PDA

View Full Version : Character motivation vs. Player motivation and disruptive topics.



Talakeal
2015-11-27, 03:10 PM
In my previous D&D game we are playing a party of outlaws and a new player brought a paladin to the group. I, (in character mind you) asked him why a paladin would want to join a band of miscreants like us, and the DM forbid me from continuing the conversation and told me that I was not allowed to "chase players away."

In my Mage group when I first joined I was having some trouble coming up with a motivation for my character to join the rest of the cabal, and I asked for some help coming up with a rationale. I was told, point blank, that I am part of the cabal because I want to play the game, and if my character didn't think that was a good enough reason I was welcome to reroll or leave the group.

Basically, they feel that "character motivation" is the root cause of disruptive behavior, and they have seen one to many antisocial jerks justify their behavior with "But that's what my character would do!" that they now consider any discussion of the conflict between player and character motivations to be taboo and insist that you always let meta-game concerns trump in character concerns.


I can see their point, kind of, but it seems like a big over reaction. Anyone else have any experience with this?


On a broader note, does anyone have any ideas for resolving a situation where the needs of the gaming group are at odds with the needs of the characters in the game?

Eisenheim
2015-11-27, 04:07 PM
Okay, the first question seems entirely reasonable. Someone coming into an established group should make a character that fits in logically, not throw a wrench in the group dynamic, unless everyone agrees and is interested to see the wrench throw play out.

For the second case, the reaction is violent, but the sentiment is understandable. Your character is for the game and for a party with the rest of the group, if an initial build doesn't fit, it's probably the character rather than the group or campaign that should give to accommodate things. Fault for a mismatch can be on either side. Did you have a session 0, where players discussed character and the GM laid out expectations for the game?

DaveSonOfDave
2015-11-27, 04:15 PM
In my previous D&D game we are playing a party of outlaws and a new player brought a paladin to the group. I, (in character mind you) asked him why a paladin would want to join a band of miscreants like us, and the DM forbid me from continuing the conversation and told me that I was not allowed to "chase players away."

In my Mage group when I first joined I was having some trouble coming up with a motivation for my character to join the rest of the cabal, and I asked for some help coming up with a rationale. I was told, point blank, that I am part of the cabal because I want to play the game, and if my character didn't think that was a good enough reason I was welcome to reroll or leave the group.

Basically, they feel that "character motivation" is the root cause of disruptive behavior, and they have seen one to many antisocial jerks justify their behavior with "But that's what my character would do!" that they now consider any discussion of the conflict between player and character motivations to be taboo and insist that you always let meta-game concerns trump in character concerns.


I can see their point, kind of, but it seems like a big over reaction. Anyone else have any experience with this?


On a broader note, does anyone have any ideas for resolving a situation where the needs of the gaming group are at odds with the needs of the characters in the game?


I kind of have some experience with this. In the game that I was DMing, one of the players who joined a little later initially wanted their character to be Evil alignment, while the rest of the party was essentially Unaligned. Without bogging down too much of the conversation in the alignment argument, I had to ask them to switch to Unaligned instead of Evil, mainly for the reason that, in my experience, when one character is Evil and others aren't, it's only just a matter of time before the Evil character does something to screw over the party to the extent where it either leads to PvP, or it kind of grinds the campaign to a halt. Although it is kind of annoying to have the DM meddle with what you want your character to be, I did it primarily because I wanted the party to actively work together, rather than spend too much time with trying to figure out how they were going to coexist. While there should still be a good character reason for why the party comes together in the first place, sooner or later the DM is going to have to consider the metagame factor of trying to make sure the players are able to come together.

In regards to the latter point about resolving players needs vs. character needs, we ran into a situation where the party was fighting a particularly tricky boss, who happened to be a drow witch, and our Bard, who was a hopeless romantic, decided that he couldn't fight her, and instead dedicated himself to trying to save her. This took us to an awkward situation where one of our players was intending to come in on the side of the enemy, while the rest of the players, who were in a bit of a bad way, were obviously still intent on fighting the boss in order to survive. Immediately, I could see that the worst case scenario here was either that the Bard would inadvertently lead to the death of the rest of the party, which would probably put a strain on relationships around the table and put a damper on the evening, or the party would kill the Bard, who, even if he put himself in front of the oncoming truck willingly, would still probably have at least a bit of a bad time with the outcome. At any rate, I decided that making sure my players were still having a good time and not actually fighting in real life was far more important than the in-game character needs, and I told the Bard's player that, while he didn't have to fight the witch himself, he wasn't allowed to impede the other players or instigate PvP. While he was a bit down about the decision at first, the Bard soon came to agree that this was probably the right decision, the boss battle ended, and everyone was still friends after the fact.

You can argue that I interfered a bit too much as a DM, and I don't think I would argue with you too much to the contrary, but sometimes I think that peacekeeping with the players is an important part of running the campaign.

oxybe
2015-11-27, 04:22 PM
session 0.

i always stress having a session 0, a session made to discuss not just the campaign and it's direction, but houserules and how the dm prefers to do stuff like trail rations, ammunition tracking, encumbrance, downtime, resting, travelling, etc...

but also work on character creation and what would cause this group of people to travel and work together without going at each others' throats.

as for group VS character, i find that as a whole it works better if every character allows a modicum of leeway for the group. the same way that one would make allowances for friends, i find it works best if PCs sometimes go "yeah i don't agree with you but i'll let it slide occasionally"

Talakeal
2015-11-27, 04:57 PM
session 0.

i always stress having a session 0, a session made to discuss not just the campaign and it's direction, but houserules and how the dm prefers to do stuff like trail rations, ammunition tracking, encumbrance, downtime, resting, travelling, etc...

but also work on character creation and what would cause this group of people to travel and work together without going at each others' throats.

as for group VS character, i find that as a whole it works better if every character allows a modicum of leeway for the group. the same way that one would make allowances for friends, i find it works best if PCs sometimes go "yeah i don't agree with you but i'll let it slide occasionally"

In my example stories, I was trying to have a "session 0", but the very notion of discussing character motivation was shot down. The attitude seemed to be, if you NEED a session zero for your character to work with the group, then your character isn't a good enough fit in the first place."

oxybe
2015-11-27, 05:29 PM
In my example stories, I was trying to have a "session 0", but the very notion of discussing character motivation was shot down. The attitude seemed to be, if you NEED a session zero for your character to work with the group, then your character isn't a good enough fit in the first place.

it's less that you need to have it then it allows you to kick off the campaign with everyone on the same page rather then rolling a crapshoot by coming in blind and hoping for the best. This should be done in the planning stages before the group sits down for actual play.

it's about managing expectations and any gm who refuses to do so one i would likely not want to play under, or at least play anything resembling a character over a jumble of numbers that should just be named "+7tohit" as that's the beginning and end of his personality.

Darth Ultron
2015-11-27, 06:00 PM
session 0.



I have always done this and it works great. Session 0 is typically something like A) make characters B) Dinner and C) something fun like Dungeon! or the Great Khan Game.

During character creation I really stress group characters. Any player that goes down the Lone Wolf path will be called out and told to change their character. I will just about flat out refuse a lone wolf character or one that goes against the grain of the group...unless the player is very upfront about it. If a player really wants to be a ''other'' character, and they have a good story and are willing to role play way over the top it make it work...then I might allow it.

I firmly use the negative reinforcement of ''if you want to make a character that does not fit in with this group/game, then your simply saying you don't want to game with us''. When the group of evil characters sets of to commit a crime, I'm fine with having the paladin player just sit in the corner and watch the gameplay. Though I do try to avoid it before it happens: ''look for goody two shoes paladin is not going to fit in with the evil group...''

Of course, when your in some other persons game, the best you can do is just blend in. If the group is odd or does not care about motivations or logic or if you don't know...it is best to make a character that can fit in anywhere.

Broken Crown
2015-11-27, 07:32 PM
In my previous D&D game we are playing a party of outlaws and a new player brought a paladin to the group. I, (in character mind you) asked him why a paladin would want to join a band of miscreants like us, and the DM forbid me from continuing the conversation and told me that I was not allowed to "chase players away."

In my Mage group when I first joined I was having some trouble coming up with a motivation for my character to join the rest of the cabal, and I asked for some help coming up with a rationale. I was told, point blank, that I am part of the cabal because I want to play the game, and if my character didn't think that was a good enough reason I was welcome to reroll or leave the group.


In my example stories, I was trying to have a "session 0", but the very notion of discussing character motivation was shot down. The attitude seemed to be, if you NEED a session zero for your character to work with the group, then your character isn't a good enough fit in the first place."

In both your examples, it sounds as though you're talking about a new character joining an existing group, not a "session zero," per se. Still, I think the same principle applies: Players really ought to create characters that have a reason to adventure together.

That being the case, it puzzles me that DMs who are concerned about inter-character conflicts interfering with the game would not be willing to take a little time and effort to defuse those potential conflicts. The DM in the second example, while not wrong to say, "Making your character fit the group is your own responsibility," isn't being very helpful either, as a new player joining a new group isn't going to know what character will fit. Presumably your character's motivation is supposed to change, chameleon-like, to suit its surroundings? Though, from the sound of it, "motivation" is a taboo topic with those DMs.

Even if there's no "session zero," I always try to find out as much as I can about the other characters, the story, and the setting, before deciding what sort of character to play (because it's no fun trying to be the one Good character in a group that ranges from cutthroat mercenaries to demon-worshipping cultists). I've often found myself playing a character who didn't fit the game for one reason or another. Sometimes I've been able to tweak my character to fit without having to change too radically; other times I've retired the character and brought in a new one.

Talakeal
2015-11-27, 07:38 PM
In both your examples, it sounds as though you're talking about a new character joining an existing group, not a "session zero," per se. Still, I think the same principle applies: Players really ought to create characters that have a reason to adventure together.

That being the case, it puzzles me that DMs who are concerned about inter-character conflicts interfering with the game would not be willing to take a little time and effort to defuse those potential conflicts. The DM in the second example, while not wrong to say, "Making your character fit the group is your own responsibility," isn't being very helpful either, as a new player joining a new group isn't going to know what character will fit. Presumably your character's motivation is supposed to change, chameleon-like, to suit its surroundings? Though, from the sound of it, "motivation" is a taboo topic with those DMs.

Even if there's no "session zero," I always try to find out as much as I can about the other characters, the story, and the setting, before deciding what sort of character to play (because it's no fun trying to be the one Good character in a group that ranges from cutthroat mercenaries to demon-worshipping cultists). I've often found myself playing a character who didn't fit the game for one reason or another. Sometimes I've been able to tweak my character to fit without having to change too radically; other times I've retired the character and brought in a new one.

True, not a session zero by the exact definition.

In the first case it was simply an IC conversation which we had in a tavern after returning from the dungeon while we were resting up and recruiting new party members.

In the second example I wanted to have a conversation with the group after the regular gaming session about how the character I was bringing into the campaign would fit in with the group.

Keltest
2015-11-27, 07:43 PM
Are your group members, perhaps, murderhobos? In a group that consists of murderhobos, I can see how roleplaying would be considered disruptive. Beyond that though, their reactions were quite inappropriate. This isn't the group with the horror story DM, right?

Talakeal
2015-11-27, 07:46 PM
Are your group members, perhaps, murderhobos? In a group that consists of murderhobos, I can see how roleplaying would be considered disruptive. Beyond that though, their reactions were quite inappropriate. This isn't the group with the horror story DM, right?

One of them was, the other was not.

Broken Crown
2015-11-27, 07:52 PM
Are your group members, perhaps, murderhobos?

My current DM keeps calling us murderhobos, but this is a base slander: We have a fixed address, with a deed to the property and everything!

Keltest
2015-11-27, 07:54 PM
One of them was, the other was not.

Was murderhobos, or was with the DM from the abyss?

Talakeal
2015-11-27, 07:55 PM
Was murderhobos, or was with the DM from the abyss?

Both actually.

Keltest
2015-11-27, 08:02 PM
Both actually.

Right.


You know, it was funny at first, but im kind of tired of hearing anecdotes about this guy. You stopped going to his sessions, right? And you know that whatever his stance on DMing is, the opposite is probably a better one, right?

By all means, these are interesting topics. Please continue with them. I just don't think you need to announce that this guy left an impression on you anymore. The point was made.


Anyway, if the party consists of murderhobos, and they are aware and OK with this, then yeah, I think that trying to introduce Roleplaying by your character is going to be disruptive. Asking why the paladin was joining the party is asking him to do something he didn't sign up for.

Talakeal
2015-11-27, 08:41 PM
Right.


You know, it was funny at first, but im kind of tired of hearing anecdotes about this guy. You stopped going to his sessions, right? And you know that whatever his stance on DMing is, the opposite is probably a better one, right?

By all means, these are interesting topics. Please continue with them. I just don't think you need to announce that this guy left an impression on you anymore. The point was made.


Anyway, if the party consists of murderhobos, and they are aware and OK with this, then yeah, I think that trying to introduce Roleplaying by your character is going to be disruptive. Asking why the paladin was joining the party is asking him to do something he didn't sign up for.

If it had just been his crazy game I probably wouldn't have said anything, but the Mage group is a genuinely good group, and so I thought it might have been me rather than him as they were both in agreement.


I am kind of unclear as to what you are asking of me, are you saying it is ok to make topics but I should stop using anecdotes from bad games to illustrate them?

Keltest
2015-11-27, 08:58 PM
If it had just been his crazy game I probably wouldn't have said anything, but the Mage group is a genuinely good group, and so I thought it might have been me rather than him as they were both in agreement.


I am kind of unclear as to what you are asking of me, are you saying it is ok to make topics but I should stop using anecdotes from bad games to illustrate them?

I think I might just be ranting at this guy for being so bad, though honestly the number of anecdotes you still manage to come up with about him has me somewhat concerned that you haven't actually left his game behind.

Far be it from me to tell you what to make topics about or what anecdotes to include. Im just getting a sort of vibe that, deliberately or not, you are using these topics as a way to vent about this guy still.

Segev
2015-12-01, 12:20 PM
I think, acknowledging that I only have your side of the story, you seemed reasonable in both examples. The DM was also reasonable in the first one, iff he was willing to also enforce that the Paladin would fit in with his behavior and acceptance of the group, as well. The group in the second example seems a bit over the top hostile, though; "I would like to make sure my character has a reason to work with the party. Anybody have suggestions as to what could be his reason to do so?" is hardly a troublemaking position; quite the contrary: it's a position of one seeking to make sure there is no conflict that would keep him OUT of the party, nor require the party to redirect its goals.