>if you can't roleplay a human male fighter youre intrinsically

>>50250653
You're character is only as good as you make him, if you have nothing besides human male fighter written for him, I don't honestly know what you expected.

>>50250653
Did we not thoroughly cover this yesterday

>>50250691

This.

90% of my characters are male human fighters, and each one was a unique personality with backstories the DM generally enjoyed to work with.

>>50250723
>being this based
Expert role player detected. Proud of you anon.

>>50250653
If you think that "human male fighter" is any easier to RP than anything else, you're an intrinsically bad roleplayer.

>>50250892

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if you can't make a character interesting without having some crazy mechanics or racial oddities to lean on, then you suck at roleplaying.
This is a continuation of a dumb thread from yesterday where the OP's DM told him that his character was boring because it was "just a human male fighter with a spear."

>>50250999
OP here, wasn't around for the thread yesterday

>>50250653
That's because everyone can become a fighter. Shit, you could be a lumberjack who uses his knack for axes to tear shit down, a caravan guard, a mercenary, a soldier, a pirate (even though we have swashbucklers), a merchant fed up with paying other people to protect him, a peasant with a scythe, a disowned prince... And that's without touching bacgrounds really.

>>50250653
> >if you can't roleplay a human male fighter youre intrinsically bad at roleplaying
100% true.
If your character is defined by your race/gender/profession, then it's a shit character. There is more to people than just race/gender/etc. - their aspirations, their memories, their wants and their fears - this is what defines a character. Not a bunch of silly options noted on the character sheet.

>>50250653
Agreed.

>>50251049

How would you know?

>>50250999
That's stupid though.

Giving your character mechanical roleplaying properties is no different than giving your character ones in their backstory, and as things go it's much easier for a third party (GM) to build on without having to have you fill him in on your backstory and characteristics.

>>50251049
>>50250999

OP here, yes I was. I just wanted to keep shitposting.

>>50250653
Define "Can't". Are you saying that person X refuses to, is unable to, or unwilling to?

>>50250999
This sounds pretty legitimate.

>>50250999
>roleplaying a human male fighter with a spear is boring
Sounds like the world's worst GM frankly. If I want to roleplay as Joe Johnson from the suburbs of Central City, who's to stop me? Why does everyone have to play Darkness Ebony Demonica Dementia Raven Way from My Immortal?

>>50250653
>if you can't boil water you're intrinsically bad at cooking

>>50250999
>>50253199
To clarify, that other thread just had OP show up to the game with that and the GM tell him he could have put in more effort, not that it was intrinsically boring.

That just tells me that the OP in that other thread didn't have a lot of backstory to go along with it. Playing a more average joe is fine, but at least define stuff about who he is and what he cares about.

'Race class weapon' is never going to be enough for a character by itself, whether it's human fighter with spear or dragonborn warlock with katana.

>>50252027
t. male human autist

>>50250653
Human Male fighter, is a thing /tg/ has been trying to meme for quite a long time. Basically, trying to shun all other types of races/twists in these type of threads.

Usually the argument is something like, other races should all be too complicated, and mysterious to play, and if you rp other races, it's wrong, because then it's just human with ears/tails/whatever

Then you have, if you need to rely on gimmicks, you're a bad roleplayer/snowflake....

If, for some reason, you can't roleplay a human male fighter, but you can roleplay other things, than good on you.

>>50253438

>different people say different things

>>50253363
>implying I'm not an Apache helicopter

>>50253624
Yes, I know, that's why I mentioned the three usual arguments.

>>50253750
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPMDCJrRpT8

>>50250706
theres' no such thing as yesterday in a thread. Posts exist in threads. Threads exist alone.