DMs and players - who's character is it anyway?

[Thurbane]

Originally posted in another thread, but I think it's better in a new thread...

I've got a similar issue with my current DM.

We're in a heavily houserules game, that incorporates elements of 1E and 3.5, and isn't easily recognizable as either.

Anyway, that issue aside, we're 3 weeks in, which has been dominated by a mass battle with some marauders. The players (all six of us), are running 3 characters each (yes, you heard that right) at the DMs insistance. As you can imagine, this makes RPing the characters a bit challenging.

Anyhow, I know from previous experience with this DM (we've been good friends for 25+ years, and started playing 1E together), he's very big on "Your character wouldn't do/say that!". Now, he hasn't DMd in quite some years, so I thought maybe he'd mellowed on that. He has not.

The first one popped up the other week, when a player announced that his character, a son of the local noble, aired a (slight) disagreement with the local military commander about tactics during the mass battle. "Your character wouldn't say that, he'd agree with the commander!".

Now, the player in question was initially taken aback, but was OK with the DMs call. I, on ther hand, let out a long groan, knowing that this would only be the first of many.

How do I convince this guy (VERY set in his ways) that players really should be allowed to control their own characters, even when it runs against the DMs imagined persona for the character? As I said, we've been friends a long time, and aside from this issue in the past, his games have been quite fun.

Note: dropping out of the group isn't an option, as it's with very good friends, and "the only game in town" so to speak.

HELP!!!

[Silus]

Personally, I'd pull him aside (Optional of course) and tell him that they are your characters and he needs to let you play them your way. If it's something big, like a Paladin killing innocents or something, then sure. But if the dialogue is "wrong", then he just needs to butt out and let you resolve it your way.

I suppose just tell him, but be polite about it.

[Doc Roc]

Sit down over a pot roast with him and just discuss it. Maybe get him to relax his restrictions on character behavior for a couple sessions, just in the name of speed-of-play?

[Amnestic]

Ask him if he's ever said, done, or thought anything he considers "out of character" for his own self (not out of character as a character, out of character as a person, if that's clear).

If he's human and honest, he'll say yes. It becomes a balancing act. A Lawful Good Paladin isn't going to go an a sudden, unexpected murder spree for no reason other than there was no ketchup with his fish'n'chips, but equally a character changes and develops over time, and sometimes they decide to go against their pre-established ideals. It's only human(/elven/gnomish/orcish/dwarven/you get the picture).

S'my idea anyway. Don't make him just look at characters, make him look at himself and other people.

[Crossblade]

Silus has the right idea. Take him aside and talk to him politely about it. Ask him if he'd like it to happen to him.

If he doesn't stop, gather the players together and get their opinion of it. If you're all opposed to the DM railroading your characters' PERSONALITIES, you may have to group up on him and butt heads. Possibly even all agree as a group to tell the DM "No, my character WOULD do that." And ignore him if he ignores you continuing to act as your character would.

[LansXero]

Perhaps sitting down a bit and fleshing out the persona of each character (while time-consuming) would alleviate these sort of issues? As in, the DM tells the player more or less what he imagines the character to be, and then the player takes it or changes this or that and then its settled, this guy is so and so and his motivations and priorities are so and so. From then on, both stick to that as close as possible (out-of-character reactions would be limited, sort of like irl, to out-of-the-ordinary situations).

[Xefas]

Try getting him to DM a game by D. Vincent Baker (I'd suggest more of: In a Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World; and less of Poison'd or KPFS). Baker professes to have been a terrible DM in a lot of ways, including what you're talking about, and built his systems to correct that sort of thing and be totally awesome even with a flawed DM. They're all amazing in their own right, and I highly encourage you try one.

[Privateer]

Not advice, can't think of any, but... wow. My condolences.

I'd be seriously pissed off as a player if this happened to me. Maybe your group plays differently, but often when I'm at the table, I AM my character. Literally. I sometimes say and do things to other characters that I'd never say or do to my friends who play them. How can anyone be telling me that I wouldn't do something. They know better than I do what I would and wouldn't do? Absurd.

[TurtleKing]

I am so glad that I that as not happened to me. That is one of my few buttons that should not be pushed. If done so you risk IRL peril of being NUKED:smallfurious:. (By NUKED I mean a frothing at the mouth rage that can only be sated by the causes demise.)

My condolences.

[Thurbane]

The DM in question is also a strong proponent of Alignment dictates behavior, not behavior dictates Alignment. For this very reason, my main character (of 3) that I want to develop is CN. Normally, I dislike playing anarchic types, but I feel it's the only way I'll get true freedom to run my character.

...don't get me wrong, aside from a few sticking points, this guy is a good DM. He puts an amazing amount of work into his setting and adventures. However, I feel this might be part of the problem. He gets so obsessed with an adventure playing out the way he envisioned, he sometimes resorts to some heavy handed railroading.

But even this doesn't bother me in the way the dreaded "Your character wouldn't do that! Do something else instead!" does. :smallfrown:

[MammonAzrael]

Echoing the advice of others, just talk with him. Sit him down, probably just the two of you, possibly other friends that you have gamed with for a long time that also have noticed this issue.

Explain clearly what you find aggravating and why. How, by and large, you know how your characters will act more than he does as the are your creations. Is he any good at improvisation, dealing with unexpected solutions or ideas from his players? If not, this behavior may stem from that natural railroading.

Really, he is your friend, and I can't think of any mature way to handle this except sitting down and speaking with him about it. But with no blame or grievance, just discussing something that needs to be addressed for the enjoyment of everyone.

And sooner is much better than later.

Ninja-edit: As I guessed, railroading is probably part of this tendency. I doubt you'll be able to change his views on alignment/behavior, but you may get him to realize that players can enjoy having more free reign, and having actions of their characters takes away some of that fun, as it feels like the characters in question are now the DM's characters.

Also, if he does say this again, stop for a moment and look at him. Then ask him "Why?" Why wouldn't my character, the character I designed and created, do what I just said he did? Please explain your reasoning and I will be happy to amend my actions, or explain my reasoning for my character acting in the way I set forth."

[Oracle_Hunter]

The DM in question is also a strong proponent of Alignment dictates behavior, not behavior dictates Alignment. For this very reason, my main character (of 3) that I want to develop is CN. Normally, I dislike playing anarchic types, but I feel it's the only way I'll get true freedom to run my character.

...don't get me wrong, aside from a few sticking points, this guy is a good DM. He puts an amazing amount of work into his setting and adventures. However, I feel this might be part of the problem. He gets so obsessed with an adventure playing out the way he envisioned, he sometimes resorts to some heavy handed railroading.

But even this doesn't bother me in the way the dreaded "Your character wouldn't do that! Do something else instead!" does. :smallfrown:
Have you talked to him about it yet? What did he say?

Saying "your character wouldn't do that" is (IMHO) one of the Cardinal Sins of DMing. It's right up there with But Thou Must (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust) campaign design. Additionally, this behavior is orthogonal to beliefs about Alignment - that's simply the justification being used to exert this kind of control.

You must talk with him if this bothers you. Ideally with the other Players to back you, but alone if you're a very good friend of the DM. On the other hand, if you can live with this sort of behavior then don't rock the boat.

Also: I'll second trying a short campaign of Dogs in the Vineyard. Seems like good medicine, particularly if this DM has never run anything aside from D&D.

[Britter]

These people recomending some Dogs in the Vineyard or other Vincent Baker games?

They speak with great wisdom.

Even just reading the section on GMing in Apocalypse World might help. There is really good info there.

[valadil]

"Your character wouldn't do/say that!"

Honestly, this kind of thing can be correctly with some different phrasing. The GM just has to frame it as a question. "Why would your character say that?" is a million times better. Either way you're making the player justify a character's actions because there's a disparity between your idea of the character and the player's idea of the character. But phrasing it as a question removes the assertion that the GM knows the character better than the player.

I also think there are some cases where this sort of thing can be the player's fault. Loosely defined characters who have no personality beyond their stats and alignment are prone to acting weirdly because they're chaotic or burning orphanages because they're evil. In either case, asking the player why they're taking a certain action will get an answer like "because I'm chaotic evil." I think it's okay for the GM to explain what chaotic evil actually means. If the player gives an answer like "because I'm playing a sociopath with a fire fetish," then you should probably let them carry on.

For what it's worth, the worst gaming experiences I've ever had weren't caused by GM fiat, fudging, or even DMPCs. They were all caused by GMs who didn't understand a character and ran with their own interpretation instead of the player's.

[Tyndmyr]

The "your character wouldn't do that" is an egregious form of railroading.

It is your character. You designed him, you know what he does. If the DM feels the actions from what he does do not match his alignment, the DM is justified in eventually changing his alignment to match his actions. The DM is also justified in pointing out actions that appear to be impossible for the character to know, including metagaming such as "well, he's already drawn the map, so it must be a combat area. I shoot first". Questioning such behavior is legitimate, but is not an issue of characterization.

The DM designs the rest of the frigging world. If there is a character archtype that does not work in his world, the players probably do not know this in advance. It is his responsibility to tell them. "No evil characters" or "no monks" is fine in advance. It's not nearly as fine when it means your character is invalidated either mechanically or motivationally halfway through the campaign.

[Telonius]

My 2cp...

Ask the DM that, the next time he's tempted to say "No, your character wouldn't do that," he should instead say, "Please roll a Wisdom check." The DC is 2 or 3 or something else suitably low. After the player makes the check, the DM explains the rationale of why he thinks the character wouldn't do that in context. For example, "Ralphgar realizes that the captain of the town guard is his direct commander, and that as a Paladin he's expected to obey the chain of command in a matter so trifling. Also the captain has a known history of having a bad temper when it comes to insubordination." The player then has the option of changing what he was about to say. (Of course if he rolls a 1, the comment stands as-is). Usually they take the hint.

This will do a few things. Number one, it will force the DM to justify why he thinks that the PC isn't acting in-character. He won't come down as seeming like a heavy-handed ogre. Number two, the player rolled a die. People are already conditioned to believe that any die roll will have an actual impact on the game; they're more likely to accept that the thought pops into a character's head after a roll, than they would if the DM just told them about it. Number three, it keeps the player in the driver's seat. He still has ultimate control over what the character does. And number four, it gets the DM used to the idea that sometimes (on those natural 1's, or if the player chooses to disregard the warnings) characters will act in a way that he hadn't been expecting.

[Bobikus]

Had a DM that wanted to do a more subtle version of this. He tried to rewrite everyone's backstories himself to better fit a "destined heroes" setup.

[random11]

I guess it depends on what your character is trying to say and in what way is it "out of character".

For example, I was a DM once, and a player created a stereotypical troll character with brains as a dump stat, no social skills and a lot of anger issues.
However, during his game he actually played a character with many good plans and ideas, trying to think ahead of his enemies and being polite and sociable when he felt threatened.
This was annoying because it was obvious that he tried to play on the character's physical attributes and the player's social and mind attributes.
So yes, I did tell him several times that it was unlikely that his troll would come up with his ideas.

If this is not the case with your DM, when he tells you that your character wouldn't react like that, simply ask him why.
He might shows you some contradictions between your original back story or stats, or maybe he will be convinced that you are right.

Also, playing three characters might come as an advantage here.
One time I played four characters (temporarily took two from someone who left). Whenever I said something, it was automatically assumed that the "right" character is the one that said it.

[valadil]

This was annoying because it was obvious that he tried to play on the character's physical attributes and the player's social and mind attributes.
So yes, I did tell him several times that it was unlikely that his troll would come up with his ideas.


I've never come up with a good answer to this problem. The best (and I use the term loosely) I've been able to do is if the player fails an int check, you claim that another character was the one who solved the problem. Incidentally this also helps solve the problem of high int characters being handicapped by their above average intelligence players.

[Britter]

I've never come up with a good answer to this problem. The best (and I use the term loosely) I've been able to do is if the player fails an int check, you claim that another character was the one who solved the problem. Incidentally this also helps solve the problem of high int characters being handicapped by their above average intelligence players.

Respectfully, the good answer is to play a system that doesn't have dnd's awkward and open-to-interpretation mental stats. Every edition of DnD (and Shadow Run as well) I have played suffers from this issue, and while it can crop up in other systems no matter what they use as stats, I have found it to be much less prominent in Seventh Sea or Burning Wheel.

[The Big Dice]

Have you talked to him about it yet? What did he say?

Saying "your character wouldn't do that" is (IMHO) one of the Cardinal Sins of DMing. It's right up there with But Thou Must (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust) campaign design. Additionally, this behavior is orthogonal to beliefs about Alignment - that's simply the justification being used to exert this kind of control.

You must talk with him if this bothers you. Ideally with the other Players to back you, but alone if you're a very good friend of the DM. On the other hand, if you can live with this sort of behavior then don't rock the boat.
This, other than the link to the site that reduces everything to a pithy catchphrase.

There's really never any reason to tell a player what there character did, other than if that character is mind controlled by an NPC. And even then, it's not always cool. But, there is always an opportunity to use a player disagreeing with an NPC to create drama.

That is, a tense situation with a heightened sense of urgency in game, rather than a drama in the metagame that is the gaming table.

As lots of other people have said, talk to the guy. My take is, the cardinal rule for a GM is, "Would i like it if I was treated like this at the gaming table?" It's a simple guideline, but i've found it a good thing to live by. But it only really works if people bring their issues to you in a way that's not confrontational.


Also: I'll second trying a short campaign of Dogs in the Vineyard. Seems like good medicine, particularly if this DM has never run anything aside from D&D.
I'm going to say, stay the heck away from anything written with the intent of showing off the Narrativist aspect of GNS theory.

But, definitely try playing something other than D&D. Sometimes a change is as good as a rest, and a new system puts everyone on the learning curve together. It's usually more fun learning a system as a group than as an individual.

[Jayabalard]

Remain calm; say something along the lines of: "No, you're incorrect; this is indeed what my character would do in this situation. I invented him and know him a lot better than you do, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to controlling the characters that you've written. If you have a problem with how I'm playing, talk to me about it after the game."

[valadil]

Respectfully, the good answer is to play a system that doesn't have dnd's awkward and open-to-interpretation mental stats. Every edition of DnD (and Shadow Run as well) I have played suffers from this issue, and while it can crop up in other systems no matter what they use as stats, I have found it to be much less prominent in Seventh Sea or Burning Wheel.

TBH it never occurred to me that another system would handle this differently. Just about every game I've played has had some degree of smarts stats that can be trumped by a player's own intellect. Just another excuse to check out Burning Wheel.

[BRC]

The way I see it, it comes down to justification.
In my opinion the DM cannot outright block any action by saying it's "Out of character", however they can Challenge a decision, and block it if the player cannot explain why such a decision would be in-character for them. It's important to remember that any reasonable explanation for the character's decision must be accepted by the DM. Basically, if the Player has an explanation that is more believable than "Just Because" or "He temporarily had a complete change in personality due to some bad fish", the DM should accept it and move on. The purpose here is more to get the Players thinking about their characters than to change the decisions being made.

It's also important to remember character development. The character described when the Player first hands in their sheet for the DM to review may be very different from the same Character six levels later.

[Britter]

TBH it never occurred to me that another system would handle this differently. Just about every game I've played has had some degree of smarts stats that can be trumped by a player's own intellect. Just another excuse to check out Burning Wheel.

Yeah, it wasn't until I branched out away from DnD and Shadowrun that I realized that these things are handled very differently elsewhere.

Thats why I am recomending checking out other systems to deal with the problem presented in the OP. In my opinion, DnD does precious little to teach you how to actually run games (hence the prevalence of railroading, DMPCs, and unsubtle DM -fiat), but there are many systems out there that do (quite specifically in some cases. Apocolypse World has a very specific set of GM guidelines, for instance), and they should be mined for ideas to use in improving play and preventing the sort of heavy-handed railroading illustrated in the OP.

[prufock]

DM: Your character wouldn't do/say that.
You: Would. Could. Did.

Unless you are metagaming, or mentally dominated, or your stats say that you can't, your character should be in YOUR control. A DM who won't allow your character to take certain actions because he doesn't agree with it is bad.

There should be in-game consequences for your actions, but you should not be prevented from taking those actions just because the DM is a control freak.

[Severus]

If he's a really good friend, I'd just be honest and say "it diminishes my fun when you tell me and others 'our characters wouldn't do/say that'. If you think there is something we don't know, then tell us that and let us control our own characters. Otherwise, why don't you play them? In this case, you could have said, 'Your character knows that this commander knows his stuff on battle tactics and you'd be likely to trust his judgement.' Then maybe the character can decide he's right after all without dictating what the PCs do."

I think talking about how you as a player experience it is a better tact with a friend than suggesting he should knock it off.

Good Luck. (/wave to another original 1.0 player)

[Thurbane]

OK guys, here's what I'm thinking. Our next session is Monday...I'm going to sit on my concerns until it happens again. If (when) it does happen again, instead of approaching the DM one on one, I'm going to ask the other players what they think first, as I know at least one other isn't too happy about it. Then I'll decide whether we approach the DM as a group, or as individuals.