PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying "Your character wouldn't do that!"



Silus
2014-02-20, 07:37 AM
So in my Sunday game we're running through the Rise of the Rune Lords Adventure Path for Pathfinder. Just finished the first book and the DM has informed us that the first bit of the next book is very RP heavy.

Now, my character is straight Neutral (A Druid with a Plague Doctor motif) and generally the most flexible in terms of alignment, willing to do things that the other characters won't do (such as harsh interrogation, executions, etc) while counterbalancing them with good acts, like free medical care for whatever settlement we're in.

Anyway, my fear is that, should I do something....questionable (Like harsh interrogation or execution), one of the other players will launch off with a "Your character wouldn't do that, you're Neutral!" or something similar.

So what I'm asking is, how do you handle other players telling you how to play your character? How do you handle the DM telling you how to play your character?

Yora
2014-02-20, 07:38 AM
The only thing you can say is "It's my character, I know what he would do". There really isn't anything to discuss.

geeky_monkey
2014-02-20, 07:40 AM
You politely point out that unless they are using some sort of mind-control power there's only one person who controls your character and it isn't them.

If they continue insisting that you are playing your character wrong then pass your character sheet to them, explain there's no reason for you to be there any more and leave the table.

Rhynn
2014-02-20, 07:49 AM
The only thing you can say is "It's my character, I know what he would do". There really isn't anything to discuss.

I prefer "STFU", but it amounts to the same thing.

qwertyu63
2014-02-20, 07:51 AM
I prefer "STFU", but it amounts to the same thing.

This guy knows what he's talking about.

Morty
2014-02-20, 07:54 AM
The only thing you can say is "It's my character, I know what he would do". There really isn't anything to discuss.


I prefer "STFU", but it amounts to the same thing.

I'll echo that.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-20, 08:02 AM
"Your character wouldn't do that" is a complaint that's valid only in three situations:
1. The action is impossible for your character or doesn't make sense IC. For example - a character has a geas on them that makes it impossible to lie, but lies anyway. A character decides to use OOC knowledge to build a nuclear fusion reactor, even though nuclear fusion is not discovered in the setting.
2. You're playing an established character with established personality and behaviours. This doesn't happen a lot in RPGs, but does happen in other forms of RP quite a lot. If you're playing an established character, it's important to stay IC.
3. You've been playing for a while, and the other players know how your character speaks, thinks and acts - and suddenly, you do something that's massively OOC for your character and contradicts their previous behaviour. This can be done for good reasons, but if your only reason is "I just felt like it", then it's inconsistent character portrayal, and while some level of inconsistency is natural (people aren't always consistent in real life), massive inconsistency is bad RP.

OP's situation doesn't fall under any of those points, though, so yeah.

prufock
2014-02-20, 08:08 AM
Anyway, my fear is that, should I do something....questionable (Like harsh interrogation or execution), one of the other players will launch off with a "Your character wouldn't do that, you're Neutral!" or something similar.

So what I'm asking is, how do you handle other players telling you how to play your character? How do you handle the DM telling you how to play your character?

"My character does whatever I say he does, end of discussion."

If that doesn't satisfy, I find a nice smile and a polite "Eff off" gets the point across.

Jay R
2014-02-20, 10:26 AM
"Your character sees my character do this action. Evidently, you are running your character as if he is surprised at seeing this. Fine - that's your choice. You may now run your character as if he doesn't believe what he sees, or you may run your character as if he learns from experience."

The Oni
2014-02-20, 11:04 AM
You politely point out that unless they are using some sort of mind-control power there's only one person who controls your character and it isn't them.

If they continue insisting that you are playing your character wrong then pass your character sheet to them, explain there's no reason for you to be there any more and leave the table.

^ This exactly, because if this doesn't illustrate your point fully, nothing will, so you ought to leave anyway.

Execution probably wouldn't be out of line for a Plague Doctor, in any case. In an appropriately grim setting, such a doctor would know when a subject is beyond help.

Forrestfire
2014-02-20, 11:51 AM
My opinion has been said several times already, so I'll just mention that if someone argues this:


"Your character wouldn't do that, you're Neutral!"

You should point out that alignment is not something that decides your actions. Your actions are something that decides your alignment. It's a subtle, but important difference that might be lost on someone.

Alberic Strein
2014-02-20, 12:21 PM
You can add that the alignment system is a guideline, and not an iron set rule.

If you want your uber grim assassin who goes by the name "Darth Darkon Dark Lord of the Hellfire... From the Dark Planes" to go save a kid, because you can, then by any mean, you're entitled to it. Even if your character sheet has "evil" clearly written has alignment.

Your character. You do what you want to do.

HOWEVER, there are a few moments when the DM has all authority to force actions on your character.

1 Obviously, when not forcing such action deliberately screws you over, and makes absolutely no sense. For example, when a fight starts and your character is not surprised, your DM will, or at least should, automatically draw your character's weapons. When your turn comes, there is no reason whatsoever for him to go "hey, you didn't say you drew your weapon". Of course, it's a very, very minor case, but hey, it's still the GM saying "Going empty-handed against a warrior while you have absolutely no reason not to draw your blade? Your character wouldn't do that. You have your sword in your hand."

2 Much, MUCH more importantly, the GM is empowered to claim "your character wouldn't do that" when he needs to enforce a behaviour so as to not break the "player pact". As such, as a GM, I warn in advance that petty and jerkish behaviour against other players for no reason whatsoever is forbidden. I decide one single part of my players' characters, and it's that they uphold some camaraderie towards one another. So, when PC1 tells me he robs PC2 for the kicks of it and for no reason, then my response is "Your character wouldn't do that."

If it means the player hands me his character sheet and threatens to leave, then I take his character sheet and wish her/him good night.

I don't mind some playful bickering, but when the threats and the assassination attemps break out, my answer is no. Not while I GM this game.

Did I warn you that I was a pretty bad GM? :smallbiggrin:

Ailowynn
2014-02-20, 02:17 PM
You should point out that alignment is not something that decides your actions. Your actions are something that decides your alignment. It's a subtle, but important difference that might be lost on someone.
This.

It might also do to point out your take one Neutral with this character, which seems to be less of "I don't make any alignment-influencing decisions" and more "I view all alignments equally and act as necessary, but keep the balance within the spectrum."

BWR
2014-02-20, 03:00 PM
Flat-out stating the PC will or will not do something without there being some sort of external control (domination effects, etc.) is bad GMing.
It is perfectly acceptable to point out that the PC is unlikely to do something, e.g. "you know that Lawful Good people won't do that, right?"
or "that's very taboo in your culture and will give you a terrible reputation if anyone finds out, not to mention getting all the gods to hate you".

hamlet
2014-02-20, 04:01 PM
"Your character wouldn't do that" is a complaint that's valid only in three situations:
1. The action is impossible for your character or doesn't make sense IC. For example - a character has a geas on them that makes it impossible to lie, but lies anyway. A character decides to use OOC knowledge to build a nuclear fusion reactor, even though nuclear fusion is not discovered in the setting.
2. You're playing an established character with established personality and behaviours. This doesn't happen a lot in RPGs, but does happen in other forms of RP quite a lot. If you're playing an established character, it's important to stay IC.
3. You've been playing for a while, and the other players know how your character speaks, thinks and acts - and suddenly, you do something that's massively OOC for your character and contradicts their previous behaviour. This can be done for good reasons, but if your only reason is "I just felt like it", then it's inconsistent character portrayal, and while some level of inconsistency is natural (people aren't always consistent in real life), massive inconsistency is bad RP.

OP's situation doesn't fall under any of those points, though, so yeah.

I would add "4. You're playing in a world where you the player may not know enough about the situation to react as a character from that world would, thus even if you might do it, somebody raised in that culture would not." I.e., there's a massive cultural taboo against raising the dead, so a PC wouldn't immediately raise the dead to defend a small town and expect to get a positive reaction about it.

Admiral Squish
2014-02-20, 04:28 PM
I would say the argument that 'that's not what your character would do because of X alignment' is silly. Alignment's not static. A character who does something uncharacteristic of their alignment shouldn't be rebuffed by invisible walls of alignment-prescribed behavior, their alignment should change over time.

NichG
2014-02-20, 04:37 PM
"Your character wouldn't do that!"

"Well, my character just did. If the DM wishes to assess a change to my alignment, he's free to do so."

Mr Beer
2014-02-20, 04:44 PM
I would say the argument that 'that's not what your character would do because of X alignment' is silly. Alignment's not static. A character who does something uncharacteristic of their alignment shouldn't be rebuffed by invisible walls of alignment-prescribed behavior, their alignment should change over time.

Exactly that.

If someone wants their heroic Paladin to suddenly murder an orphanage chock full of doe-eyed waifs, Darth Vader style, that's fine. The DM should warn them that there will be consequences, assuming they are new to the game, but the player should be allowed to do it.

Otherwise I would save "your character wouldn't do that!" for the following type of actions as mentioned above by other posters:

1. Actions they can't possibly undertake because they couldn't have that knowledge in game e.g. build a machine gun in a Forgotten Realms setting.

2. Actions they can't do it because they are under mental compulsion e.g. attack the mind flayer that has them dominated.

3. Actions they can't physically achieve e.g. no you can't fly because you don't have that ability.

4. Actions that require DM fiat e.g. "now I cut the throats of the rest of the party while they are sleeping" or "now I do some rape, here are the details". These are DM dependant, I might not prevent the former, I would certainly prevent the latter (at least the details, possibly the action depending). But yeah every DM has limits of what they're prepared to tolerate in game.

I guess as well some of this stuff is not so much "your character wouldn't do that!" as "Ha ha ha! But no way, not at my table."

Socksy
2014-02-20, 05:10 PM
How about "No, your Paladin wouldn't do [evil or strongly chaotic act] without a really good reason, which I'm not seeing here."

Or, "Would your bard really hand over his Sopranino/Kazoo/other tiny, easily concealable instrument to the city guards when asked if he has one, just because musical instruments cannot be enjoyed by anyone but Dictator Whomever?"

Janus
2014-02-20, 05:16 PM
I've had "Your character wouldn't do that!" come to my mind once as a DM, when the druid PC was about to attack a bunch of innocent prisoners. I called time out to make sure that the player understood what exactly was happening Turned out he had misinterpreted the way I was describing the scene, and took his action back. Had he still gone ahead with the spellcasting, I'd have let him do it and suffer the consequences.

Granted, I could have just been a jerk and said, "Lulz, your druid just blasted a bunch of innocent, starving prisoners with a plague of locusts! Your goddess is gonna be pissed, man!"

zionpopsickle
2014-02-20, 05:19 PM
How about "No, your Paladin wouldn't do [evil or strongly chaotic act] without a really good reason, which I'm not seeing here."

Or, "Would your bard really hand over his Sopranino/Kazoo/other tiny, easily concealable instrument to the city guards when asked if he has one, just because musical instruments cannot be enjoyed by anyone but Dictator Whomever?"

I think there is a major difference between asking someone whether their character would do something or not and trying to reason through the situation and telling the player that their character wouldn't do something.

The first can be an important part of good RPing on the part of the group as everyone attempts to get better insight into a players character. The second is unacceptable outside of a few cases that have already been pointed out in this thread.

Mr Beer
2014-02-20, 06:44 PM
How about "No, your Paladin wouldn't do [evil or strongly chaotic act] without a really good reason, which I'm not seeing here."

Or, "Would your bard really hand over his Sopranino/Kazoo/other tiny, easily concealable instrument to the city guards when asked if he has one, just because musical instruments cannot be enjoyed by anyone but Dictator Whomever?"

It's the player's decision to make those mistakes if they insist. I disagree with the DM saying that in the first example, second one is the DM being nice and warning the player.

GrayGriffin
2014-02-20, 06:51 PM
For the record, in times when I've had my character do potentially suicidal actions, I've mentioned that she's going to do so OOC. Then again, she's already gotten a generally established personality as being the hot-blooded one, so it's not that surprising.

Mr Beer
2014-02-20, 08:46 PM
I've had "Your character wouldn't do that!" come to my mind once as a DM, when the druid PC was about to attack a bunch of innocent prisoners. I called time out to make sure that the player understood what exactly was happening.

This is good DM-ing.

"Hell no homeslice, your guy wouldn't do that!"...not so good.

TuggyNE
2014-02-20, 11:05 PM
It's bad enough for a DM to try to overrule a character decision in this way. It's completely unacceptable for another player to do so.

A quick "that means X! are you sure that's what So-and-so would be doing?" is the most warranted, and usually even that's excessive.

Prince Raven
2014-02-21, 03:43 AM
If anyone said that to me I'd politely ask them to stop backseat GMing.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-21, 05:05 AM
I would add "4. You're playing in a world where you the player may not know enough about the situation to react as a character from that world would, thus even if you might do it, somebody raised in that culture would not." I.e., there's a massive cultural taboo against raising the dead, so a PC wouldn't immediately raise the dead to defend a small town and expect to get a positive reaction about it.

That's a part of what I meant by the first point, yeah. Just more specifically phrased.


How about "No, your Paladin wouldn't do [evil or strongly chaotic act] without a really good reason, which I'm not seeing here."

Or, "Would your bard really hand over his Sopranino/Kazoo/other tiny, easily concealable instrument to the city guards when asked if he has one, just because musical instruments cannot be enjoyed by anyone but Dictator Whomever?"

I'd say the proper thing a DM should say here is "are you sure you want to do that?", and then if the players insist? Let them.

Prince Raven
2014-02-21, 08:44 AM
I find the best way to discourage your players from acting out of character is to ensure that all of their actions have consequences. Then when they complain about how the Inquisitor has sent an assassin to kill them, you point out that maybe servants of the Inquisition shouldn't have torched an orphanage "for the lulz".

Knaight
2014-02-21, 02:07 PM
Otherwise I would save "your character wouldn't do that!" for the following type of actions as mentioned above by other posters:

1. Actions they can't possibly undertake because they couldn't have that knowledge in game e.g. build a machine gun in a Forgotten Realms setting.

2. Actions they can't do it because they are under mental compulsion e.g. attack the mind flayer that has them dominated.

3. Actions they can't physically achieve e.g. no you can't fly because you don't have that ability.

4. Actions that require DM fiat e.g. "now I cut the throats of the rest of the party while they are sleeping" or "now I do some rape, here are the details". These are DM dependant, I might not prevent the former, I would certainly prevent the latter (at least the details, possibly the action depending). But yeah every DM has limits of what they're prepared to tolerate in game.

I guess as well some of this stuff is not so much "your character wouldn't do that!" as "Ha ha ha! But no way, not at my table."
This list seems pretty sensible, though with option 1 I'd be tempted to have them start rolling nonexistent skills - particularly in a system like GURPS, where the skills are defined but nobody has them because they are banned due to tech level.


Or, "Would your bard really hand over his Sopranino/Kazoo/other tiny, easily concealable instrument to the city guards when asked if he has one, just because musical instruments cannot be enjoyed by anyone but Dictator Whomever?"
This is just clarification - it's a questionable decision, and those are often made because of a misunderstanding. I'd probably phrase it as "You do realize that there's basically no chance of anybody finding your harmonica?" (or, to use another example), "you do realize that the smuggler's hired muscle you're contemplating attacking are well armed professional mercenaries from a famous company and not a bunch of street toughs?". Granted, I fully expect the answer to the second one to be "Yes, I'm shooting them anyways", but it's worth clarifying.

mucat
2014-02-21, 03:29 PM
As others have said, if a player seems to want to do something that flies in the face of their character's nature, it's a good idea to make sure they understand the context of the scene, and the likely consequences of their actions. This can be done subtly, by adding in-game details to drive home the point, or in more serious cases, by stepping out-of-game for a moment and asking "You do understand that these elves are greeting you, not attacking you, right? And the Lieutenant ordered you to investigate them, not to start a fight."

If the player understands the situation and wants to do the crazy thing anyway, I would never tell them "Your character wouldn't do that." Evidence suggests that they would. Sometimes, though, I might say (as a GM or even as a player) "You're not doing that in this game."

If the agreement before the campaign began was "No PvP," then the player can't harm another PC, or abuse the agreement by doing things that ought reasonably to provoke a fight. If we said "No evil characters," then he can't write "CN" on your sheet and then act like a sociopath. And if his actions are just flat-out creepy or disturbing, then he can knock it off or leave.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-21, 03:30 PM
Your character couldn't do actions are impossible.

Your character shouldn't do actions that are very bad ideas that will get you all killed.

Your character might not do actions at odds with their alignment...but then again, they might.

Your character wouldn't do....I dunno. There's not really any restrictions on this one, because it has to do with your character's will. That's all up to you. (Even mind control doesn't affect this; it just means that your character can't take actions other than the mind-control actions, because it's impossible to do anything else until you shake it off.)

Understand the very real (but subtle) distinctions between these ideas.

Pocket lint
2014-02-21, 03:46 PM
Otherwise I would save "your character wouldn't do that!" for the following type of actions as mentioned above by other posters:

1. Actions they can't possibly undertake because they couldn't have that knowledge in game e.g. build a machine gun in a Forgotten Realms setting.

Ok, make a Knowledge (firearms) DC 40 roll... Yeah, I know that knowledge isn't available. So?


4. Actions that require DM fiat e.g. "now I cut the throats of the rest of the party while they are sleeping" or "now I do some rape, here are the details".

Not to derail too much, but I don't prevent even rape. It's just that the supposed victim always gets a free coup de grace. NPC, PC, I don't care. You try, you die.

Agrippa
2014-02-21, 04:21 PM
Would it be acceptable to limit PC action by saying the character "is too stupid to do that" or "too smart to do that?" Basically saying that a PC can't come up with a good idea or solve a particular problem because he has a low Intelligence score, making him as dumb as It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia's Charlie Kelly.

Mr Beer
2014-02-21, 04:31 PM
This list seems pretty sensible, though with option 1 I'd be tempted to have them start rolling nonexistent skills - particularly in a system like GURPS, where the skills are defined but nobody has them because they are banned due to tech level.

Sounds reasonable. I guess it's unfair to have critical failures if they have zero chance of success? Could be amusing in a sadistic way.

Mr Beer
2014-02-21, 04:33 PM
Ok, make a Knowledge (firearms) DC 40 roll... Yeah, I know that knowledge isn't available. So?

Of course, this is one way of saying "no" but in a reasonable way.


Not to derail too much, but I don't prevent even rape. It's just that the supposed victim always gets a free coup de grace. NPC, PC, I don't care. You try, you die.

Yeah, seems reasonable.

Mr Beer
2014-02-21, 04:34 PM
Would it be acceptable to limit PC action by saying the character "is too stupid to do that" or "too smart to do that?" Basically saying that a PC can't come up with a good idea or solve a particular problem because he has a low Intelligence score, making him as dumb as It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia's Charlie Kelly.

Short answer, no.

sktarq
2014-02-21, 04:55 PM
Would it be acceptable to limit PC action by saying the character "is too stupid to do that" or "too smart to do that?" Basically saying that a PC can't come up with a good idea or solve a particular problem because he has a low Intelligence score, making him as dumb as It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia's Charlie Kelly.

usually no but exceptions exist. I really hated it when one of my more experienced player told a newbie to the table that she wasn't player he character like an average level intelligence character (saying she was playing like a moron). I've made exceptions for players who are naturally very bright and know lots of stuff OOC who bring that information to bear IC when they are also using Int (or its equivalent) as a dump stat. . . I have also had characters make Int checks and if they pass explain to them the probable negative consequences of their action as their character is smart enough to figure out some action X would be a bad idea even if the player doesn't know better.

Knaight
2014-02-21, 05:11 PM
I really hated it when one of my more experienced player told a newbie to the table that she wasn't player he character like an average level intelligence character (saying she was playing like a moron).
This is where the Rhynn method of responding to character dictation comes in:

"STFU"
Except less polite.

sktarq
2014-02-21, 06:17 PM
This is where the Rhynn method of responding to character dictation comes in:

Except less polite.

As he was hosting the evening I was more polite but I did have words with him before the next session.

NichG
2014-02-21, 06:43 PM
Would it be acceptable to limit PC action by saying the character "is too stupid to do that" or "too smart to do that?" Basically saying that a PC can't come up with a good idea or solve a particular problem because he has a low Intelligence score, making him as dumb as It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia's Charlie Kelly.

No, not really. Aside from the fact that people are really terrible at judging what's reasonable for someone to come up with, this is just obnoxious when it happens in play, either from another player or from the DM. Anything that shuts someone out from participation and being able to engage in the game is generally a bad idea.

For this reason I generally prefer systems designed to give mechanical advantage to people for having certain stats/abilities, rather than systems designed to be 'descriptive' of the character. For example, if you have a high Int, you can ask for a hint every so often, but if you have a low Int that means you're on your own. The high Int character gets help in playing someone smarter than they are in real life, and the person who wants to think about the game and treat scenarios like puzzles isn't told 'no, you don't get to contribute to this scene - high Int characters only'.

Pocket lint
2014-02-21, 11:45 PM
I've experienced something along those lines playing Pendragon - my character was a knight with high values in Cruel, Lustful etc, basically following the George RR Martin playbook. We were trying to do some chivalric quest to do with setting an example, yadda yadda.

Anyway, one of the challenges were to do with facing a woman knight. Now, according to the chivalric code, striking a woman would be deeply dishonourable, while refusing to face her would be cowardly. My character, being of the not-so-shiny kind, would have taken the direct approach and just beaten the snot out of her, but obviously this wasn't the right solution. Cue much thinking, and I finally hinted to the others that maybe just facing three of her blows in combat while refusing to strike in return would be the right idea. Now, obviously a much too boring idea for my character, but it solved the problem. The others wisely opted not to have me perform the challenge.

Depending on your personality, nothing says you can't hint to your fellow party members what to do, even if you don't want to do it yourself.

Alberic Strein
2014-02-22, 04:56 AM
To generalize Pocket lint's examples, there is always one option for evil characters not wanting to rack up too many good actions while still helping their party find a non-violent solution.

Gloating.

Evil masterminds of doom get to do it, not only NPC Evil Masterminds of (Doomy Doom Doom) Doom.

The party doesn't know how to handle an hostage situation?
"Oh well, clearly we could take advantage of our surroundings, like that candlestick conviniently above the madman, or (insert overly complete description of ways to break the standoff) but hey, you know me, so if you have no objections, I'll just run them both through."

Hopefully, your party will object. If not, well, you still solved the situation.

And no GM EVER will argue that your evil character wouldn't gloat. None.

Of course, most GMs will advise their players not to gloat, and you will be expected to refrain on the gloating. But when you do gloat? Well, that's painfully IC.

The evil gloating that saves the day becoming an habit? Painfully, oh so painfully IC.

It can't be OOC if it's a staple of your character archetype :smallamused:

PersonMan
2014-02-22, 01:36 PM
Anything that shuts someone out from participation and being able to engage in the game is generally a bad idea.

This doesn't, though. I mean, unless you play at some hardcore "you say it OOC, you say it IC" table or anything similar, you can participate fine even if your character isn't doing anything. Do you not not discuss things like puzzles as a group, then present the result of your effort as one or two characters' idea IC? That's what my group does, and it seems perfectly logical that someone with an Intelligence higher than normal human maximum, coupled with someone else who is more wise, intuitive and aware of themself/their environment more than any human on this planet would solve a puzzle as well or better than 4 random people putting their heads together in a living room.

imaloony
2014-02-22, 04:02 PM
It's hard to really make those calls. On one hand, it's your character, and yes, you have utter control on what he or she would do.
On the other hand, sometimes people just have no concept of what specific races or classes are like.

We had one guy in our AD&D campaign who was playing a Wild Elf. He seemed to take that as "Well, I'm an uncivilized caveman who knows NOTHING about the civilized world" and constantly asked "What's that?" over stuff he should know, like common currency or Inns. We explained to him a dozen times that Wild Elves are more like Native Americans back in the 1600s-1700s; they lived very primitive lifestyles, but they're very aware of what the "Civilized" world is like. We pointed to Connor Kenway from Assassin's Creed III, who was amazed by what the Civilized world was like, but still knew what most of it WAS.
And yet, he still seemed adamant that he didn't know what common currency and crap like that was. Ultimately it WAS his decision that his character was pants-on-head-retarded, but it still didn't make any sense (His Wisdom and Intelligence weren't bad either...)

NichG
2014-02-22, 09:11 PM
This doesn't, though. I mean, unless you play at some hardcore "you say it OOC, you say it IC" table or anything similar, you can participate fine even if your character isn't doing anything. Do you not not discuss things like puzzles as a group, then present the result of your effort as one or two characters' idea IC? That's what my group does, and it seems perfectly logical that someone with an Intelligence higher than normal human maximum, coupled with someone else who is more wise, intuitive and aware of themself/their environment more than any human on this planet would solve a puzzle as well or better than 4 random people putting their heads together in a living room.

No, we don't really do that. Most of the campaigns I play in/run have a more individualized dynamic, so that each character may have their own goals and methods and they don't always see eye to eye on what to do, how to interpret things, etc. So you can't really separate who comes up with an idea from that person's character/etc because the motivations might lead one person to actually want to keep an idea secret, want something to fail, etc.

For example, in the current campaign I'm running, certain key bits of information actually exact a cost from the person who learns them (well, kinda). So a big deal is who knows what, because if everyone knows everything then everyone pays the cost, but if the PCs can trust eachother to make decisions without always explaining them, then things can be easier for the group overall. Its interesting how the dynamic of trust/etc played out, because basically you'd think that the character who is most trusting of the others would opt out of knowing the most stuff, but thats actually the opposite of what happened - the most trusting character is the one who is trying to learn the most, and the least trusting character avoids these 'key bits' like the plague. Anyhow, in a game like that, it really wouldn't make sense for person A to come up with an idea and then have person B's character present it.

Also, there's a lot of stuff that requires being clever as players but isn't as simple as 'the solution to a puzzle'. "What is the best way to alter the world so that people can be happy?" and things like that.

TheOOB
2014-02-23, 06:42 AM
The only actions I forbid as a DM are ones that hurt party unity. Typically I'll allow you to play whatever kind of character you want, with the caveat that you must be able to work with the group. Sometimes that means evil horrible actions are out.

DigoDragon
2014-02-23, 09:21 AM
So what I'm asking is, how do you handle other players telling you how to play your character? How do you handle the DM telling you how to play your character?

Unless the player has some kind of advantage/trait that says the GM can act as their voice of common sense, I usually let them do whatever (I agree that actions that kill party unity shouldn't be a thing however). I trust the PCs know their own characters better than anyone.

Making the argument in-character is usually okay too, as long as the players RP it out intelligently.

The argument of "your character wouldn't do that" out-of-character is why my wife will never play Earthdawn.

kyoryu
2014-02-24, 04:24 PM
Anyway, my fear is that, should I do something....questionable (Like harsh interrogation or execution), one of the other players will launch off with a "Your character wouldn't do that, you're Neutral!" or something similar.

So what I'm asking is, how do you handle other players telling you how to play your character? How do you handle the DM telling you how to play your character?

"STFU."

However, it is possible (and valid, IMHO) that the GM will say "if you continue doing these things, your alignment will drift to NE" if they have a differing view of how alignments work.

The Insanity
2014-02-24, 06:42 PM
"Noted."
Then I go on with playing.

AMFV
2014-02-24, 09:53 PM
It is worth noting that while this may not be the best advice in this specific case, in the general case there are certain systems where acting in character is extremely important. And then it could be more intended to help the character along or prevent you from losing experience points along the way. Then again few of those straightjacket behavior.

Jay R
2014-02-25, 12:23 AM
"Character growth."

Lord Torath
2014-02-25, 08:39 AM
Well, Silas, did you have your game on Sunday? How did it go?

Silus
2014-02-25, 11:47 AM
Well, Silas, did you have your game on Sunday? How did it go?

Weeeeeeellll....

The actual session was....ok I suppose. Playing a specalized Druid (Diseases and stuff) kinda gimped me when we ended up dealing with some Shadows, and the DM was running the "Well this town only has so much wealth" thing, so I couldn't pick up that Ioun Stone that adds a lvl 0 spell to your spells known (Disrupt Undead). Then we had to deal with a grapple-happy crab in 5-ft wide hallways.

Needless to say, I was grumpy the whole time. Unable to do anything against the Shadows, unable to hit the crab (which grappled me).

Then found out yesterday that, by general consensus, the Sunday game party would appreciate it if I no longer played. Apparently my constant "gumpyness" at things never going to plan (And the DM being new and extremely restrictive, among other things) was annoying the players. Granted the first character I had was a buffing wizard that was...less than stellar to play, the character creation method the DM laid down, and the restrictions he placed, were stupid (Core and APG, 20 point buy, not allowed to dump stats below 10 before racials), and we were mostly in 5-ft wide corridors, often taking -8 to hit for shooting through cover at a target engaged in melee.

Oddly enough, the only time the "Well your player wouldn't do that" came up was with the Shadows. Shadows are undead. They have no Fort saves. They appear as, literally, shadows with no physical form which leads me to believe 1) they're invisible and thus a pain to hit, or 2) they have no body and thus no biology to affect with fort-spells. But apparently "I hold my action, I can't do anything" is not valid. So I ended up burning a lvl 2 spell to get'em off my back about using a single OOC excuse to not do an IC thing. I think there's a mechanic that lets you roll a knowledge skill untrained at a DC 10 or something to get at least the creature type. If I'm right, then I was never given the chance to do that. Needless to say the whole event put me in a downright sulky mood. Compound onto that the players complaining about my "complex characters" as I was working on a backup, and I was downright bitchy.

All in all, I've come to these realizations:
1) I hate premade campaigns/Adventure Paths
1a) I hate all the 5-ft wide hallways in Adventure Paths and the minuses to attack whatever is at the end of said hallways while shooting/attacking through allies.
2) I hate inflexible DMs that follow the book to the letter and never deviate, either for their own benefit or that of the players.
3) I hate arbitrary character creation limits. "You can't drop stats below 10 before racials", "Only use these two books", "No you can't use this totally legal combination simply because you asked about it".
4) I HATE people that take one look at a character I'm making and complain that it's "too complex" and that I need to play something "more simple". Like a Half-Orc Barbarian, Halfling Rogue or Elf Wizard.
5) I realize I complain a lot about poor situations we find ourselves in, but I'm downright giddy when things go according to plan. It's something I need to work on.

Wulfram
2014-02-25, 12:26 PM
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

But it sounds like the character described in the OP is Evilw

Mr Beer
2014-02-25, 03:56 PM
Sounds like you and the group are not compatible Silus. By the way, no-one likes the guy who does things differently to the rest of the group and then sits there sulking because it's not going their way. Not saying your complaints are wrong, they sound valid, but people operate in different ways.

My tip on this kind of stuff is try to fit in but if you basically hate what they are doing just don't go back. I've joined up several groups before, decided "These guys are pretty much toolbags" after a couple of sessions and not returned but they never needed to ask me not to come back. They didn't work out for me, rather than vice versa.

The groups that do work out make the process worthwhile.

Jay R
2014-02-25, 04:08 PM
You got lucky. You don't have to return to a group that's no fun for you to play with. If this hadn't happened, you'd have gone back again, and what good would that do?

So celebrate your good fortune, and look for a new group. (Or better yet, look for compatible friends that might become a D&D group after they are friends.)

Silus
2014-02-25, 04:30 PM
Sounds like you and the group are not compatible Silus. By the way, no-one likes the guy who does things differently to the rest of the group and then sits there sulking because it's not going their way. Not saying your complaints are wrong, they sound valid, but people operate in different ways.

My tip on this kind of stuff is try to fit in but if you basically hate what they are doing just don't go back. I've joined up several groups before, decided "These guys are pretty much toolbags" after a couple of sessions and not returned but they never needed to ask me not to come back. They didn't work out for me, rather than vice versa.

The groups that do work out make the process worthwhile.

Well I still have my Friday group, so there's that.

The DM for the Adventure Path was a new DM as well and was adhering to the "Always say no if you're not sure" methodology of DMing, and that kinda got on my nerves ("If I get Plane Shift, can I use it to hop from planet to planet?" "No." "But why not? The way the spell is presented, it's totally possible and I'd think legal." "No.".). The players were pretty cool, but the whole thing just soured my already dismal opinion on pre-made adventures.

kyoryu
2014-02-25, 05:14 PM
"If I get Plane Shift, can I use it to hop from planet to planet?" "No." "But why not? The way the spell is presented, it's totally possible and I'd think legal." "No.".

Well, here's the relevant bit of text from the SRD: "You move yourself or some other creature to another plane of existence or alternate dimension."

It's a bit of a stretch to call another planet another plane of existence or alternate dimension. The GM *could* rule it that way, but ruling that it doesn't work that way is, I think, far closer to RAW.

At any rate, the GM made a judgement call. They get to do that. It wasn't the call you liked, but that's no reason to get mad.

As Jay R said, it seems that what you want out of a game, and what this group wanted out of a game are just very different, and frankly it seems like you really wanted what you wanted out of a game. The best thing to do in this case really is to find a more compatible group, rather than trying to get the other people in this group to play the way *you* want to.

mephnick
2014-02-25, 05:16 PM
I hate DMing pre-mades. All the homework of DMing, none of the fun of creating. Might as well memorize a newspaper.

I like playing them though, so I'm sort of a hypocrite.

Silus
2014-02-25, 05:19 PM
Well, here's the relevant bit of text from the SRD: "You move yourself or some other creature to another plane of existence or alternate dimension."

It's a bit of a stretch to call another planet another plane of existence or alternate dimension. The GM *could* rule it that way, but ruling that it doesn't work that way is, I think, far closer to RAW.

At any rate, the GM made a judgement call. They get to do that. It wasn't the call you liked, but that's no reason to get mad.

As Jay R said, it seems that what you want out of a game, and what this group wanted out of a game are just very different, and frankly it seems like you really wanted what you wanted out of a game. The best thing to do in this case really is to find a more compatible group, rather than trying to get the other people in this group to play the way *you* want to.

True, very true. Honestly I wasn't having fun in the Sunday game and am rather relieved that I'm not involved in it any longer. Mostly because I could do with the sleep as I work nights and waking up at noon to make a 2PM game is a bit much for me when I generally get to sleep at 8am.

Also, the way the Plane Shift thing works is you shift from the Material to some other plane, then shift from that plane back to another planet in the Material.

Twilightwyrm
2014-02-25, 05:36 PM
I've found this to be a good explanation: alignment is dictated by the characters actions, their actions are not dictated by their alignment. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Even in cases where alignment restrictions are concerned, all that means is that the character knows what their ethos is, and them making a conscious choice to act either outside it or within it. In your druid's case, taking "evil" actions are not prohibited (see: Neutral Evil Druids), what it prohibited is a trend in behavior and philosophy such that they lose their detachment from societal affairs/attachment to nature.

NichG
2014-02-25, 06:00 PM
Unsure if its a good idea to ask, but why exactly were you trying to get off-planet and what planet exactly were you trying to get to?

Sebastrd
2014-02-25, 06:02 PM
I think players have a responsibility to conform to the material to a certain extent. If you know you're running with a new DM who is using a premade adventure, why would you deliberately try to run things off the rails?

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-25, 06:40 PM
I think players have a responsibility to conform to the material to a certain extent. If you know you're running with a new DM who is using a premade adventure, why would you deliberately try to run things off the rails?

to an extent, in a premade adventure with a new DM or if an action is completely impossible for a character (level 1 human commoner flying around shooting death rays from their eyes and dining on terrasques with no optimization, outside help, or gimmicks) yes the player should understand that there are things they shouldn't do..but that's in the vain of actions that intentionally derail or end campaigns. if you're going around in, say, rise of the runelords for pathfinder and decide to attack and kill everyone in sandpoint at the start of the campaign it will result in the player getting killed which the DM is then forced to improvise reactions to, the player's actions being ignored because it could ruin the game for everyone playing, or at worst the game actively being shut down because for some reason the DM let them play their actions out and all story hooks for the first section or two of the adventure path are gone. that said even in premade campaigns there's at least some alternatives thrown in so that slight variances in player actions can be accounted for.

in a non premade campaign or with an experienced DM and players who aren't stupidly attacking things without any real reason behind it there are far less opportunities for a character's actions to be outright shut down or ignored. a paladin kills a random person without provocation due to some odd plan the player has after being perfectly reasonable up to then? fine, the paladin falls, they have to deal with the consequences. a rogue thief who has stolen everything not nailed down and happily stabbed people while whistling cheerfully decides to donate all their stolen goods to an orphanage and hospital? fine, the orphanage and hospital now have a huge influx of money and the thief is just that much more confusing to their group.

an action not being expected by the DM does not mean it's something the character wouldn't do, in the end that is entirely up to the player that made the character and as long as they don't do something that is impossible there's very little reason for a DM to change their actions without their permission by any means short of a spell that has that as an effect, and even that had better have a FAIR saving throw.

Silus
2014-02-25, 06:57 PM
Unsure if its a good idea to ask, but why exactly were you trying to get off-planet and what planet exactly were you trying to get to?

Honestly it was to prove a point about a character concept. I was looking to play a character whose backstory was based off a previous character I had in a 3.5 game. Friggin' loved playing her. Anyway, I was...well I suppose you could say "arguing" with the DM about backstory and that it wasn't going to come up in any disruptive ways unless the other players or NPCs inquire about it. The Plane Shift thing was there to explain how they managed to get to the campaign world from another cosmology (The 3.5 Shadow Plane explicitly states that it can be used to get to alternate Material Planes). The constant "reason" for it not being allowed was that it (the backstory) didn't fit despite everything working. Mechanically the character was sound and didn't have any hiccups. The character in question was also what led to the "stop making complex characters" thing.


I think players have a responsibility to conform to the material to a certain extent. If you know you're running with a new DM who is using a premade adventure, why would you deliberately try to run things off the rails?

That would assume that I was trying to run things off the rails. The most I did in game that gave the DM pause was, at the beginning of the second book, insisted on payment for the party's services. Most of the upset'ness came from my generally pessimistic attitude towards having to constantly fight in tight areas and being pretty much useless in a fight. To give you an idea, the rooms, loot and fights are all planned for 4 players. We had 6. It gets crowded fast, especially in 5-ft wide hallways and 20-ft wide rooms. I wasn't having a good time, and I'm one of those people that if I'm in a foul mood, it's pretty obvious (Ditto for a good mood).

Deadline
2014-02-25, 07:13 PM
That would assume that I was trying to run things off the rails. The most I did in game that gave the DM pause was, at the beginning of the second book, insisted on payment for the party's services. Most of the upset'ness came from my generally pessimistic attitude towards having to constantly fight in tight areas and being pretty much useless in a fight. To give you an idea, the rooms, loot and fights are all planned for 4 players. We had 6. It gets crowded fast, especially in 5-ft wide hallways and 20-ft wide rooms. I wasn't having a good time, and I'm one of those people that if I'm in a foul mood, it's pretty obvious (Ditto for a good mood).

Is now a good time to mention that you have, effectively, treated that new DM the same way you were complaining about being treated in an earlier thread when you were new to DMing? :smalltongue:

But seriously, if you aren't having fun, just leave. And if possible, realize that your behaviors can affect others; if you are visibly unhappy and complain, it can ruin other people's fun. And in that scenario, you are the problem, not the DM, not the character creation restrictions, and not the adventure material.

It sounds like you've gotten a resolution that you are happy with though.

Silus
2014-02-25, 07:24 PM
Is now a good time to mention that you have, effectively, treated that new DM the same way you were complaining about being treated in an earlier thread when you were new to DMing? :smalltongue:

But seriously, if you aren't having fun, just leave. And if possible, realize that your behaviors can affect others; if you are visibly unhappy and complain, it can ruin other people's fun. And in that scenario, you are the problem, not the DM, not the character creation restrictions, and not the adventure material.

It sounds like you've gotten a resolution that you are happy with though.

Yeeeeeaaaaaah :smallfrown: I'll apologize to the DM when I see him again (We do Monster Hunter on mondays =3)

And...I know I've got that being-open-with-my-emotions problem, and I know I need to curb it. I mean, I tried distracting myself in the first couple sessions when things were not going right and I was in my "Everything is terrible" mood, but then I got called out on not paying attention or being distracting. So then I had to put up whatever I was doing and "engage in the game" which really meant not doing anything for the 5-10 minutes between my combat turns, just sulking and stewing in pessimism regarding the situation at hand.

Also it didn't help that one of the players was constantly egging me on with comments like "Worst druid ever", "could do with a druid that can actually do their job" and other snide comments. Apparently he was doing it for his own amusement, but it certainly played a part in the foul mood.

kyoryu
2014-02-25, 07:46 PM
Rather than hiding your emotions, I'd work instead on finding the things you *do* like in the game, and focusing on them, rather than dwelling on the things you don't like.

Same with combat options - being stuck can suck, but look at the situation and figure out what you *can* do, even if not as awesome or if it comes with penalties.

Snide comments like you're talking about from other players really aren't helpful, and you'd be well within your rights to say, "hey, man, knock it off".

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-25, 08:32 PM
Also it didn't help that one of the players was constantly egging me on with comments like "Worst druid ever", "could do with a druid that can actually do their job" and other snide comments. Apparently he was doing it for his own amusement, but it certainly played a part in the foul mood.

this is why civilized gaming groups always need a house-rule that taking ribbing too far results in rulebooks thrown at sensitive locations at high speeds... sadly not every group has reached that kind of understanding.

but yes as kyoryu said, if they're making comments like that and affecting your ability to enjoy the game you should be able to say something.

Sebastrd
2014-02-26, 03:40 PM
Also it didn't help that one of the players was constantly egging me on with comments like "Worst druid ever", "could do with a druid that can actually do their job" and other snide comments. Apparently he was doing it for his own amusement, but it certainly played a part in the foul mood.

There was a time when I might have put up with crap like that, but I like to think I've grown out of it. As a DM, which is my usual role, I'd have put a stop to that nonsense immediately.

I expect a certain amount of maturity at my gaming table. I treat people like adults and expect them to act as such.

Silus
2014-02-26, 04:16 PM
Well, fact of the matter is, I'm no longer involved in that campaign, and I may start getting involved with a different group. Apparently the campaign they wanna run is a moderately silly lvl 20+ Mythic Pathfinder game where pretty much everything + 3rd party is allowed.

Needless to say, I'm excited for that. :smallbiggrin: Gonna learn FATE in the meantime.

sktarq
2014-02-26, 04:38 PM
All in all, I've come to these realizations:
1) I hate premade campaigns/Adventure Paths
1a) I hate all the 5-ft wide hallways in Adventure Paths and the minuses to attack whatever is at the end of said hallways while shooting/attacking through allies.
2) I hate inflexible DMs that follow the book to the letter and never deviate, either for their own benefit or that of the players.
3) I hate arbitrary character creation limits. "You can't drop stats below 10 before racials", "Only use these two books", "No you can't use this totally legal combination simply because you asked about it".
4) I HATE people that take one look at a character I'm making and complain that it's "too complex" and that I need to play something "more simple". Like a Half-Orc Barbarian, Halfling Rogue or Elf Wizard.
5) I realize I complain a lot about poor situations we find ourselves in, but I'm downright giddy when things go according to plan. It's something I need to work on.

Okay I get 1, 2, and 5 totally.....As for 4 "complex" is a sliding judgment scale and premade adventures & "complex" don't tend to do well together (which is one of the reasons I dislike them so). My question is about 3. I'd be with your DM on this one. If only two books are available during his preparation running anything outside them can throw him a wrench. As a new DM starting with the basics (say Core Books only) for a while is a start learning strategy-even if it does limit the players options. Also while a combination may be perfectly LEGAL it may not fit into a campaign. Even a race prestige class combo that is legal on paper may well nixed due to DM fiat cultural and space issues. And as for point buys where you can't drop below 10 for example. May well be a response to A new DM who doesn't want to deal with having to keep track of penalties and watching people play like they had none and B a bad history of minmaxers.

Silus
2014-02-26, 04:49 PM
Okay I get 1, 2, and 5 totally.....As for 4 "complex" is a sliding judgment scale and premade adventures & "complex" don't tend to do well together (which is one of the reasons I dislike them so). My question is about 3. I'd be with your DM on this one. If only two books are available during his preparation running anything outside them can throw him a wrench. As a new DM starting with the basics (say Core Books only) for a while is a start learning strategy-even if it does limit the players options. Also while a combination may be perfectly LEGAL it may not fit into a campaign. Even a race prestige class combo that is legal on paper may well nixed due to DM fiat cultural and space issues. And as for point buys where you can't drop below 10 for example. May well be a response to A new DM who doesn't want to deal with having to keep track of penalties and watching people play like they had none and B a bad history of minmaxers.

I believe most of the restriction came not from the fact that the DM was new, but rather the Adventure Path we were running. Rise of the Rune Lords was made right around when Core came out and is apparently not balanced for the Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat classes. However, the excuse for not allowing these classes generally came down to "It doesn't fit the area", the area being Sandpoint on the coast of Varisia. It's a port town, the DM explicitly said we could put in orders to the ships in port to bring back specific magical items that are not in stock. By all rights, a more "exotic" PC (Gunslinger for example) could hop ship and end up in Sandpoint, regardless of if it's "appropriate" for the area.

My main issue wasn't that the stuff was not allowed, but rather that there were already existing ways to make such characters work that the DM outright shut down with such a flimsy excuse of "It does not fit the area".

NichG
2014-02-26, 06:05 PM
Its sometimes useful to recognize that people may say one reason when they really want to say another but feel that its too confrontational/totalitarian/unpopular/etc. The DM probably was thinking 'I just don't want to deal with this' and made the mistake of giving an excuse to restrict it rather than just outright saying 'I don't want to deal with these classes, please play something else'. If you recognize that that's whats going on, then rather than trying to prove 'look, I really can make this work', you can tell that no argument is going to be accepted because it doesn't answer the real (unspoken) complaint.

Obviously its best if people don't do that, but it can be useful to recognize when its going on and how to deal with it on your end at least.

(Incidentally, I have both played in and run campaigns where people have brought in characters from other settings/worlds/campaigns/what-have-you. It can work well since everyone comes in with a richer history, but it does take an extra level of care to make sure everyone has a reason to be adventuring together and that the history doesn't become the game. For an inexperienced DM, it'd be difficult).

kyoryu
2014-02-26, 06:13 PM
Yeah, I'll concur with that. I think the DM was mostly really saying "I don't want to deal with charop" and just didn't have the stones to say that outright.

Jay R
2014-02-27, 01:26 AM
If the DM told me that my character wouldn't take the action I chose to take, I'd at least consider the following:

"OK, I'm not allowed to decide what the character does; the DM does that. Here is the character sheet of your new NPC." (Hands over sheet.) "Do I roll up a new character or am I out of the game?"

I'd probably finally decide not to say this, but I'm sure I'd consider it.