For me, when it comes to nearly any setting, when GM allows players to play as characters that are over 1000 years old. Hell, even over 500.
Be they elves, vampires or just about anything with free will, people just always seem to pick a random 4 digit number as their age yet often times dont mirror the implication of having lived for so long. Most often they act like people in their 40's at most, worst of all as they were just out of their teens. People also look like they are just out of their teens.
The absolute worst case is when there isa race that lives for thousanda of years or even just essentially immortal. A whole species that number in the thousands or most likely more that live with beings that barely live a century. People who shouldhave seen nations rise and fall.
I dunno. I agree that it's uber annoying that when given the option, a lot of people just pick a really old character that acts like a teenager. However I've seen it done right plenty of times. Additionally, just because the age is in the 4 digits doesn't equate to a mature character, either, particularly depending on species. Some species might not reach maturity until about 2000, for example, and thus a character aged 1500 might be around adolescence and therefore maturity and behavior doesn't depend on age. I have a character that's a few thousand years old and is the mental equivalent of a 25 year old, perhaps, as they spent most of their immortal life wandering around and exploring the world, with a very childlike mentality. I personally think it's rather unrealistic for every 1000+ year old to be wise and old.
But I do see where you're coming from, particularly when people think age = power. It's so annoying when you get a player that wants a 12 thousand year old super mortal-god. Ugh.
I dislike it when players try to create OP characters. I can get wanting to have a character that's powerful in their own right, and I have this issue myself, but what I take issue in is having your character being uncharacteristically powerful, or special in some way. I'm that person that gets somewhat annoyed with protagonists being 'special'. Yes, sometimes it's necessary for the plot, but say: A character raised in being a ninja since they were born, could use twin blades at age 5 and killed their first man at 3 years of age in a roleplay where nobody else learned to fight/killed a man/whatever until they were 16-20. Or a character that was magically gifted with the power to control other people while everyone else is still learning how to use magic.
When players make the entire plot, or design a ton of sub plots, based around their character. Applies to GMs, too. It's not all about your character. In that case, it's called a book and not a roleplay.
When people insist that there be absolutely no fluff in roleplays. I believe fluff allows for fun in the roleplay, character development, and a break. If everything has to enhance the plot, it feels rushed. It's like condensing the Harry Potter books into 2 books, max. Skipping the Yule Ball, all the traveling in the 7th book, the Ginny and Cho romances, the third book entirely (except "Oh my god, Ron's rat isn't a rat!), all the scenes where Harry is with his uncle and aunt, blahblahblah. The books wouldn't be the same if it was just a series of events and then the end. I hate it even more when GMs insist on having no fluff, and fail to include all the players into the roleplay equally. They just drag them in and then say, "Forward the plot!" and get pissed when you can't figure it out because 2-3 characters are sopping up all the glory.
Asking for 2+ paragraphs minimum and getting 2 sentences.
