What is a polite/straightforward way to say as a GM that tumblr-like and Extreme "PC Projecting" characters aren't accepted?
I'm accepting of most human characters but someone had tried to pass a "tumblrified" character who was a bi trans black woman with autism and vitiligo for a zombie surival rp. I just find it pandering for people to create overtly-marginalised because it becomes the only trait about them.
Has anyone gotten anything far worse? How did it turn out?
Pic kind of related.
Usually I just boot those people, and I'm not particularly polite about it. I mean, it's my game. If I don't run, no-one gets to play.
Just a:
> "Sorry, you're not a good match for the group. Good luck, I guess. Don't call back."
Idk if its quite as bad but I had a PC in 5th edition try to play as a transsexual, transracial doppelganger who would constantly switch and try to force everyone else at the table to "respect my pronouns". That shit got tired fast so I killed their character in a fight.
ITT: things that never happened
This post is an obvious work of fiction, but if something similar does happen, politely decline their character. If they ask why, tell them they're tacking on far too many traits to their character.
>bi trans black woman with autism and vitiligo for a zombie surival rp
It's still good zombie bait. I fail to see what's wrong about that.
I don't really understand why you use the word "pandering" here. Being that they're a player, they're pandering to... themselves? I mean, making a character that appeals to your own sensibilities seems the natural thing to do.
Just play realisticly and don't fugde rolls. They're gonna die sooner or later.
There is no polite way to say this. If someone shows up with such a character and isn't just doing it as a joke, there is no way that this person is someone you want at the table.
Get rid of them.
Presumably people like that actually exist, otherwise people like you would run out of things to complain about.
If you're that bothered about it, I wouldn't worry too much, because I don't think autism goes well with surviving an apocalypse.
They make a shitty, unlikable character - make everyone act accordingly. The character gets insulted/ignored/laughed at by most NPCs and gets targeted by enemies, because "weak link".
Idk, if someone actually submitted the character in the OP, why would I give a shit? Almost none of that is going to come into the game. Whether or not it's the 'only thing that defines their character' leans entirely on how the player plays it and the room the GM gives it to move, which is something largely divorced to what's written on their bio. If the player spends all their time making imy zombie game Oppression Simulator then yeah, sure I guess, I'll have a word. As a GM, all that list really says to me is 'okay, that's some fodder for tension in fortified village between missions.'
It's not really concerning because those people don't really exist, and even those over eager to be a damaged snowflake will respond to ' c'mon, put the brakes on a bit'
tell them that the world the game takes place in will not warp around any ideology, and instead of not shutting up about their "special" traits, they should first make a viable build, both mechanicly and rollplay-wise.
>Almost none of that is going to come into the game
You know full fucking well that anyone that makes a character like that is going to force it into the game.
Give them penalties for each quirk like less intelligence or skills for being autistic and have NPCs that don't care. If an NPC misgenders it, just say that the NPC looks at the character as if to say "this is a zombie apocalypse, I really don't have time for your shit." Maybe an NPC can accuse her of turning because they don't know what vitiligo is and shoot the character in the face.
I once had a player make a character that had wings and so 90% of my enemies had crossbows and we made a deal that if the character lost a certain percentage of his health and failed a reflex save, he'd plummet to his death
Has this PC acted like a spoiled tumblrina in-game?
As long as they don't act like this , let them play who they want.
Besides, it's a zombie game. The PC should know that Zombies don't give a single fuck about what you are, only that you're a walking bag of delicious brains and flesh.
Also,
>role playing autism
>in a zombie game
they'll just inevitably die by their own actions.
Personally I start with N and end with O.
Not OP, but I doubt it is a work of fiction. I live by a simple rule in life that seems to be reinforced more and more as time goes by.
"The more stupid and disappointing something sounds, the more likely it is to be true."
We live in a world where someone thought it would be a great idea to make a Friends spin-off with Joey. A world where people say "irregardless". A very world where there are people posting on tumblr for something other than porn and not doing so in an ironic manner.
I do the same thing I do any time a player brings a PC to my table which doesn't fit the setting, campaign motif, and agreed-upon tone.
>No, your loner LG Paladin can't join the group of LE Rogues and Wizards who are playing a politics-heavy game.
>No, your LE Rogue with Littlefinger-esque machinations cannot join the party of Paladins journeying to fight the Holy Smitery+5 to kill Shagaloggadingdong.
>No, I won't let you use that broken build made using a dozen splatbooks that let you turn yourself into God in a few dozen turns.
>No, you can't play a non-standard race unless you give me a really, really good reason.
>No, we're not going to roleplay any sex in the game. What happens between you and another consenting adult gets faded to black and assumed.
>No, I don't have to consider whether that Feat is balanced. It effectively gives you +4 STR and DEX as an unnamed modifier.
>No, you don't get to keep your fallen Paladin as a character after they stupidly put on a Helf of Opposite Alignment. That character is CE now, happily looking to be a Blackguard, and if the rest of the party can't change him back in a day, it's time for you to roll up a new character and hand me your old sheet. Thanks for the new villain.
No is a powerful tool.
That last one is shitty and you should feel bad if you've ever done that to someone's Paladin. Just saying.
Not him, but aren't you asduming that the GM forced the PC to wear said helmet before they knew about the enchantment?
Besides, Remove Curse is only a level 3 spell
No it wasn't.
His "plan" was to survive the HoOA's change with a Will Save, as he'd had the party wizard buff his Wisdom up and done some other spells which would have given him a better chance to survive it intact. It was part of the party's (stupid) plan to trap the BBEG by tricking him into stealing the Paladin's armor.
I warned him (and the party) repeatedly that it was a bad idea, that it was going to have major consequences if he blew the role, etc, etc, etc.
Nope. They still wanted to go through with it. I said fine, because I'm not their fucking babysitter. I told the guy flat-out that if he rolled less than an 8 on his d20 he'd basically be losing his character, and did he really want to risk everything on a 35% roll?
Of course he did. He rolled a 4.
Then came the first four stages of grief, with him never really getting to the fifth before he quit the game entirely.
If the DM tells you five fucking times that something is a very, very bad idea, protip: Don't fucking do it.
In 3.5E, the ruleset we were using, Remove Curse ain't doing shit for it.
>Only a wish or a miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.) If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
The guy knew it.
>Vitiligo
Hot
>If the DM tells you five fucking times that something is a very, very bad idea, protip: Don't fucking do it.
This never works, you're a naive motherfucker and probably a bad GM for not realizing this.
If he wants his PC to risk it all, he can. But management is not responsible for the condition of the character at that point.
Who are they pandering to? Unless you are planning on selling this campaign after the fact, then they're just making a character for their own role play.
Just let the guy play Michael Jackson in peace, jesus