PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Where is the line between Acceptable IC and unacceptable OOC?



druid91
2015-06-30, 03:24 PM
So, this happens a lot, I expect. The traditional one player taking actions that are disruptive or hurtful, with the reasoning being given that "It's what my character would do!" Now I'm not talking about when that's a flimsy excuse, but rather when they actually do have an established character with a semi-set personality.

But where does "That sucks, but you have to follow the character." End and "Dude, that's not cool that you made a character like that." begin?

Maglubiyet
2015-06-30, 03:27 PM
Pretty much in the character design phase. I've been burned by this a few times as a GM so I'm pretty vigilant about intercepting problem PC's before they ever step foot in the game world.

Flickerdart
2015-06-30, 03:27 PM
When the game stops being fun for others at your table. Even if it's "the only thing my character could possibly do in this situation," any IC action is only acceptable when it's not ruining the game for everyone else.

Keltest
2015-06-30, 03:28 PM
When the game stops being fun for others at your table. Even if it's "the only thing my character could possibly do in this situation," any IC action is only acceptable when it's not ruining the game for everyone else.

Indeed. If your character has to make an OOC decision in order to not be completely disruptive, so be it.

dream
2015-06-30, 04:28 PM
So, this happens a lot, I expect. The traditional one player taking actions that are disruptive or hurtful, with the reasoning being given that "It's what my character would do!" Now I'm not talking about when that's a flimsy excuse, but rather when they actually do have an established character with a semi-set personality.

But where does "That sucks, but you have to follow the character." End and "Dude, that's not cool that you made a character like that." begin?
Prior to everything the group should have a session to establish everyone's expectations. What's ok & what's not ok. What's expected of players & what's expected of the GM. All the details of standards of player & PC behavior should be handled with "Session Zero".

Ruslan
2015-06-30, 04:33 PM
When you're part of a group, you owe them to make a character that can play a game with the group, and enhance, rather than detract from, everyone's enjoyment. I accept that there will be frictions and disagreements sometimes, and this can be a healthy part of the game, but if you find people rolling eyes at your "this is what my character would do" too often, then you made a poorly fitting character, and that's on you.

veti
2015-06-30, 04:39 PM
When the game stops being fun for others at your table. Even if it's "the only thing my character could possibly do in this situation," any IC action is only acceptable when it's not ruining the game for everyone else.

The trouble with that line of reasoning is twofold. First, "whether everyone else is having fun, and whether doing X would ruin or enhance their experience" is often a very hard thing to gauge. That goes even for a highly experienced player or DM, and my experience - combined with everything I've read on this board - suggests that people faced with making that call and nothing more substantial on which to base it - will make it wrong, to a very round approximation, roughly 50% of the time.

Second, at the point we're discussing now, the game has already stopped being fun for at least one player - the one who's been put in this untenable position. So someone has already fornicated with that particular lapdog. How does this one player make the call that s/he should be the one to back down and martyr their characterisation in the interests of everyone else's "fun"?

And, although this may be high heresy hereabouts: "fun" is not the be-all and end-all of gaming. It's a social thing, it allows friends to explore life and philosophy in ways that aren't normally possible - and if some people at the table think that's not worthwhile because it's "not fun", maybe they're the ones in the wrong hobby. Or, at least, the wrong group.

dream
2015-06-30, 04:45 PM
When the game stops being fun for others at your table. Even if it's "the only thing my character could possibly do in this situation," any IC action is only acceptable when it's not ruining the game for everyone else.
+1 this. When the game stops being fun, people stop playing.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-30, 04:52 PM
I believe this maxim doesn't get enough credit in tabletop role playing games:

"Laws don't rule, people rule."

There's always a lot of different factors like what game you're playing, what your pre-existing relationship with the other people at your table are, so on, and so forth. And then there's so much room for compromise, for negotiation, for this and that.

Use your instinct.

Flickerdart
2015-06-30, 05:03 PM
The trouble with that line of reasoning is twofold. First, "whether everyone else is having fun, and whether doing X would ruin or enhance their experience" is often a very hard thing to gauge. That goes even for a highly experienced player or DM, and my experience - combined with everything I've read on this board - suggests that people faced with making that call and nothing more substantial on which to base it - will make it wrong, to a very round approximation, roughly 50% of the time.
Err on the side of caution - if you suspect it might screw things up for other people, don't do it. Or you can always ask.


Second, at the point we're discussing now, the game has already stopped being fun for at least one player - the one who's been put in this untenable position. So someone has already fornicated with that particular lapdog. How does this one player make the call that s/he should be the one to back down and martyr their characterisation in the interests of everyone else's "fun"?
Not being able to do the thing you think your character would do isn't the same as the game not being fun. Knowing when to stop making everything about you is more than just good player etiquette - it's a requirement for being an adult.


And, although this may be high heresy hereabouts: "fun" is not the be-all and end-all of gaming. It's a social thing, it allows friends to explore life and philosophy in ways that aren't normally possible - and if some people at the table think that's not worthwhile because it's "not fun", maybe they're the ones in the wrong hobby. Or, at least, the wrong group.
If you want to "explore life and philosophy" in a way that's (to quote the OP) disruptive and hurtful to people, go write a book.

Hawkstar
2015-06-30, 05:15 PM
This really is an issue that pops up a lot, and there really isn't a good answer without context.

nedz
2015-06-30, 05:20 PM
This can be remedied with character development, and I'm not talking about mechanics. Some players may need some prompting to actually have their character learn from previous events and change their behaviour. The problem occurs when players are inflexible about their characters.

Hawkstar
2015-06-30, 05:23 PM
Pretty much in the character design phase. I've been burned by this a few times as a GM so I'm pretty vigilant about intercepting problem PC's before they ever step foot in the game world.

Sometimes, though, these sorts of problems don't pop up until WAY late in the game, after characterization may have drifted gradually from the pitched concept. An example I can think of would be, in the middle of a dungeon crawl, an honor-obsessed Samurai-style character might, at a plot-critical point in the story, decides to charge ahead for the BBEG, consequences be damned, instead of wait for the party rogue to trap-sweep ahead of him, which then causes the rest of the party problems as they either try to protect said Samurai, or have to deal with having a wounded front-line fighter for the big finale fight. (Yes, I'm using the exact same example of problematic "It's what my character would do!" behavior from someone who preached "Do something different!")
This can be remedied with character development, and I'm not talking about mechanics. Some players may need some prompting to actually have their character learn from previous events and change their behaviour. The problem occurs when players are inflexible about their characters.
This is not entirely true. The "Do something disruptive vs. Completely Break Character" can pop up at any point in a character arc.

HolyCouncilMagi
2015-06-30, 05:58 PM
It depends on exactly how set that personality is, and exactly how much that player cares about RP.

If the player is more casual about the RP part of the game and the feeling of playing a genuine character isn't a big deal to them, tell them to change their character a bit. Call it spontaneous character growth, and keep things going so they stay fun. (Note: I might say this like I consider it the "bad" way to play, but I don't; I actually consider it objectively superior to my own preferences, but sadly "preferences" and "weighing objective benefits against one another" don't mix.)

If the player is like me, who needs a character they can really feel connected to in order to have fun and who strives to let the character grow, act, and develop organically, then it gets harder. I can tell you what I would do in that situation; I'd take the action that doesn't disrupt the game, and then, assuming the game isn't highly-lethal enough that a "mistake" (wink wink nudge nudge) on my part would let me remove the character in a non-contrived way, I'd ask the DM to contrive a scenario to perma-kill my character so that I could bring in a new one without the prior character's life weighing on my mind. But this solution is not one that most players with my preferences would be okay with, because it requires unceremoniously and willingly severing a bond to a character you've put a lot of work into.

The best starting point is to make a character that wouldn't take disruptive actions in any scenario you can think of, but despite how popular it is to laugh about how PCs throw wrenches in every plan, DMs just as often throw things your way that are so totally unexpected that you can't even really adapt. (The difference is, when a DM does it, everyone on the internet tells them it's great work, while if the PCs do it, everyone on the internet says they're a problem player who should be booted. :smallsigh:) If this puts you in a situation where your only in-character action would be disruptive, what are you supposed to do?

I'm going to be perfectly honest here. I thought about this while typing my answer, and then after the previous paragraph I walked away from the computer for thirty minutes to think about it. After that, there's only one thing I can say with any certainty: There is no fantastic solution to this problem, there are only ones ranging from "I think I can live with that if you buy me ice cream after" to "slightly better than decent."

The best option I could think of is, if you see a situation like this coming and your DM's relationship with the group isn't utterly adversarial, to pass your DM a note asking him to give you a convenient out; whether this is in a conventional form, or a more forced scenario, it's not especially important as long as it solves the problem without your character having to make a different choice.

If he is totally adversarial and opposed to changing his game to help you have more fun... Find a different DM, also his game deserves to be ruined, so disrupt away.

In the more likely scenario that the situation is simply sprung upon you and it's "act now or forever hold your peace," try to find an in-character compromise. If the other PCs know your character's reason for wanting to perform said disruptive action, pass one of them a note, saying that they notice your character acting strangely and are able to realize why, and that they should find a way to restrain you. (Don't give them any subtle "my character glances with seething rage at X" or anything, be straightforward; "by her shift in stance and the look in her eyes, you can tell my character is about to try to kill that person we really need, so find a way to restrain me.") Great RP regarding their conflict over the restraint ensues, which is rarely a bad thing.

That works best if it's simply that your character needs to not take an action, rather than they have to take an action but the only action they would take is the decidedly wrong one. Not all things in life work out so well. What if your character has to agree to something they'd never agree to, under threat of the rest of the party dying? Assuming your character isn't the "I'll do it just to keep the others alive" type, you're now in a pickle; if you do X action, you'll break character, often severely if it's really something you'd consider sacrificing the party for, but if you don't, the campaign is likely over, and more importantly you'll likely severely detract from the fun of the other players. First, make sure the situation itself is justified. If it's the DM being a crappy person to you and the other players by giving you a no-win choice and taking all the options away from the other players arbitrarily, see above: "Find a new DM." If it's somehow justified, do still consider the "talk to your DM" option from earlier, only in this case up-front, asking for a retcon to a situation that doesn't require choosing between making the game less fun for everyone else or making the game a whole lot less fun for yourself.

If none of that works, I guess it's time to start considering my "do action, don't disrupt game, kill character at first opportunity" idea. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, but there's only so much you can do when you're playing a mid-level rogue and the DM is steadfast about having put the rest of the party in a Forcecage in the middle of a cursed volcano, whose slow but steady lava rise can only be halted by sacrificing the one item your character cares about more than the party and the town below. (Real situation, I already told you what I did. The DM was not pleased, said "I was trying to give you a character growth moment, not have your character turn into a walking vegetable who was looking to remove itself from reality." My response was to apologize for getting so engrossed in his campaign world, which left him partially speechless but also ended up helping us to understand each other better as player and DM. Your mileage may vary.)

Sorry I couldn't give you a better answer. This is a rather hard question for somebody like me, truth be told.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-30, 06:06 PM
Sometimes, though, these sorts of problems don't pop up until WAY late in the game, after characterization may have drifted gradually from the pitched concept.

True, but an ounce of prevention and all that.

I haven't had any problems like that for a while, at least not as GM. I've seen it as a player in the disfunctional games I seem to keep joining of late.

Pex
2015-06-30, 06:18 PM
My problem was I was in a 5E game where the majority of the players were such Jerks with an enabling DM. I was the one who left. It's all nice to say "I'm only doing what my character would do" is a terrible excuse to behave poorly and that player should choose differently, but when it's almost everyone at the table such an admonition will not work.

veti
2015-06-30, 07:03 PM
Err on the side of caution - if you suspect it might screw things up for other people, don't do it. Or you can always ask.

Unless you're talking about a literally life-or-death situation, such as driving a car, "err on the side of caution" is usually terrible advice. It is so here. RPGs give you the opportunity to take "risks" in a way that isn't really "risky" at all - that's a large part of the point. And if you never take those risks, neither you nor anyone else will ever experience anything new.


Not being able to do the thing you think your character would do isn't the same as the game not being fun. Knowing when to stop making everything about you is more than just good player etiquette - it's a requirement for being an adult.

Another "requirement for being an adult" is "standing up for yourself and not relying on others to protect you all the time". Another is "making your own decisions, taking due consideration of the herd but not automatically deferring to them".


If you want to "explore life and philosophy" in a way that's (to quote the OP) disruptive and hurtful to people, go write a book.

Actually, the OP said "disruptive and hurtful" - "to people" was your interpolation. So let's get some sense of proportion here: this is a game. The worst, the very worst, you are ever likely to achieve is a blazing row that results in one or more members, very likely yourself, storming out and never speaking to any of the others again. That's hardly a life-changing outcome, and to achieve even that very limited apocalypse, you'd have to push the envelope a heck of a lot further than merely making a few questionable in-character decisions.

So, "disruptive and hurtful" to what? To the game or the plot? Sure you can disrupt and hurt that, but that's an imaginary construct, and as such, disposable. Sure, it might represent years of time invested by some participants; but if it's so fragile that you can shatter it with one bad decision, that suggests it's so flawed that they're frankly better off starting over anyway. To be "disruptive and hurtful" to people you'd have to go a whole huge leap further.

If you choose to put my character in a position of having to act against their established nature, interests and characterisation in order for you to "have fun", and I refuse to have my character go along with you - I don't see why I'm automatically in the wrong.

dream
2015-06-30, 09:17 PM
Unless you're talking about a literally life-or-death situation, such as driving a car, "err on the side of caution" is usually terrible advice. It is so here. RPGs give you the opportunity to take "risks" in a way that isn't really "risky" at all - that's a large part of the point. And if you never take those risks, neither you nor anyone else will ever experience anything new.
Caution is never terrible advice, and taking risks is one thing. Offending people with your lack of taste/maturity is something completely different. Establishing what's off-limits up front helps avoid that.



Another "requirement for being an adult" is "standing up for yourself and not relying on others to protect you all the time". Another is "making your own decisions, taking due consideration of the herd but not automatically deferring to them".
Tabletop RPGs are group-centered & thus, gamers need to be considerate of their fellow players. I've seen great players & GMs leave groups because there was at least one munchkin at the table who made things unpleasant. The game's about the GROUP, not the individual. You want to play alone, there's video games.



Actually, the OP said "disruptive and hurtful" - "to people" was your interpolation. So let's get some sense of proportion here: this is a game. The worst, the very worst, you are ever likely to achieve is a blazing row that results in one or more members, very likely yourself, storming out and never speaking to any of the others again. That's hardly a life-changing outcome, and to achieve even that very limited apocalypse, you'd have to push the envelope a heck of a lot further than merely making a few questionable in-character decisions.
So, running off other players is okay to you?


So, "disruptive and hurtful" to what? To the game or the plot? Sure you can disrupt and hurt that, but that's an imaginary construct, and as such, disposable. Sure, it might represent years of time invested by some participants; but if it's so fragile that you can shatter it with one bad decision, that suggests it's so flawed that they're frankly better off starting over anyway. To be "disruptive and hurtful" to people you'd have to go a whole huge leap further.
The GM's plot is disposable to you? So, at your gaming table, you do whatever you want with no regard for other players?


If you choose to put my character in a position of having to act against their established nature, interests and characterisation in order for you to "have fun", and I refuse to have my character go along with you - I don't see why I'm automatically in the wrong.
It's called a social contract; people sit down at the gaming table together and trust that everyone is there to a fun, respectful experience. When someone decides they want to be disruptive because "that's what my PC would do", it jeopardizes the entire game. Short-term & long-term. This is why I for one never tolerate munchkins at the table: you can play like a mature, respectful person or you can leave. Thankfully, I've had great players that appreciate that stance & support it.

Darth Ultron
2015-06-30, 09:48 PM
This really is an issue that pops up a lot, and there really isn't a good answer without context.

Seems there is an easy enough answer in two simple parts:

1.Common Sense

2.The DM stepping up and taking absolute and total control of the game for everyone's benefit.

Common sense should be easy enough. But if it is not so ''common'', just answer the question of ''what would make sense in 1950?''.

The DM control is the big one. And this is what really separates a DM from a Player. The Player just wants to have fun. The DM wants to have a good game where everyone has fun.

For example, it is best for a DM to just outright ban anything that looks like it might be a problem. Like when a player says ''Oh, my character is greedy and might kinda sometimes sort of do bad and evil PVP stuff to get more loot and money'' or ''My character is a Lone Wolf''.

goto124
2015-06-30, 10:01 PM
The last paragraph is assuming the DM could see it at the start of the campaign. Your examples are the obvious ones, but it's not always like that.

Often, we don't have that luxury of knowing the future. Things change over time.

How far should we ban things anyway? How far before we end up with extremely bland and generic characters?

Also, why did the 'go OOC or create trouble' situation crop up in the first place?

How much trouble is enough trouble to act OOC? Acting in-character can bring some sort of trouble, and oftentimes players are okay with it, because roleplay.

veti
2015-07-01, 02:08 AM
Caution is never terrible advice, and taking risks is one thing. Offending people with your lack of taste/maturity is something completely different. Establishing what's off-limits up front helps avoid that.

I beg to differ. Caution is usually terrible advice. I didn't say anything against "establishing what's off-limits up front", and I have no problem with that.


Tabletop RPGs are group-centered & thus, gamers need to be considerate of their fellow players. I've seen great players & GMs leave groups because there was at least one munchkin at the table who made things unpleasant. The game's about the GROUP, not the individual. You want to play alone, there's video games.

Right back at you. We're talking about a situation where you have put me in an acutely uncomfortable position, and your advice, and the bulk of advice in this thread, is to roll over and suck it up in the interests of The Group, who are all assumed to be revelling in my lack of agency.

I say no.

Example: we were on a long and intricate quest, several months of playing time in, and came to the end of our last plausible lead to find - a demon. The demon started spouting some kind of half-baked plot exposition to us. We all assumed we'd hear him out, and at some point he'd drop enough breadcrumbs that we could at least discern another lead.

But the party paladin had other ideas. Pretty much as soon as the demon went into its spiel, he was like "Why are we listening to this creature's lies?", and before we could restrain him, he killed it. Leaving us with no leads at all.

But strangely, that wasn't the end of the campaign. It survived that bit of disruptive behaviour. The DM gnashed his teeth a bit, and had to improvise for the next couple of hours until he could throw us another plot hook. Other players reacted with varying degrees of exasperation and amusement. The paladin most certainly did not act cautiously or ask for permission or consensus before acting, and I for one (and for the record, I was one of the more exasperated players) think he did the right thing.


So, running off other players is okay to you?

I dare you - I double-dare you - to find where I suggested that.


The GM's plot is disposable to you? So, at your gaming table, you do whatever you want with no regard for other players?

Damn' straight the plot is disposable. I don't see how that translates into "having no regard for other players", however.


It's called a social contract; people sit down at the gaming table together and trust that everyone is there to a fun, respectful experience. When someone decides they want to be disruptive because "that's what my PC would do", it jeopardizes the entire game. Short-term & long-term. This is why I for one never tolerate munchkins at the table: you can play like a mature, respectful person or you can leave. Thankfully, I've had great players that appreciate that stance & support it.

Who's talking about munchkins? Besides, there's nothing particularly disruptive about munchkins. It's not roleplaying that makes them annoying - if anything, it's the opposite.

"Jeopardises the entire game"? What the heck kind of fragile games do you play in? I've been in plenty of arguments around RP tables in my time, some of them cast a pall over that session, but any DM who gives up just because of that - well, sounds to me like their heart wasn't really in it in the first place, and you're probably doing them a favour by giving them a reason to stop.

dream
2015-07-01, 05:50 AM
I beg to differ. Caution is usually terrible advice. I didn't say anything against "establishing what's off-limits up front", and I have no problem with that.
We disagree & that's fine.



Right back at you. We're talking about a situation where you have put me in an acutely uncomfortable position, and your advice, and the bulk of advice in this thread, is to roll over and suck it up in the interests of The Group, who are all assumed to be revelling in my lack of agency.
We aren't discussing the same thing. I'm addressing the OP & disruptive behavior & where that line is. You're discussing player agency.




I dare you - I double-dare you - to find where I suggested that.

Actually, the OP said "disruptive and hurtful" - "to people" was your interpolation. So let's get some sense of proportion here: this is a game. The worst, the very worst, you are ever likely to achieve is a blazing row that results in one or more members, very likely yourself, storming out and never speaking to any of the others again. That's hardly a life-changing outcome, and to achieve even that very limited apocalypse, you'd have to push the envelope a heck of a lot further than merely making a few questionable in-character decisions.



Damn' straight the plot is disposable. I don't see how that translates into "having no regard for other players", however.
That's obvious.



Who's talking about munchkins? Besides, there's nothing particularly disruptive about munchkins. It's not roleplaying that makes them annoying - if anything, it's the opposite.
I mentioned munchkins & yes, the term "munchkin" was coined by old-school gamers to describe new gamers who demonstrated little or no maturity at the gaming table. Here's a clear definition (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin) and I'm not saying you are a munchkin. I'm saying munchkins are normally disruptive & think they can do whatever they want at the table.


"Jeopardises the entire game"? What the heck kind of fragile games do you play in? I've been in plenty of arguments around RP tables in my time, some of them cast a pall over that session, but any DM who gives up just because of that - well, sounds to me like their heart wasn't really in it in the first place, and you're probably doing them a favour by giving them a reason to stop.
We obviously disagree here & I know why & let's just leave it at that.

Yora
2015-07-01, 06:59 AM
If one player makes a character that does not work together with the party "because that's what his character would do", it is perfectly within the right of the other players to kick that character out of the party, because that's what their characters would do.

And I might even tell the players that doing that would be in their own best interest. Being an adventurer is dangerous enough, you don't need someone that is a threat to you.

Mr.Moron
2015-07-01, 07:10 AM
No matter how you're framing it if it come down to a disruptive action being done because it's the only thing the character would do, you've simply proven one thing: The character is inappropriate for the game at hand.

The character should be ejected immediately. "It's what the character would do!" or "Sorry, I've got to go with the character" are just what make the difference between also ejecting the player or not.

Hawkstar
2015-07-01, 07:42 AM
We aren't discussing the same thing. I'm addressing the OP & disruptive behavior & where that line is. You're discussing player agency.While they may not be the same thing, they can be extremely closely related. People are not psychic, yet due to the nature of group dynamics "Bow to the will of the group" can often result in an extremely mediocre gameplay experience where nobody's willing to really do anything assertive with their character because it's not along with the pile of compromises that define the will of 'the group', leading to everyone half-assing everything. 'Disruptive' behaviors fall on a continuum,that ranges from "New, unexpected and exciting direction" to "Oh god, get this guy out of here."


That's obvious.That is an absolute worst-case scenario (Though I would say he forgot to mention the possibility of one person going berzerk and trying to stab everyone)


I mentioned munchkins & yes, the term "munchkin" was coined by old-school gamers to describe new gamers who demonstrated little or no maturity at the gaming table. Here's a clear definition (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin) and I'm not saying you are a munchkin. I'm saying munchkins are normally disruptive & think they can do whatever they want at the table.


No matter how you're framing it if it come down to a disruptive action being done because it's the only thing the character would do, you've simply proven one thing: The character is inappropriate for the game at hand.

The character should be ejected immediately. "It's what the character would do!" or "Sorry, I've got to go with the character" are just what make the difference between also ejecting the player or not.
Actually, one offense should generally not be enough. It takes a pattern of behavior, which may not be true.

Flickerdart
2015-07-01, 09:47 AM
No matter how you're framing it if it come down to a disruptive action being done because it's the only thing the character would do, you've simply proven one thing: The character is inappropriate for the game at hand.

The character should be ejected immediately. "It's what the character would do!" or "Sorry, I've got to go with the character" are just what make the difference between also ejecting the player or not.
That's a really good point - I hadn't even thought about removing a disruptive character from the party without also booting the player.

goto124
2015-07-01, 10:11 AM
'Disruptive' behaviors fall on a continuum,that ranges from "New, unexpected and exciting direction" to "Oh god, get this guy out of here."

Yea. Seeking a balance between the two extremes can be troublesome here.

On one hand, it's hard to have an interesting plot/game without conflict. On the other hand, when there's so much conflict that players are constantly arguing, that's not good either.

Much of it is based on emotions and personal preferences though, and the group will go through a number of rough spots before they find something everyone's happy with.

It is a rather blurry line.

Segev
2015-07-01, 10:23 AM
This really is not as hard as people are making it out to be. When you get a "dude, not cool" reaction from your fellow players, you've stepped over it. When you are removing other players' agency over their characters, you should be cautious and make sure it's okay OOC.

If you know your action will "ruin the game" for somebody else, don't do it. Don't be afraid to call out if you see somebody taking action that will ruin the game for you; they may not be aware.

Of course, this can be abused. But hopefully, you're not playing with people who secretly want to abuse this sort of thing to control everybody else. If you are, that's a deeper problem than "is my IC action acceptable OOC?"

Basically, treat others how you would like to be treated, and, if you find that your enjoyment and theirs are irreconciliable, negotiate a compromise or one of you (whichever seems more out of line with the rest of the players' preferred mode of fun) should leave that particular game. It's not worth gaming to make yourself unhappy, and it's a real jerk move to game to make others unhappy.

NichG
2015-07-01, 10:47 AM
Take whatever stance you want, but don't delude yourself that 'its what my character would do' actually provides insulation from you being responsible for making that choice. If you make a choice which might piss people off because you've weighed the risk, thats one thing. But if you believe that you should be immune to that risk because of the layer of separation of your character sheet, then you're going to run into the difference between 'reality the way it is' and 'reality the way you'd like it to be'. Whatever logic you can spin within your own head, it doesn't matter at all to how the other people at the table are going to feel about it. You can decide 'they're in the wrong', but it won't change the fact that your relationship with them may become different as a result.

So yeah, that risk is totally yours to take, but don't expect lines like 'its what my character would do' or 'I thought you would find it fun' or 'philosophically, you having fun isn't actually the point' to garner you any sympathy if something like that does go sour.

1337 b4k4
2015-07-01, 10:49 AM
If you choose to put my character in a position of having to act against their established nature, interests and characterisation in order for you to "have fun", and I refuse to have my character go along with you - I don't see why I'm automatically in the wrong.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why communication is important. Before the game begins, everyone need to be on the same page as to what type of game it is and what sort of characters and behaviors will or won't be allowed. Because veti is right to a degree, if you allow a player a certain character and then have to put that character in contrary positions to have fun, that's a **** move as bad as constantly trying to trap the paladin into falling.

On the other hand, venti, if your group decides you're going to start a bunch of low level mobsters stumbling across treasure and you roll up a paladin, that's your problem because you created a character knowing it would be put in positions requiring it to act against character by the nature of the game.

Ultimately gaming is a group activity and even if you're not in the wrong, if you're the odd man out, you have to decide whether being right or gaming is more important to you.

Flickerdart
2015-07-01, 11:03 AM
Because veti is right to a degree, if you allow a player a certain character and then have to put that character in contrary positions to have fun, that's a **** move as bad as constantly trying to trap the paladin into falling.
Disagree vehemently. It's entirely up to the player to decide whether his character will only have one single, automaton-like course of action to a particular event. A group is entitled to allow a character like Belkar and still expect him not to pull the "my character would slaughter the party in their sleep and sell their stuff" card.

1337 b4k4
2015-07-01, 02:39 PM
Disagree vehemently. It's entirely up to the player to decide whether his character will only have one single, automaton-like course of action to a particular event. A group is entitled to allow a character like Belkar and still expect him not to pull the "my character would slaughter the party in their sleep and sell their stuff" card.

Like most things, it's a continuum, with "fun" being the best guiding measure but note that a character like Belkar would not "slaughter the party in their sleep and sell their stuff" as indeed Belkar has not. There's a difference between a 1 dimensional character and a character with a strong informing trait. I'm referring to the latter. If you allow a paladin, and then every quest and encounter is loaded with Sophie's Choices that require the paladin to constantly tread the line or break their vows, that's a **** move. Likewise, if you allow a chaotic character and then deliberately place them in situations where a chaotic behavior is always the wrong choice, that is a **** move. This is a social game after all and allowing character types then deliberately trying to prevent that character type from acting in a manner consistent with the type is just as much failing the social contract as creating a character that constantly seeks to derail the rest of the group.

Hawkstar
2015-07-01, 08:43 PM
Disagree vehemently. It's entirely up to the player to decide whether his character will only have one single, automaton-like course of action to a particular event. A group is entitled to allow a character like Belkar and still expect him not to pull the "my character would slaughter the party in their sleep and sell their stuff" card.

But what if the situation is "A devil approaches a party with a contract, and everyone but the paladin wants to sign"? Why are you using a Chaotic Stupid example for something significantly more nuanced?

Should the Player of a Chaotic Good Ranger who was born and raised as a slave and abused until he escaped, and thus has a burning hatred for abuse, mistreatment, and slavery, be treated as a "Disruptive Problem Player" if, during the course of a campaign, the party finds itself trying to infiltrate some Lawful Evil slavery-practicing hellhole, the Ranger finds himself witnessing a slave master violently beating and abusing a slave, and decides that, mission be damned, he cannot take standing by and watching this sort of atrocity any longer?

goto124
2015-07-01, 09:10 PM
Yea... above situations are more complicated, and I believe we're trying to find some sort of answers for the greyer areas.

After all, both the character concepts and the situations they're in are reasonable.

It's even worse when the players disagree. Two players think signing the contract is the best way to save the kingdom, the other two believe it will only lead to doom.

Sith_Happens
2015-07-01, 09:33 PM
But where does "That sucks, but you have to follow the character." End and "Dude, that's not cool that you made a character like that." begin?

Context context context. Firstly, you'd be surprised the sorts of things you can justify just about any character doing or not doing if you're creative enough. Especially when you have "sense of self-preservation" as a fallback reason, as so often seems to be the case in this sort of scenario. Secondly, not all disruptions are created equal. Blowing the party's cover during an infiltration? Often quite salvageable or at least survivable. Pissing off the person in charge of an overwhelming force that the party is surrounded by? Welcome to TPK Town.

goto124
2015-07-01, 09:39 PM
This question is one I face, both as the 'disruptive' player and the other player affected by the 'disruptive' action.

How much inconvinence will the action cause? Should I allow for that amount of inconvinence? What if it turns out to be a worse idea that thought? What if it steps on MY roleplay? I don't want to be a jerk, but I'm a player too!

NichG
2015-07-01, 09:41 PM
The thing is, this sort of thing can't be generalized based on the IC situation. The IC situation isn't the thing that is real, its the OOC situation - what the people who you're playing with are like, what kinds of things they get upset about or think are cool, and the general social contract of your table. So saying 'CG ranger who hates slavery etc etc' doesn't really give you enough to say one way or the other. At some tables, people would think 'thats cool!', and at other tables, people would think 'this guy ruined the evening and we're not going to invite him back'.

Thankfully, most of the time you won't be in some kind of undecidable gray situation which is extremely difficult to pick apart with severe consequences on either side of the decision boundary. Most of the time its enough to just think to yourself 'how will this make the other people at the table feel?' or 'if our positions were switched, would I get upset?' and to generally put a positive valuation on 'my friends are enjoying themselves' (e.g. if your mental process is 'he's going to get so pissed off, this will be great!' that's probably a sign that you're about to not be invited back).

That will usually be enough. When it isn't, communication and being willing to recognize when you've made a mistake will generally moderate most of the negative consequences.

The Fury
2015-07-01, 10:13 PM
This question is one I face, both as the 'disruptive' player and the other player affected by the 'disruptive' action.

How much inconvinence will the action cause? Should I allow for that amount of inconvinence? What if it turns out to be a worse idea that thought? What if it steps on MY roleplay? I don't want to be a jerk, but I'm a player too!

Well put. I'm working on becoming a "reformed" problem player so I try to think about this sort of thing more often. When I do play, which admittedly isn't often anymore, I try to make concessions towards my fellow players' style. Yet I still want to play the way I like, y'know?

JAL_1138
2015-07-01, 11:00 PM
I think there are two situations here (Pex touched on this somewhat) that are both covered by "It's what my character would do."

There's the person who's effectively using it and "Roleplay!" to be disruptive.

Then there's the action which is completely justified by the character's personality, morals, and experiences in the circumstances for a well-roleplayed character and which cannot plausibly be avoided without a complete break from everything the character has been, said, and done up to that point. In my experience, with the latter case most people at the table aren't going to find that to be "disrupting everyone else's fun."

As a(n infrequent) DM, I advise against plots. Don't plot. Create scenarios, not plots. That way there aren't any plots to mess up. Don't angle toward a specific ending so much that players doing something else is a problem. If someone decides to be a **** and stabs the king during an audience, have the Royal Guards kill 'em, as the logical response to the sudden treachery. Then, potentially, have the Royal Cleric proceed to rezz the king. Depending on the rest of the party, throw them all in the Dungeon of Despair (aaaaand cue an excuse to bust out a classic dungeon crawl!) or acknowledge that they couldn't have seen the sudden treachery coming. Alternatively, perhaps the king lives, but barely, and you could decide that the now-martyred character was in the right and the king was a tyrant with good PR, and now you've got a revolution. Or the king dies, and you don't rez them, and now there's a succession crisis. So many interesting things can spawn from a "disruptive" action--whether it's the idiotically-disruptive kind, or the difficult-but-inevitable, well-roleplayed kind.

If someone decides to ignore the poor old farmer who asks the players to investigate the weird noises coming from under the floor of the barn, have the horrible monstrosities from the depths they were going to find down there break loose and invade the surface world. Now they've got a whole new problem--trying to find out where these monsters are coming from (which, again, they may or may not bite on). The realization that this all could've been avoided if they'd gone down under the old coot's barn three months ago and collapsed a tunnel by knocking down a pillar or two could be priceless (or they'll throw dice at you, one or the other). And as for everything else you had planned, save it and use it elsewhere with the serial numbers filed off.

If the players kill off their only possible lead because the NPC with the information is shady or outright evil, why was that NPC the only lead they could get (always have multiple sources of information, even if it's just that the NPC keeps detailed journals). But maybe they don't find out where to go next, and the town they were trying to save is overrun. Now they might get the setup to liberate the place rather than keep it from being sacked. Or maybe it's just gone; they lost, now they've got to live with it. Or die with it, depending. It could get interesting either way.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-07-02, 02:04 AM
What JAL said

I'm trying to write a story with four characters I rolled up in a Pathfinder based setting. While it WOULD be fun to play as the monk/paladin of Iorori (god of history and self perfection) he might cause some of those "But it's what my character would do" problems. He has a bad temper for a paladin

Keltest
2015-07-02, 04:13 AM
What JAL said

I'm trying to write a story with four characters I rolled up in a Pathfinder based setting. While it WOULD be fun to play as the monk/paladin of Iorori (god of history and self perfection) he might cause some of those "But it's what my character would do" problems. He has a bad temper for a paladin

That sounds less like a problem character and more like a character who doesn't want to keep their class features. A paladin with enough of a temper that you think it would be disruptive is going to have some serious issues not doing evil deeds and falling.

The Fury
2015-07-02, 09:01 AM
That sounds less like a problem character and more like a character who doesn't want to keep their class features. A paladin with enough of a temper that you think it would be disruptive is going to have some serious issues not doing evil deeds and falling.

Not necessarily. True, going around acting like a thug all the time probably won't ingratiate them to whatever cosmic good force that's granting their class features but you can approach this a couple of ways. There's the Good Is Not Nice approach, basically making it a point to direct their anger towards people that had it coming-- Evil people and those that work with them. There's also character development-- maybe they grow out of being a hothead and become more forgiving.
Though in an actual game, I can definitely see how such a character might be pretty disruptive.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-07-02, 09:20 AM
Not necessarily. True, going around acting like a thug all the time probably won't ingratiate them to whatever cosmic good force that's granting their class features but you can approach this a couple of ways. There's the Good Is Not Nice approach, basically making it a point to direct their anger towards people that had it coming-- Evil people and those that work with them. There's also character development-- maybe they grow out of being a hothead and become more forgiving.
Though in an actual game, I can definitely see how such a character might be pretty disruptive.

He swears like a sailor with a heart of gold. And yes I'm planning on him "growing up"

Kish
2015-07-02, 09:57 AM
Actually, the OP said "disruptive and hurtful" - "to people" was your interpolation.

Excuse me? You're seriously claiming that "hurtful" doesn't require that anyone is getting hurt? What else would it be hurtful to? Chairs?


So let's get some sense of proportion here: this is a game.

An ironic line from the person who's arguing that making the game not-fun is less important than someone's desire to "explore life and philosophy."

AceOfFools
2015-07-04, 08:30 AM
Actually, the OP said "disruptive and hurtful" - "to people" was your interpolation. So let's get some sense of proportion here: this is a game. The worst, the very worst, you are ever likely to achieve is a blazing row that results in one or more members, very likely yourself, storming out and never speaking to any of the others again. That's hardly a life-changing outcome, and to achieve even that very limited apocalypse, you'd have to push the envelope a heck of a lot further than merely making a few questionable in-character decisions.
...

This is the gist of it, although I draw the oposite conclusions.

Weigh the consequences of your actions.

Is your enjoyment of a game really worth ruining your friendship with these people? (I have gamed with ass-holes where the answer was yes).

Is acting OOC going to be bad enough that you want to leave the game/change PCs, or is acting in character going to make someone else leave? Call for a pause in game and explain why this is unacceptable for you (particularly if it is another player's action) so a decision on how to proceed. can be made focusing on what's actually at stake (the game/character keeps getting played), rather than the more immediate "what would my character do".

goto124
2015-07-05, 10:00 AM
Is your enjoyment of a game really worth ruining your friendship with these people? (I have gamed with holes where the answer was yes).

To be honest, I would've left the game instead of wasting time with them.

Also, games have multiple people. There could be That One Person, and everyone else is all good. Don't ruin the fun of the good people, just because of That One Person.

And there's 'no one is wrong, just incompatible'. Like one player wanting a hack-and-slash, when someone else expected a more talky kind of game.

The real problem, however, is that acceptability comes in a wide range. You have to be slightly 'unacceptable' to roleplay a real, imperfect person with an actual personality, otherwise you're just playing it like a computer game where everyone makes only 100% optimal decisions. Not bad in and of itself, but many people want to... well... roleplay. Which includes flaws.

You can make up excuses to handwave the flaw and let the plot go on, but after a few excuses you start feeling like the flaw is nothing more than flavor text that does nothing in the story. Like you're not really roleplaying, like the personality you wrote down is meaningless.

That's why people say 'that's what my character would do'. It points back to the whole point of RPGs, that is, roleplaying. Even if they do take it to extremes.

Where do we draw the line?

Should I let my character's fear of spiders impede the group's progress? Should I have my character blindly charge into a trap?

Red Fel
2015-07-05, 11:33 AM
That's why people say 'that's what my character would do'. It points back to the whole point of RPGs, that is, roleplaying. Even if they do take it to extremes.

The problem with "that's what my character would do," as others have observed, is that it assumes your character is a robot. That is, if you input a specific stimulus, you receive a singular behavioral output, every time. For example, if I write that my character is highly racist against Elves, to the point of wanting to kill them every time he meets one, a "that's what my character would do" argument might be my justification for actually attempting to kill every Elf the party meets.

But characters are not robots. They are people, they are nuanced, they grow and change. Even when they stay the same, they may act differently when context demands it. That is the point of roleplaying. So my character who hates Elves may attempt to kill them instead of taking them captive, for instance, or he may kill one he meets alone on the road. But attacking the Elf king surrounded by guards? No. Attacking an Elf in the middle of town, in broad daylight, when I'm clearly in the wrong? No. Attacking an Elf while his buddy holds a knife to a partymember's throat? No. My character is not a robot; he can react differently depending on context and common sense.


Where do we draw the line?

My rule? If you have to say "It's what my character would do," you're defending your choice. If you're defending your choice, it means you either feel defensive or have reason to be, i.e. because you've offended the table. At that point, the line has probably been crossed.

The goal should be to play a character in such a way that you should never have to say "It's what my character would do." A character who, for all his flaws and vices, is justifiable on his face. I'm not saying he can't lash out from time to time, lose his temper or his nerve, or let his compunctions get in the way of the story just a bit. But if that happens too much, it's not a problem of the character, it's a problem of how he's being played; you either need to tone down his difficulties, or retire him and design a character who works better with the rest of the table.


Should I let my character's fear of spiders impede the group's progress? Should I have my character blindly charge into a trap?

Yes and no. There are times when this is appropriate. For example, if I have a character with a fear of spiders, I may have him hesitate before engaging one in combat, or before going into the nest - but he ultimately goes. That said, if the boss monster is a giant spider made up of thousands of smaller spiders, I would probably have my character curl up in a corner sobbing unless somebody had a means to protect him against fear, or cover the spider-abomination-from-my-nightmares with an illusion, or something. There are limits, but creative players can overcome them.

Similarly, I could play a brash character, maybe even one who is borderline delusional when it comes to his own perceived invulnerability. Always the first into battle, always charging down hallways. But after getting hit with one trap too many, or after falling into a couple of ambushes, even a delusional idiot starts to get a bit wiser. Playing a character who doesn't learn from his mistakes isn't really roleplaying; you're not playing a character, you're playing a flat stereotype that never changes.

PrincessCupcake
2015-07-05, 05:01 PM
I have a few short questions that can be applied to "It's What My Character Would Do!" situations.

1- Does the action add anything to the game?

2- does it contribute to a positive game environment?

3- does it actively hamper the fun of everyone else?

It's worth noting that the first question does not have a "wrong" answer.

Pex
2015-07-05, 08:25 PM
My experience with "It's what my character would do" has always been the player being a Jerk. The Lone Wolf. Betrays party to the BBEG. Steals treasure, found and/or from other players. Does not tell party important need to know information he learns during his Lone Wolf escapade. Does not help during combat. Those are the players who don't play well with others. The only thing that matters is their own fun, bonus if it does hurt other players. These are the players I have no patience with. These are the players I had to quit my 5E group not to play with.

Fear of spiders. Tend to attack first instead of asking questions but party can calm him down. Those are just quirks. That's just roleplaying a character without needing to say "I'm just roleplaying". It's the Jerk behavior that ruins the game. If it's just one player, the group can tell him to knock it off or get out. When it's at least half the party, you need to get out as I did if you can't stomach it.

Hawkstar
2015-07-05, 08:43 PM
The problem with "that's what my character would do," as others have observed, is that it assumes your character is a robot. That is, if you input a specific stimulus, you receive a singular behavioral output, every time. For example, if I write that my character is highly racist against Elves, to the point of wanting to kill them every time he meets one, a "that's what my character would do" argument might be my justification for actually attempting to kill every Elf the party meets.

But characters are not robots. They are people, they are nuanced, they grow and change. Even when they stay the same, they may act differently when context demands it. That is the point of roleplaying. So my character who hates Elves may attempt to kill them instead of taking them captive, for instance, or he may kill one he meets alone on the road. But attacking the Elf king surrounded by guards? No. Attacking an Elf in the middle of town, in broad daylight, when I'm clearly in the wrong? No. Attacking an Elf while his buddy holds a knife to a partymember's throat? No. My character is not a robot; he can react differently depending on context and common sense.

Counterpoint - People are a lot more predictable than you give them credit for. In my experience, "Free Will" is more a "Heavily constrained, circumstantially-influenced will." Often, the "That's what my character would do" is the most sensible course of action given the circumstances.

There are some jerks who abuse "That's what my character would do" (And I feel sorry for those who have to put up with them). But I've experienced and been with a lot of players who, out of fear of being 'that guy', go along with 'the group' for some of the most tepid and boring adventures ever.

Darth Ultron
2015-07-05, 09:48 PM
My experience with "It's what my character would do" has always been the player being a Jerk.

I agree with this 100%. You, oddly, almost never see a player ''doing what their character would do '' when it is not disruptive.

A classic is, for example, the greedy dwarf. He is a nice dwarf, but has a mean greed streak with a vague ''sometimes goes to far''. In short, it is a sneaky way for a player to get PvP into the game. The character can go ''greedy crazy'' and attack the other players (''they took my gold!'' ) and the player can innocently sit back and say ''it is what my character would do.....''.

Lone Wolves are another example. The player that just sits there and does utterly nothing, as ''that is what my character does'', when just about anything happens in the game...except combat.

JAL_1138
2015-07-05, 11:04 PM
(Example borrowed and tweaked from the tale of Old Man Henderson, and while that was a character specifically engineered to be a campaign-wrecker, the example translates to other situations)

Say you have a character who, the entire game, has been paranoid and a bit trigger-happy. It practically defines them. Thus far it has only had positive effects in terms of party survival. They've reacted in such a way as to foil ambushes, assassinations, and robberies, and have got the drop on opponents who were acting shifty.

A player brings in a visibly-heavily-armed replacement character by having them catch the paranoid guy in a dark alley, alone, and in which he has just killed an attempted mugger seconds before, come up behind him, and tap him on the shoulder. Then punch him twice in the face and state that he's been hired to kill the paranoid guy. The idea was to have a brawl, discover the nefarious doings of the hitman's employer, and end up on the same side afterward. But the paranoid character doesn't know the new guy from Adam. Based on his entire character so far, the only course of action he would ever take under these circumstances is to turn around and put as many bullets as he could fire in a round of combat into this random, heavily-armed stranger who has caught him alone in a dark alley and punched him repeatedly in the face and admitted that he's a hired gun sent to kill the paranoid guy. Anything else whatsoever would be grossly out of character.

To metagame, or not to metagame?

Feddlefew
2015-07-06, 12:14 AM
I am considering playing a character in my friend's upcoming D&D campaign

who's end-game is to summon a sentient comet/elder being that they have a long-distance, mutually romantic relationship with, possibly leading to a new age of evil that's even worse than the current dystopian campaign setting. So, the question becomes "Is it okay to have a PC that is actively working to bring about the end of the world for personal gain if they aren't trying to back stab the rest of the PCs?"

I am waffling between LE and NE for their alignment, since they really don't care what happens to strangers and acquaintances, but are fiercely loyal to their friends.

Edit:



A player brings in a visibly-heavily-armed replacement character by having them catch the paranoid guy in a dark alley, alone, and in which he has just killed an attempted mugger seconds before, come up behind him, and tap him on the shoulder. Then punch him twice in the face and state that he's been hired to kill the paranoid guy. The idea was to have a brawl, discover the nefarious doings of the hitman's employer, and end up on the same side afterward. But the paranoid character doesn't know the new guy from Adam. Based on his entire character so far, the only course of action he would ever take under these circumstances is to turn around and put as many bullets as he could fire in a round of combat into this random, heavily-armed stranger who has caught him alone in a dark alley and punched him repeatedly in the face and admitted that he's a hired gun sent to kill the paranoid guy. Anything else whatsoever would be grossly out of character.

To metagame, or not to metagame?

Maybe beat them to within an inch of their life and interrogate them to figure out who sent them?

HolyCouncilMagi
2015-07-06, 12:37 AM
I agree with this 100%. You, oddly, almost never see a player ''doing what their character would do '' when it is not disruptive.

A classic is, for example, the greedy dwarf. He is a nice dwarf, but has a mean greed streak with a vague ''sometimes goes to far''. In short, it is a sneaky way for a player to get PvP into the game. The character can go ''greedy crazy'' and attack the other players (''they took my gold!'' ) and the player can innocently sit back and say ''it is what my character would do.....''.

Lone Wolves are another example. The player that just sits there and does utterly nothing, as ''that is what my character does'', when just about anything happens in the game...except combat.

.............

What tables do you game at, where people never have their characters do what they think their characters would do unless it's disruptive? Because as much as people are talking about the word "roleplaying" being used as an excuse all too often, the central fact remains that having your character do what they would do based on their personality, allegiances, and other such things is basically the definition of roleplaying.

Unless what you mean is that people never say they're "doing what their character would do" unless it's disruptive, but that should be obvious. People are only going to say something that's that obvious when somebody else argues that they're not doing it, or that they're not doing it right and being disruptive because of it. I mean, when you're playing a Fighter, do you alternate every fifth sentence with "I'm playing a Fighter!"? In your real life, do you walk up to your friends, smile and say hello, and then remind them that you're now engaged in conversation with them? If not, then you really shouldn't expect people to regularly bring up that they're roleplaying while they're, y'know, roleplaying.

NichG
2015-07-06, 06:02 AM
(Example borrowed and tweaked from the tale of Old Man Henderson, and while that was a character specifically engineered to be a campaign-wrecker, the example translates to other situations)

Say you have a character who, the entire game, has been paranoid and a bit trigger-happy. It practically defines them. Thus far it has only had positive effects in terms of party survival. They've reacted in such a way as to foil ambushes, assassinations, and robberies, and have got the drop on opponents who were acting shifty.

A player brings in a visibly-heavily-armed replacement character by having them catch the paranoid guy in a dark alley, alone, and in which he has just killed an attempted mugger seconds before, come up behind him, and tap him on the shoulder. Then punch him twice in the face and state that he's been hired to kill the paranoid guy. The idea was to have a brawl, discover the nefarious doings of the hitman's employer, and end up on the same side afterward. But the paranoid character doesn't know the new guy from Adam. Based on his entire character so far, the only course of action he would ever take under these circumstances is to turn around and put as many bullets as he could fire in a round of combat into this random, heavily-armed stranger who has caught him alone in a dark alley and punched him repeatedly in the face and admitted that he's a hired gun sent to kill the paranoid guy. Anything else whatsoever would be grossly out of character.

To metagame, or not to metagame?

Basically what you've got here is something akin to two 'its what my character would do!' players who are running face-first into each-other.

The big thing about 'its what my character would do' is that its a way that a player abuses the expectation of other players at the table for some kind of intent to play together. E.g. in response to a 'what my character would do' jerk move, the 'what their characters would do' would be to kick out the jerk. But of course all the players are expecting to play a game together, which makes the other players at the table less likely to play it straight and actually not tolerate the bad behavior.

In this case, I'd say Henderson is by far the lesser offender. The new guy created a character whose first action in the game was to attack another PC. That's basically saying 'I get to hurt you guys, but you can't hurt me back because if you do we don't get to play together, so you're going to play along and let me beat you up'. From the get-go, he had fixated onto an idea which doesn't really work without the buy-in of the other players (or, potentially worse, if the DM was the one who pushed this idea, then its just a generally mismanaged situation)

goto124
2015-07-06, 06:23 AM
The new player should change the way the character is introduced.

Keltest
2015-07-06, 06:39 AM
Basically what you've got here is something akin to two 'its what my character would do!' players who are running face-first into each-other.

The big thing about 'its what my character would do' is that its a way that a player abuses the expectation of other players at the table for some kind of intent to play together. E.g. in response to a 'what my character would do' jerk move, the 'what their characters would do' would be to kick out the jerk. But of course all the players are expecting to play a game together, which makes the other players at the table less likely to play it straight and actually not tolerate the bad behavior.

In this case, I'd say Henderson is by far the lesser offender. The new guy created a character whose first action in the game was to attack another PC. That's basically saying 'I get to hurt you guys, but you can't hurt me back because if you do we don't get to play together, so you're going to play along and let me beat you up'. From the get-go, he had fixated onto an idea which doesn't really work without the buy-in of the other players (or, potentially worse, if the DM was the one who pushed this idea, then its just a generally mismanaged situation)

I think theyre equally at fault, unless Henderson legitimately had no idea that this was being attempted. Sure, ok, he's a paranoid wreck who jumps at shadows and shoots mice for sneaking up on him. But this guy just admitted to a conspiracy against him! There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a paranoid person to not immediately resort to lethal violence, the biggest one I can think of being this guy obviously knows something that you need to know.

It is the prerogative of the players to not make decisions that cause the game to stall if they can at all avoid it. It doesn't sound like Henderson considered that at all.

Hawkstar
2015-07-06, 07:55 AM
How about, instead of an Evil/Chaotic Jerk "It's what my character would do" behavior, why not a Lawful Good "It's What My Character Would Do" behavior? I have a lot more stories about those than Chaotic/Evil jerk behaviors.

Flickerdart
2015-07-06, 08:54 AM
How about, instead of an Evil/Chaotic Jerk "It's what my character would do" behavior, why not a Lawful Good "It's What My Character Would Do" behavior? I have a lot more stories about those than Chaotic/Evil jerk behaviors.
LG can be just as disruptive as CE, given that a CE character is pretty much never going to object to something on moral or ethical grounds. Anyone who's ever played with a paladin holding to a strict reading of the Code can attest that it gets grating.

Segev
2015-07-06, 09:22 AM
Especially when introducing a new character, some OOC discussion of how the scene is expected to play out may be appropriate ahead of time. I know that can cause some to blanch at it not really being "role playing" at that point, but that's a short-sighted interpretation of "role playing." Yes, the scene might become semi-scripted when you play it out, but the OOC side of RP is just as important. Often, jumping to OOC to hammer out some details without having to worry about who knows what can speed play through some tedious elements.

More importantly, having a little bit of OOC discussion, particularly when working on something involving party cohesion, can allow the player of the new, heavily-armed mercenary to explain his plan: he expects a brawl, some discussion, and teaming up after wards. Henderson's player can respond, "Woah, woah, there's no way that goes that way with Old Man Henderson. Not without some really strong reason not to fill your torso with more lead than a pencil factory." Then the two players, possibly with the rest of the table's help, figure out a better approach that fits both PCs' personalities which will lead to the desired result of teaming up. With GM complicity (not really a guarantee in the Henderson tales, but in a good gaming group it should be expected), some contrived external events can help drive the shift from antagonism to cooperation in the short-term, for instance.

But such things still may need negotiating OOC, just to make sure that all the players are on board for the final outcome and will make sure to make the choices IC necessary to facilitate it.

Red Fel
2015-07-06, 10:00 AM
How about, instead of an Evil/Chaotic Jerk "It's what my character would do" behavior, why not a Lawful Good "It's What My Character Would Do" behavior? I have a lot more stories about those than Chaotic/Evil jerk behaviors.

It's the identical issue, with the identical core. The player says "This is the only way my character could respond in this situation," and that response is disruptive.

Think about anything that happens to you in real life. Anything. There are a dozen ways you could respond. Say your boss walks into your office at 4 p.m. on a Friday and dumps a pile of work on your desk. You could scream. You could cry. You could ignore it and go home. You could stay late. You could bring the work home with you. Say somebody at a bar mouths off to you. You could deck him. You could ignore him. You could buy everyone a drink and become the hero, making him the jerk. You could lure him into the alley behind the bar and leave him bleeding on the concrete.

Point is, there is never just one response. Whether you're CE or LG, you have options, and at least one of those options will not be disruptive. It might not be the first thing your character would do, but it is something he can do. And that's the point.

Whether it's the CE "I'm going to murder everybody now," guy, or the LG "I can't do that, Dave," guy, the character has more options, if only the player would realize it.

Alternatively, the problem is that a player has written a character who can only respond in disruptive ways. That's been mentioned, too. The response is the same whether you're looking at CE, LG, or any other alignment - retire the character or retire the player. If the player created a disruptive character accidentally, give him the chance to start a new one that isn't disruptive; if he did it deliberately, jerk move, give him the appropriate warning.

Segev
2015-07-06, 10:13 AM
Additionally, the PLAYER can be complicit in "fooling" his PC into behaving differently. The Paladin who "can't do that" could, for instance, wholly innocently not be present to notice. This is distinct from the Paladin knowing something is up and leaving so he doesn't have to see it: the PLAYER knows something's up, and finds a legitimate reason for the Paladin to honestly not know.

Pex
2015-07-06, 05:23 PM
(Example borrowed and tweaked from the tale of Old Man Henderson, and while that was a character specifically engineered to be a campaign-wrecker, the example translates to other situations)

Say you have a character who, the entire game, has been paranoid and a bit trigger-happy. It practically defines them. Thus far it has only had positive effects in terms of party survival. They've reacted in such a way as to foil ambushes, assassinations, and robberies, and have got the drop on opponents who were acting shifty.

A player brings in a visibly-heavily-armed replacement character by having them catch the paranoid guy in a dark alley, alone, and in which he has just killed an attempted mugger seconds before, come up behind him, and tap him on the shoulder. Then punch him twice in the face and state that he's been hired to kill the paranoid guy. The idea was to have a brawl, discover the nefarious doings of the hitman's employer, and end up on the same side afterward. But the paranoid character doesn't know the new guy from Adam. Based on his entire character so far, the only course of action he would ever take under these circumstances is to turn around and put as many bullets as he could fire in a round of combat into this random, heavily-armed stranger who has caught him alone in a dark alley and punched him repeatedly in the face and admitted that he's a hired gun sent to kill the paranoid guy. Anything else whatsoever would be grossly out of character.

To metagame, or not to metagame?

No PC exists without the DM's approval. I'm more likely to believe the DM and new player were in cahoots to introduce his character in precisely this way to cause a reaction on purpose. I'm even more likely to believe it was all the DM's idea since the DM is the one to have told the new player about the campaign. I vote the DM is the Jerk.

I acknowledge this is just a hypothetical scenario.

Darth Ultron
2015-07-06, 05:49 PM
Point is, there is never just one response. Whether you're CE or LG, you have options, and at least one of those options will not be disruptive. It might not be the first thing your character would do, but it is something he can do. And that's the point.

Whether it's the CE "I'm going to murder everybody now," guy, or the LG "I can't do that, Dave," guy, the character has more options, if only the player would realize it.

This is a good point.

A player can have a character react anyway they want too....but keeping in mind the metagame perspective of ''I'm a player in a social game with other people'' at all times. So even if Sir Slayalot ''would normally'' slay any drow that looked at him....he will ''amazing'' just not do that when the group encounters a vile, evil...but helpful drow. And yes it does take away freedom and control of the character from the player, but the player just needs to understand that it is for the best.

goto124
2015-07-06, 07:03 PM
Why do you have a character who slays [blah] on sight anyway? It makes sense for non-sentient monsters, but otherwise, not really...

Hawkstar
2015-07-06, 07:06 PM
Why do you have a character who slays [blah] on sight anyway? It makes sense for non-sentient monsters, but otherwise, not really...
"Get them before they get you", especially important with Drow and other Demons.

Keltest
2015-07-06, 07:07 PM
Why do you have a character who slays [blah] on sight anyway? It makes sense for non-sentient monsters, but otherwise, not really...

There are a number of sapient races, such as the Drow, where doing so to them is practically a survival mechanism. However, if it is towards a generally non-despicable race, such as Dwarves, youre mostly going to make problems for yourself.

NichG
2015-07-06, 07:29 PM
Even for people who are very strongly antagonistic towards a particular race, 'slay on sight' as a truly blanket policy is suicidal, not a survival instinct. When you're outnumbered by those 'demons' then running at them screaming will get you and the people around you killed, but playing along until you can get the upper hand and divide their forces or lull them into a sense of security is the way to actually exit that situation alive.

Hawkstar
2015-07-06, 07:33 PM
Even for people who are very strongly antagonistic towards a particular race, 'slay on sight' as a truly blanket policy is suicidal, not a survival instinct. When you're outnumbered by those 'demons' then running at them screaming will get you and the people around you killed, but playing along until you can get the upper hand and divide their forces or lull them into a sense of security is the way to actually exit that situation alive.I fail to see the strategic and tactical value of giving up your Surprise Round and/or Initiative Count to the enemy.

NichG
2015-07-06, 08:05 PM
I fail to see the strategic and tactical value of giving up your Surprise Round and/or Initiative Count to the enemy.

The advantage is in avoiding an unwinnable fight until you can turn it into a winnable fight.