Advice/Help To GMs (or others) do you notice/care if your players are reusing their characters from other RPs in your roleplay?

But I am curious. What are your thoughts? As a GM, do you notice, or even bother to check if a player's submitted character has been reused from another RP? If you do find that this is the case, do you ask them to come with a different character, whether or not they've gone to appropriate lengths to make sure their character is consistent with the roleplay? As a participant in an RP, do you notice or check if this is the case with the other participants? Does it bother you, or not?
Hi!!

Yeah soooooo like as a GM should I really think that any rando rper is so special that they should always submit a brand spanking new, authentic, for real never before experienced charrie each time I ask some rando rper to submit an app? lol. Yeah. I'm not that special. Ya girl is soooooo not bothered with reduce, reuse, recycle application charries. Unperturbed af lol. In fact, gunna out myself to any possible GM i drop an app to: i practice charrie recycling aloooooot myself. I even have a rp thread that encourages it lol

Right. So like I try to respect peoples time and efffort. Within reason of course and so like i think its reasonable to believe that a great chunk of rps you been in have DIED reeeeeeelllllly fast and that your charrie never got a good run, so reuse them and scratch that itch. And i think its reasonable to think that even if you did post 1001 times for this charrie that you should still be able to change it around and make it fit my RP setting if I'm GM. Why? Because the more and more a rper is comfy with playing a charrie, the more and more they actually bring it in the RP!!

Like sure you have the self-centered me, me, me only me spotlight attention whorls, but ime the rpers that reuse their charries have a reeeeeeallly good grasp of how to play them and actually get them to interact with not just the world but with the other RPers. Like I've only really GMed 3 times for groups ever and one time there was this rper that was notorious for rping a charrie that was their user name and pfp no matter the setting. Same ol dude charrie, same ol goofy attitude but in the RP they would adjust the persona/bg of their same ol' same ol' charrie to fit the setting. Fr it was lowkey weirdly obsessive but they were always fun to rp with!

And like I'm sure that anyone who RPs often with me will see like the retreads of old charries of mine but the GMs of these rps dont seem to mind cuz usually I'm a good girl when I rp. My charries are often on the 'alignment axis' as: Pretty Good and Pretty Gay lol. And like i been in a couple rps with rpers that reuse but revamp their charries that i'd seen in other rps we been in together. Yeah, like I said: I'm unperturbed af. Cuz those other rps we been in died like after not even 20 posts total.

But k here. imma shout out a GM that actually was reeeeeeealllly excited to see me actively reuse a charrie in their rp k: ~~> Aviator <~~ in their fandom AU of Sucide Squad. (but not gunna tag then cuz they dont need to be summoned, they just needs the loves <3 lol)

Boom. Glad i got that offa my chest lol
 
wouldn't be rude about it but it would be sort of like giving a friend a birthday present they had been given last year.
To me it's more like saying that since I've already baked an apple pie once, I'm never supposed to bake one again.
 
I did have a friend once who only ever joined new RPs with the same character - exact same name even, but reskinned for the different RPs. I always thought it odd, and it's definitely on the more extreme end of character recycling.

They HAD other characters, and I liked those, but I'm pretty sure they were always "in addition to" the one.
Oh yeah see, red flag character. But then again like I don't really make a pointed effort to go searching through people's histories and I often role play with strangers so I'm totally oblivious.


Adding: As not to clutter space

I'm lost on the apple pie comment but now I really do want apple pie.
 
Last edited:
There's a point when you've made hundreds upon hundreds of characters on this site, and know your favorites, what works and what people like to read/interact with. I have no desire to make more characters when I've probably made 500 on this site, between all the player characters and NPCs I've written. If you have a problem with that as a GM, then you're riding on a high horse. Maybe dismount and focus on what actually matters, such as a good cast with entertaining characters, and an engaged group of writers.

Bringing me to the next point, that established characters are known quantities. They're usually the successful characters that people responded well to. That increases the engagement of your writers. Then there's the problem of how many RPs die young. That my favorite characters sit around with unfinished narratives and unexplored growth. It makes them more fun and more satisfying to write, because I can explore further than I have before, and satisfaction is what a GM should care about. Your main role is to provide engagement and entertainment to your writers.

There are many auters who think entertainment is beneath them. That they're ✨️writers✨️ meant to evoke existential, thought provoking conversations with their anime Fandom RP. But really this is a hobby based on entertainment. If someone knows their premade character is entertaining. If they will have more fun by writing them instead of a new character. If the character is a known quantity that people respond well to. Then it makes absolutely no sense to complain about the character. It is objectively good for your RP. If you deny them despite those immutable facts, then your focus isn't on entertaining and engaging your members. Your focus is too inward and egotistical, like it's a competition for who sweats harder. Instead of a collaborative story where the objective is having fun.

I'm coming across as an asshole, but this kind of nitpicking is a bane to this community. All these rules and preferences based on petty feelings of "Well I worked harder than you! That's not fair! I made an original character sheet and you copy pasted!"

Even though the important part comes after character creation.
 
They're usually the successful characters that people responded well to. That increases the engagement of your writers.

Counterpoint: No they're not. Not 'usually' as far as I've seen anyways. Most have a fair amount of work put into them, most of that group in turn have thought put into them too, but (again as far as I've seen) the vast majority of re-used characters either fall into the "this was part of another RP but that RP died before I really got to use the character" bucket or the "this is my main OC / may main set of OCs and they're the only characters I want to play" bucket. Neither of those is particularly prone to even having much reaction and the latter group is rather prone to not considering in its core design how it will play in a story not entirely made around them. Now "prone" is hardly a universal rule of course, but while I do agree there is an irrationality to categorically not wanting re-used characters, I think your portrayal there is far too lopsided. Most, if not all roleplayers using a character over and over use it because THEY personally really care about the character. THEY are invested in that character. You can argue that investment is a good thing, I'd argue as I did that it's a danger, but either way it certainly does not necessarily translate in other players responding positively (indeed, it may well be quite the opposite case).

I would also raise that while you are correct that a GM should try to entertain and engage their roleplayers, and satisfy the things they came to the RP for, the GM is also a party there to draw satisfaction from the roleplay. They have the same right to as any player, and while do have more responsibility for the orchestration of the full group's satisfaction than a player does, the GM also has the right to be selective about what roleplayers they want to try to please. That includes not having a player who is persistent about wanting a kind of player the GM doesn't want in their roleplay.
 
Idea Idea

Your entire premise is fallaciously based on an assumption, that reused characters are.

1. Shoehorned into the story without being tastefully altered
2. That new characters aren't shoehorned all the time.

Neither are true. I've seen more shoehorned characters who were completely original, and almost all repeat characters are properly altered. It's very easy to keep the same general backstory no matter what the setting may be.

And who would constantly reuse a character everyone hates? That's not gonna happen 9/10 times. Most people reuse fan favorites instead of forgettable Bob that nobody cared about. I've only reused characters who received positive feedback, for the obvious reasons. There's also no problem with seeking closure for a character that never finished their arc. You're phrasing that negatively even though there's no negative trait. I wager you don't like how strong the narratives are for premade characters, as they come with personal storylines separate from your main plot.

They also give the writer a lot more motivating to stick with your story, as they want that closure. They want the story to survive because a character has unfinished business. None of that is a bad thing.

Edit

You're also phrasing this like others will be negatively impacted by a reused character, which is just pearl clutching imo. In truth almost nobody cares. It's not inconsiderate to allow a reused character, and if someone does complain, that's on them for being a Karen.
 
Your entire premise is fallaciously based on an assumption, that reused characters are.

1. Shoehorned into the story without being tastefully altered
2. That new characters aren't shoehorned all the time.

Neither are true. I've seen more shoehorned characters who were completely original, and almost all repeat characters are properly altered. It's very easy to keep the same general backstory no matter what the setting may be.

No it isn't. You're making a false dichotomy here: All I stated is that the criteria behind re-using a character is not typically it's reception but the character user's own attachment to it. In fact I've precisely made a point of never asserting the thing you're suggesting I did, as I do recognize the fact that it can be done well but I am not blind to the problems that a writer's over-attachment can create.

We clearly have a difference of experiences here, as seems to often be the case where we disagree. That being said your response makes it seems like you barely looked at what I said and just went off in your own assumptions.


And who would constantly reuse a character everyone hates? That's not gonna happen 9/10 times. Most people reuse fan favorites instead of forgettable Bob that nobody cared about.

They're not gonna use forgettable Bob. They're gonna use Jack Crow, captain of the original pearl, who is so badass with the whole sword deal that he ends up saving the day because he is just so cool. I'm obviously exaggerating, but my point is that people will use a character because they really love the idea, or they put a lot of effort into it, or because they want to see it grow to a potential, or the character is their self-insert or based on a character they really love or any number of similar reasons.... Including sometimes just not really feeling like making a new character.

I do agree they're not going to use a character that's bad enough to warrant actual, verbally expressed hatred of it. But anything short of that and you don't really have the social incentive at play. Most re-used characters I've seen haven't been used enough to actually have that much positive feedback even. But even those that do, I think the idea that the primary goal is even related to bringing a positive experience to others is mistaken, at least in the majority of cases.


There's also no problem with seeking closure for a character that never finished their arc. You're phrasing that negatively even though there's no negative trait.

There was no negative phrasing in it. The description has no inherently or tonally negative components and the content is entirely descriptive. The one thing I said about it besides the description itself is that is not prone to having much reaction - Which given I'm talking about a situation in which an RP died before a character could be much engaged with at all is again neither failing to be descriptive nor is negative. But it is contrary to your assertion.


I wager you don't like how strong the narratives are for premade characters, as they come with personal storylines separate from your main plot.

Then you lost the wager. My principle is to integrate the characters and their stories into the plot.
 
Idea Idea

You play vague word games to cover your rear end, using terms like "vast majority" and then saying "but there are exceptions," and when I argue then point you make, you then say "I never said that it's a rule!"

Sure... okay. You only said the vast majority belong to one of two camps, and said both are prone to problems. That's the point you made. I'm responding to those points. If you want to hide behind vague wordings then don't engage in debates, because it's frustrating to the other side. Like you refuse to stand by your opinion and backpeddle behind vague words, while still asserting the original claim.

We don't butt heads because of different experiences, we butt heads because you repeatedly impose strict rules on your RPs, use quotas and preset roles and numerous other rules and requirements, and state that RPs are meant for your enjoyment. This is nightmare fuel for prospective members. Yeah the GM should also have enjoyment in their RP, and without enjoyment they'll lose interest, but you already control so many elements. You control the scene setups. You control group formation in many cases. You control plot and NPCs and action scenes. You generally have access to characters the players wouldn't, i.e extremely powerful NPCs. Villains and leaders of the good guys.

You have all these tools to create a good time for yourself, but instead of letting the players have agency of their own, because that may infringe upon your sandbox, you apply numerous restrictions to craft your ideal environment. Like I've never met anyone who cares about reused characters. Yet here you claim it diminishes the enjoyment of players?

What players? I've never met them, and I've written with hundreds of people at this point. It seems like you have issues with reused characters, and because you run the show in your RPs, you don't want them in your show. You want a perfectly tailored environment. I mean christ man, your players already inhabit your world and contribute to your plot. They follow your lore and your power systems. They follow your scenes and your missions. The least they can have is freedom of character creation, but even that's too much?

Also you say there's no negative connotation in your post, and then your opening example is a generic giga chad ship captain. You say one thing and do another, and there's absolutely no connection between a character being premade, and a character being shit. I've seen many shit characters and most were newly made. If someone is the kind of person who writes dogshit sigma edgelord, pirate captain giga Chads, they will write that regardless of when the character was made. Those people are power fantasizers, and power fantasizers will just create another power fantasy. You aren't stopping anything.

You also then listed a bunch of other motivations for using a repeat character, but none of them are bad? In the context of this argument, it certainly looks like you're calling them bad. Why else would you use those examples? But I can't see why "they want to finish the character arc" is something I should ban from my RP??

You're always on the side of reducing the freedoms of players. In every single thread that's the side you take. I've never seen you advocate for players. Not even once. You're always arguing for how they need to be micromanaged. This is another example of micromanagement. That players can't be trusted to choose a good character from their vaults, and must strictly create one based on your premise, instead of trusting them to make logical edits.

If it works for you then sure, I guess, do your thing. But I don't see why RPs need to be hyper structured corporate red-tape rule fests.
 
Last edited:
So there's something that I'm kind of curios about regarding this topic, what exactly counts as reusing a character? Or rather, how big a change must I make for the character to be "fresh" again? Like, can I use the same tropes as I did when creating other characters? And if so, to what extent?
 
I would only say a character which is very noticeably used over and over and over. Something you only come across with friends who often role play in the same circles. And it becomes intrusive but only because their your friend and it likely annoys you to see the same face again. I'd say it has to be very - very - noticeable. I would honestly just suggest people be as story oriented as possible but then again I wouldn't ever go searching through people's role play histories. I'm glad you asked that clarifying quesiton becuase thinking about it I'm not someone very strict on anything. I just don't have time but if I role play with you frequently and you use the same face for everything I might get confused stories. I'm simple.
I also like fresh diverse character histories and stories. It's easy to do.

Again, super happy you asked that clarifying question.
 
I'm glad that Cogwork Cogwork asked that as well. I do remember recently seeing a character get used that had been used in all of a persons roleplays and I don't remember if they even changed the background to fit the RP they were attempting to join. I admit it was the first time I came across this myself so I had never thought about it.

Even in my friend groups, I have never had someone use the same character twice. Names sure, recycling names happens sometimes it's hard to come up with one. But never seen the same character twice.

I can definitely see people/GMs not wanting to see that, but I do imagine 99% of GMs aren't stalking your RPs just to make sure you're not using the same character. It also feels like it'd be very obvious immediately if it was a reused character constantly like the above I mentioned.
 
You play vague word games to cover your rear end, using terms like "vast majority" and then saying "but there are exceptions," and when I argue then point you make, you then say "I never said that it's a rule!"

Sure... okay. You only said the vast majority belong to one of two camps, and said both are prone to problems. That's the point you made. I'm responding to those points. If you want to hide behind vague wordings then don't engage in debates, because it's frustrating to the other side. Like you refuse to stand by your opinion and backpeddle behind vague words, while still asserting the original claim.

What I've done is the exact opposite of being vague, I'm striving to choose words that indicate as precisely as possible what I mean. If I think something is a universal rule I will state that it is, if I think something is merely something which tends to happen, then I will will use words like the ones you cited. Naturally whether I think something is always true is only true most times (or the opposite) that impacts the conclusions derived from that.

Your response began with a wild assertion barely related to anything I actually said, and would never say as I do not believe it and make a point to be careful never to say it, followed by another claim that makes it seem you can only pick a position in the extremity (As what I was saying regarded characters not being chosen for the positive feedback and you immediately jumped to choosing the characters everyone hates, as if there's nothing in-between or neutral or a character potentially having received positive feedback automatically translates to that being the primary motivation), followed by a personal attack.

If something, anything, was actually indicating the kind of thing you suggested I was asserting, then I would apologize for being unclear and simply clarify my point. If anyone else reading this did notice something like that which I somehow missed, do tell me. But it really just comes across like I said I object to a point you made and you believe I was trying to make the opposite point of yours?

So let me put, in the absolute clearest and concise way I can, the points again (separating with a paragraph any additions or extra clarifications):
--> I think you're fundamentally wrong about why at least the majority of roleplayers who re-use characters re-use them. You asserted that their motive is based on the character receiving positive feedback. I think the reasons of the aforementioned players are tied to the attachment to the character a player has and enumerated several of those reasons, implying that it can and does happen irrespective of previous feedback. I further argued that this must be true because a good portion of re-used characters (from my experience) simply didn't have the opportunity to get that much feedback in the first place.
What this does not mean is:
A) That those reasons are necessarily bad in of themselves.
B) That feedback has no effect on motivation, merely that it's not the main one even when and where it is a factor.

--> An excess of personal attachment to a character is a danger. Since a strong attachment to the character is, as per my assertion, the motivation behind most re-used characters, that places their players within a group that is significantly more likely to have that overattachment and problems that come with it compared to the average.

--> Your conclusion that they are, quote "objectively good for your RP" is based upon your belief that these characters are chosen for being "known quantities" with positive feedback. However, as I believe as many no doubt do, that the previous premise is wrong, that in turn would invalidate the conclusion.
Again, this isn't the same saying the character is objectively bad for the RP on grounds of being a re-used characters. In fact find banning characters on these grounds "irrational" and made an even more severe statement regarding not just the banning but the sentiment itself.

--> As such I find your portrayal to lack nuance, as there are legitimate concerns here. You refer to anyone who doesn't want that kind of character in their RP as if they don't give a damn about their own players and just want to be petty. But reasons for concern do exist, and however faulty you may think the reasoning is, that doesn't make it so people don't legitimately believe that such a character could pose a significant issue in the RP.
Sure in even my own view I think it's not enough to warrant banning those characters, that doesn't mean that applies to everyone.

---> The players don't have the exclusive right to enjoy the RP. The GM also has that right.
Which, I can't believe I have to say does not by any stretch of the imagination imply that the GM is the sole concern. A responsible GM will try to put together a group, if they can, create an RP for everyone to enjoy themselves. That includes, in my view, setting up the RP in a way that expresses what kind of RP the GM wants is to be and what may be a deal breaker.


We don't butt heads because of different experiences, we butt heads because you repeatedly impose strict rules on your RPs, use quotas and preset roles and numerous other rules and requirements, and state that RPs are meant for your enjoyment.
You have all these tools to create a good time for yourself, but instead of letting the players have agency of their own, because that may infringe upon your sandbox, you apply numerous restrictions to craft your ideal environment. Like I've never met anyone who cares about reused characters. Yet here you claim it diminishes the enjoyment of players?

First, you're talking as if I went "surprise!" and suddenly started making rules (most of the stuff you mentioned I don't actually use, and I don't ban re-used characters either, but hypothetically let's say I did). You're talking as if any players joining such an RP didn't sign-up to an RP which explicitly has those rules. They are no more a "nightmare" than being required to use a fantasy character in a fantasy roleplay is. I want roleplayers who want a similar kind of roleplay, be it as partners or as players. To act like the mere act of fitting in with what the roleplay they chose to join is some affront to their agency, as if I didn't go out of my way to try to work with players in integrating and making their ideas possible even in setting and situations in which that is much more difficult...

Has it so much as occurred to you that maybe I just think you're being unfair in your presentation of a group of people whose beliefs I don't necessarily share (or at least don't give the same importance to)?

As for "diminuishing the enjoyment of the players" the closest I've come to making any such claim is either that I said most re-used characters aren't necessarily getting the positive feedback you claimed was the reason they were used or me saying the motivations behind using them imply a strong attachment that is in turn more prone to the issues. I suppose what you claim I said could potentially be derived from the later? Maybe? That being said caring about re-used characters diminuishing the interest of players was never a claim I remotely made.


You say one thing and do another, and there's absolutely no connection between a character being premade, and a character being shit

My point was not that the character was shit because it was premade. My point is that even a character that is only appreciated by the maker can and often will still be re-used because the motivations to choose a re-used character are not primarily whether they worked well or received positive feedback, but any of the the ones I went on to mention.

Again, in the majority of the cases.


You aren't stopping anything.
Stopping the problem player is still stopping the problem player and you still prevented the problem from coming to the RP. Of course the criteria in discussion here will get a lot of false positives which is why I actually agree that re-used characters shouldn't categorically be banned. As I've said above though, those who do impose their banning probably wouldn't agree.


In the context of this argument, it certainly looks like you're calling them bad.

I wasn't. My apologies if that part wasn't clear.


Why else would you use those examples?

Because A) they represent the kind of motivation behind most re-used character's use and B) they are motivations related to a form of strong personal attachment, not whether the character was objectively well-received.


You're always on the side of reducing the freedoms of players. In every single thread that's the side you take.

Maybe on the ones we argue on, though I have my suspicions that if I went back to read even those that would likely not prove to be true in a good chunk of them. That being said, there is a difference between knowing what kind of players you want and being self-aware of what's important to your personal motivation and investment, versus reducing freedoms to micromanage people. Surely even you don't just blindly accept anyone no matter what.
 
So there's something that I'm kind of curios about regarding this topic, what exactly counts as reusing a character? Or rather, how big a change must I make for the character to be "fresh" again? Like, can I use the same tropes as I did when creating other characters? And if so, to what extent?

It's hard to pinpoint a line in the sand. I would say a significant portion of the personality, backstory and/or extra features (powers, items, this depends on the character) would be needed at minimum, and even then if it's just one of those it might not entirely qualify (for example if the personality or backstory is something really basic, or if the other one is inverted subversion-style, re-using one of those wouldn't be essentially the same character). The rule would be "if this character had an equivalent/rip-off for this other setting, what would they be like" that would be a re-used character. A re-used character doesn't need to be the exact same character, but they do need to be more or less intended to be the same character in a different RP/setting, made by the same roleplayer.

Gun to my head, the most a character can usually be stretched before being a re-used character is sharing the same character concept and a few extra key traits beyond that. But the point is that it should be evident that if you put the two versions of the character side by side they are meant to be same with very minor to no changes beyond those needed to adapt them to the new setting.
 
So there's something that I'm kind of curios about regarding this topic, what exactly counts as reusing a character? Or rather, how big a change must I make for the character to be "fresh" again? Like, can I use the same tropes as I did when creating other characters? And if so, to what extent?
These aren't great apps lol but here are reuses of a charrie i created like 2 yrs ago? Like there's 1 more instance of her but i cant find it lol. And in another RP i'mma use her as a NPC. But like I reused them as apps, they were all accepted. And whether by my fault or not, for none of these charries did i post for her more than 10 times in their respective ICs. And only one came close to 10 IC posts and i left that rp cuz reasons lol. And i doubt that the GMs that accepted an instance of her searched my history to find out if she a recycled charrie:

Corki...!



Hi!! Shameless plug here: Click on the '○ ꜱᴏᴍᴇ ᴋɪɴᴅᴀ' ꜱᴇզᴜɪᴛᴇʀ ○' link in my Signature if you too would like to reuse a charrie and post for rando reasons!!
 
Only if it serves the current story/RP. Not if it's just "Barbie on a Battleship" and then "Barbie in the first crusades" and "Barbie in the space voyage" -- there has to be some continuity for the character/entity/faction to be making a reappearance.
 
I definitely notice, but I take the agitation from the fact that the character is being recycled again and again and remind myself that we're doing this for fun and it really doesn't matter. Also, I just like, don't invite RPers who annoy me to join future campaigns or stories. There's a comfort in playing with the same characters in different settings if you have a good group of players.

Most of my friends (including myself) have a few characters that they recycle and fit into different settings. It's exhausting, coming up with new personalities to play, but the trick is to change the names and appearances while keeping the core values of the characters and building up from there.
 
On just about every site I've been on, there have always been a fair amount of people that have at least one character transfer that they adapted to the setting. If it's a fandom, of course that rate is much higher.

So yes, it's actually a preference since you get used to certain characters and if they're good why wouldn't you want to see more stories with them?
 
There exists a noticeable few who recycles their characters efficiently to well adapt to the roleplay they're joining. Then there is an abundant amount of those who take presets - characters with already established traits, ambitions, and values, with the intention of inserting that character into multiple settings.

This is not an issue worthy of arguing over whether it's "right" or "wrong". Everyone is in their right to do as they wish. The only rule that matters is the GM's set of guidelines. If they prohibit the recycling of characters, then that is the law that will be enforced. People who argue over GM established rules are faultfinders.

The common trope of roleplays falling into inactivity is not a rightful excuse to invalidate GM rules. Simply do not join games you cannot integrate peacefully, and save the other person the headache.

Edit: Accidentally clicked reply too soon.

Anyways, from the perspective of someone who almost exclusively hosts roleplays, I have experienced those who reuse characters. It is not worth policing whether or not someone will resurrect their past concepts and reintroduce them into your roleplay. However, I do sympathize with the GMs who find it irritating. The reason is not a good one, as it's as simple as having your work "insulted" for the lack of a better word. Which is why it is not a good reason.

Regardless, most of the time it is a non-issue. Those who post minimal effort sheets will simply be told to either reconstruct their character to better fit the setting or be removed. There's no shame in asking or having to remove them for their uncooperative behavior.

If you don't like it, simply state it in the interest check. The chances are that if you're asking this question, you're already looking for a more well-rounded group of writers to join your game, and there's no shame in that either. Do what you feel will give you the most comfort to continue running your roleplay.
 
Last edited:
I did have a friend once who only ever joined new RPs with the same character - exact same name even, but reskinned for the different RPs. I always thought it odd, and it's definitely on the more extreme end of character recycling.

They HAD other characters, and I liked those, but I'm pretty sure they were always "in addition to" the one.
Yes, I've totally seen this too.
And hey I've been guilty but that was like when I was like a baby starting.
But if its someone you've seen like 20 times it's hard. Also like, it's hard to put a character in a every situation box. It's hard.

And just to add like I never am a meanie and point it out I'm just like.... change it... *raises hands to air* but it leaves me perplexed.

If it becomes an issue I'll ask them to change it. And often times it's my players not me saying. It's the same face....character... T_T
 
If it fits the setting, why should I care if they reuse it? With the life expectancies of most rp's in this hobby, I can if someone say, made a PC for a RWBY RP and it dies in two weeks then there is no harm in editing it for a new work to continue off of. I prefer totally new PC's, but there is no harm in rehashing something from a failed project. That being said I tend to not allow obvious self-inserts.
 
why reuse the same character if they don't develop in somesort of way to become something unexpected and new? i'd rather somebody recycle an old concept, an idea that wasn't fully fleshed out, or even a joke character and then build them in the world i have set up to grow in whatever way that person wishes. but to reuse something that already has a lot of history will do nothing to provide to the story itself, and that's a crucial aspect that needs to be considered.
 
As a GM, I could not and would not disallow reusing OCs. As long as the character is well-adjusted, it makes no difference to me, and if they are not, we can address that on a case-by-case basis. It is only so obvious that the character has been reused when they do not fit within the context of the current roleplay and when this occurs, it's a simple matter of addressing it and letting them know they need to revise. In many cases, large portions of a character's backstory or history must be cut. If they are not willing to do that, we have an issue where they would either, yes, need to make a new OC, or leave.
As a fellow roleplayer, it has never bothered me either. I personally have a tendency to create new characters for new roleplays because I grow tired of mine. 😭
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top