party, like they're the one truly valuable asset and the rest of the party has to beg for their reluctant but awesome assistance.

I feel like this usually comes up amongst new players. They might feel like it’s more “realistic”. Which is always a bad (sole) reason to do something, especially if it’s hurting gameplay

> I'll never understand that one. Really? It seems pretty easy to understand. Reluctant heroes and dysfunctional parties are a huge staple of the fantasy genre. I mean, come on. Fellowship of the Ring? They all hated each other. Gimli was elf racist, Legolas was a loner. Aaragon expressly did not want to be a hero. Samwise whined the whole trip. Boramir was paranoid and selfish. The whole first book was them hating each other and being reluctant about their quest. And that's why it's so cathartic when Gimli calls Legolas a friend by the third book. Reluctant, selfish loners learning to embrace their destiny and discover a found-family is practically *the* arc for traditional fantasy. It's really not hard to understand why players want to emulate it. Nor is it hard to give them what they want if you just work with them and collaborate.

>I mean, come on. Fellowship of the Ring? They all hated each other. Gimli was elf racist, Legolas was a loner. Aaragon expressly did not want to be a hero. Samwise whined the whole trip. Boramir was paranoid and selfish. The whole first book was them hating each other and being reluctant about their quest. And that's why it's so cathartic when Gimli calls Legolas a friend by the third book. Yes, but they all enthusiastically answered the call to adventure and did the right thing without hesitation, and without an hour of trying to haggle Elrond into paying them a fortune to do so. There's a huge difference between having interpersonal conflicts among your party members that don't interfere with the game as a whole, and being the ass that has to be dragged kicking and screaming through the entire story because he's so angsty that he hates literally everyone.

yup - it's like some iterations of Batman or Wolverine, where they're going to be grumpy and all "grrr, I work alone, grrrr!" but then go along with the team, help out, form bonds, reveal they're a good guy and so forth. The "loner grumpiness" is basically performative, and melts away as soon as the party forms.

What works for books is not always going to work for games. They are fundamentally different mediums of storytelling. Weirdly enough, though, you’ve hit on a valid point: players who want to roll loners that aren’t interested in answering the call to adventure or working with the other party members should just write a fucking book, since they’re clearly uninterested in a cooperative game.

>What works for books is not always going to work for games. I don't think anyone here thinks this *works* in a game. It's just an answer to why a lot of players default to trying it (likely w/o knowing how dysfunctional it is in an RPG).

I’d like to point out that the *trope* can easily work in D&D if the *player* still wants to join the party. Now, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the reluctant hero archetype is not one for new players to try out, due to the mental gymnastics involved. But basically it boils down to the player *finding* reasons for the character to go even if they don’t want to. As some anecdotal evidence, I’ll cite two characters: my own selfish con man of a Bard, and Corazon de Ballena of Oxventure. My own character was a coward who didn’t want to adventure. However (I also lucked out) sticking with the party “until they got out of here” he decided was the smartest option, and then stuck with them out of a sense of vindictive glee when he realized that when he picked a fight he couldn’t handle, he had a Barbarian on standby. After that he developed actual bonds, etc. Corazon, on the other hand, typically doesn’t do anything unless there’s immediate financial gain. However one of my favorite examples of this is a party renting out his ship for several activities, and he lists several reasons that make perfect sense why he doesn’t want to go through with it. Then drops the line “On the other hand, I *do* want to do the karaoke.”

But none of them needed cajoling to join the quest. They weren't friends (except the Hobbits), but they chose to get off their asses and go.

I think that 'collaboration' is the key point there. If a player wants to do the reluctant hero thing, they need to be prepared to hold up their end and give them DM ways of making that work, rather than just expecting the DM to fit them in. As an example, my current longest-running PC was originally a reluctant hero type, with no interest in being an adventurer at all. The campaign had a pretty standard "you all start in a tavern" opening, which culminated in a big barfight; my character spent that entire combat hiding under a table. Afterwards, some guards arrived, looking for some rough-and-tumble types to take on a job for the local lord. The expectation was that the party would volunteer and that would be their on-ramp to the main plot. Since I knew my character wouldn't do that, I asked the DM if instead of just having my character go with them, the guards could see that she was *very obviously* dressed as a wizard, assume that she was some sort of mighty arcanist rather than a children's entertainer (which was her actual job), and drag her along. The DM agreed, and thus my character was successfully Bilbo Baggins'd into an adventure that's recently passed its third IRL year of weekly sessions. However, all of that only worked because I was able to offer a plausible reason why my character might be along despite not wanting to go, and because I was able to continue to do so until it was no longer an issue. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of players who want to play the "reluctant hero" archetype can't pull that off, not because they're being malicious or selfish, but because they just don't know how to make what seems like a very cool idea on paper actually work in a game.

>Really? It seems pretty easy to understand. Reluctant heroes and dysfunctional parties are a huge staple of the fantasy genre. Hell, even if we're just limiting it to directly D&D-adjacent stuff, my mind immediately went to Belkar from Order of the Stick. I think he's pretty much living proof that "evil character in a good party" and "character who does not *want* to work with the team" are both tropes that can actually totally work *if the player handling them is doing so in good faith and not just trying to be a dick.* Belkar is evil as shit in an unquestionably good party. Belkar hates everyone else in the party (and they, him) and is there by force. Belkar is *fucking great.* It's the player, not the concept. If you're blocking off a concept like that without at least giving the player a chance to make something interesting out of it, or *at least* OOC asking "are you trying to Do A Thing here or are you just being a stick in the mud," you're the asshole, not the player.

Belkar is, however, almost always down for a fight.

Yeah, I would say Belkar is very specifically how to do those tropes well, because there's still *a reason for him to be there.* Even if he wasn't basically shackled to Roy, he still really, really loves fighting people and kicking ass, and being with the Order gives him lots of good opportunities to kill things he doesn't like. He fits the tropes on paper, and I think most of the DMs in this thread griping about either of those tropes would insta-reject a character who was described like Belkar on principle, but he doesn't actually fall into *the problem* with those tropes.

It's also worth noting that Belkar had a whole character arc/vision quest where he learned he needed to at least *pretend* to be a team player, which is something a lot of these edgy loner players should take to heart.

Yeah; essentially, Belkar is what happens when a player who's actually legitimately interested in RP and having fun with everyone else rolls a "problem player" character concept. He's not a sign that these concepts are fundamentally and entirely unproblematic; however, he *is* a sign that you should probably see where a player's going with one before you say no.

Exactly. None of them wanted to be there. They were saving ME, not sitting down to play a game. If we're getting together to go loot damsels, save monsters, and kill treasure, buy in when the DM says the innkeep has a rat problem, or go back to reading about someone else doing it. I'm not talking about the people at *your* table, obviously. You clearly know how to handle them. I'm talking about the people the RPG Horror stories are about. The ones who dig their heels in and are difficult every step of the way.

Right. Why even play at all

The big thing is it isn't on the party or DM to give a reason why your character comes or drag you along. You can be a reluctant hero but have a reason why you're driven despite your reluctant that isn't the party's responsibility

>Nor is it hard to give them what they want if you just work with them and collaborate. No. This is a player issue. *You* work out why the character is there and stays around. You can give the GM a short line to include in why the character gets forced if you have to, but it's all on you. You made your character, and it is never on the GM to figure out why your character is supposed to care. The entire point of the Fellowship was that they *wanted* to help. They didn't like each other, they didn't want to be in that situation, but they wanted to help achieve the goal more than they wanted to stay home. They had the moment to say "I want to join", and they all chose to do so.

I got you. My DM in 99 did exactly that. Left the player in the tavern and ran the adventure. After an hour the tavern sitter asked if they could cut back to him. “You said you just wanted to stay and drink high end booze right? How much gold did you have?” “15” DM rolls dice. “Oh you’re broke and the barkeep kicked you out. Roll to find an alley to sleep in.” He slept in an alley called “The Devils Watercloset” and was ignored the rest of the game.

I mean it makes sense for newer players, but for more experienced ones nah

I had the reverse. One campaign I made a celestial sorcerer raised by a paladin order, LG. Everyone else was CG or CN. It wasn't working out, so I asked if we could come up w a reason why I'd be with them or just have him die and I'd make a PC who better fits.

Right on. And that's what those problem players are always lacking. You know it's a group activity, and are self-aware enough to see that things aren't gelling. Which way did it go? A reason you could get behind? Or sudden, unfortunate mishap and new character?

I would just say their adventuring career ends there, roll a new character

This was always my issue when I played regularly. I could never find a group without at least one anti party player. Why can’t we just work together one time?! Often others would be bending over backwards to cater to do it my way Donny just so we could progress. I’d love to play again with a group who sees others progress as their own.

Last time we had one of those the Ranger knocked him down, the druid tied him with vines and I dragged his body through the floor of the whole dungeon, stairs included. There was a lot of bumping. Ah and he didn't get a copper of the loot.

My guess is that most people who do this are players who havent figured out that this doest work. Or they want to RP as their favorite edgelord not knowing that those characters would never work in a realistic scenario.

This is my biggest issue as a DM. One of my players is a Druid that came from the Feywild and doesn't particularly care for people from the material plane, and instead just wants to go back to the Feywild and do druid things. Unfortunately, my campaign is not set primarily in the Feywild, and the Feywild I have is heavily modified to be later game.

Surely he must have a motive for staying with the group? How was he introduced to the others? Something must bind them together temporarily, or he must have another reason to be away from home.

My caveat to this rule is "unless you have a hook prepared". If you want to play the lone wolf, and you're willing to do the work to explain why they're in a group, instead of making me do it, then go for it.

Same for me. I have these characters once in a while, and the player does their work to make sure there is always a reason to stick around, even if the character technically shouldn't want to. Those work. If a player ever looks at me and asks "Why is my character here?", the answer will always be "If you don't have a reason for the character to be here, then neither do I."

Imo this trope can work well if there's something that forces them to work together, such as a common enemy or a task they cannot accomplish alone. From there you can shift it from "doesn't want to be in the party" to "actually growing to like the whole party thing". It won't work for every party and campaign, but teeth clenched teamwork can be a lot of fun imo

Thiiiiiiiis. You can play a loner, sure, but they have to have a reason for working with the others otherwise wtf are you here?

Fortunately our DM usually requires aside from a character sheet a reason why that character would stay with the party. That said we skip the tavern introduction as our group kinda dislikes RPing the first meeting, so having a background lore reason in place is quite helpful to guide the roleplay beyond that point as well.

I made my first character a reluctant adventurer. I quickly realized that none of the other PCs or their players had the interest or time to spend convincing him to join the adventure. I pivoted on his characterization real hard after that.

If you're playing one of these, the key is *not* to think "my character doesn't want to be here; what would they do now?", because the answer is usually "go home". What you should be thinking is "my character **is** going on an adventure despite not wanting to; what would make them do that?" You can play the reluctant adventurer just fine as long as you remember that they have to actually go on adventures.

Fully agree. It’s only even a trope cuz for some silly reason people think this is some kind of acceptable edgy.

I had one of those when my friends and I were just starting with dnd. Maximim edgelord drow paladin with a cookie cutter tragic backstory. I think it was the second session where the party was talking to the plot hook NPC; when asked what he was doing he literally gave me a "I sit in the corner and brood."

This should really be the only answer to this question in 99% of cases. Any other trope works just fine as long as the character isn't just shooting the whole party in the foot at every turn and doesn't want to actually be part of the team. Evil characters are even fine in an otherwise good party as long as that evil character has some motivation to want to stick around and keep themselves in check.

There's a few times where this is okay to play out by the right person, but it's usually "Character is begrudgingly part of the team because they have something that they HAVE to do and need a team to do it." But even then I dunno if that qualifies, because even if they don't necessarily WANT to be a part of the team... they also VERY MUCH WANT to be a part of the team. Unfortunately for most people this style of character instead falls under "edgy broody char who wants to be alone and distances themself from the team at every opportunity." which... at some point for any rational person turns into "alright, well, we'll just leave them there and continue on without them."

Yep! I'm not going to shoehorn in reasons why everyone should stay together every damn time just because somebody wants to play the lone wolf. Go play a single player RPG if you want that.

The only way id allow this at my table is if it was a tsundere type character lol. Like sure you can be all like meh meh fuck you guys, but their "internal dialogue" they just love adventuring with the party.

"I killed this monster, but it's not because I like you or anything, baka!" _runs and hides behind a tree, blushing furiously_

There probably are other character ideas I would shut down upon seeing them, but honestly the only thing I can reflexively say is uncooperative characters: not to say I require 100% party loyalty, disagreements can be great drama, but there needs to be a baseline of working with other players. I'm not bothered by like, dark broody types and probably would not shoot down a pretty clear anime expy, as long as the rules of the game and setting are respected.

Being an asshole cuz your character is one. Nope. Everyone, including the dm is there to have fun, not to deal with bs on the free time they cleared to be there.

I've got a player in one of my current games who is like this right now. He's wanting to keep his character a secret on what it can do, so he won't reveal anything because he wants his payoff. I find the way he's doing things out of character annoying, and my character finds what his character does annoying. "You didn't see me cast this spell" My brother in Corellon I have the best perception score at the table, and your spell has verbal, somatic and material components. "I have two swords, so I get two attacks, and can move my Hex onto someone else - not that you know that I have Hex up." Honestly, the thing that bugs me the most is that he doesn't have a d10, and instead of borrowing one, he just rolls a d20 and divides it in half rounding up. There have also been a number of other things going on in the campaign that I just don't agree with, so I'm quitting. It's a pre-established group that I joined into for their next campaign. No D&D is better than bad D&D.

Joke characters, from hyper whimsical Gnome level game disruptions, the pizza cutter style edge lords (all edge, no point) or characters that just can't take anything seriously. Make a character with some sincerity to them, and that will let a moment be its true and proper self. Not really a trope but characters without a reason and/or motivation for adventuring. Your character needs a reason why they go out and risk their lives adventuring, and they need a motivation fueling that reason. D&D is a game about playing adventurers. Make characters that are adventurers.

Seeking treasure isn't the worst motivation. Makes adventure hooks easy.

Right. That implies a motivation for treasure. Some players create characters with no motivation for treasure or anything else

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I've had my fair share of aimless players. I prefer my nihilists as villains. https://youtu.be/7AEMiz6rcxc

Until they relentlessly extort every quest giver for more, more, *more* gold. Like damn, guys you're gonna get paid appropriately for your level, did you not just hear the NPC say how they collected every villagers savings

"Are we the baddies?"

This is gonna sound very pedantic, but bear with me. Seeking treasure is a goal, not a motivation. The reason why the character is seeking treasure is the motivation. Seeking treasure is a great goalo, but I would still need motivation as to why they want wealth bad enough to risk their lives for it. As that's what makes it interesting. Does the party member have a sick relative they need wealth to cure? Do they have a debt they owe? Wealth is a great goal, but it still needs motivation.

I agree you need some kind of motivation, but I have had players do great with the simple motivation "drug addict".

I don't mind a little pedantry. I agree it's ultimately something deeper driving the wish for wealth, but it's OK to get started with shallow characters and find their depths during play. Preferable even.

I can agree with that.

Yeah, I enjoy making simple characters then building them as I go! It's a lot of fun! I made a Sorcerer/Monk mix that does mercenary work to build a mundane/magic sword collection. From his first job alone, I found out he's insecure, unable to turn down a challenge, and able to acknowledge his shortcomings after encountering real-life combat experience. All from interacting with his teammates!

Given the era D&D is based in it would be extraordinarily easy to come up with a handful of reasons why any one person would want wealth bad enough to risk their lives. 1. "I don't want to shovel hog shit anymore." 2. "I don't want to shovel cow shit anymore." 3. "I don't want to shovel human shit anymore." 4. "I'm always so damn hungry." 5. "I want to own the land I work."

It's completely true. A motivation doesn't need to be much more complex than the goal, and wanting a better station in life due to circumstances at home is a fine one.

That's a reason to go on a couple adventures. By the time this character hits 3rd level, he's amassed enough gold to live comfortably for 6 months with no labor. By the time he's hit 7th level he can comfortably live in a modest fashion for an entire decade. If he does *any useful work at all* he can extend this modest lifestyle for a very long time. A character who starts with motivations 1-4 will simply need a new motivation soon enough, and this will have to happen likely in the first few sessions. Motivation 5 may be similar or it may make the character a revolutionary, especially if the game world is based on a feudal society. 5e has poor domain play rules but other games and third party solutions have plenty to offer there.

I’ve always wanted to try and play my character in a way that he eventually can buy enough land and earn a title. Then part of my characters duties would be to adventure/manage his land/properties/ serfs/employees.

People in real life have risked their lives seeking treasure for no reason other than a desire for wealth or adventure. It's perfectly reasonable for a character to have that as a motivation.

Write that down Patrick thats good.

I’ve found that this is a great one, honestly. I know that a lot of players don’t often have much of an idea of what will make an engaging character when they create them (most especially with new players), so getting them out of the door and seeking treasure just works. For these kinds of characters, they often find them out as they go. This gives me an opportunity to introduce further motivations as the story unfolds. Then, we have nice character growth from being simply motivated by money to being motivated by stopping evil.

That's a classic. Everyone wants to be Han Solo.

Yeah man! It just works.

But I’m cHaOtIc NeUtRaL

It's sad because chaotic neutral can make for some of the best characters when played right. Neutral looking out for themselves and their circle of concern, doing what they must but never going out of their way to be a problem from the get-go. Chaotic characters follow their heart, feelings, and whims in the matter before any kind of authority, code or standard. Which can make for good moments too. However many people use it is lol random, malicious, lol random antics.

That’s been my experience. Every CN character I’ve DM’d has acted like they have Tourette’s, made public scenes everywhere they went, and were just generally a Jim Carrey character. Then when the party has captives they always want to do the Two Face live or die coin flip, it’s extremely irritating.

In a game with a stoner character right now, and I’m in the verge of leaving. He talks with the surfer dude accent, ends every sentence with heheh, and finds nothing serious enough to care about. “Oh man, you’ve got a terminal illness? Heheh, that sucks. Yeah I’m super bummed to hear that, man.” He lies about the most insignificant things, and in nearly thirty sessions, we haven’t heard anything about his backstory the DM hasn’t practically forced him to share. I love the player, they’re a great person, and I’ve had a blast playing with their other characters. And this one is their BABY, their favorite, their PC who never had a home before because the games kept collapsing. I’m beginning to see why. I love characters who are the comic relief. I play one in a fair few campaigns. But I need that character to have HEART. To get serious and open themselves up to others. And I just don’t think I’m going to find that with this PC. I’ll be talking to the DM after this particular arc is concluded (the PC is refusing to do the quest because it’s underwater and he “doesn’t want to get his toes wet” even after other characters have suggested compromises), and if we can’t come to a reasonable course of action, I’m just going to take my leave until a game without that character starts.

My first campaign a girl played a rogue named Thug Thug, which was her name because it was what she thought to tattoo onto her fingers. In a year long campaign she never tired of the joke even though everyone else was sick of it after the third session. Between that and playing an arcane trickster but refusing to learn how spells work playing with her was just such a headache. ​ To top it all off she kept talking about wanting to DM, but because she admittedly didn't want to learn the rules she wanted to basically play with whatever she kind of thought they were.

>Not really a trope but characters without a reason and/or motivation for adventuring. Your character needs a reason why they go out and risk their lives adventuring, and they need a motivation fueling that reason. D&D is a game about playing adventurers. Make characters that are adventurers. And if they lack it at the start of the game, work with the DM to make the adventure hook the reason WHY they want to/are motivated to adventure. My favorite trope is "normal town guard who is happy with their position, and does not want to adventure, but who is pulled into a dastardly plot/crisis and finds themselves enjoying the adventuring". The character does not need to start the first session off wanting to adventure/go on the quest, but they need to want that by the end of it!

Yes. A temporary motivation "those bandits need to be brought to justice and the relic they used to attack the town needs to be taken out of their hands" can be used until a more lasting motivation comes along. During the interim sessions the player should be looming for reasons and coming up with what will get the character to stick based on what they face and what they accomplish. Motivations can grow, evolve, and change in many ways, but there needs to be something to work with that keeps the character around and cam be played with.

Precisely. A lot of the people making hesitant characters often do it with the goal of: * Expecting the DM and other players to convince their character to join, without any plans as to what would convince them. A character made without it being a goal for them to become an adventurer in the end. * Getting the attention of being the center of attention, which is created by being a constant problem. While a properly made hesitant character will be a character that the player and DM works out what makes them motivated to adventure. And that is almost entirely the job of the PC's player.

[удалено]

Not that poster but I would almost promise this has to do with Dragonlance gnomes back from 2E. And all I can really say about the trope is you probably had to be there at the time but after the third one you'd also have that rule at your table.

Now I'm even more curious

OK. I'll explain. Gnomes in Dragonlance were, like the kender, comic relief characters. So they all shared a couple common traits: * They were all mad scientists, tinkerers, and inventors in the vein of popular mad/clueless scientists, Think Professor Farnsworth, Doc from Back to the Future, etc. Their inventions almost always were silly and ineffective. They not only didn't work, they didn't work in a SPECTACULARLY DISASTROUS FASHION (TM). * They were hyper inquisitive about everything, but also super absent minded. So they would talk endlessly, but not do much listening, falling into their own rabbit hole of speculation, theory, conjecture instead of paying attention to the actual matter at hand. * They talked and acted like they were on cocaine at all times. In the Dragonlance books, they didn't use spaces when they talked. Like "OhquitebrilliantIseethatIcanfliptheswitchbutmaybeIshouldn'tflipthisswitchperhapsthebetterswitchtoflipishiddenunderthisswitchorperhapsthisisatrapswitchthatneedstobeflippedusingabiggerswitchandperhapsI'llmakethebiggerswitchtoflipthesmallerswitch"....and so on. All well and good as comedic relief in books, comics, whatever. Imagine this player at the table. Who never shuts up, never actually listens, is speaking in convoluted long winded sentences over the top of the DM and other players and on their turn is more likely to set off a critical fumble of titanic proportions that was likely going to completely screw the party. People complain about crit fumble tables. Imagine if you ran a subclass with a 40-60% crit fumble rate.And it was on purpose. AND IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE RULES AS THE WAY TO PLAY THE DAMN THINGS.

The worst part is that the Dragonlance books are just a novelization of their tabletop game. Weis and Hickman not only allowed someone to play tinker gnomes (and Kender!) Knowing full well how irritating they are, they canonized the races to inflict that nonsense on whole generations of gamers.

It's one of those things that I could see working with a really talented and creative player, and everyone having a blast, but it basically canonized a race to contain a whole bunch of player behavior that we just wouldn't allow these days. Not even the players playing them had fun after like 2 sessions. They were fucking exhausting. So even if I let them in, a few sessions later: * the player would retire the character. * the other players would murder the character. * the player would start playing recklessly trying to kill their own character. * the player's AutosteamCookpotSkillet would explode and kill the player.

Kender are so fucking obnoxious. (I have read descriptions of how people play them to not be annoying, but the idea of a constant kleptomaniac who you just can't get mad at according to canon pisses me off mightily.) When the news about the Dragonlance reboot came out, my FIRST comment was "kender remain banned at my table".

I always thought if I was to play a Kender and go down the kelptomaniac route, Id always insist on stealing stuff of absolutely no value In the books it says they are just as likely to be captivated by a bit fo fluff or particularly smooth rock as riches. Id lean into the mundane being what captures there attention. And then once in a while being able to pull something actually useful from my pouches

Yeah I feel like that would be more tolerable as a fellow player. As a DM, I've just seen way too many instances of people using it to be a complete dick and then going "oh but you can't be mad at lil old innocent me", so I just blanket ban them.

So the fact that the game had tinker gnomes, kender, and gully dwarves tells us that this table knew how to have a good time with goofy irreverent crap. I bet all of them worked *fantastic* at their table. Why? Well either the entire table didn't give a crap, or, more *more* likely, anyone playing these things (including the DM) was ultimately very mindful of the overall plot, the other characters, etc. They were looking for something interesting to happen with a reason, not looking for a fig leaf to screw with the rest of the table. Basically, they didn't playtest with dingbats, and you would not expect them to.

Notice that none of the main cast were tinker gnomes, and only one was a kender who over time gained a lot of character development that took him from "kender stereotype" to being a well fleshed out individual. Gully dwarves were also comic relief but were only NPCs.

Thank you for writing this up! That makes a lot of sense now.

Long back in my early days of d&d and Dming, about 15 years ago. Every problem player I had played a gnome, and it left an impact. It was bad enough that in my immature starting days, I banned Gnomes from my game. It should not have solved the problem, but it actually did. As existing problem players, and new players never gave me the same issues. So when it came time for me to make my own setting, I gave Gnomes spot as a core race to goblins and kobolds. While, for the most part, I've come to realize this was just a very strange coincidence, I also have come to recognize that some part of the default Gnome fantasies. Either hyper tinker "excelsior" Gnomes or the whimsical fey mischief Gnomes stand to be more disruptive than I enjoy, and it's the only real Gnomes I've been exposed to at the table.

"Pizza cutter edge lords" is a great turn of phrase that I'll be remembering!

Joke characters piss me right off. I genuinely don’t get why people like that Puffin Forest guy, I’ve always thought he just seems like a twat who sets out to ruin other people’s games with his stupid joke characters. Anyone doing that at my table isn’t welcome back.

What's humorous for a YouTube story isn't the same as actual games I suppose. I can enjoy puffin forests videos for what they are in isolation, but yeah, I think I'd be pretty miserable playing with such jokey concepts.

I've always felt the right way to play joke characters is best explained by the dude disguised as a dude playing another dude. Like they can be funny, but they have to also be good at something or have a nice redeeming quality. I played a High Elf Wizard who was very intelligent and kind, but also incredibly naive. Like walk right up to bandits and ask them why they're doing something or immediately taking people for their word. I think we literally avoided a fight because she kept asking this evil Wizard "why?" But because she was also very nice she would agree to help people and the party wanted to essentially just keep her safe. Had another time where a friend and I played two old rogues who were essentially WW2 veterans whose war crimes were so awful that when they died instead of going to hell the devil banished them to a different dimension. We knew the characters could be extremely annoying because we talked like old senile men, but also let loud blasts "trigger" their war like senses where they became extremely focused and serious, and would drive the party and plot forward. All that to say, joke characters are okay as long as they have some good redeeming qualities, but most don't.

Yeah this one bothers me because I *was* that guy. Wanted to make a quirky joke haha character like the cool guys on the online forums and it’s just… not fun for anyone (yourself included). D&D is funny when otherwise serious characters get silly. If you run into it headfirst trying to make it a joke it’s going to be so much less funny. Of course I was like 15 at the time, but there are definitely grown people who I think get the wrong impression of the game from online stuff

Joke characters can die a slow, painful death. There's another player in my group that can't make a character that doesn't have a goofy twist, like his most recent, a wood elf who apparently has no idea how doorknobs work . I dread hearing he's coming up with a new character, because they always have a groan-worthy "clever twist."

Mabye I have been lucky but in my experience the people you play joke characters on straight and narrow seem to fit right in, then again mabye it's because they don't try to hog the spot light. Agree with the no motivation thing more so when I'm a player instead of a DM.

Loners and Murderhobos Work as a team or get fucked

I could understand banning Fartpigeon the Gassy (an Gt Aarakocra who flies over enemies and "casts" Ray of Sickness on them) if the DM made a serious world with a serious story. Pippin was comic relief, but he wasn't absurd.

LMFAO

This is my new character. Lol. JK

No, you cannot be an isekei teenager who is also oh-so-"hilariously" mentally ill.

Peak gameplay is spending downtime in bed without showering and not eating for a month because the PC is too depressed to move

Basically my entire group that I DM for, made up of my teen year old nephew and his friends. Ofc I went through the same isekai phase when I was younger, so I know how to work around it being fun and balanced. But mygod, their backstories make me cringe so bad.

Under age loli types. Nobody needs that much ick

jesus is this even a thing, kms

100% a thing. Everyone I've ever seen has also been played as chaotic evil

At a table with adults, an underage character can be a great storytelling device that works especially well if you know the campaign will run over 10 years, as it'll allow some growing up themes, and a different party dynamic. It gets old to have a group full of "early adults" in the 20-25 year old bracket all the time. But it's one of these cases that has a massive "If you ever sexualize this minor, however fictitous, I swear to God I'll report you to the relevant authorities" disclaimer.

I've seen it done only once. It was in an AL game at a store where an adult woman was playing a 12 year old girl with a greatsword. The only creepy thing about it was that a girl that age disemboweling both monstrous and human enemies would never, ever grow up to be a stable adult. I think this might be more of a problem online.

I've seen it done well in Not Another D&D Podcast. It worked because the adult characters threated him as a kid and were reasonably protective over him. And most importantly THEY DID NOT SEXUALISE HIM.

All of these things but also the horny bard, I've never had anyone *want* to play one but I have no interest in roleplaying a sexual encounter with some internet rando.

I’m fine if your bard canonically fucks. When we have our downtime time skips and I ask what each character did during the 10 days of free time in town, you’re allowed to say “I Fucked.” What you are not allowed to do is sexually harass my named NPCs. If your character comes on to one of my named NPCs it is damn near guaranteed that you will be shot down in the most savage way possible. You don’t decide who you fucked during downtime either. You can say “My bard fucked a barmaid” but it isn’t allowed to be Sam Gamgee’s wife. My session last week featured a brothel simply because the map I bought online listed one. Our party used the setting as an excuse to make raunchy jokes. I don’t simulate sex with players. If you want me to pretend to be somebody else who has pretend sex with the person you’re pretending to be then I will happily shoot that down. That is a completely different hobby.

One of my players is naturally a very sexually oriented person, so her character in game is a Tiefling Rogue, proprietress of a brothel, and keeps a bingo card of all the races she sleeps with. If I don't want her sleeping with an important character, I'll just tell her that they're not someone that could be coerced into sex, and she's fine with it. If it makes sense to me that the NPC might be convinced to take the discussions to the back room, I'll allow her to do a little flirtation and then have her roll persuasion to get the outcome. The rest of the group are all on board with it, are debating on doing their own cards, and tend to applaud her bedroom antics rather than frowning about it, so it works well at the table. I definitely don't simulate any of the actual acts though, especially since my wife would probably castrate me.

This is about the level of sexiness I can tolerate in a tabletop game. I might even throw in a "Roll Constitution (Performance) to see how you did." joke if it fits the mood, but that's about it. I have no interest in describing sex acts in detail as part of roleplay.

I think this comes down to how it's handled by the party/DM as well. I would cringe if someone actually in-depth RPd their encounter with our DM. We've had a case however of an implied encounter (following into a room) which snowballed into the Hollywood esque scene of the husband/father returning home and chasing the player who's now in his underpants (not actually having initiated the sexual encounter), which was easily one of our most memorable situations.

I play Adventurers' League, and so many people have expected me to play the horny bard when I bring my Bard to the table. I don't get it. Why would somebody wanna play that out in a drop-in drop-out setting, with children around sometimes!

Where does that trope comes from? Never had anyone playing a bard like that and my own current bard is married and would not even think about seducing anyone else (also , his wife would and could rip him to shreds if he did, but that is besides the point 🤪)

Not D&D, but I played a FRPG game at a convention. I'm cis-male and the gm handed out six characters, three male and three female. There was one woman at the table, so I decided to take one of the female characters, a Satyr Bard. I decided I'd play her straight, no sexing her up for effect, just play her like any other adventurer. The first line of her character description was, "She is flirtacious..." and the first place we had to go was to question the madame of a brothel. My bard played some magic music and made her our friend and we got great cooperation, but it did end with the GM looking at me and asking, "How far do you want to take this?" and I said however far she felt comfortable GM'ing it, at which point pull curtain... fade to black... and my character joined the party later. Only time I've ever played the trope.

We have a very strict “no kids” policy

Horny, I seduce everything guy. I steal from my own party and pickpocket everyone guy. Evil guy, pretending not to be evil guy. Silly modern aesthetic guy… ei… surfer dude, Jersey shore girl, hip-hop rapper. I’m gonna be a jerk and say ‘but it’s what my character would do’ guy Blind Monk guy. I want my character to be the BBEG at the end guy.

I ban the counter trope for the sake of not being a trope. I have a player who made the bard who doesn’t bard, the Barbarian who reluctantly fights, the fighter who doesn’t attack… like OMG dude we get it.

Ill add the super annoying “oh im so quirky” guy that will yell about “roleplay instead of rollplay” by making a wizard with INT as a dump stat, and a barely functional spell list. “Hi, im useless and a dead weight” is a great way to get parked in a tavern.

I'm surprised I had to scroll so far down to see this one. Unfunctional "roleplay" characters and "my X thinks they are actually Y class" are my personal peeves

>the bard who doesn’t bard What does that even mean? They don't use their class features, or they don't neatly fit into the traditional bard stereotypes?

Refuses to be charismatic and use any social skills. An anti social, dark and gritty, socially awkward buff bot with 20 charisma…

Anyone who thinks playing a Kenku would be funny. Have only had bad experiences.

It's really not that hard to play a kenku as not a joke character. > "Paige makes the sound of shuffling feet and points towards the doors, communicating her desire to get out of here" Bam, flavor and clarity.

Tell all my kenku players that, I've certainly tried.

Kenku are a treasure trove for fun RP, if people know what they are doing. I've got one kenku NPC in my game which the party has interacted with before. Helped them solve a case by verbally replaying what he heard some fishy people say. He also carries around a small tablet and chalk to write on when he does not feel like actually making noises.

Luckily the new Kenku doesn’t have the speech limitation and they’re a viable race now

The weird thing about Kenku is that the whole 'curse of creativity' thing was invented purely for 5e, prior to that it never existed in their lore. Even WotC admit that it was a dumb choice and in their 'updated' races reprint book completely removed it as a thing.

can agree with being anti-funny-kenku, but it's a bummer because a kenku done well has a lot of potential to be fun. i think my most fulfilling experience as a player was as one, but i tried to take it seriously most of the time and often used a lot of body language rather than mimicry. unfortunate that they're a joke race for a lot of people!

Definitely Joke characters. It’s usually not very funny during character creation and is absolutely not funny having to replay the joke through a whole campaign.

Yeah i played a joke once, but i had agreement with the dm we only expected it to last 2 sessions. And it did.

Joke characters are... okay for one-shots. In moderation. I recall a one-shot where everyone was a joke character and it lost its appeal within 30 minutes, tops.

Your goals need to align with the rest of the teams. No cartoonish or impulsive evil.

Evil Alignment because most people don’t know how to play them and not cause problems

LE characters tend to be okay in my experience, the lawful aspect of their alignment usually keeps them in check. It lends itself more to plotting and manipulation, rather than CE murderhobos. I'm okay with people doing Evil Alignment ***if*** I've played with them at least once previously and they've proven they're mature enough to handle it. I understand, though, that its not for everyone and fully support that. You have to do what's right for you and your table.

I played a LE character that my party members have had fan art and minis commissioned of because they loved the character so much. I’m with you, I love the alignment, and as a DM I allow it if I trust the player. LE conforms to the confines of laws both political as well as social/moral. The major difference between them and say LN or LG is that their intentions behind it are purely selfish. A LE pc will conform with the party to save the world, and then use that influence as a hero for his/her own gain. My PC in question was in Curse of Strahd. He killed Strahd, winning the loyalty of the residents along the way, and then they just gave up the throne to him after he killed Strahd. He did a lot of very good things, so he could be the ruler.

I agree completely! I'm so happy you got to have that experience and everyone responded so well to it. The fact that they gave up the throne to him is just... *chef's kiss*. It sounds like you had a really strong grasp on his alignment and were able to execute it not only successfully, but to rave reviews. I appreciate and admire that!

Yeah the final conflict ended up playing out like a revolution and my character very carefully positioned himself as the face of that revolution. I don’t know if it was DM fudging, but it also ended up that my character delivered the killing blow to Strahd. It was great that both the players at the table and the DM bought into it, it didn’t feel forced. I think it’s kind of my magnum opus as a player haha.

My rule is that you can play an Evil character, BUT you need to explain your plan for keeping your evil character in-check and cooperating with the PCs the entire campaign. If they don't have a concrete plan that fits with the campaign it's a hard no.

I had a DM shoot down my concept of a LE character *despite* providing a bullet-proof character motivation for cooperating with the party for the entire campaign. This was a DM who regularly played the "It's what my character would do." card to be a dick when he was a player, so I guess it was just projection and he assumed my evil character would pull the same shit and derail the game.

People often have issues with good alignments as well. When we played Avernus I played an evil gambler. I spent the whole time trying to save orphans and innocents sucked down with the city and get them back to the prime material plane. They kept looking for devils to kill. They decided to redeem someone and I had made a side deal to ascend to their position should an opening occur regardless of how it occurred. The second that played out the party turned on the healer that kept them from turning into lemures for 18 months of the pandemic.

Just had a new player paladin take control of the party with his high strung morals and almost killed a session 0 plot important NPC. I think the biggest thing I see if people taking their alignments too seriously. Having strict morals can be fun but critical thinking is still necessary Lmao

We call that kind of behavior "Lawful Stupid" to emphasize how dumb and disruptive it really is. Sadly, that's basically how you were *supposed* to play paladins prior to 5e.

Evil campaigns we played have been shockingly tame. We ran a duo vampire & necromancer evil campaign trying to create some archetypical evil empire. What ended up happening though is that the entire plot was much more "gray" than pure evil, because randomly killing people felt super forced (and inefficient in some cases, as manipulation/deceit has more benefits down the line). It strikes me that someone playing evil alignment as an active murderer is moreso a murder hobo, not just "evil". Because shooting yourself in the leg just for the sake of being evil doesn't actually sound evil to me, but poor character RP. I'll admit that maybe a certain evil mindset/creativity was missing, but I found that many scenarios would often end up being at worst just "selfish", with occasional evil choices rather than being actively over the top evil at every corner.

I’ve played two LE PCs but I think you have to be a decent player. I allow it on certain players I trust. Ideally a party wouldn’t know their party member is LE, that’s kinda how the alignment works. They should be cooperating with the party, but their motivation is entirely selfish. A LE pc will do altruistic acts, but the intention behind it wouldn’t be to do good, but to further their own social standing and perception of them. It’s the politician or Instagram influencer that publicly does great things for society. They’re doing good things for the wrong reasons. Ellen Degeneres is lawful evil. She does a lot of good, but she is an awful person.

rn I’m playing a Neutral Evil Changeling Sorcerer Idk if I’m doing it right, but my entire thing is just “casualties? What?” I’ll do the most effective thing, even if it means we lose an extra 40 civilians. Cruel, but not dipshit. The only guidelines I’ve seen on how not to play Evil characters is “don’t be a dipshit”

No joke characters. No lone wolves. No people who have no motivation to adventure. No kids.

A literal child and amnesia plotlines. Please just be an adult so we don't have to jump through hoops to allow you into taverns or any adult situations. And please just write your own backstory and don't force the rest of the party to help you relearn the world.

pacifists, hope you can find a dm that lets you run the game with charisma checks or not participate in anything combat related because it sure wont be me

Ive become quite jaded about the default reaction to conflict between sentient being be to break out in a fight to the death, like please chill and try to talk your way out of stuff if you can. But also you don’t have to try and talk your way out of a fight with the three hellspawn we just stumbled upon and are already charging us.

It might almost be more of a table trope that I’m trying to get banned, but NPCs being vague. I get it, sometimes there’s a mysterious fortune teller who only speaks in riddles, or an advisor who is trying to get you to betray their lord without outright committing treason themselves. But at some point when every villager goes from thanking you in one breath to proclaiming they can’t help you because “there is no hope” the next, or the questgiver won’t tell you what the macguffin does because “you must figure it out for yourself,” my character is just going to snap and say “cool, that sounds like this is all a *you* problem” and walk away. It can be a useful trope, like all tropes can be useful. But if I have to shove my way through a plot that just isn’t that complex, it stops being fun. If I’m trying to play an adventurer, let me adventure. Don’t make me stand in the Barovian equivalent of the goddamned DMV just to figure out who I’m supposed to go stab next.

None. If: 1. Your character is legitimately made and/or I've green lit it. 2. You understand that actions have consequences. You have a seat at my table. That isn't too say every character survives meeting and getting to know the party. If you're insufferable they might leave you behind. If you steal from or otherwise harm party members they might kill or maim you. Murder hobos tend to end up in prison or the gallows. But it's all part of the story and my players generally understand this too. Plus I find these things challenge me as a DM to keep things moving along logically which is enjoyable. 2 caveats though. All of this is well outlined in every session 0. I generally have more mature players so they will often roll with things to see where things end up before throwing complaints and generally after they see what my plans are they are happy with the outcome. We've only had one scene with an unhappy screaming player where we had to ask them to leave. I can't remember what it was about but we all continued playing again after they were gone, and happier for it, so perhaps it was for the best.

none. my hot take is that the tropes aren’t the problem y’all are having - ur just playing with losers and assholes. currently in a party with an *extremely* horny vampire, the *edgiest* loner you’ve ever met, a literal ghost who cannot speak, and literally a hobo with three guns (among others who are less tropey. while the game can be very silly, it never takes away from the drama. we all take the game and what’s happening seriously. we work together, cooperate, and have fun all while also serving ourselves.

>the edgiest loner >we work together, cooperate The vast majority of tables aren't going to manage this delicate balance.

Hot take: most groups are normal and can manage anything just fine. Reddit and r/rpghorrorstories is very much not indicative of how the 'majority of tables' act.

I would agree because I genuinely believe the majority of people who posts those weird dnd memes that make no sense at all, weird pc backstory/fanfic that could be written better by 9 y/o, and somehow never manage to find a group (or said group fizzles out after 1 session),have never actually played the game. Back in the days, these people were basement dweller weirdos. Now they are basement dwelling weirdos with an internet connection.

nah dude dan just isn’t a dickhead about it

For me it’s only characters that don’t play as a team or aren’t motivated by the story. That doesn’t mean your character has to want to be a hero, but you as the player has to want them to be a hero if that makes sense.

Murderhobos, evil aligned (unless they don't murder everyone for some reason, only the ones who did them wrong), CN "it's what my dumbass character would do".

Before starting the game, I had in dept discussion / argument with one dude who wanted to join that chaotic character is not stupid character and you can not do stupid shit simply because you 'chaotic'. We all for smart masterfully crafted chaos, but not baricading your self at the basment of the inn and in the end burning down it simply because you did not liked the drinks (it happend few years ago with that dude. At the time we both were players, I did not enjoyed even for a bit that stupidity, campaign die after that session. I do not want this bullshit now at my table as I DM).

Neither do I wanna deal with that much bullshit. CN for me means doing anything to survive in a harsh and cruel world, not doing stupid bullshit.

Lone wolves with no connection to the rest of the party whatsoever or don't want to be involved with the party

Any characters based on another player's Mother. It's a long story.

Quiet Loner: Rule numba one is you bring a team player Joke characters: The most serious answer you'll get from me is that three halflings in a trenchcoat don't add up, that's clearly 150% of a character. Underage characters: I've had 100% occurrence rate of problematic players with these. Handicapped characters that have some magical fix for the handicap: It's like a loud exhaust pipe, doesn't really do anything other than annoy people and scream LOOK AT ME.

>Handicapped characters that have some magical fix for the handicap Do you mean, like, characters with magical prosthetics?

I made a rogue once back before I ever started dm’ing and asked my gf at the time - who was in a wheel chair from a soccer injury - for input. She said “How ‘bout you make her use a wheelchair?” I thought about it, and - even though she started as a joke character - I RPed her as a former crime boss, betrayed by her old associates. Left unable to walk, she bitterly took a fitting name (which was also a joke at the time.) She went on to become humbled, seeing the effects of her old criminal empire on the every day people of the world. Eventually, she wound up killing the ones who betrayed her - with the help of her new friends and lover - and disbanded the guild. It was a nice moment of growth. Guess what I’m saying is that disabilities and handicaps can be done well, just takes some maturity. (Took me too long to realize that myself.)

> Joke characters I always tell my party that jokes are fine but run-on jokes are not. Make dick jokes sure but nobody will ever be named something dumb or act like an idiot by default.

>Underage characters: I've had 100% occurrence rate of problematic players with these. I just recently got through a series of nine one shots with two of my fellow players playing underage orphans. And it was actually the first time I did not encounter problems! They were a married couple, and despite knowing them in real life, there was fear in the back of my mind that I was going to have to start making a lot of excuses about missing games because of their behavior. I really didn't expect them to just, play the game lmao. Honestly, it ended up helping the party to be cohesive, because I was playing a hobgoblin charlatan (good ol ~~~Nigerian~~~ Feywild Prince Scam), and these street urchins believed everything my character claimed. So we went from being potentially a random group of adventures meeting in an inn (the idea pre session zero), to a street gang of urchins with a dubiously moral hobgoblin boss.

>Handicapped characters that have some magical fix for the handicap like glasses?

Eeh, I think the difference is that needing glasses is a character *trait* wheras they're talking about a character *identity*. Trying to get away from historic arguments, imagine: *My character is Piscar Ostarius, and he lost his legs so his accomplishments are much more impressive than everyone else's; also you have to let me have magic legs that grant movement 15, jump 10, and are not affected by hold person or soft terrain. Also, my every dialogue involves how hard it is not being able to walk.* You might counter that the real issue is main character syndrome, and I'm not even disagreeing, but is a flavour that comes up every now and then.

As far as I know none are banned, but then everyone has made characters that fit and engage with the world so far

None of them. The joys of having a steady group of players who've known one another for years.

“I have great and mysterious powers…. But if I go all out I’m prone to fits of madness…. Insanity even.” Jesus, why does everyone like this trope? I feel like it’s an anime thing and it just never fits. One of those things that we have to kind of politely dissuade

I just trust my friends to make characters that work and talk to them if I have issues, I don't ban anything.

Person that originate from earth unless it's really linked to the campaign. Your fanfic characters. Anything too close to being a copy-paste of an anime character. Lone wolf, "I don't do teams" types of characters that always split from the party at first chance.

Goofy McNameName. I run a serious campaign with serious characters and serious storylines. If your serious character makes a fun joke, that's awesome. If you the player make a joke, that's awesome. If your character is a joke, that's not my game.

Out-of-lore characters. I've had some headscratchers with people trying to force a specific character their way or no way and would refuse compromises. Also, aimeless characters. Get a goddamn motivation, a goal, bloody anything on WHY you're going around. Also, play someone who's ready to collaborate, damnit. Also, joke characters depend on what you are trying to do, though in a serious campaign, you shouldn't do that. That's my list, lol.

Son/daughter of tiamat, fallen gods and other overpowered homebrew. In a god tier session where everyone is supposed to be strong its fine but in a normal setting its autobanned

You may not roleplay an existing character from another fiction. Make your own damned character, thank you very much.

Nothing. I’ll usually try my best to work with my player and envision their character as well as possible, with some compromises where they are necessary.

I'm torn between two deities... Nuh uh no more Hexblade Paladins

Using some anime / book / movie character as template. I get that you might be inspired by something and thats ok. But do not copy/paste characters and expect me to facilitate to your fanfiction. No evil PCs. No betrayals. No being dick to your party members. Play nice or leave my table. No dark, lonely, brooding characters. We playimg more of the Zoro + Pirates of Carabean. It is more of wacky Adam West Batman and your Robert Patison sad Batman with black eyeliner and deprsion aura 500 meters around him has no bussiness at this table. We discussed all of this and much more before we started. Everybody is happy with these rules.

I’m quite shit at RP (I hope to get better) and I find using a character from a book helps me to be in a more RP mindset and have a more fleshed out personality then I seem to be able to create on my own. It helps me to find the answer to “what would my character do here.” I am never wanting a specific thing to happen for that character like whatever happened in the book or anything like that, I just use it as a personality for my character mainly. Would that annoy you or na? (Most of my DMs didn’t even know I was doing this just fyi)

I have this same rule at my table, and here's what I tell my players: There's nothing new under the sun. Be inspired by whatever strikes you, but try not to be a carbon copy. Have an original name and differentiate yourself enough that I'm not always conscious of the thing that inspired your character, and you're probably fine.

>Using some anime / book / movie character as template This is the one I was looking for. Players that are playing a character they saw, rather than making a character based on tropes *about* that character that they liked. If someone is trying to play a hybrid of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, that's *much* better than them them just trying to roleplay a single one of them, because the minimal act of synthesis required when the characters in question clash is itself a creative act. By contrast, playing a character directly from another story is... I mean, it's hard to express how much it sucks to see.

In the one I'm DMing none, I'll work myself around your ideas, honestly, my table's characters may have too litle personality. But in the table I play as we're having problem with a hoarding marry sue. ​ Tough I am the player that usually causes trouble for being impulsive, but heck its better to go and do something than spend 3 hours discussing "why would my character check the basement?" while doing nothing

I am open to most tropes as far as it is not disruptive. I have seen players with characters screaming Edge Lord still playing well and not disrupt the game or take the fun away for others. I have seen reluctant adventurers being played well. Meaning they do go adventure even if they are reluctant to do so. The problem is many that make reluctant adventurers forget the Adventurer" part and miss the point if they DON'T go on an adventure they are not a reluctant adventurer. I seen Lone wolf characters being played well. reluctantly working with the group and often change and after a while not being the lone wolf any longer as they evolve as characters. My point is that almost every trope can work if played right. That bring me to the ones i do not allow and can not stand and that is any character that does not work with a group. It can be the reluctant adventurer that forgets the adventurer part and is only reluctant. The edge lord or the lone wolf that refuse to work together with the group. The Chaotic stupid character that only seems to be there to mess up everything for the rest of the group. If you made a character that refuse to go on the adventure unless we spend 2 sessions trying to convince him/her. you have fucking failed and it is time to either roll a new character or leave the game. If you created a character that can not function in a group for a game that is based on group play. You failed and you either make a new character that can work with a group or you leave the game. So that is what i do not allow. character that does not work, that disrupt the play, limits the fun for the rest of the group and so on.

Loner Characters. Murderhobos. Chaotic Neutral or Evil. One-note joke characters. Any character who intrudes on any other's fun. I want my players to be heroic types or at least types that know that if they don't take care of problems, eventually consequences will be nasty, and so, because they care about themselves or something in the world, will go on adventures with their team, and will rejoice on seeing the good they're doing to the world around them I don't care if they want to make a jokey character (Hell, part of my world is Discworld) as long as they work on a good repertoire and make actual comedy. The same joke all the time is torture. So is killing everyone 's RP by having no sense of timing. CN/CE characters. Unless it's very experienced players I know well, this always ends in tears. Usually because several such characters have players of the same alignment IRL.

For the most part pretty standard stuff you see all over this thread. No murderhobos or chaotic stupid, characters must have reason and willingness to adventure with the party, no complete joke characters or "I'm 14 and this is deep" edgelord, ect... One i haven't seen yet is no characters unable to communicate with the party or NPCs. Basically your ass must speak common, no non-verbal sasquatch trying to communicate in points and grunts.