What about the idea which at first looks pretty cool but end-up at worst not bringing anything to the game at worst being boring to play ?
What about the idea which at first looks pretty cool but end-up at worst not bringing anything to the game at worst being boring to play ?
the loner. People want to channel Aragorn at the prancing pony but it’s just annoying. It’s a group game. Play with the group.
the outsider. The one that doesn’t fit in. Like you’re playing a dungeon crawl so someone makes an accountant with no combat skills. You’re playing a game about vampire hunting in Louisiana and someone makes a character that doesn’t believe in vampires that’s from Spain.
related to the above: the absolute newbie. You’re playing a game of vampire focused on intrigue and plots. Someone makes a character that was embraced yesterday. They don’t know anything about anything. A constant stream of “we need to drink blood?? You can turn invisible??”". It gets boring real fast. Or, you’re playing a sci-fi future game and someone wants to play a 20th century man who was just unfrozen, and doesn’t know anything about the 23rd century.
The theme I’m trying to nail down there are characters that don’t really engage with the game’s premise. They’re characters that could exist in the world, but are for this game don’t really belong.
I think people see Bilbo from the Hobbit and want to channel that “party boy out of his element” energy but it usually won’t work. Or fry from Futurama. You’re playing a game not writing a book. Don’t take extra spotlight. Don’t be incompetent.
It makes sense that people would be drawn to the fish-out-of-water archetype. It is the archetypal protagonist for the “hero’s journey” monomyth. The whole idea of the character who is just learning about the world works great for that sort of hero-centric story. But RPGs aren’t meant to center around one character, they center on a party. And the stories tend to work better when the characters feel like they are part of the world.
This is done in movies and books to give the reader/watcher a chance to learn the setting without getting hamfisted about it, stuff is naturally explained to the character because they don’t know it either. That’s not necessary in TTRPGs, since the player can always ask out of character.
Also, it’s a way to get some character into the story the reader/watcher can identify with. This also is not necessary in TTRPGs, since there the players naturally identify with their character (at least in most games, some do that differently).
I dunno. Depends on the group. I played a babylon 5 where I was a doctor with unregistered psychic abilities and was trying my damnedest to be under the radar, low profile, and stay away from anything that might get the spotlight on me. Ended up being beaten and basically running off the station. The dms will find the ways.
If you wanna see the newbie done well, watch LA By Night season 1. Erika Ishii’s character is brand newly embraced, while the other main characters are a fair bit more established.
When joining an experienced group in a setting I don’t know yet, I like to play a newbie character.
I don’t play dumb of course, but playing an outsider reduces the discrepancy between player knowledge and character knowledge. I can stay in character while doing stuff that makes the other players shake their heads and groan. And as I learn the setting, so does my character learn how the world works.
deleted by creator
This is a pretty common trope and very common reasoning, but honestly: it kind of sucks and is played out.
I understand the reasoning. I really do. “I as a player don’t really understand the relationship between the Invictus and the Lancea Sanctum, so I’ll make a character who doesn’t either! Easy to roleplay!” Fine, but now the group has to account for that character. If your group wanted to play competent characters who navigate the political landscape, they have this dead weight to drag along.
It forces the game’s shape harder than other options. Every character adds some shape and flavor to the game, but “stark newbie” does so a lot. If someone made a character that’s like, a mekhet obsessed with pedestrian safety, that adds flavor but doesn’t force the game to go in particular ways in most contexts.
It’s also kind of played out. Everyone who’s played RPGs for a reasonable length of time has probably encountered the trope. I think everyone has encountered the “let’s play ourselves in this setting!” idea, too. For the person playing “the utter newbie” it might be an exciting fresh take. For everyone else it could be the 7th time they’ve seen this.
None of this is to say that you shouldn’t even invoke these tropes. But per the thread topic, I’d argue they are far less cool than they initially appear to some people.
I just feel like playing a character that’s fully immersed in the long history of intrigue between 2 rival houses is really annoying when you as the player don’t even know the names of the lords ruling them at present.
And I’m not talking about playing a time traveler or a self-insert. I’m thinking of a wizard fresh out of the academy who’s been buried in books for all their life and is now facing the real world. Or a cleric from a strict sect whose black-and-white morals clash with the realities of the murder-hobo life. Admittedly, not the most innovative concepts, but as a new player, you have limited options of what you can portray believingly.
People like to subvert tropes but don’t always understand those tropes and why the purpose they serve, so their subversions don’t necessarily serve a counterpurpose.
Re: #3 - He doesn’t know about the three shells!?