"can you roleplay that we get along?" Fair question?

[Drache64]

I have a player in my group who's character really doesn't like my character. At the end of the session I figured it best just to clear the air out of character so I asked "hey it seems like your character really doesn't like mine, is there any way we can come up with a role-play solution where we get along?" She responded "my character just feels like your character is manipulative and she doesn't trust him and feels like he's trying to manipulate her" to which I followed up "okay, well he's not trying to manipulate you, knowing that out of character, is there a way you can roleplay your character to trust him more?" She didn't make any promises and she said that seems like metagaming, I told her I'm all for metagaming if it helps us have a cooperative party.

Was I being unfair? Was this too pushy?

More context below if you're interested:
My character is an investigator and is really manipulative with NPCs when it comes to a mission. He's a nice guy and doesn't seek to manipulate everyone simply to manipulate them, he pays a fair price at vendors, doesn't haggle when bartering, is genuinely laid back, and tries not to stick his nose into other people's business unless the mission calls for it.

But when he needs to get information on a mark he uses charm abilities, persuasion checks, and bribes to extract any and all information on the task at hand, he's concerned with opposing political corruption and abuses of power, but doesn't consider lesser Injustices, such as stopping a theif, as worth going on a crusade for.

The other player is a Bard obsessed with money and has a case of kleptomania to the point she'll steal any item without telling the party (found 3 artifacts in a dungeon and she tried to take one without the party noticing but my character caught her, didn't rat her out but simply said he'd take the item's price from her share of the loot). Note: we don't mind her trying this, she's just playing her character and we find her hijinks amusing.

I'll give more info if needed but I don't want to write a book in the OP.

Edit:
Little more info: I've decided to let it go and not worry about it, this post was just to see what you guys thought of the question in general, but yes I'm not going to continue to pressure her to get along with me.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Yes it was too pushy.

[DeTess]

I don't think you where wrong to ask, but I don't think she was wrong to decide that she didn't want to set up such a thing either. her assessment of your character also doesn't seem to be unfair per se. Someone that's only manipulative to a subsets of people is still manipulative, after all.

[Lapak]

Yes it was too pushy.I disagree. When it comes to roleplaying choices where there is more than one reasonable path, it usually (not always, but usually) makes for a better game if the players choose the option that leads to party cohesion.

It's not written in stone that character A distrusts character B, and being approached OOC with a 'can we come to a roleplaying compromise for the sake of the group' is in no way overstepping.

TELLING them outright "your character doesn't/shouldn't distrust mine" would be too pushy; '"can you adjust so they don't" is not.

[False God]

I don't think you where wrong to ask, but I don't think she was wrong to decide that she didn't want to set up such a thing either. her assessment of your character also doesn't seem to be unfair per se. Someone that's only manipulative to a subsets of people is still manipulative, after all.

Gotta agree with this.

It's okay to ask. It's also okay for her to say no. From the OP, she's probably right about your character. Doesn't mean her character is great by comparison, but you can't expect a thief to trust anyone, much less anyone who is obviously observant, clever and manipulative, even of only non-party-members.

[Pex]

The problem is her. She steals from the party. You caught her and applied consequences. That’s why she doesn’t like you. She wants her fun at the expense of everyone else. She doesn’t want to be cooperative. It is a meta game problem. The DM needs to fix it, but maybe you and the other players can peer pressure her into being a team player. If she gets huffy and quits, win-win.

[Psyren]

The problem is her. She steals from the party. You caught her and applied consequences. That’s why she doesn’t like you. She wants her fun at the expense of everyone else. She doesn’t want to be cooperative. It is a meta game problem. The DM needs to fix it, but maybe you and the other players can peer pressure her into being a team player. If she gets huffy and quits, win-win.

I'm with Pex on this one, she sounds like she doesn't quite understand how cooperative games work and is taking it out on you.

[The Library DM]

Okay, my analysis, which you can freely reject, as I’m operating only on what you posted and therefore could be off base:

It seems to me that if you asked the question, you’re probably doing so because some aspect of the “character to character” friction is causing issues for you in terms of enjoying the game. In short, you’re not having all the fun you expect to have. This could be because you like your character and his behaviors and want to explore that sort of personality in a game, and you don’t want other players’ characters to virtually step on your role-playing toes. That would be a perfectly legit feeling, by the way.

The question then is, why does she have her character behave in the way that apparently does “step on your RPing toes”? Is she just thinking this is how her character would behave given the circumstances, and enjoys the role-playing possibilities of this friction? Or does she personally (as a player) have an issue with how your character behaves, in the sense that such behavior (as she interprets it) is offensive to her or touches on behavior she has encountered IRL which she doesn’t like? If the former, then it should be possible to work out the issue rather easily, and the two of you can combine your role-playing efforts to build a mutually satisfying resolution, and have fun doing so. If the latter, well, that’s something else. Either you will need to modify the character’s behavior to move away from whatever she finds disturbing, or she will have to realize that it’s an imaginary thing that she can let go, or someone is going to have to drop either their character or the campaign.

And, no, I don’t think it was pushy of you to ask. You had a concern, you brought it up in a respectful way. Maybe that it was a concern was a surprise to her, or maybe she thinks there’s no reason for concern, or maybe she doesn’t want to go into her RL whys for the choices she makes in the game, but there was nothing wrong with you bringing it up and asking for a solution. Even if the solution is just you deciding to adapt to the situation, it’s fine to have expressed the concern.

[Drache64]

Thank you all for the advice, to clarify her actions don't step on my toes at all, but as Lapak said above it's just a better party dynamic when everyone gets along.

Going forward I will just focus less on getting along and leave that up to her and the DM. Playing my character is fun and rewarding. My main concern was her being left out as the party is planning a heist and as it's going she was going to stand outside for the whole thing. Which is no skin off my bones.

I think a core myth she believes is that d&d is about playing a character whether for good or for ill she must role play her character, not a cooperative game as others have stated above. And again it's all good. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being pushy if I ask someone else this question in the future, I thought it was a fair question.

[False God]

I just want to add, for the record, that "cooperative gameplay" and "characters getting along" are not necessarily the same thing. Characters fighting constantly is a problem. One character who always has to be contrary is a problem. But Character A doesn't like B? *shrug* whatever. Those two can still work together to accomplish a quest, they can still help each other when in danger. They just don't have a personal magic friendship bond, oh well.

To make it worse, the game designs some classes to be less "party friendly" than others. Paladins, rogues, warlocks, classes with extreme alignments or "unique" approaches to gameplay. It's perfectly fine for Character A to dislike, distrust and generally be wary around the party Rogue, or to be annoyed by the uptight paladin, or to disapprove of the bard's sleezy way of living. What matters is when the going gets rough do these characters set aside their drama and work together? (heck, that's hard IRL!)

It's easy to play when everyone gets along. It's not always fun without a little in-character interpersonal drama. I mean, there's a reason movies always manufacture drama between two friends right before the final climax.

TLDR: You can cooperate and still not be friends.

[farothel]

It's easy to play when everyone gets along. It's not always fun without a little in-character interpersonal drama. I mean, there's a reason movies always manufacture drama between two friends right before the final climax.



I totally agree with this. Some of my more enjoyable moments as a GM was when two characters got in this intense ethical debate during the mission after action report. It was hilarious to watch and not only because I didn't have to do much during that time. And while they had their philosophical differences, they could still work together. Sometimes this involved in one finding a reason to send the other away on an errant so he could do something, but that was between the players and as long as it didn't cause RL friction, I never intervened as GM.

Of course, we roleplay in a group that's been coming together for 15 years now, so we're all good friends and we know how far we can go with this. In fact, in almost all our parties we have some form of friction between some of the party members and while we don't consciously put that in, it Always seems to work out in that way, to much enjoyment by all.

But to come back to the Original question, if you have a problem with something, politely asking about it and trying to find a mutually acceptable solution is not pushy I feel.

[Lemmy]

Generally speaking, it's much better to sacrifice a bit of character consistency for party cohesion than to do the opposite.

There's a reason the phrase "it's what my character would do" is often used as a quick indicative of a bad player.

That's not to say that there can never be any intra-party conflict... But it should be handled with extreme care and moderation. It's too easy to unwittingly take it too far and actually annoy or even anger other player(s).

[Kaptin Keen]

Was I being unfair? Was this too pushy?

Trying to resolve an issue is never wrong. Also, metagaming quite frankly is a myth. You can willfully pretend to not know the abilities of the common, garden variety goblin - but that, too, is metagaming.

[Shinizak]

It sounds more like your fellow player has something against you personally and is letting it come out in her character.

[kyoryu]

First, I'd question how well someone that's stealing from the party really works in a theoretically cooperative game. Sounds like she wants to play a game where she is antagonistic to the party. That's the first thing to resolve.

Secondly, I'd focus on behavior rather than attitude. She can distrust your character all she wants. What she does about that is the issue. So I'd likely say something more like "okay, tell you what. I know your character distrusts mine, and that's cool. But, having a character that refuses to cooperate really tends to drag the game down. How about we agree that you distrust my character, but don't actually refuse to do things, and in return, I'll agree to not use any social abilities on you?"

But to circle around - the fact that a character that is acting in a way that breeds distrust has issues with trusting other characters is like super weird, unless "distrust" is a synonym for "believes that they might stop me from screwing everyone over".

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Firstly: No your out of game request is not too pushy. Desiring Harmony at the table isn't a bad thing.

However, at this point I don't see n acceptable path for you to pursue the matter any further other than changing your character's behavior. Unless the PCs are all members of a club that allows lying to and manipulating outsiders while demanding honesty and loyalty internally, the other character has observed yours shamelessly manipulating people and being very good at it. The only logical course to avoid manipulation is to completely stonewall you.

[Drache64]

Firstly: No your out of game request is not too pushy. Desiring Harmony at the table isn't a bad thing.

However, at this point I don't see n acceptable path for you to pursue the matter any further other than changing your character's behavior. Unless the PCs are all members of a club that allows lying to and manipulating outsiders while demanding honesty and loyalty internally, the other character has observed yours shamelessly manipulating people and being very good at it. The only logical course to avoid manipulation is to completely stonewall you.

I think I have a better standing with most of the group, going forward I'm just not going to try and help us get along (she interpreted any efforts on my part as manipulation) and let her do her thing. I did tell her I would be happy to change my character to a simple barbarian if my RP style would be an issue but she said that wasn't necessary.

[NNescio]

But to circle around - the fact that a character that is acting in a way that breeds distrust has issues with trusting other characters is like super weird, unless "distrust" is a synonym for "believes that they might stop me from screwing everyone over".

Eh, that's just Psychological Projection 101.

[weckar]

Thank you all for the advice, to clarify her actions don't step on my toes at all, but as Lapak said above it's just a better party dynamic when everyone gets along.

A better dynamic for you. Unless unconditional cooperation was laid out in session 0, I would not assume it either. Friction between characters makes for better stories. It's the Boromir effect.

[Mastikator]

She's the problem here, she is PVPing the entire party by stealing from them. Her mistreating you "because that's what my character would do" is also a bogus excuse, she decides what her character would do, she's the author of her characters decision.

TBH if I were the DM I'd tell her to make a friendlier character or find a new group. The fact that your character manipulates non-friendly/hostile NPCs is not a problem and you haven't done anything to earn this mistrust.

[The Insanity]

Unless the whole group agreed beforehand that that's the kind of game you are going to play, this behavior is unexcusable.

[The Pilgrim]

Conflict among characters spreads quickly into conflict among players. Better to cut it short.

If your friend ecided to play a kleptomaniac who can't help stealing from the party, that was her choice, and the rest of the characters, and players, have no obligation to endure her. If I find out that a partner is stealing from me, I stop working with that person. Likewise, if my character finds out that one of the party members is stealing from the group, he would boot her out. Unless he is stealing more than her from the party. But then you aren't playing Dungeons'nd Dragons, you are playing Bastards'nd Backstabbers.

[Zhorn]

I don't think you are being unreasonable in making the request, and talking to the player out of character is the best possible thing you could have done. No issue there.
Now as for her choice whether to modify her character's behaviour to suit the request or not, that's a grey area neither here nor there.
It all comes down to group dynamics, play styles, game expectations, blah blah blah.
Some folks enjoy pvp in their games, some don't. Some don't engage in pvp themselves but have no issue having pvp in there games, while others expect pvp mindsets and don't enjoy playing in games that don't allow it.
There is not universal right or wrong answer.

Now if her preferred play style starts to cause undue friction (not just characters not getting along, but actively disrupting the enjoyment of others at the table), then you would need to escalate it to the DM to hammer down on the style of game they THEY intend to be run at their table. (Note: this may end up with you needing to change instead, DM's call)

But unless it is actually causing a real problem that impedes fun, she's under no obligation to change.

[Laserlight]

No, asking wasn't too pushy.
Ideally, going forward it'll be a character growth moment for your character ("Hey, I really AM a pushy..."), or hers ("you know, I trust my life to this guy in combat, maybe I need to trust him more out of combat") or both.

As long as the friction is IC, not OOC, you're. I'd say the best campaign I've run is one where most of the conflict was IC drama, and the players were often laughing hysterically as their characters were getting blindsided by another PC.

[Netbrian]

I have a player in my group who's character really doesn't like my character. At the end of the session I figured it best just to clear the air out of character so I asked "hey it seems like your character really doesn't like mine, is there any way we can come up with a role-play solution where we get along?" She responded "my character just feels like your character is manipulative and she doesn't trust him and feels like he's trying to manipulate her" to which I followed up "okay, well he's not trying to manipulate you, knowing that out of character, is there a way you can roleplay your character to trust him more?"

One idea that came to mind was to take the opposite approach -- have your character actually try to manipulate hers, but be really theatrical about it and ham it up, like a guy that watched one too many cop shows. When she sees through it or comment on it, snap, and say "it was worth a try" or "foiled again". The idea is that when he's being manipulative, it's really obvious and played up for comedic effect. That might make her character more inclined to trust/work with him in other situations.

[16bearswutIdo]

It's not pushy to stand up for yourself.

She is legit the player who steals things from the party then says "bUt ITs WhAT mY ChaRAcTer wOuLd dO!!!!"

Her character can distrust yours while also cooperating with him. Especially since they are both fictional characters.

[Nightcanon]

To me it depends a bit whether this is genuinely a PC vs PC situation, or whether there is PvP as well. Has your fellow player decided to make a kleptomaniac who steals from the party, and objects to in-game attempts to check that behaviour by an investigator character because she thinks that she's getting a 'winning' advantage in a PvP game, or she might be role-playing an aspect of her PCs character that is important to her, but might be amenable to change when her PC knows your PC better.
On the face of it, a dishonest character might be threatened by an investigative type, particularly if the investigator has powers or abilities that might expose him or her (there's a bit in the first Dragonlance book where Raistlin casts Charm Person for the first time, and his companions, who have known him since he was a child, are horrified that he presumably has the power to do the same to them if he wishes). So this could be part of the tale of how Fingers the Bard and Brains the Investigator learned to trust each other, or it might be the story of how your friend learned that you don't win at RPGs by being the one with most loot, or a number of different things.
I think it's certainly legit to ask her to consider role-playing an improvement in relations between the you two characters, and also legit to ask if this is genuinely an in-character thing, or whether she is just smarting over the thing about the looted items OoC.

[zinycor]

As long as the players get along everything should be fine. You might want to go over the PvP rules in case distrust breeds violence.

[KnotaGuru]

D&D is a supposed to be a fun cooperative game. If a player wants to "role-play" a character that won't play well with other, then that player should re-roll a character that will or simply don't play.

Some party tension and disagreements are okay as long as those feelings don't undermine the main premise of why everyone is sitting at the same table in the first place.

[dehro]

D&D is a supposed to be a fun cooperative game. If a player wants to "role-play" a character that won't play well with other, then that player should re-roll a character that will or simply don't play.

Some party tension and disagreements are okay as long as those feelings don't undermine the main premise of why everyone is sitting at the same table in the first place.

Point of order...
the cooperation is to tell the story and create an engaging session/ campaign. characters don't need to all share the same objectives and long term goals, or world views, for a game to be fun and engaging and challenging for years.
is a party with lesser internal friction going to get along better and be more focussed on a less sprawling and obstacle riddled adventure.. possibly, but not guaranteed. a character that starts out being uncooperative and a loner can learn.
the player is of course a wholly different kettle of fish.

[zinycor]

D&D is a supposed to be a fun cooperative game. If a player wants to "role-play" a character that won't play well with other, then that player should re-roll a character that will or simply don't play.

Some party tension and disagreements are okay as long as those feelings don't undermine the main premise of why everyone is sitting at the same table in the first place.

I disagree with this statement, players need to cooperate, respect each other, and possibly get along. Their characters need not, having characters forced to work together and don't get along can be very fun.

[16bearswutIdo]

I disagree with this statement, players need to cooperate, respect each other, and possibly get along. Their characters need not, having characters forced to work together and don't get along can be very fun.

Yes, if both players agree to those terms. If one player is noticeably not having fun with the dynamic, then your first sentence isn't in effect.

[False God]

Yes, if both players agree to those terms. If one player is noticeably not having fun with the dynamic, then your first sentence isn't in effect.

As much as Hypothetical Gary should not be allowed to cause player dysfunction for not wanting his character to get along with anyone else's, Hypothetical Sue should equally not be allowed to cause inter-player dysfunction by demanding that they do.

It's a two way street.

[King of Nowhere]

it's not clear to me if this conflict is purely between characters, or also between players. in the second case, it is a problem.
in the first case, in my experience you can get a good time, but you need acceptance from both sides. Else, it will almost always turn to player conflict too.
I've had a player nearly kicked out from the group because he tried, good-naturedly if incompetently, to roleplay some character conflict and it brought playuer conflict too.

[MoiMagnus]

As much as Hypothetical Gary should not be allowed to cause player dysfunction for not wanting his character to get along with anyone else's, Hypothetical Sue should equally not be allowed to cause inter-player dysfunction by demanding that they do.

It's a two way street.

A two way street, but heavily asymmetrical. "Every character gets along with each others, and are likeable enough so that its natural for peoples to get along with them" will by default cause much less frictions and bad experiences than having "characters with conflict between them, and/or character unlikeable by any reasonable person".

Demanding that characters get along with each others is for me alike of demanding that some kind of subject or relationship should not be part of the RPG session. (For example: no bloody descriptions, no flirting, ...)
If you want to do something "that might cause negative feelings", but not everyone is ok with it, you don't do it, or do it in a very downplayed way.
The best case scenario is of course when everyone is ok with it, because that can be really fun to play with character conflicts, but that's not the case here.

But maybe I've had too many preparation meetup in (small) events where they hammered you into the head that you should always take as your standard the minimal sensibility of all the participants, or in other words "emotional safety is the top priority". And I kind of lifted this rule to all situations where peoples are supposed to have fun and good memories.

[Jay R]

I once had to tell another player, "No, I'm not annoyed that you are role-playing. I approve of role-playing, and I recognize that what you are doing is playing the character. I'm annoyed that the character you're choosing to play is an *sshole."

In another game, I plaintively asked, to nobody in particular, "Can we be the good guys?"

[Laserlight]

As much as Hypothetical Gary should not be allowed to cause player dysfunction for not wanting his character to get along with anyone else's, Hypothetical Sue should equally not be allowed to cause inter-player dysfunction by demanding that they do.

It's a two way street.


Well, no. Because "we all get along, at least enough to actually go dungeoning together" is functional. Whereas "I don't get along with anyone" may be valid roleplay choice, it is in that case equally valid to roleplay "okay, jerk, here's your share of the loot, minus the amount you stole and penalty, now you can go east to the Black Temple on your own, while we all carry out our mission" .

I'm all in favor of PVP if everyone is on board, but I'm not in favor of a player trying to be the sole person who gets to do PVP while demanding everyone else just accept it.

[False God]

A two way street, but heavily asymmetrical. "Every character gets along with each others, and are likeable enough so that its natural for peoples to get along with them" will by default cause much less frictions and bad experiences than having "characters with conflict between them, and/or character unlikeable by any reasonable person".
Sure, no argument. I'm just saying there's room for characters to not be perfect best friends all the time, or even most of the time. At best they're "coworkers", they get together, do their job, but otherwise want nothing to do with each other.


Demanding that characters get along with each others is for me alike of demanding that some kind of subject or relationship should not be part of the RPG session. (For example: no bloody descriptions, no flirting, ...)
If you want to do something "that might cause negative feelings", but not everyone is ok with it, you don't do it, or do it in a very downplayed way.
The best case scenario is of course when everyone is ok with it, because that can be really fun to play with character conflicts, but that's not the case here.
Again, there are reasonable limits.


But maybe I've had too many preparation meetup in (small) events where they hammered you into the head that you should always take as your standard the minimal sensibility of all the participants, or in other words "emotional safety is the top priority". And I kind of lifted this rule to all situations where peoples are supposed to have fun and good memories.
Not every session can be a good memory. Just like you'll roll a 1 on your dice, you're gonna have bad sessions. You should be sensible around others, and while I am concerned about the emotional saftey of players, I am only willing to provide reasonable degree of emotional saftey, when the emotional needs of one or more players becomes burdensome to the point where it restricts the ability to play the fundamentals of the game (which at a bare minimum I consider "dangerous questing and adventuring") then it is their turn to give.

Everything is a give-and-take. One side cannot give wholly to the other, and shouldn't since that's deeply unhealthy.


Well, no. Because "we all get along, at least enough to actually go dungeoning together" is functional.
Functional in game. Players=/=characters. Plenty of people who play TTRPGs function just well with a disfunctional party member. And much of the literature from which our games stem often have at least one disfunctional party member.


Whereas "I don't get along with anyone" may be valid roleplay choice, it is in that case equally valid to roleplay "okay, jerk, here's your share of the loot, minus the amount you stole and penalty, now you can go east to the Black Temple on your own, while we all carry out our mission" .
Sure, I've done that with folks. What usually happens is A: their character capitulates and we all go on a quest together because it's character drama not player drama. B: the player demands special treatment and their own quest and gets the boot, or C: the player realizes they're not going to be catered to and either falls in line or walks.


I'm all in favor of PVP if everyone is on board, but I'm not in favor of a player trying to be the sole person who gets to do PVP while demanding everyone else just accept it.
I hardly consider a disfunctional party member to be "PVP". "Not liking other people" or "not being likable" doesn't mean they're stealing from the party, killing other party members, or generally being a jerk. It means, at least, they're the emo kid with black hair hanging over half his face who thinks everyone is stupid....but is still planning to do the adventure with them. Beyond that, something about "everyone must get along no matter what" rubs me wrong since inter-character drama is a pretty huge well of great roleplaying.

[weckar]

Players=/=characters

Players=/=characters

Players=/=characters

Players=/=characters

Sorry, was afraid it might be missed.

[Mr Beer]

""can you roleplay that we get along?" Fair question?"

Yes it's a fair question, no it's not too pushy..

[Lemmy]

If the player insists in rolepaying their character as someone who doesn't trust or get along with their party, it's only fair that the rest of the group be just as accurate in their role-playing and kick the jerk out of their party.

I know I wouldn't want to face multiple deadly situations with someone I (and/or my allies) can't trust.

[kyoryu]

The issue with one player playing "I'm out to get hte party" and the rest of the party playing "cooperative funtime" is that it changes the game. If the whole party is on board with playing "Paranoia", then good for them. Paranoia is fun, and anyone who says otherwise is a Commie and a traitor.

But one person wanting to inject Paranoia into Cooperative Funtime changes the game for EVERYONE ELSE. And that's not cool. Both types of games are fun, and can be great. But people should know what they're signing up for, agree to it, and not subvert that.

[Beleriphon]

The issue with one player playing "I'm out to get hte party" and the rest of the party playing "cooperative funtime" is that it changes the game. If the whole party is on board with playing "Paranoia", then good for them. Paranoia is fun, and anyone who says otherwise is a Commie and a traitor.

Also a mutant. Wait, knowing about mutants is above your security level, report to a extermination booth for extermination immediately.


But one person wanting to inject Paranoia into Cooperative Funtime changes the game for EVERYONE ELSE. And that's not cool. Both types of games are fun, and can be great. But people should know what they're signing up for, agree to it, and not subvert that.

I'm of the opinion that having two characters that dislike each is fine. It can be fun with characters verbally sniping and jabbing at each other. IF both players are good with that.

[kyoryu]

I'm of the opinion that having two characters that dislike each is fine. It can be fun with characters verbally sniping and jabbing at each other. IF both players are good with that.

Well anything is fine if everyone is okay with it :)

But there's also a difference between "Jayne" (I'm a jerk and verbally snipe but mostly work with the team - and yes there are exceptions) and someone actively working against the interests of the team, either by explicitly undercutting them, stealing supplies, etc.

[Beleriphon]

Well anything is fine if everyone is okay with it :)

But there's also a difference between "Jayne" (I'm a jerk and verbally snipe but mostly work with the team - and yes there are exceptions) and someone actively working against the interests of the team, either by explicitly undercutting them, stealing supplies, etc.

I was definitely thinking more Jayne and less Cypher from The Matrix.

[kyoryu]

I was definitely thinking more Jayne and less Cypher from The Matrix.

Exactly - Jayne is my go-to for that reason, though he does kinda cross the line a few times.

Cypher is also cool in a game - if everyone is on board with that being part of the game. As a "surprise betrayal" in a supposedly-cooperative game? Not so much.

Great plot twist in a movie, but regardless of the current emphasis on "games as primarily story" (and I play Fate), what works in a movie doesn't necessarily work in a game.

[Beleriphon]

Exactly - Jayne is my go-to for that reason, though he does kinda cross the line a few times.

Cypher is also cool in a game - if everyone is on board with that being part of the game. As a "surprise betrayal" in a supposedly-cooperative game? Not so much.

Great plot twist in a movie, but regardless of the current emphasis on "games as primarily story" (and I play Fate), what works in a movie doesn't necessarily work in a game.

Cypher is fun, if upfront the GM's elevator pitch is, "Game style, yada yada yada. One of you is a traitor, and will betray the team at an appropriate time."

[kyoryu]

Cypher is fun, if upfront the GM's elevator pitch is, "Game style, yada yada yada. One of you is a traitor, and will betray the team at an appropriate time."

At this point we're circling around agreeing with each other vehemently :smallbiggrin:

[NNescio]

Cypher is fun, if upfront the GM's elevator pitch is, "Game style, yada yada yada. One of you is a traitor, and will betray the team at an appropriate time."

Paranoia: All of you are traitors.

[weckar]

But one person wanting to inject Paranoia into Cooperative Funtime changes the game for EVERYONE ELSE. And that's not cool. Both types of games are fun, and can be great. But people should know what they're signing up for, agree to it, and not subvert that.
That's kind of taking two extremes, isn't it?


Cypher is fun, if upfront the GM's elevator pitch is, "Game style, yada yada yada. One of you is a traitor, and will betray the team at an appropriate time."
And you have just ruined any impact such a story moment might have. Good job?

[kyoryu]

That's kind of taking two extremes, isn't it?

If the playstyles are close enough, then it's not a problem.

If they're far enough a way that you're changing the game for everyone else away from the playstyle that was agreed on, and towards the playstyle you want, then it's a problem.


And you have just ruined any impact such a story moment might have. Good job?

My epxerience is those moments work better in movies than games. Because they're, you know, not the same thing.

[weckar]

I suppose I tend to only play at tables where rule #1 is that nothing a character does should be taken personally by any player. I should learn not to assume things about other people's.
Character betrayals and dramatic character deaths/insanity/backstory reveal (sometimes/often even reveal to said character's player) are par for the course, as are self-destructive and generally negative characters.

[dehro]

I suppose I tend to only play at tables where rule #1 is that nothing a character does should be taken personally by any player. I should learn not to assume things about other people's.
Character betrayals and dramatic character deaths/insanity/backstory reveal (sometimes/often even reveal to said character's player) are par for the course, as are self-destructive and generally negative characters.
This can work quite well... It does become boring and unoriginal when the same player/s is/are constantly aiming at creating conflict within the party by their characters always being contrarians, edge lords, troublemakers and bullies. It gets to a point when even when they pick an ostensibly good character, you're just sitting there waiting for them to reveal their sudden but inevitable betrayal or go on a murder rampage and then using debatable logic to justify their character's actions. It's fun for a while, then it becomes a sign of the limitations of the players.

[GloatingSwine]

And you have just ruined any impact such a story moment might have. Good job?

No, you've changed the nature of it. Because if they don't know who the traitor is and will likely start suspecting everyone and being paranoid about every little thing.

The surprise isn't that there's a traitor, the surprise is who it is.

[Yora]

When I start a new campaign, my requirement for all characters is that the players have to make PCs that want to go on adventures together. A character who does not want to cooperate with the others simply does not meet the requirements to be playable.

[weckar]

This can work quite well... It does become boring and unoriginal when the same player/s is/are constantly aiming at creating conflict within the party by their characters always being contrarians, edge lords, troublemakers and bullies. It gets to a point when even when they pick an ostensibly good character, you're just sitting there waiting for them to reveal their sudden but inevitable betrayal or go on a murder rampage and then using debatable logic to justify their character's actions. It's fun for a while, then it becomes a sign of the limitations of the players. Sorry to add emphasis, but I think you mean "if" there. It certainly isn't a guarantee a situation like this were to develop.

[kyoryu]

I suppose I tend to only play at tables where rule #1 is that nothing a character does should be taken personally by any player. I should learn not to assume things about other people's.
Character betrayals and dramatic character deaths/insanity/backstory reveal (sometimes/often even reveal to said character's player) are par for the course, as are self-destructive and generally negative characters.

And that's a perfectly valid play style, if everyone is into it.

[dehro]

Sorry to add emphasis, but I think you mean "if" there. It certainly isn't a guarantee a situation like this were to develop.

I was speaking from experience, so the when applies. But yes, it's not a guarantee