[Poindexter]

Y'know, when a player wants to play a character who is clearly just the OOC player thrown into the game world.
Do yall let em or not? How do you feel on the subject?

[Namikaze]

I don't mind.  It's actually a really good way to get someone familiar with roleplaying.  If they've never done it before, it's often easier and more comfortable for them to think as themselves rather than as someone else.

[Glyph]

There are worse players.  At least someone playing themself is immersed and involved in the game world.  The challenge for the GM is to keep throwing situations at the character - moral choices, NPCs to interact with, etc. - until the PC evolves and starts to be more distinct from the player.

[pariah3j]

I have a distaste for these types of players as a GM... I may be a bit biased, I had a bad experience. Personal experience is the players doing this are just being lazy and not coming up with a character idea. We all tend to impart ourselves or some fantasy version of ourselves onto our characters anyways. The players I've seen do this tend to not grow as a player, because they don't have to exercise their RP muscles. But thats just my 2 cents.

[Shaidar]

As long as the player's evaluation is realistic when it comes to stats and such I've never had an issue with the practice. Unfortunately, many players aren't realistic when it comes to translating their own characteristics into the games mechanics, these individuals tend to over evaluate their positive qualities and under-emphasize their negative aspects.

[Marcus]

Too meta, it's a game setting, play the game.

[Lethal Joke]

As long as the player's evaluation is realistic when it comes to stats and such I've never had an issue with the practice. Unfortunately, many players aren't realistic when it comes to translating their own characteristics into the games mechanics, these individuals tend to over evaluate their positive qualities and under-emphasize their negative aspects.

Odd. When I ran a zombie survival campaign, I had the opposite problem with my players. They'd underestimate their positives versus their negatives.
Both a problem, really.

[ShadowcatX]

Its a perfectly legit choice. I have no problem with it.

[Poindexter]

As long as the player's evaluation is realistic when it comes to stats and such I've never had an issue with the practice. Unfortunately, many players aren't realistic when it comes to translating their own characteristics into the games mechanics, these individuals tend to over evaluate their positive qualities and under-emphasize their negative aspects.

Odd. When I ran a zombie survival campaign, I had the opposite problem with my players. They'd underestimate their positives versus their negatives.
Both a problem, really.

Something about zombies brings out the negative and self-doubt in people.

[Mr. Black]

As long as they answer all of my 100 Questions, I guess i am okay with it. Though the parts on Sixth World race relations, politics, and food likes/dislikes may be a stretch for them.

[Darzil]

Tried it once in a Cthulu campaign, we all played ourselves. Game ended early on the first session. No, we're not going down there, that'd be stupid!

[Aryeonos]

100 questions eh? That`s new to me, care to clue me in?

As for my experience, when playing my first character is always me, the real me, tailored to fill a role in the party of course and as immersed as I can be. My problem is, I can never find good character motivation, it all seems to degrade into the endless cycle of get money to get more gear and training to run better missions. Though in part I blame that on my gms failing to be engaging or realistic.

When I run, I encourage my first time players to make themselves, not exact copies of them, but them as runners. It`s great for them getting into the setting without worrying too much about their ignorance of the setting.

[Sterling]

As a GM I'm totally against the idea of players creating themselves as characters, mainly because it is a massive hurdle to any meaningful roleplaying.  If you have, say, 5 players who are playing themselves, then what happens when they are faced with something divisive?  For example, one character is placed in a situation that in order to survive they have to betray another.  If the players are true to their "characters" then this can cause bad feeling amongst the players.

I had a group that tried this approach once.  Just once, because even the character generation caused friction between the players.  Once they got into the game itself and I began my usual process of introducing complications it got worse, and the game collapsed entirely when one girl got upset that her boyfriend chose not to save her in favour of saving two others.

In any case, I see roleplaying as playing a role, not myself.  I look for escapism in my games and I would imagine that most other gamers do the same.

[pariah3j]

As a GM I'm totally against the idea of players creating themselves as characters, mainly because it is a massive hurdle to any meaningful roleplaying....

In any case, I see roleplaying as playing a role, not myself.  I look for escapism in my games and I would imagine that most other gamers do the same.

Can't agree more - I've had similar experiences to the one you described, I've just never seen someone get more into the roleplay or character more because they were playing themselves.

[farothel]

I never create exactly myself, but I do often take skills that I have in real life.  Like for instance when I make a scientist (not in Shadowrun, but in Star Trek RPGs).  I make this scientist a biochemist, because that's what I have a degree in.  Makes a part of the roleplaying a lot easier to do, but the rest I try to diverge (make a femal Vulcan for instance).

I see the same for the game master.  When one of the other's in our group (who is an historian) runs a game, we often end up with obscure references to old legends.  When I run a game, it's often about viruses and other diseases, as I know that quite well.