This is a question about something I've noticed in my own play style, asked because I want to make sure that I and those I play with enjoy the game as much as possible.
I played AD&D and 2e ten thousand years ago, and have been back, with 5e, for about six months. This time around I've played a bunch of one-shots and two- or three-session campaigns, and I'm also playing in two long-term campaigns. The characters I've played in these games have been mechanically somewhat varied—I've been a half-elven [EDIT: actually he was human] Wild Magic sorcerer, an elven Arcane Trickster, and a half-elven College of Eloquence bard.
I can't help noticing, however, that, though my characters' mechanics are different, I keep playing the same personality over and over again (a grumpy gay slut with anger management issues). I've read a lot here and elsewhere about people bringing the same class/race over and over again, but I haven't seen much, if anything, about characters with the same personalities.
I get it; I'm obviously working something out. I myself have anger management issues, and in the opposite direction from my characters; it's really hard for me to show my anger, and it's really hard for them not to—meaning that when I'm pretending to be them I have a kind of freedom I long for in real life, where I spend all my time pretending not to be grumpy. And given that my husband and I celebrated our eleventh wedding anniversary yesterday, my slut years are at this point a distant memory, so playing characters for whom they are a present reality allows me, again, a kind of freedom I don't have in real life (though, to be clear, I much prefer my current married life to my old slutty life).
So I understand why I enjoy playing characters with these particular personality traits. I just don't know whether I'll start to get annoying to the people and groups I play with for more than a one-shot, whether I'm short-changing myself on what could be a more fulfilling experience of the game, and/or whether there's another drawback I haven't thought of.
(For what it's worth, I have yet to finish a long campaign, so while I've played the same personality with some of the same people a few times, it's not like my grumpy gay slut with anger management issues has now been plopped down three times in the valley of Barovia wearing a different hat each time. So who knows? Once one of these campaigns ends maybe I'll want to play a different kind of person.)
Anyway, I have to assume that I'm not the only player to have this tendency, so I'm interested in hearing from others who either have had it or have played with those who had. If I try to branch out character-trait-wise, will I and others have a more fulfilling experience? If so, do you have any suggestions for how to start doing so?
Best Answer
Is this a problem?
Only if you think so. I suppose other players might get a little bored of it, but that deserves at most an eyeroll and nothing more—it really isn’t any of their business what you’re playing so long as it’s not disruptive. If it was OK once, it’s OK a hundred times.
(Unless you stick to a given concept in a new campaign with a different setting where that concept doesn’t work—yours is fairly unlikely to run into that, at least in any campaign I’d care to join, but other concepts easily could.)
Otherwise, though, if you’re happy to be playing a similar character, then everything’s good! It’s a game, it’s played for fun—you should do what you consider the most fun. If this is still what’s most fun for you, then everything’s great.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to try something different, and meant to go in a different direction, but somehow converged on a similar concept nonetheless, and that is a problem for you, then you might consider it a “problem.” That’s wholly up to you and your judgment and preference.
How do you fix it?
If, per the above, you consider this a problem, the question becomes, how do you avoid falling into the same trap?
Observation: Your description of the similar characters is not that narrow
What you’ve told us about your characters doesn’t necessarily tell us all that much about them—those descriptions could very easily apply to a whole lot of otherwise very different people.
So one thing you could very easily consider is that perhaps, your characters are more different than you realize, or, if they’re not, maybe the real issue is that you haven’t fleshed them out enough, that they’re “just” grumpy gay sluts with anger management issues. By focusing—even if it’s just in your own headcanon, not every campaign is going to devote a lot of time to individual characters’ character development—on what else is going on with them, you may find them to be rather different.
Or if not, maybe you can decide on new characters to split the difference, keep the traits you keep coming back to, but then also devote some thought to what more they have to them. There are lots and lots of pieces to people’s identity; sexuality and emotional tendencies are just two. (Important two, but still.)
Observation: Your characters aren’t that mechanically dissimilar
Elves and half-elves are, kinda obviously, related, and though they can be quite different, they don’t have to be. Likewise, the bard class’s historical origins in D&D are very much “rogue with magic,” so an arcane trickster is pretty similar. Bard and sorcerer have considerable overlap, too, being Charisma-based non-preparing arcane spellcasters. To be clear, you certainly could differentiate these characters, but it’s also pretty easy for them to be pretty similar.
So greater mechanical diversity might push you in new directions. Barbarian, maybe not, considering anger issues are already a theme, but any of the other classes might prompt new behavior.
On the other hand, maybe they wouldn’t—after all, anyone can be angry, or gay, or slutty, as discussed above. The mechanical differences will only help if you lean into them—maybe a cleric is very chaste, or a monk is very zen and chill, or whatever. The cleric class doesn’t mandate chastity (some faiths even disdain it), the monk class doesn’t mandate calmness (though the descriptions tend to suggest strongly), but you can choose to emphasize those things as part of how what being a cleric or monk means to them. Maybe a wizard who is so socially-inept that he wouldn’t know how to flirt if you held a gun to his head, and wouldn’t recognize someone flirting with him if they held up a neon sign. Wizards don’t have to be that hopeless, but if you lean into that particular conception of what it means to be a wizard, then it might help lean away from repeating a similar character.
Real solution: Just make choices consciously
Ultimately, the real answer is, and must be, simply “decide to react differently,” as one excellent article on roleplaying put it (in an entirely different context addressing an entirely separate problem). If you’re aware that you tend to go in one particular direction on characterization, and you want to do something different, just... consciously choose to do something different. Maybe the Wild Magic makes a sorcerer afraid of intimacy, of hurting someone with magic they have limited control over. Maybe the bard is a hippy and has trained themselves to just be accepting of everything. (Or maybe he’s actually just stoned, even.) And so on. And only as much as you actually want to—again, this is only a problem insofar as you’d like to do something else.