One piece of advice I’d have is, don’t expect other players to care as much about your backstory as you do. Certainly there are some that do, and if you find a group like that, that’s great. Just don’t go in with the assumption that the rest of the table is invested in watching you resolve your personal side-story. They should make space for you to be able to, as you should in return.
Does that also apply to things like flavoring spells? Character's personality? Character's vices, virtues and quirks? Character voices? Mannerism? Catch phrases? It seems like some of these things are fun, maybe (hopefully) fun for everyone, but I'm not even sure. I'm especially not sure about the work vs return on fun for flavoring, say more than a couple of spells (even though I find the concept interesting) . What might some better things to put thought and energy into (re: fun for everyone at the table)?
Number #1 sign that someone is a new player: They spell rogues as "rouges".
Unfortunately, given the sheer amount I see that spelling on here, I'm not sure that it is a trait particularly associated with new players. It's DDB's version of Civ's "Diety".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
One piece of advice I’d have is, don’t expect other players to care as much about your backstory as you do. Certainly there are some that do, and if you find a group like that, that’s great. Just don’t go in with the assumption that the rest of the table is invested in watching you resolve your personal side-story. They should make space for you to be able to, as you should in return.
Does that also apply to things like flavoring spells? Character's personality? Character's vices, virtues and quirks? Character voices? Mannerism? Catch phrases? It seems like some of these things are fun, maybe (hopefully) fun for everyone, but I'm not even sure. I'm especially not sure about the work vs return on fun for flavoring, say more than a couple of spells (even though I find the concept interesting) . What might some better things to put thought and energy into (re: fun for everyone at the table)?
It's kind of impossible to make a blanket statement. Some tables barely say anything in character, others go full on in character all the time, most are probably somewhere in between. Some are more like, I cast Healing Word, Bob, you get 6. Others prefer to actually recite the little prayer and describe Zardnoz the Destroyer covered in soothing light as his wounds close and he is refreshed (and then say Zardnoz gets 6). These are all things that some tables love, and others find really annoying. I'd suggest bringing these things up with the group as part of session 0 and/or reading the room. If you think they'll be fun, you should do them, and seek out a group that also does them, or at least a group that doesn't mind if you do.
I don't like to generalize, but I'd have a hard time imagining a group being against someone using things like accents and catchphrases (the exception, obviously, would be if such things become culturally insensitive or just outright racist). It doesn't really take up anyone else's time if you talk like you're from somewhere else. And in some cases, one person being brave enough to do it can help spur on others who might be a little more shy. But definitely talk it through with the group.
I do think newer players are more willing to use such role play techniques, likely because they've got examples on streaming of people doing it and having fun doing it. Us people from older editions didn't really have much of that sort of exposure to ways you can play. Though I think some, at least, are jumping on the bandwagon.
I've found that broadly, new players typically fall into one of two groups:
First is the group who's super into optimization and has seen every video on YouTube and read every post on Reddit about character optimization theory and builds a character based on what they've been told is the "best" build that they have no idea how to roleplay.
Second is the group who's never played RPGs before and hasn't got a clue what they're doing but earnestly tries to make their character as "real" as they can.
And in between those two extremes is every other new player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To me the biggest differences between experienced and new players are the “all in” style of play, extent of metagaming, and simple knowledge of the game. 1) most experienced players have lost enough characters over the years that they are not upset over losing another - they recognize it as part of the reality of the game. Newer players tend to be more invested and take losing or nearly losing a character much harder. 2) it’s difficult for newer players to metagame (use the player’s knowledge of the game instead of the character’s knowledge of the world) because newer players don’t have that much knowledge of the game. Experienced players and DMs playing in other DM’s campaigns ( are there any old time players that have never DMed?) typically have so much stuff in their heads from both DMing and from playing in campaign after campaign after world ad nauseum That they have to struggle with where the line is between what they know as a player and what their character would reasonably know about monsters, races, places etc. given their backgrounds, levels, and experiences. A ranger that took oozes as a fired enemy could be expected to know that ochre jellies that are sliced split in half until they reach a minimum size. A ranger that didn’t might not unless they had run into ochre jellies earlier in their adventures or in their backstory so the player playing each would have to handle their personal knowledge of what happens when you slice an ochre jelly ( and maybe even of what an ochre jelly looks like) differently in the two examples. Newer players don’t have this problem as much simply because they haven’t read or experienced as much of the game yet. 3) simple knowledge - as suggested by the the end of #2, most newer players simply don’t have that much experience yet.. in a sense it’s probably true that most of us old timers (30+ years of play) have forgotten more about the game than new players know. That makes metagaming easy for experienced players and more difficult for new players.
People who are saying that only new players multiclass are wack. I've been playing for years and I loved to multiclass. I'm also dming a game for a massive (8 players!) party, of which the only two people that chose to multiclass were the two vets. The other 6 new players have been single class from 1-13.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
People who are saying that only new players multiclass are wack. I've been playing for years and I loved to multiclass. I'm also dming a game for a massive (8 players!) party, of which the only two people that chose to multiclass were the two vets. The other 6 new players have been single class from 1-13.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
People who are saying that only new players multiclass are wack.
Who said that? Did I say that? I don't really remember saying it, but maybe I'm becoming senile in my old age. I mean, I don't really think I'm old either, but I suppose if I was senile I wouldn't know, would I?
1. They'll expect Rangers to only use ranged weapons, to the extent that they're inflexible in their tactics. A goblin could be right next to them and they have two swords handy, but they won't think to stab the goblin, because they're a Ranger.
Could this be lack of confidence of knowledge about switching weapons during combat, instead of inflexible thinking about the tactics that they use, based on class? It seems like the rules about interacting with objects, holding object, switching objects and needing a free hand, like for spell casting are kind of confusing and complicated. Maybe what is happening is an opting out of tying to do things that requires switching the object in their hand. (I try to arrange things, so that I can opt out of dealing with that whole issue as much as possible ; admittedly a better way would be to learn the rules on how the rules for interacting with objects (weapons) during combat works (there are an awful lot of rules to master, I think maybe sometimes play-style is dictated by a delaying on learning some of the rules and machanics and maybe that even makes sense, in the short term, for learning purposes, even though it's not ideal for gameplay).
1. They'll expect Rangers to only use ranged weapons, to the extent that they're inflexible in their tactics. A goblin could be right next to them and they have two swords handy, but they won't think to stab the goblin, because they're a Ranger.
Could this be lack of confidence of knowledge about switching weapons during combat, instead of inflexible thinking about the tactics that they use, based on class?
It's possible, but I'm inclined to think otherwise because I've seen it manifest in character creation as well as magic item distribution. "Ranger, do you want this sword?" "What? No, I'm a Ranger." That kind of thing.
2. They'll expect stealth to work like it does in video games, and they'll demonstrate this by using "stealth" as a verb. Hiding in open areas just outside of some imaginary vision cone.
I've played with people who seemed to think, if I understood correctly, that a high stealth ability score worked pretty much like invisibility, except that things that foil invisibility were pretty much useless against it. So maybe super-invisiblity?? (I don't think that's exactly right, but maybe it is) I think it might have a something to do with making sounds, since the type of armor affects (and maybe something to do with leaving footprints or other evidence of your presents and being less noticible, easier to fail to notice, but not invisible).
I'm pretty sure that I have used it as a verb, but proably not in the video game sense, since I don't play those sorts of video games.
Could this be lack of confidence of knowledge about switching weapons during combat, instead of inflexible thinking about the tactics that they use, based on class?
It's possible, but I'm inclined to think otherwise because I've seen it manifest in character creation as well as magic item distribution. "Ranger, do you want this sword?" "What? No, I'm a Ranger." That kind of thing.
Okay, I think playing a spell caster and not taking the War Caster Feat, I've pretty much made that same/similar decision, on equipment to take, based on the logic that I would need one hand to for my spell focus or componient bag and one hand to make somatic gestures and not wanted to have to juggle or remember the rules for interacting with objects ,and how that can go wrong with taking your action or dropping a weapon.
I know that a weapon, or shield or something that your character wears or has tatooed on them can be their spell casting focus (I've proably made impractical choices on that, for the sake of flavor - will try to make better choices, in the future).
Probably should fingure out pretty soon the ins and outs out interacting with objects/weapons, since it's fun and practical (and probably good practice) to be able to use melee weapons, occasionally, even if that isn't your character's thing.
Yeah, the rules for sneaking around are pretty loose. They're not deterministic in the way some players would like them to be. In my opinion, they're basically trying to maintain some wiggle room for DMs to make sneaking scary without making it feel totally useless for players to attempt. I think it works okay, but I've definitely experienced player frustration at the lack of specificity. I think the upcoming edition would do well to change those rules, but not too dramatically. Regardless, though, newbies have a tendency to expect the stealth rules to work a certain way, and it seems to always be the same way.
I think you're projecting about the item interaction stuff. It's been my experience that new players assume they can freely swap between any items, and don't even consider that it might cost actions. It doesn't cross their minds.
I think they need to give more guidance on when to do checks. Unless your character is really buffed compared to their level, you stand a fair chance of failing each time. In my experience, some DMs do checks (stealth, persuasion) etc at every single potential point of failure...and it results in nerfing skill checks to oblivion. If you have an 80% chance of succeeding, that's reasonable, but when you're performing half a dozen checks just to do something...you're most likely going to fail. I had one that, looking back, didn't really want us to be doing what we planned, so kept springing checks on us in the hopes we'd fail. Miraculously, he rolled low and we rolled high every time (he insisted on open rolls for the DM) and it ended up being hilarious - even he admitted what happened was better than his alternative - but it was annoying rolling all the time when there wasn't really a prompt. They could do with giving more explicit guidance on how frequent so new DMs can get a feel for how often they should run checks. Another DM kept having us do Dex checks everytime we went up or down a little mound...it was funny the first few times.
Semi tangent in that it was about new DMs rather than new players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
ah, the rules for sneaking around are pretty loose. They're not deterministic in the way some players would like them to be. In my opinion, they're basically trying to maintain some wiggle room for DMs to make sneaking scary without making it feel totally useless for players to attempt.
I find this theory to be a very helpful way to frame things
(still a bit confused and frustrated about how nebulous the rules of stealth seem)
I think you're projecting about the item interaction stuff. It's been my experience that new players assume they can freely swap between any items, and don't even consider that it might cost actions. It doesn't cross their minds.
Likely, I started out not knowing that there was any limitation on interactions with objects, how many things you could hold in your hands or do with your hands, at one time and then I course corrected by doing a 180 on how I deal with that issue, I suppose until I really figure out the mechanics.
The rule is basically: you get one freebie. Almost everyone seems to agree that dropping something doesn't count as your freebie*, so you can drop one thing and use your freebie to grab another thing. Shields and Bags of Holding require your entire action, because it says so in their descriptions. Dual Wielder and Thrown Weapon Fighting also override this in specific cases. Ammunition doesn't take up your freebie, if you're using it in the normal way, but it probably does if you're trying to do something else with it.
Ex: A cleric with a shield and a weapon must first drop his weapon, then produce his diamond dust using his freebie, then he can cast Revivify. Then, since he already used his freebie and his action, he can't pick up his weapon until his next turn, so he's disarmed.
*This isn't directly supported in the rules, but it's also not directly contradicted. There are some rules that suggest it's the intended ruling (the Heat Metal spell), and I don't believe I've seen any rules that suggest the opposite. And it's pretty reasonable in my opinion. It's just not technically RAW, as I understand it.
I recognize that without citations this isn't especially authoritative. But I'm not gonna go and find those citations, so, do with this what you will, lol.
7. New players don't play to the action economy. They play to the story in combat. You might see them interact with the scene using their action instead of making two attacks, which would be more efficient. They will aim attacks at the monsters who have personally offended them instead of the ones that have the lowest hit points, because they're not thinking about removing the number of turns the opposition gets, they're thinking of the way their character feels. You get more dynamic and cinematic fights this way, I feel. But you also die more.
8. They won't stop themselves from attempting something just because they realized their bonus isn't the highest in the party for that thing. They'll try to persuade NPCs even with a +0 because it makes sense to do so.
I think you're saying that these are good things and I agree. I try to make choices for my characters based on their personalities over what is the most powerful or does the most damage. Yes there is a higher risk of dying, but D&D is ultimately a role playing game. If the goal is just to be the most powerful and "level up" you might as well be playing a video game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
I haven't been playing that long, but I can point out some of the differences between the character I played in my first completed campaign, and my charactee in the second, ongoing campaign.
My first character was more self-insert fantasy. I picked out a character who was mostly the kind of person I'd like to be. For my second character, it was more about the story I wanted to tell, and the character has more flaws and challenges. I also collaborated more with the DM on the character, to support the story he's trying to tell.
I also powergamed my character a little more. For my first character, I was only going off theory based on a read of the basic rules. I ended up creating a character that didn't synergize very well: a warforged druid with high AC, but who didn't want to take attacks because a lot of druid spells are concentration. I picked the race and class for narrative reasons. For my second character, I play a half-elf paladin. I've synergized the half-elf's racial bonus with the most critical stat for a paladin. I am again the tank with concentration spells, but this time I took warcaster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does that also apply to things like flavoring spells? Character's personality? Character's vices, virtues and quirks? Character voices? Mannerism? Catch phrases? It seems like some of these things are fun, maybe (hopefully) fun for everyone, but I'm not even sure. I'm especially not sure about the work vs return on fun for flavoring, say more than a couple of spells (even though I find the concept interesting) . What might some better things to put thought and energy into (re: fun for everyone at the table)?
Number #1 sign that someone is a new player: They spell rogues as "rouges".
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Unfortunately, given the sheer amount I see that spelling on here, I'm not sure that it is a trait particularly associated with new players. It's DDB's version of Civ's "Diety".
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's kind of impossible to make a blanket statement. Some tables barely say anything in character, others go full on in character all the time, most are probably somewhere in between. Some are more like, I cast Healing Word, Bob, you get 6. Others prefer to actually recite the little prayer and describe Zardnoz the Destroyer covered in soothing light as his wounds close and he is refreshed (and then say Zardnoz gets 6). These are all things that some tables love, and others find really annoying. I'd suggest bringing these things up with the group as part of session 0 and/or reading the room. If you think they'll be fun, you should do them, and seek out a group that also does them, or at least a group that doesn't mind if you do.
I don't like to generalize, but I'd have a hard time imagining a group being against someone using things like accents and catchphrases (the exception, obviously, would be if such things become culturally insensitive or just outright racist). It doesn't really take up anyone else's time if you talk like you're from somewhere else. And in some cases, one person being brave enough to do it can help spur on others who might be a little more shy. But definitely talk it through with the group.
I do think newer players are more willing to use such role play techniques, likely because they've got examples on streaming of people doing it and having fun doing it. Us people from older editions didn't really have much of that sort of exposure to ways you can play. Though I think some, at least, are jumping on the bandwagon.
I've found that broadly, new players typically fall into one of two groups:
First is the group who's super into optimization and has seen every video on YouTube and read every post on Reddit about character optimization theory and builds a character based on what they've been told is the "best" build that they have no idea how to roleplay.
Second is the group who's never played RPGs before and hasn't got a clue what they're doing but earnestly tries to make their character as "real" as they can.
And in between those two extremes is every other new player.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To me the biggest differences between experienced and new players are the “all in” style of play, extent of metagaming, and simple knowledge of the game.
1) most experienced players have lost enough characters over the years that they are not upset over losing another - they recognize it as part of the reality of the game. Newer players tend to be more invested and take losing or nearly losing a character much harder.
2) it’s difficult for newer players to metagame (use the player’s knowledge of the game instead of the character’s knowledge of the world) because newer players don’t have that much knowledge of the game. Experienced players and DMs playing in other DM’s campaigns ( are there any old time players that have never DMed?) typically have so much stuff in their heads from both DMing and from playing in campaign after campaign after world ad nauseum That they have to struggle with where the line is between what they know as a player and what their character would reasonably know about monsters, races, places etc. given their backgrounds, levels, and experiences. A ranger that took oozes as a fired enemy could be expected to know that ochre jellies that are sliced split in half until they reach a minimum size. A ranger that didn’t might not unless they had run into ochre jellies earlier in their adventures or in their backstory so the player playing each would have to handle their personal knowledge of what happens when you slice an ochre jelly ( and maybe even of what an ochre jelly looks like) differently in the two examples. Newer players don’t have this problem as much simply because they haven’t read or experienced as much of the game yet.
3) simple knowledge - as suggested by the the end of #2, most newer players simply don’t have that much experience yet.. in a sense it’s probably true that most of us old timers (30+ years of play) have forgotten more about the game than new players know. That makes metagaming easy for experienced players and more difficult for new players.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
People who are saying that only new players multiclass are wack. I've been playing for years and I loved to multiclass. I'm also dming a game for a massive (8 players!) party, of which the only two people that chose to multiclass were the two vets. The other 6 new players have been single class from 1-13.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
People who are saying that only new players multiclass are wack. I've been playing for years and I loved to multiclass. I'm also dming a game for a massive (8 players!) party, of which the only two people that chose to multiclass were the two vets. The other 6 new players have been single class from 1-13.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Who said that? Did I say that? I don't really remember saying it, but maybe I'm becoming senile in my old age. I mean, I don't really think I'm old either, but I suppose if I was senile I wouldn't know, would I?
Could this be lack of confidence of knowledge about switching weapons during combat, instead of inflexible thinking about the tactics that they use, based on class? It seems like the rules about interacting with objects, holding object, switching objects and needing a free hand, like for spell casting are kind of confusing and complicated. Maybe what is happening is an opting out of tying to do things that requires switching the object in their hand. (I try to arrange things, so that I can opt out of dealing with that whole issue as much as possible ; admittedly a better way would be to learn the rules on how the rules for interacting with objects (weapons) during combat works (there are an awful lot of rules to master, I think maybe sometimes play-style is dictated by a delaying on learning some of the rules and machanics and maybe that even makes sense, in the short term, for learning purposes, even though it's not ideal for gameplay).
It's possible, but I'm inclined to think otherwise because I've seen it manifest in character creation as well as magic item distribution. "Ranger, do you want this sword?" "What? No, I'm a Ranger." That kind of thing.
The rules for Stealth seem pretty vague to me, and maybe widely misunderstood or understood differently by different players/DM's Tables. ( https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Stealth and is there anything else written about it, that I have missed?)
I've played with people who seemed to think, if I understood correctly, that a high stealth ability score worked pretty much like invisibility, except that things that foil invisibility were pretty much useless against it. So maybe super-invisiblity?? (I don't think that's exactly right, but maybe it is) I think it might have a something to do with making sounds, since the type of armor affects (and maybe something to do with leaving footprints or other evidence of your presents and being less noticible, easier to fail to notice, but not invisible).
I'm pretty sure that I have used it as a verb, but proably not in the video game sense, since I don't play those sorts of video games.
Okay, I think playing a spell caster and not taking the War Caster Feat, I've pretty much made that same/similar decision, on equipment to take, based on the logic that I would need one hand to for my spell focus or componient bag and one hand to make somatic gestures and not wanted to have to juggle or remember the rules for interacting with objects ,and how that can go wrong with taking your action or dropping a weapon.
I know that a weapon, or shield or something that your character wears or has tatooed on them can be their spell casting focus (I've proably made impractical choices on that, for the sake of flavor - will try to make better choices, in the future).
Probably should fingure out pretty soon the ins and outs out interacting with objects/weapons, since it's fun and practical (and probably good practice) to be able to use melee weapons, occasionally, even if that isn't your character's thing.
Yeah, the rules for sneaking around are pretty loose. They're not deterministic in the way some players would like them to be. In my opinion, they're basically trying to maintain some wiggle room for DMs to make sneaking scary without making it feel totally useless for players to attempt. I think it works okay, but I've definitely experienced player frustration at the lack of specificity. I think the upcoming edition would do well to change those rules, but not too dramatically. Regardless, though, newbies have a tendency to expect the stealth rules to work a certain way, and it seems to always be the same way.
I think you're projecting about the item interaction stuff. It's been my experience that new players assume they can freely swap between any items, and don't even consider that it might cost actions. It doesn't cross their minds.
I think they need to give more guidance on when to do checks. Unless your character is really buffed compared to their level, you stand a fair chance of failing each time. In my experience, some DMs do checks (stealth, persuasion) etc at every single potential point of failure...and it results in nerfing skill checks to oblivion. If you have an 80% chance of succeeding, that's reasonable, but when you're performing half a dozen checks just to do something...you're most likely going to fail. I had one that, looking back, didn't really want us to be doing what we planned, so kept springing checks on us in the hopes we'd fail. Miraculously, he rolled low and we rolled high every time (he insisted on open rolls for the DM) and it ended up being hilarious - even he admitted what happened was better than his alternative - but it was annoying rolling all the time when there wasn't really a prompt. They could do with giving more explicit guidance on how frequent so new DMs can get a feel for how often they should run checks. Another DM kept having us do Dex checks everytime we went up or down a little mound...it was funny the first few times.
Semi tangent in that it was about new DMs rather than new players.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I find this theory to be a very helpful way to frame things
(still a bit confused and frustrated about how nebulous the rules of stealth seem)
Likely, I started out not knowing that there was any limitation on interactions with objects, how many things you could hold in your hands or do with your hands, at one time and then I course corrected by doing a 180 on how I deal with that issue, I suppose until I really figure out the mechanics.
The rule is basically: you get one freebie. Almost everyone seems to agree that dropping something doesn't count as your freebie*, so you can drop one thing and use your freebie to grab another thing. Shields and Bags of Holding require your entire action, because it says so in their descriptions. Dual Wielder and Thrown Weapon Fighting also override this in specific cases. Ammunition doesn't take up your freebie, if you're using it in the normal way, but it probably does if you're trying to do something else with it.
Ex: A cleric with a shield and a weapon must first drop his weapon, then produce his diamond dust using his freebie, then he can cast Revivify. Then, since he already used his freebie and his action, he can't pick up his weapon until his next turn, so he's disarmed.
*This isn't directly supported in the rules, but it's also not directly contradicted. There are some rules that suggest it's the intended ruling (the Heat Metal spell), and I don't believe I've seen any rules that suggest the opposite. And it's pretty reasonable in my opinion. It's just not technically RAW, as I understand it.
I recognize that without citations this isn't especially authoritative. But I'm not gonna go and find those citations, so, do with this what you will, lol.
I think you're saying that these are good things and I agree. I try to make choices for my characters based on their personalities over what is the most powerful or does the most damage. Yes there is a higher risk of dying, but D&D is ultimately a role playing game. If the goal is just to be the most powerful and "level up" you might as well be playing a video game.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
I haven't been playing that long, but I can point out some of the differences between the character I played in my first completed campaign, and my charactee in the second, ongoing campaign.
My first character was more self-insert fantasy. I picked out a character who was mostly the kind of person I'd like to be. For my second character, it was more about the story I wanted to tell, and the character has more flaws and challenges. I also collaborated more with the DM on the character, to support the story he's trying to tell.
I also powergamed my character a little more. For my first character, I was only going off theory based on a read of the basic rules. I ended up creating a character that didn't synergize very well: a warforged druid with high AC, but who didn't want to take attacks because a lot of druid spells are concentration. I picked the race and class for narrative reasons. For my second character, I play a half-elf paladin. I've synergized the half-elf's racial bonus with the most critical stat for a paladin. I am again the tank with concentration spells, but this time I took warcaster.