PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying "But it's what my character would do!"



The Grue
2014-08-02, 04:33 PM
This is an old can of worms that I know has come up previously on these forums. I wonder if a kind playgrounder could link me to any of the many debunkings of this line as a justification for anti-party behaviour, as my search-fu seems to be weak.

JadedDM
2014-08-02, 05:02 PM
Perhaps you mean this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) by the Giant (the second part specifically, entitled "Decide to react differently."

Mastikator
2014-08-02, 08:07 PM
"But then why did you make that character instead of one that isn't disruptive?"

AMFV
2014-08-02, 08:25 PM
Well it depends, the Giant makes some very good points. However it's worth noting that being a team player may or may not be the best thing for all parties. What is important is that people discuss beforehand if they're going to have a non-team player character, and what motivates him so that other players can work into that frame of reference.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-02, 08:52 PM
"Let me explain what I am going to do: I'm going to tell you that you have three options. One: You can come up with a reason for your character not to do this, Two: You can bring in a new character who isn't going to do this, or Three: you can sit this game out. It's your choice."


More seriously, try to talk this stuff through before the game starts. Just let everyone know that there are occasions where such behavior is acceptable (such as in a more PvP-focused game like Paranoia), but the current game isn't one of those. If they really want to do that, they can talk to you about trying it out in a future game.

oxybe
2014-08-03, 01:02 AM
The #1 rule of any social event, be it a D&D game night or a supper with the boss, is : "don't be a jerk"

Not all parties have to work together, true, but that isn't here or there. The issue at hand is "A player did a disruptive action". The nature of what constitutes a disruptive action will vary from group to group and campaign to campaign, but the point still stands : "Player X willingly did an action, that is disruptive to good play and is using his character to defend his action".

Now as I said, different groups/campaigns will have different metrics on what a disruptive action is. Just like a player that brings an evil PC to a group that has a paladin and many good ones, if your group decide to make PCs that are all evil, only one guy decides to brings a paladin... the paladin guy is just as much of a jerk as the previous example's evil PC here for bringing a character that is disruptive to the agreed upon style of play.

Confront this player and if they use "it's what my character would do!" then change the focus to why he brought a disruptive character to the table in the first place. There is no valid reason to bring a character that disrupts the group's play of choice.

Tell them "Don't be a jerk. If this isn't possible, don't play."

It solves many an issue.

AMFV
2014-08-03, 08:40 AM
The #1 rule of any social event, be it a D&D game night or a supper with the boss, is : "don't be a jerk"

But what constitutes being a jerk will vary pretty widely depending on if I work for Henry's Sewage Pumping, or JP Morgan. Standards of behavior vary widely between different social groups. One of the major problems (and one of the best parts) of D&D and other like hobbies, is that it bridges different social groups pretty handily, which means that you often have many people with drastically different standards of appropriate behavior.



Not all parties have to work together, true, but that isn't here or there. The issue at hand is "A player did a disruptive action". The nature of what constitutes a disruptive action will vary from group to group and campaign to campaign, but the point still stands : "Player X willingly did an action, that is disruptive to good play and is using his character to defend his action".

Now as I said, different groups/campaigns will have different metrics on what a disruptive action is. Just like a player that brings an evil PC to a group that has a paladin and many good ones, if your group decide to make PCs that are all evil, only one guy decides to brings a paladin... the paladin guy is just as much of a jerk as the previous example's evil PC here for bringing a character that is disruptive to the agreed upon style of play.

Confront this player and if they use "it's what my character would do!" then change the focus to why he brought a disruptive character to the table in the first place. There is no valid reason to bring a character that disrupts the group's play of choice.

Tell them "Don't be a jerk. If this isn't possible, don't play."

It solves many an issue.

Again the problem is that "Don't be a jerk" is going to vary as widely if not more widely than "don't be disruptive". Some people are thinner skinned and won't like any kind of PvP conflict, even to the point of disliking in-character debates, some people enjoy playing with very heavy debate and disagreement and thrive off that sort of thing.

My advice is to play it by ear as much as possible. And always try to look at it from the other person's perspective even if you don't agree with it. And lastly remember that some groups aren't good fit for all players. You may need to find a different group, or your group may need to kick a disruptive player. Since not everybody enjoys the same things.

marialuiza
2014-08-03, 09:17 AM
it was really helpful

oxybe
2014-08-03, 09:29 AM
But what constitutes being a jerk will vary pretty widely depending on if I work for Henry's Sewage Pumping, or JP Morgan. Standards of behavior vary widely between different social groups. One of the major problems (and one of the best parts) of D&D and other like hobbies, is that it bridges different social groups pretty handily, which means that you often have many people with drastically different standards of appropriate behavior.

And how does that change the rule of "don't be a jerk"? I didn't mention any particular behaviour, just that in any given social gathering, you should do your best to not be disruptive. The particulars might change based on where you are and the company in question, but "don't be a jerk" still applies fully.

If someone is doing a behavior that doesn't fit with the group, the onus is on them to stop being disruptive or get out. Thus: "don't be a jerk".

Note I'm not describing any given actions or behaviours. I'm not describing PVP, stealing from the party or anything given action in particular... Just the fact that one player is doing an action that is disruptive to play and hiding behind a weak "it's what my character would do" argument.


Again the problem is that "Don't be a jerk" is going to vary as widely if not more widely than "don't be disruptive". Some people are thinner skinned and won't like any kind of PvP conflict, even to the point of disliking in-character debates, some people enjoy playing with very heavy debate and disagreement and thrive off that sort of thing.

My advice is to play it by ear as much as possible. And always try to look at it from the other person's perspective even if you don't agree with it. And lastly remember that some groups aren't good fit for all players. You may need to find a different group, or your group may need to kick a disruptive player. Since not everybody enjoys the same things.

I see no reason to play a game I'm having no fun with and no reason to suffer bad players. It's not a matter of being thin or thick skinned... I have 4 hours a week put aside for my elfgames. If those 4 hours are spent having not-fun, I'm probably going to seek the reason and take action accordingly. If the source of my not-fun is the actions of one player, I will ask them to stop their behaviour. If the source is that my style doesn't mesh with the group, then i'm the problem and should probably leave.

I have done both: I have asked people to stop doing things that irritate me and I've bowed out of games where I didn't fit in or stopped having fun.

Again: I'm not debating particular actions one could take in-character. I couldn't care if your group does PVP to the death, steals from each other and partakes in actions that simply describing would probably violate at least 6 guidelines of this forum. If someone is stopping you from having fun through play that is disruptive, tell them to stop being a jerk: confront their disruptive behaviour.

If the end result is you decide to leave the group, it's my experience that no gaming is better then bad gaming. I've gone years before without gaming. My last gaming sabbatical was about 7 months and entirely because I wasn't having fun with the direction the game was going. I focused those 4 elfgame hours into something else.

Yora
2014-08-03, 09:47 AM
If it fits one character to work against the group, then it fits the other charcters to kick him out. It works in both directions.
It's then the players responsibility to create a new character that the other characters want to tak into their party.

I wouldn't stop a player from working against the others, but remind the other players that this frees them from the unspoken rule of keeping the party together.

inexorabletruth
2014-08-03, 09:49 AM
I agree with the consensus here, but I'm going to offer another option, just in case you don't wish to confront the player directly for their anti-party behavior.

Have you considered incorporating consequences? Anti-party behavior should result in some pretty interesting inter-party shenanigans if it's adjudicated delicately. Roll a few sense motives for the party members behind the screen to see if the cooperative PCs are starting to figure whatever shenanigans the dysfunctional PC is up to. Make sure at least one of them succeeds at least a little. Do this every time the anti-social NPC attempts to stir up trouble. Raise suspicion levels and bring his darkness to the light and let the party handle it.

Also, what about the NPCs that he effects? Pissing off powerful NPCs (even if it's swindling a secret henchman of a powerful NPC) is a great way to end up with a bounty on your head.

There's a million ways to handle this in-game if you don't feel comfortable handling it OOC. You just have to get creative.

AMFV
2014-08-03, 11:08 AM
And how does that change the rule of "don't be a jerk"? I didn't mention any particular behaviour, just that in any given social gathering, you should do your best to not be disruptive. The particulars might change based on where you are and the company in question, but "don't be a jerk" still applies fully.

If someone is doing a behavior that doesn't fit with the group, the onus is on them to stop being disruptive or get out. Thus: "don't be a jerk".

Note I'm not describing any given actions or behaviours. I'm not describing PVP, stealing from the party or anything given action in particular... Just the fact that one player is doing an action that is disruptive to play and hiding behind a weak "it's what my character would do" argument.


Well some groups might be completely fine with that particular argument. The point I'm bringing up is that "don't be a jerk" is a meaningless rule, because it has too many meanings to different people. You can say "don't be a jerk" to one person, and he may associate a very different group of behaviors to that.



I see no reason to play a game I'm having no fun with and no reason to suffer bad players. It's not a matter of being thin or thick skinned... I have 4 hours a week put aside for my elfgames. If those 4 hours are spent having not-fun, I'm probably going to seek the reason and take action accordingly. If the source of my not-fun is the actions of one player, I will ask them to stop their behaviour. If the source is that my style doesn't mesh with the group, then i'm the problem and should probably leave.

True, which what I said. And it does have something to do with thick or thinness of skin with regards to a particular issue.



I have done both: I have asked people to stop doing things that irritate me and I've bowed out of games where I didn't fit in or stopped having fun.

Again: I'm not debating particular actions one could take in-character. I couldn't care if your group does PVP to the death, steals from each other and partakes in actions that simply describing would probably violate at least 6 guidelines of this forum. If someone is stopping you from having fun through play that is disruptive, tell them to stop being a jerk: confront their disruptive behaviour.

If the end result is you decide to leave the group, it's my experience that no gaming is better then bad gaming. I've gone years before without gaming. My last gaming sabbatical was about 7 months and entirely because I wasn't having fun with the direction the game was going. I focused those 4 elfgame hours into something else.

I think I'm agreeing with you, but I think we're contrasting on exactly what should be said. My point was that saying: "Don't be a jerk" is as meaningless as saying "Mind your Ps and Qs" since those will vary too much between different groups for it to be a meaningful statement. Furthermore there is behavior that people may object to in a group that you may not consider to be "jerk behavior" and a group is fine with setting it's own rules. We'll say I have a gaming group where people are opposed to wearing blue clothes, and I wear a blue shirt, without realizing it. I'm not being a jerk, but I'm still violating their social rules, and if all I wear a blue jeans I'm a bad fit for the group without being a jerk.

The point I'm making is that behaving in a way that a specific group considers disruptive or inappropriate may not equate to "being a jerk".

mephnick
2014-08-03, 12:24 PM
It generally comes down to inflexible and clashing personalities, which seems to be a theme for this group (Hi!) despite getting rid of the most disruptive player a while ago.

The specifics aren't that important, but we had a long, fun campaign before, but the characters were all "good-ish". This was an evil campaign and I was nervous about it before we even started playing. However that seemed to be the path the players wanted to go down, so I relented..annnd it turned out exactly as I predicted, despite pre-campaign warnings about my experience with evil parties.

I probably could have stepped in faster as the GM but I don't like to dictate what my player's characters will and will not do.

These situations can arise in any campaign, but I find it much more prevalent in evil or chaotic parties. I'm not sure if you guys can attest to this.

It's honestly a good group of people, so I'm looking to avoid these kinds of conflicts in the future.

Tengu_temp
2014-08-03, 04:19 PM
I agree with the consensus here, but I'm going to offer another option, just in case you don't wish to confront the player directly for their anti-party behavior.

Have you considered incorporating consequences? Anti-party behavior should result in some pretty interesting inter-party shenanigans if it's adjudicated delicately. Roll a few sense motives for the party members behind the screen to see if the cooperative PCs are starting to figure whatever shenanigans the dysfunctional PC is up to. Make sure at least one of them succeeds at least a little. Do this every time the anti-social NPC attempts to stir up trouble. Raise suspicion levels and bring his darkness to the light and let the party handle it.

Also, what about the NPCs that he effects? Pissing off powerful NPCs (even if it's swindling a secret henchman of a powerful NPC) is a great way to end up with a bounty on your head.

There's a million ways to handle this in-game if you don't feel comfortable handling it OOC. You just have to get creative.

The problem is that this is an OOC problem. And you don't solve OOC problems through IC means, it usually backfires horribly.

inexorabletruth
2014-08-03, 05:18 PM
The problem is that this is an OOC problem. And you don't solve OOC problems through IC means, it usually backfires horribly.

That's true, but I haven't noticed any clues from OP that this is an IC problem. Here's what I read.


This is an old can of worms that I know has come up previously on these forums. I wonder if a kind playgrounder could link me to any of the many debunkings of this line as a justification for anti-party behaviour, as my search-fu seems to be weak.

He's referring to anti-party behavior, from what I can tell. If the player is doing what they think their character would do, but what their character would do is irrefutable douche-baggery, then it's still an IC problem and can functionally be solved IC. If the player is throwing temper tantrums, breaking character chronically, always late, never pays attention, or any of these things, then it's an OOC problem and cannot be solved IC.

TiaC
2014-08-04, 12:17 AM
Still better than "That's not what your character would do."

icefractal
2014-08-04, 12:52 AM
These situations can arise in any campaign, but I find it much more prevalent in evil or chaotic parties. I'm not sure if you guys can attest to this.

It's honestly a good group of people, so I'm looking to avoid these kinds of conflicts in the future.For evil games especially, and really it's not a bad idea for any game, I like to establish what the level of acceptable PvP is at the start of the campaign. I usually use this scale:

Green - PCs won't harm or betray each-other, and they won't take actions in opposition to the others, or engage in behaviors that would cause a serious conflict if discovered.

Yellow - PCs won't directly harm each other, or betray each-other in a directly harmful way. They might take actions that work against each-other's goals though. They won't steal directly from each-other, but they might keep things for themselves.

Red - All bets are off. Full lethal PvP is allowed, even if nobody chooses to do so.

This is independent of alignment; you could easily have a group of evil characters that were loyal to each-other and fell under the "Green" standard. Also, if you want to get granular, you could set a standard between these points - Lime Green, or Orange, for example.


Some notes:
* It's important to put things like mind control, stealing to the point of impeding survivability, and serious-enough betrayal (getting each-others' important people killed, frex) at the same level as lethal force. Nothing good comes of "Hey, I can totally **** with you in every way, but stabbing me isn't allowed!"

* When you go with Yellow, and even more so with Red, the standard trope of "They're a PC, of course they can join our party" doesn't work any more. Intrigue can be fun, but be aware that you're going to have to spend some time for people to investigate and trust each other enough to work together, and that some PCs might end up rejected by the rest of the group.

* If someone find a loophole where they're doing something highly adversarial that's technically allowed, and relying on the agreement to avoid retribution, tell them to knock it the **** off. This is a real-world agreement, not in-game - rules-lawyering it isn't clever play, it's being an ass.

* If someone does break the agreement, don't be afraid to pause the game and sort things out immediately, before even resolving that action. It's worth a little break in immersion to prevent poisoning the campaign.

Raine_Sage
2014-08-04, 01:49 AM
The problem is that this is an OOC problem. And you don't solve OOC problems through IC means, it usually backfires horribly.

Eeh yes and no. The players have a problem OOC, but the problem player is falling back on IC as a justification. I'd say in that case they're literally asking for their actions to be addressed by the Narrative.

"My character is an alcoholic, it makes sense he'd get drunk and burn down half the city!"

"Ok, well it also makes sense that his party members would disown him after he does this. They're playing their characters just as 'honestly' as you were playing yours so you don't get to complain about this. Roll up a new guy."

Basically the golden rule applies here. I'll let you do whatever you want in character, but that doesn't mean you get plot immunity when whatever dumb idea you had backfires in the most obvious way.

VoxRationis
2014-08-04, 02:10 AM
Note that I believe there are legitimate cases in which a character has every reason to do something detrimental to the party, as their most reasonable option. These cases might not be apparent during character creation, so they might arise without any malice on anyone's part.

That said, when a party member does something to hurt the party, they should remember that it's totally reasonable, in-character, for the rest of the three to five other skilled, heavily armed mercenaries to exact retribution. Would your thief really think it worth stealing a few minor magic items from the fighter, knowing full well that the fighter would probably end up finding out one way or another and could easily break his teeth in (not to mention the fact that the thief probably relies on the fighter to save his skin at least once a day)? Is that something most people would do?

The Insanity
2014-08-04, 05:43 AM
I betrayed the whole part once right after we defeated the BBEG. Granted, I was working for him from the very beginning and killed him only because I wanted to take his place, but still, it was a "But it's what my character would do!" situation. They weren't amused... for the first 10 minutes after it happened. Then they laughed.

Held
2014-08-04, 06:15 AM
I do hate it when people tend to do stuff that beggars "Lawful Stupid" remarks: like when the party tries to parley with the BBEG, then the Paladin just rushes forward and ends diplomacy. Sorry, but this isn't a single-player campaign; I get that "it's what my character would do", but you should never be sabotaging your teammates' efforts. I do appreciate it when afterwards, the Paladin complains to the party that it does not sit well with him and we should kill the Evil Necromancer. For Good. But I do not accept a player dictating the course of the party through a lame excuse as "it's what my character would do!"

Cikomyr
2014-08-04, 07:47 AM
I think the most obvious example of such a situation is if a player gets bored after too long a discussion regarding a course of action, and just do something stupid (rendering the entire conversqrion moot).

Helps a bit to make sure you have a system in place to avoid 30 minutes discussions in a 4 hours game. I personaly like to elect a nominal leader who can make these calls just to make the game progress after a deadlock.

For rampaging psychopaths who just want to see the world burn.. Yhea, not fun tho.

However, there is an addendum. In my most recent game, a player has slowly succumbed to the power of an evil magical sword and became a serial killer. When he went on his killing spree (nothing too graphic. He did not actually went into details and just glossed over), i usually turned toward the other (goodish) players and told them they were not aware of what happened.

Off course, the PCs eventually learned of a serial killer on the loose (and everybody knew it was the other guy) but i made sure everybody's development went ahead without disrupring the group's cohesion.

Made it all the sweeter when the PC turned out to be the final BBEG of the game. When done properly, allowing for a slow buildup may land you excelleny payoffs.

Frozen_Feet
2014-08-04, 07:50 AM
The Giant's article has already been brought up. It's central message is good to always keep in mind: absent specific game mechanics, you, the player, decide what your characters do. So don't do anything disruptive unless you're willing to suffer the consequences.

But, and this is an important but: many of the problems with antisocial character behaviour go away if you throw the idea "don't split the party" out of the window, or at least do not adhere to it as some inviolable dogma. Players and characters should have the option to act against each other and part ways, even if no good can conceivable come of it. It's not that hard to deal with two separate parties, or one character going on their own. At worst, I've had seven characters do seven different things, and it works pretty well if you approach it a bit like combat and give everyone their own turn.

Of course, if a character gets kicked out, the option to play another is just as good. Have the player play another character's retainer for that session, or even one of the monsters.

Red Fel
2014-08-04, 09:04 AM
I betrayed the whole part once right after we defeated the BBEG. Granted, I was working for him from the very beginning and killed him only because I wanted to take his place, but still, it was a "But it's what my character would do!" situation. They weren't amused... for the first 10 minutes after it happened. Then they laughed.

I think this is a distinct illustration. In your case, your character's action was basically the culmination of an ambition, an overreaching goal. I happen to think that having PCs with conflicting goals who nonetheless find a reason to collaborate until the campaign is complete is very compelling, and playing towards that goal, in my mind, is generally acceptable, even if it causes some minor friction.

I think the "what my character would do" excuse is more commonly applied to more short-term, immediate decisions, rather than long-term goals. I've been in campaigns where "what my character would do" (not mine, someone else's) was help us slay the awakening demon god before it reaches full power, and then raise and enslave the corpse, because Evil Necromancer. And that's cool. But I've also been in campaigns where "what my character would do" (again, not mine) was turn into a Fire Giant and then crush and/or blast every enemy into a fine red mist while the rest of the party looked on, because he had a thing about being the baddest mamma-jamma in the room. And that's not cool.

The distinction is an important one. In the former case, you have a character motivation that's been thought out and planned, that does not substantially disrupt gameplay or impact enjoyment in any material way until the story has been resolved. It's more of a story-thing than a mechanical-thing. In the latter case, you have a motivation to act, in the immediate sense, which can (and often does) disrupt gameplay and impact enjoyment. The fact that these threads continue to pop up is, alone, proof that "what my character would do" just doesn't do it for a lot of people.

I think the key metric, as stated in various ways earlier in the thread, is: Is this action disruptive to the particular style of game and play at the table? Not all actions are disruptive to all players, or in all games, or at all times. But at the appropriate conjunction, it becomes a volatile mix. In a light, friendly game with no PvP, PvP will be disruptive; in a dark, gritty game involving conspiracies between and against the characters, it might not be. In a game like Munchkin, it's practically mandatory. Very few in-character actions are disruptive by their nature, but good tabletop etiquette requires clear communication of expectations and knowing your audience.

And being disruptive, by whatever means, is generally considered (as some have said) to be a jerk move, and creating a character explicitly to do so even moreso.

The Insanity
2014-08-04, 09:39 AM
Actually, I used that justification dozens of times throughout the campaign as a smokescreen when I deliberately screwed with my party's goals. I was a double agent/spy, after all.

Segev
2014-08-04, 10:18 AM
Actually, I used that justification dozens of times throughout the campaign as a smokescreen when I deliberately screwed with my party's goals. I was a double agent/spy, after all.

Well, in that case, isn't it what he'd do? :P


The only time I really have a problem with this is when there's some sort of double-standard whereby the troublesome PC is shielded from consequences for his behavior at the hands of other PCs based on the claim that he's a party member and they can't turn on him. Usually, if this happens, it's a sign that either the victim of the misbehavior is being targeted IC rather than asked to leave OOC, when the true issue is that the DM and one or more of the other players simply wants the target gone. Or, it's a sign that the abusive player has some sort of special status with the DM.

Occasionally, it's just an abusive player abusing the good graces of a table of people too nice to tell him to shove off.


Outside those circumstances, it's either a failure of communication or a case that is handled OOC through discussion of why this is harming the fun of the game for everybody.

Jay R
2014-08-04, 02:38 PM
There is no general answer. Different situations that fall into this category might be IC, OOC, fun for all, one person preventing anyone else from having fun, carefully planned out, random extemporaneous decisions, or anything else.

We cannot solve the general case. If somebody has a specific case for us to consider, we can probably give some advice that is relevant to the specific player, group, game system, and situation.

kyoryu
2014-08-04, 03:57 PM
The big problem with "it's what my character would do!" is that it almost always leans on the social contract that prevents the rest of the party from having the reaction that they *should* have.

Stealing from the party because "it's what your character would do?" You know what would happen if a group found someone stealing from them? I mean, what would they do to an NPC that stole their stuff?

Yeah, thought so. But somehow, as they kill the thief, I doubt that the party's insistence "hey, it's what *our* characters would do" will go over quite as well.

Also, a well-played character is more than two-dimensional. There's *lots* of things they might do when confronted with a given situation. Having a passion, or fear, or desire doesn't turn off common sense. Turning every possible reaction to eleven is really boring, two-dimensional gaming.

AMFV
2014-08-04, 04:05 PM
The big problem with "it's what my character would do!" is that it almost always leans on the social contract that prevents the rest of the party from having the reaction that they *should* have.

Stealing from the party because "it's what your character would do?" You know what would happen if a group found someone stealing from them? I mean, what would they do to an NPC that stole their stuff?

Yeah, thought so. But somehow, as they kill the thief, I doubt that the party's insistence "hey, it's what *our* characters would do" will go over quite as well.

Also, a well-played character is more than two-dimensional. There's *lots* of things they might do when confronted with a given situation. Having a passion, or fear, or desire doesn't turn off common sense. Turning every possible reaction to eleven is really boring, two-dimensional gaming.

But... these ones go to eleven.

kyoryu
2014-08-04, 04:24 PM
But... these ones go to eleven.

Why not just make ten louder?

Sith_Happens
2014-08-04, 05:13 PM
Why not just make ten louder?

Forget that, for $2000 I'll build you one that goes to twelve. (http://xkcd.com/670/)

Held
2014-08-04, 05:32 PM
The big problem with "it's what my character would do!" is that it almost always leans on the social contract that prevents the rest of the party from having the reaction that they *should* have.

Stealing from the party because "it's what your character would do?" You know what would happen if a group found someone stealing from them? I mean, what would they do to an NPC that stole their stuff?

Yeah, thought so. But somehow, as they kill the thief, I doubt that the party's insistence "hey, it's what *our* characters would do" will go over quite as well.

Also, a well-played character is more than two-dimensional. There's *lots* of things they might do when confronted with a given situation. Having a passion, or fear, or desire doesn't turn off common sense. Turning every possible reaction to eleven is really boring, two-dimensional gaming.

Don't be absurd. If I write, "My character is more fond of books than of contact with others", of course he will go out of his way to actively avoid all possible contact and always read books. After all, that's what introverts do in real life too, right? And if I wrote that "my character is obsessed with gold jewelry", then that 18 Int and 14 Wis score means squat when he sees a pile of gold: He'll run at it like a 2 Int 2 Wis mindless creature, abandoning all notion of care and appropriate behaviour to hoard ze goald.

Mr.Moron
2014-08-04, 05:37 PM
If what your character would do is disruptive to the game, out tone with the campaign or steps on the fun of other players your character concept is not an appropriate one for the game/campaign/group we're running. End of story. Do not pass go. Do not collect all your fellow character's possessions.