What if it IS what my character would do?

[blackjack50]

I know it is popular to dump on people who defend their actions as “it is what my character would do.” And yes. They created the character and put said character in the situation. But I would like to propose a counter to said argument because I’ve noticed that many people try to attack “that person” when they do something unpopular with the table. Or NOT in the best interest of the party/table.

What if it IS what my character would do? I spent time and created a well rounded character. I have a backstory that I created that was approved by the DM. It works well with the story and gives reason my character to be in the group. I have given them motives for the quest and side quests. I did all the work and then I play that character based on that story. Even allowing them to grow with the story.

But remember when I said well rounded? That means I included FLAWS. If your character has NO flaws? You created a poor character. And sometimes flaws mean you will do something counter to the interest of the group. And the defense “it is what my character would do” is a perfectly adequate defense.

NOW...if I do it all the time? Sure. I made that character and that makes me the jerk. But it is OK to hurt the group for the sake of story. That is part of it being a moral conundrum. It is a question of repetition by the player. Not specifically the “it is what my character would do” that is the problem.

So. How do y’all feel?

[Darth Tom]

This is just an attempt to justify anti-social "troll" behaviour. The point of an RPG is that everyone at the table has fun: by asking this question you are accepting that your proposed course of action is fun for you but not everyone else; you acknowledge that they will not like it. Having fun at the expense of other people is a definition of a troll or bully.

Remember that you get to decide when and how your character will act in different situations: that includes how their flaws will manifest, and it means that you - not your imaginary character - are responsible for how you act in the game. You can also decide to talk to the DM and fellow players beforehand: if everyone is ok with your plan and character then that's ok, but might vary between tables.

[Yora]

As a GM, my approach to this hypothetical situation has always been that the other players are fully in their right to kick character that annoy their characters out of the party, "if that's what their characters would do".

It just doesn't make sense for PCs to tolerate party members that are a risk to their safety or are an obstacle to making progress. You wouldn't go to dangerous places and put your life in the hands of people you don't trust.

[SirSlicksAlot]

I think there is a difference between "doing something that is not in the best interest of the group" and "doing something that ruins peoples fun". You can disagree with your party, still be in character and everyone enjoys themselves. These aren't mutually exclusive situations. If I am playing a pragmatic, patient wizard I am probably going to have different solutions that a bloodthristy barbarian and we will probably disagree how to handle situations alot.

I can say my character would solve this problem in a thought-out, methodic way "It's what my character would do". But if I shut down the barbarian players idea every single time and insult him because "It's what my character would do" now we have a problem.

[blackjack50]

This is just an attempt to justify anti-social "troll" behaviour. The point of an RPG is that everyone at the table has fun: by asking this question you are accepting that your proposed course of action is fun for you but not everyone else; you acknowledge that they will not like it. Having fun at the expense of other people is a definition of a troll or bully.

Remember that you get to decide when and how your character will act in different situations: that includes how their flaws will manifest, and it means that you - not your imaginary character - are responsible for how you act in the game. You can also decide to talk to the DM and fellow players beforehand: if everyone is ok with your plan and character then that's ok, but might vary between tables.

The problem with your logic is that at NO time during a campaign can I do something counter to the interest of the table or other players. If I do? I’m a bully or a troll. How is that NOT you or others trying to justify dictating to others how they MUST play the game? Further...what is the point of having character flaws that have absolutely 0 impact on the game itself?

[blackjack50]

I think there is a difference between "doing something that is not in the best interest of the group" and "doing something that ruins peoples fun". You can disagree with your party, still be in character and everyone enjoys themselves. These aren't mutually exclusive situations. If I am playing a pragmatic, patient wizard I am probably going to have different solutions that a bloodthristy barbarian and we will probably disagree how to handle situations alot.

I can say my character would solve this problem in a thought-out, methodic way "It's what my character would do". But if I shut down the barbarian players idea every single time and insult him because "It's what my character would do" now we have a problem.

GREAT point. Sometimes the anti “it is what my character would do” is really just an argument that it “ISN’T what MY character would do.” There are different approaches. The tendency to impulsivity is highly discouraged in this world, even when it leads to great gameplay. I think patience and impulsivity have to balance each other out. :)

[Batcathat]

I think acting in a way that's contrary to the party and sometimes even annoys the players is okay to a degree, but I'm not sure exactly where I would draw the line.


As a GM, my approach to this hypothetical situation has always been that the other players are fully in their right to kick character that annoy their characters out of the party, "if that's what their characters would do".

It just doesn't make sense for PCs to tolerate party members that are a risk to their safety or are an obstacle to making progress. You wouldn't go to dangerous places and put your life in the hands of people you don't trust.

I agree. It's okay to play a character who's an *******, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences of that, whether in or out of universe.


This is just an attempt to justify anti-social "troll" behaviour. The point of an RPG is that everyone at the table has fun: by asking this question you are accepting that your proposed course of action is fun for you but not everyone else; you acknowledge that they will not like it. Having fun at the expense of other people is a definition of a troll or bully.

Telling someone else what their reason for asking something is and sort of indirectly calling them a bully doesn't seem overly nice either.


I think there is a difference between "doing something that is not in the best interest of the group" and "doing something that ruins peoples fun". You can disagree with your party, still be in character and everyone enjoys themselves. These aren't mutually exclusive situations. If I am playing a pragmatic, patient wizard I am probably going to have different solutions that a bloodthristy barbarian and we will probably disagree how to handle situations alot.

Yeah, this is pretty much my view on it too.

I can add that I'm also okay with occasionally being real-life annoyed by character behavior (or possibly annoying people myself) as long as it isn't a constant thing.

[SirSlicksAlot]

The problem with your logic is that at NO time during a campaign can I do something counter to the interest of the table or other players. If I do? I’m a bully or a troll. How is that NOT you or others trying to justify dictating to others how they MUST play the game? Further...what is the point of having character flaws that have absolutely 0 impact on the game itself?

I agree that you can act counter to the interest of the table...for small situations...sparingly and if you do, reciprocate. Unless your table is cool with this behavior and people are having fun, then I say go for it! The purpose of a flaw is to add depth and maybe a human element to your character to help them come alive. The purpose of a flaw is not to be a crutch to allow you to ruin other people's fun.


I can add that I'm also okay with occasionally being real-life annoyed by character behavior (or possibly annoying people myself) as long as it isn't a constant thing.
^^^^ I think this is a good takeaway too. It happens just make sure it doesn't always happen^^^^

[Mastikator]

"Then make a character who wouldn't do that", pick a different flaw. Only excuse for causing harm is that it's not obvious, like if you pick up an object that just so happens to be trapped. Anyone can make a mistake, but choices could be made differently.
There are no lone wolves when I GM, you make a character that is a team player.

In terms of RP this is a fantastic opportunity to work on that flaw, if they see you fix it they'll be sure to forgive you. Character development, learn from mistakes and all that.

[Cluedrew]

Talk to the other players. Maybe they are fine with this and you can proceed, maybe they hate it and you should slam the breaks, maybe they have a different idea that works better and you should use that instead.

I'm also a firm believer that nothing is cannon until it has come up in game. So if you change one character flaw that hasn't come up yet for another character flaw that wouldn't have come up yet then nothing in the game has actually changed.

[Pex]

The problem with your logic is that at NO time during a campaign can I do something counter to the interest of the table or other players. If I do? I’m a bully or a troll. How is that NOT you or others trying to justify dictating to others how they MUST play the game? Further...what is the point of having character flaws that have absolutely 0 impact on the game itself?

It's still your responsibility. You're allowed to disagree with party members. You have every right to speak up if you never get your way. What you don't do is cross the line. You don't steal from party members. You don't secretly take party treasure for yourself. You don't keep plot/adventure relevant information to yourself. You don't lone wolf adventure passing secret notes with the DM while the party does the plot. If your character MUST DO THAT, then play a different character or don't play at all with that group.

You always control your character. Your character never really "MUST DO THAT". You choose to play that way. If it's disruptive to the game that's your choice. Some groups are perfectly fine with this behavior. Find those groups. I will never be ok with such behavior.

[Composer99]

The problem with your logic is that at NO time during a campaign can I do something counter to the interest of the table or other players. If I do? I’m a bully or a troll. How is that NOT you or others trying to justify dictating to others how they MUST play the game? Further...what is the point of having character flaws that have absolutely 0 impact on the game itself?

It's important to remember that the "interest of the table", with 'the table' being an entity that is distinct from the party of player characters, is to have fun, and the other players (including the DM/GM/whatever - I will use GM henceforth) are there at the game to have fun. Chances are, there's a dash of escapism in there, too, to get away from the travails and difficulties of everyday life.

If your character has a flaw or a proclivity for some in-game tomfoolery, and even makes the occasional bad decision in a tight spot because of their characteristics - that is well and good as long as it makes the gameplay experience for the players more fun and engaging, even if it causes difficulties for the characters.

So, when you state a desire to be able to do something in-game "counter to the interest of the table or other players", it comes across as saying that you want to make the game less fun and engaging for everyone else at the table, or perhaps even rub people's everyday troubles in their faces. It's not hard to see why other people might react both strongly and negatively to that sort of talk.

People are capable of compromising - putting up with something that isn't so fun and engaging if necessary as long as there's some compensation for it - so you hardly need completely subordinate your conception of what is fun and engaging to that of the rest of the table, if there is a conflict. But you also must be prepared to compromise on that score.

As a final note, the GM may not always have a firm grasp of what the other players at the table find fun and engaging with respect to other players' in-character behaviour, for whatever reason. So when creating a character, I would not rely solely on getting the GM's approval unless you already know the GM does have such a grasp.

[dancrilis]

I think this likely depends very much on your table and your game.

If you are playing at a table where everyone wants to engage optimal solutions then saying 'but my character would light the bandit camp on fire on the stealth mission' is simply running a character that is not fit for the game.

On the otherhand if you are at a table where story and error is allowed/encouraged then ruining the teams plan by having your character light the camp on fire is acceptable.

Or more visually Belkar's 'player' did nothing wrong here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0157.html) providing that 'the table' enjoyed 'the game'.
Or an alternative example there is nothing wrong with Haley pocketing all the gold here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0029.html), again providing that the people at 'the table' are fine with it.

[OldTrees1]

I know it is popular to dump on people who defend their actions as “it is what my character would do.” And yes. They created the character and put said character in the situation. But I would like to propose a counter to said argument because I’ve noticed that many people try to attack “that person” when they do something unpopular with the table. Or NOT in the best interest of the party/table.
Fair, let's examine that counter. But a quick question: The party is not the table right? Something might be against the interests of the party but also be part of the interests of the table.


What if it IS what my character would do? I spent time and created a well rounded character. I have a backstory that I created that was approved by the DM. It works well with the story and gives reason my character to be in the group. I have given them motives for the quest and side quests. I did all the work and then I play that character based on that story. Even allowing them to grow with the story.

I see nothing new here. While "it is what my character would do" can be invoked dishonestly, the primary rejection of the argument assumes it is honest BUT that the player still has control over the character.


But remember when I said well rounded? That means I included FLAWS. If your character has NO flaws? You created a poor character. And sometimes flaws mean you will do something counter to the interest of the group. And the defense “it is what my character would do” is a perfectly adequate defense.

Flaws that run counter to the interests of the character, or the party can work. Flaws that run counter to the interests of a Player are risky. Flaws that run counter to the interests of the Group of Players (including the GM) as a whole are VERY risky and probably better retconned.

For example in my current campaign there is a "not so smart" Barbarian, an arrogant Wizard, and an overconfident Paladin. There are several times they have expressed those traits in ways that are not in the party's interests but are in the group's interests. The group enjoyed those moments even if the party was disadvantaged by them.

But, if the group enjoyed them, there was no need for a "It is what my character would do" defense. That "defense" is only invoked when at least one other player did not appreciate their interests being overruled by the interests of a fictional character.


NOW...if I do it all the time? Sure. I made that character and that makes me the jerk. But it is OK to hurt the group for the sake of story. That is part of it being a moral conundrum. It is a question of repetition by the player. Not specifically the “it is what my character would do” that is the problem.

I don't see the moral conundrum. Respect the fellow players (including the GM) and don't place the interests of a character above the interest of one or more of the other players. It is fine for the interests of different players to be in conflict and get resolved.

That is why "It is what my character would do" is a rejected argument. By the time it is being invoked, the topic is about player interests and we care about the fellow players more than about the characters.


Of course the conversation does not stop there. When "It is what my character would do" is invoked, despite being a rejected argument, it generally demonstrates that the player invoking it also wants the thing to happen. At that point the argument is still rejected, but you now have to start the harder conversation. What happens when there is a conflict between player interests.

That harder conversation needs to happen out of character. There might be some group precedent (maybe even established in session 0 or via unwritten rules). The GM might need to step in as a referee. A compromise might need to be reached. IF I am giving the impression there are a lot of unknowns, GOOD. This is a complicated topic about respecting each other's boundaries and resolving conflict through mutual understanding and compromise.

So please, don't try to escape the harder conversation by arguing about "Well it is what my character would do". That does neither player any benefits. The player with the character is not voicing their interest and the other player's interests are being forced to compete with a character.

[Alcore]

If i am writing a novel i have the characters "do what they are supposed to do" and that is fine. If readers don't like it? Then the story wasn't what they wanted. It might be a problem with shallow writing on my part. That can be fixed on reflection after practice.


But... a game is not a novel. "It's what my character would do" is as harmful as a DM having every NPC betray the party. Then said DMs complain about how the entire party starts murberhoboing everywhere. The party has a point;

If everyone tried to stab me in the back when i turned my back to them it seems perfectly reasonable to stab them face first and turn my back to a corpse.

If "that guy" keeps being an ******* because ******* it seems perfectly reasonable to leave him at the next tavern and hope to never seem him again.


It is your responsibility as a player to make a character that goes with the party and campaign offered.

[Quertus]

I don't think I can add much, mostly just reiterate what others have said. Role-playing is good. Respecting the other players+ is good. When they come into conflict, resolve that conflict civilly and intelligently, not with an inflexible mantra of, "it's what my character would do".

Be wise. Try to see problems coming, and nip them in the bud: "if you do X, my character would do Y, and that won't be fun for anyone, will it? Does anyone see any alternatives?". If you can't catch it in time (for example, player doing X didn't know you'd do Y, and you didn't know Y would be an issue), this is the best time to use the power of retcon.

The party is not the group. It only matters if and to what extent you are impacting the fun of the players. There can be some overlap, of course, but certain… imperfections… *add* to the fun. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, is tactically inept - and that's part of *why* he works better in a party than a Tier 1 Determinator would.

[MoiMagnus]

I
But remember when I said well rounded? That means I included FLAWS. If your character has NO flaws? You created a poor character.

A poor character, but for what metric? Characters are not good or poor objectively.
A character can check all the boxes of a "good novel protagonist" and be a very poor "player character".

And for a PC, the most important metric IMO is to have the same "kind" of characters as the remaining of the table.
In particular, as for occasionally working against the team's interest, this will lead to a character I consider "poor / unacceptable" or "great / expected" depending on the kind of game the table is seeking.

[To be fair, it's been quite a while since I play in a table of the first kind, as my friends love flawed characters]

[Rater202]

It really depends on the circumstances.

If I made a character whose backstory is that he was a slave and suffered horribly for it and now that he's free he refuses to serve anyone unless it's his choice or let the same happen to innocent people, that he will kill anyone who tries to enslave him or any innocents or die trying, the GM-approved this character backstory, and nobody's had any problems with me acting consistently with that backstory in situations where it's relevant, and then midway through the campaign the GM has the party arrested on trumped-up charges by a corrupt government and sentenced to ten-years-hard labor in a "make-believe trial" to quote a certain country song, it's the GM's fault, not mine, if I then play m character the same way I've been playing him the entire campaign with no issue and that somehow ruins the adventure.

The GM knew how the character was played and had approved of it in the past, they don't get to change the rules without warning and expect the player to know without being told.

[icefractal]

"It's what my character would do" isn't an automatic excuse, but "it's the group's plan" isn't an automatic end of discussion either. And I've seen the latter used in ways as bad or worse than the former:
* "But if you do that, we have only a 95% chance of success instead of 97%!!1"
* "Well no, nobody but Bob really wanted to fight this entire city over a 1 sp entry toll, but now that he did we have to stick together."
* "3 / 5 players wanted to sign this demonic contract, and it pays more if everyone signs, so do it, end of discussion."

[Tanarii]

There's usually more than one choice that's in character. When there is, you don't have to choose the one that's going to go annoy everyone else at the table.

Also some flaws are just going to be a pain in the first place, if you overdo them. For example, if you choose a flaw "I turn tail and run when things look bad" (taken from the suggested flaws table for 5e Criminal background), there's a good chance you're going to be a party liability in games where your party regularly goes into very dangerous places, if you play it up at the first sign of danger.

[Wraith]

I know it is popular to dump on people who defend their actions as “it is what my character would do.” And yes. They created the character and put said character in the situation. But I would like to propose a counter to said argument because I’ve noticed that many people try to attack “that person” when they do something unpopular with the table. Or NOT in the best interest of the party/table.

What if it IS what my character would do?

I think that there are two important factors that need to be considered in order to answer your question: Narrative and Intent.

Narrative is pretty much what you described - have you spent 10 sessions role-playing your character to have particular traits and goals, and in the 11th when you're expected to have them do something completely in opposition to that without complaint? No, of course not; that's not "what your character would do" that's "role playing" and hopefully it would be factored in to the ongoing story and hardly come as a shock to the other players.
Don't let other players' criticise "that's what my character would do" because THEY are using the phrase as a euphemism for "your character isn't doing what *I* want them to do" because it's very easy to mistake the two.

"Your character" can act contrary to the plot point that is occurring at the moment and it can be absolutely fine, so long as you're doing it to aid or evolve the story in some way rather than bring it to a screeching halt or otherwise derail it. This unfortunately requires the cooperation/awareness of the party and the GM to make sure that it is accounted for and not just an unexpected U-turn of course, which can cause friction if it's unexpected, but in principle I'd say it falls under Player Agency and unless they're running a tight railroad them GM's should be prepared for this sort of eventuality. Be aware that this can inevitably result in your character being seen as unreliable and asked to stop, or even leave - no one said that the story had to have a happy ending after all, and as mentioned above invoking the phrase even with good reasoning does not always shield you from IC consequences.

At the same time, Intent of the player should be considered. If "it's what my character would do" is invoked then both sides need to seriously consider why it's being said. If the player has a strong concept that they have maintained over other sessions and is having their character act in a way that is logical and reasonable for their established personality, then it's fine. It *is* what your character would do, because it's something that could reasonably be expected of them based on the evidence so far and while the GM and party can't expected to be mind-readers, it should be clear that this was a possibility and that it's not being done to upset them but to maintain their role in the story. Like above; "it's what my character would do" can very easily be interpreted as "I am meta-gaming" or "I don't care about the plot".

If, on the other hand, you're fireballing a bandit camp because you're bored and it's a quick way of getting to the fighty bit? Or because you think it's your turn to be the centre of attention? Or because you secretly decided that your character was Chaotic Neutral and no one had asked about it until you suddenly had the opportunity to screw up a plan for the sake of 'random' ? If any of this is the case, then it's clear that your intent is to only amuse yourself at the expense of others' amusement and that's the bad kind of "what my character would do".

In both instances there are examples of when either can be justifiable or an excuse for unsociable behaviour, and I don't think it the case that both always have to be present in order for you to 'get away with it'... But both are questions that you should ask, and have good answers to, if you want to use them in defence of an action that might cause problems for the party.

And by all means - cause problems for the party. Get into fights, insult kings, stab BBEGs during their big speech, whatever you like - just so long as your party and DM know well in advance that it's something that could happen rather than it just appear one day out of the clear blue sky, and that you're doing it because you want to drive the story rather than to curtail it.
It's a difficult balance and some tables will refuse to accept even the purest of reasoning, but it can be done, and it can be fine and good.

[fof3]

It depends on the situation. If your powerhungry wizard changes sides to join the BBG in the final fight and the whole party fail because of it ... well, it is memorable. It's also okay if this was always going to be the final fight, but it's a bit of a heel move to the players if you've decided to end a campaign half way through.

If there are "no go" roleplay zones that your PC engages with that upset other players, that's also not cool - even if it's what they would do. Because you shouldn't upset other players with your choices.

If you find yourself playing a character backed into these corners, or if you're playing a character who constantly steals from the other PCs, making the other players enjoy the game less, or a character who's just generally annoying to the other PCs - you should probably draw up a new PC. There is nothing wrong with admitting that your PC does not fit in with the party and you need to come up with a new PC or drop out of the game for a while.

Which is better "I did what my character would do and the game ended/I pissed off all my friends" or "I drew up a new PC and we had to try and find a way to fit them in"?

[Talakeal]

As a GM, my approach to this hypothetical situation has always been that the other players are fully in their right to kick character that annoy their characters out of the party, "if that's what their characters would do".

It just doesn't make sense for PCs to tolerate party members that are a risk to their safety or are an obstacle to making progress. You wouldn't go to dangerous places and put your life in the hands of people you don't trust.

In real life we have to compromise all the time; as the old saying goes "You go to war with the army you have."

If someone is actually a liability, yeah, cut them lose. But this is almost never the case. Instead it is "Are they less effective than a hypothetical flawless character of the same level and class," which, in a realistic world, is not going to be available in the vast majority of circumstances.

And, of course, the DM also has to choose who continues to get the spotlight. Who do you continue running adventures for?

[NichG]

I know it is popular to dump on people who defend their actions as “it is what my character would do.” And yes. They created the character and put said character in the situation. But I would like to propose a counter to said argument because I’ve noticed that many people try to attack “that person” when they do something unpopular with the table. Or NOT in the best interest of the party/table.

What if it IS what my character would do? I spent time and created a well rounded character. I have a backstory that I created that was approved by the DM. It works well with the story and gives reason my character to be in the group. I have given them motives for the quest and side quests. I did all the work and then I play that character based on that story. Even allowing them to grow with the story.

But remember when I said well rounded? That means I included FLAWS. If your character has NO flaws? You created a poor character. And sometimes flaws mean you will do something counter to the interest of the group. And the defense “it is what my character would do” is a perfectly adequate defense.

NOW...if I do it all the time? Sure. I made that character and that makes me the jerk. But it is OK to hurt the group for the sake of story. That is part of it being a moral conundrum. It is a question of repetition by the player. Not specifically the “it is what my character would do” that is the problem.

So. How do y’all feel?

The issue with this argument is that it assumes that there's some kind of transaction here - that as long as you spent sufficient effort on the character, you can use that fact to pay off the character being disruptive; or if you make the character realistic enough, that good aspect can pay off the character being disruptive.

But those are not fungible things. No matter how awesome your characterization or acting, no matter how much effort you invest or how much you work with the DM, disruptive behavior is disruptive.

Whether or not doing something that hurts the group in-character is disruptive is a matter of discussion at each particular table. There are games where that would be completely appropriate. But if you're at a table where that is inappropriate, there's nothing that you can do to buy a pass from having to respect that if you're going to be playing a game with those people. Saying 'but look how awesome this story is' or 'look how awesome my character is' or 'look how much effort I spent building up to this moment' is basically pretending that the problem is a disagreement about whether what happened was cool, rather than that the problem was a disregard for the standards of behavior in that group of people.

The criticism of 'its what my character would do' is fundamentally a criticism of holding some aspect of authenticity or realism of a fictional character as being more important than the group dynamics of the real people participating in that activity. It can mean that even if the thing the character did is really minor, trying to defend this way it is actually the worse action because it means you're valuing your own sense of your character over the other people at the table and what they collectively want. So its basically coming across as 'I don't want to care about what the group wants, but I still want you to play with me, and you should be okay with that'.

[Talakeal]

Usually, this boils down to a conflict between "role-players" and "roll-players".

Some people enjoy verisimilitude and/or drama, other people want to win at all costs.

Both are bad when taken to the extreme, but both also need to learn to compromise.


On the other hand, some people are just *****. Some people can't stand not being the center of attention, or use the game as an excuse to bully other people, or to take their frustrations out on other people in a safe environment, or are just selfish pricks. These people tend to play use use it as an excuse for their behavior, yet seldom define their character flaws beyond "selfish" or "random", and somehow their "role-play" always seems to be at other people's expense.

[Quertus]

The issue with this argument is that it assumes that there's some kind of transaction here - that as long as you spent sufficient effort on the character, you can use that fact to pay off the character being disruptive; or if you make the character realistic enough, that good aspect can pay off the character being disruptive.

But those are not fungible things. No matter how awesome your characterization or acting, no matter how much effort you invest or how much you work with the DM, disruptive behavior is disruptive.

Whether or not doing something that hurts the group in-character is disruptive is a matter of discussion at each particular table. There are games where that would be completely appropriate. But if you're at a table where that is inappropriate, there's nothing that you can do to buy a pass from having to respect that if you're going to be playing a game with those people. Saying 'but look how awesome this story is' or 'look how awesome my character is' or 'look how much effort I spent building up to this moment' is basically pretending that the problem is a disagreement about whether what happened was cool, rather than that the problem was a disregard for the standards of behavior in that group of people.

The criticism of 'its what my character would do' is fundamentally a criticism of holding some aspect of authenticity or realism of a fictional character as being more important than the group dynamics of the real people participating in that activity. It can mean that even if the thing the character did is really minor, trying to defend this way it is actually the worse action because it means you're valuing your own sense of your character over the other people at the table and what they collectively want. So its basically coming across as 'I don't want to care about what the group wants, but I still want you to play with me, and you should be okay with that'.

Well, this is just about the best possible answer. Kudos!

So now I will attempt to make… not a counterargument (because I agree), so much as… conditionals that I would place upon this line of thought.

"It's what the character would do" is a reason - a really good reason, probably the best reason, and possibly, under certain schools of thought, the *only* reason - for a character *to* do something.

"Because this action is harmful to the enjoyment of the group" is a reason for a character *not* to do something.

And, if you choose the former as a shield to excuse the latter, it's bad.

But

The former *is* good. And the latter is *not* always bad. No, seriously.

One GM I played with, halfway through the first session, I could accurately predict how many and which PCs would still be conscious at the conclusion of the fight vs the BBEG, because that's what they thought would make for the "best" story. Anything else would be "harmful to the enjoyment of the group".

You're fighting a Necromancer. It would be most enjoyable if the Paladin got the killing blow. You're up, the Necromancer is down to just a few HP. What should you do?

The quest giver is asking the group (which contains a Paladin) to assassinate the rightful king, who is a good man. Should you go along for the sake of the fun of the group?

Different groups have different responses to these scenarios.

Reducing the group's fun is not inherently, always, unarguably a **** move.

So my counter is, "because it's less fun" is *not* always a valid argument.

But, yeah, "it's what my character would do" is *at best* a misunderstood conversation starter, a "well, if this is unfun, then we need to retcon the scenario or otherwise brainstorm on ways for my character to have valid, fun, in-character things to do"; it can never be used as a shield for bad behavior without doing so being bad (or worse) behavior itself.

[Rynjin]

Let me put my experience with "it's what my character would do" into a nutshell. I've played in a lot of games, both live and play by post. I've seen character conflict before, and it always turns out well.

The only person I've consistently seen spark PLAYER conflict is the "it's what my character would do" guy. He applies to a lot of play by posts. Some of them he gets into. Every time he does, he manages to drive out at least one of the other players and usually crashes and burns the game within a month.

Any time he applies to the same game I do, I groan. Any time he actually gets chosen alongside me, I tell a GM straight up that I will not bother to participate in a game with this person.

In my experience "it's what my character would do" is just a flimsy veneer over a pattern of toxic player behavior. This person is not the only evidence I have for this, but it's the most prominent.

[HeraldOfExius]

People typically only say "it's what my character would do" when they are being disruptive. That's primarily why people have an issue with it. If you're justifying your actions to your fellow players, then it's fairly likely that either there's an existing conflict between you and the other players or you expect there to be one in the immediate future. By invoking "what my character would do," you're more or less admitting to having started this conflict. This isn't exactly an ideal situation for most of us who are just trying to have fun.

As for why many people are quick to dismiss people who justify actions this way, remember that the conflict here is between players. Deflecting the blame for what has annoyed the out-of-game players onto your in-game character isn't likely to solve any problems. It can be part of a larger conversation to try and find a solution to an issue that has both in-game and out-of-game components, but an irritating amount of the people who say this aren't actually willing to have that conversation. Too many people are really saying "it's what my character would do, so there's nothing you can do to stop me from doing what I want."

[Kraynic]

But it is OK to hurt the group for the sake of story.

I think that is the point that most people will stick at... What is your definition of hurt? Is that definition of hurt something that the other players at the table are willing to tolerate? If so, you have no problems. If not, then you have problems.

[Quertus]

People typically only say "it's what my character would do" when they are being disruptive. That's primarily why people have an issue with it. If you're justifying your actions to your fellow players, then it's fairly likely that either there's an existing conflict between you and the other players or you expect there to be one in the immediate future. By invoking "what my character would do," you're more or less admitting to having started this conflict. This isn't exactly an ideal situation for most of us who are just trying to have fun.

As for why many people are quick to dismiss people who justify actions this way, remember that the conflict here is between players. Deflecting the blame for what has annoyed the out-of-game players onto your in-game character isn't likely to solve any problems. It can be part of a larger conversation to try and find a solution to an issue that has both in-game and out-of-game components, but an irritating amount of the people who say this aren't actually willing to have that conversation. Too many people are really saying "it's what my character would do, so there's nothing you can do to stop me from doing what I want."

Eh, "attack the quest-giver for suggesting that we assassinate the rightful and goodly king" is "what my character would do" for the player of the Paladin (and 6/12 of the PCs in the party where that happened), but it can easily be viewed as more a statement of "this *quest* is disruptive" or "the assumption (made by any - GM or other player) that we'd go along with this is disruptive" than an admission by the player that it is their action that is disruptive.

It takes at least two for something to be disruptive. The question is, once a disruption is noticed, who is working to fix it?

"It's what my character would do" is not moral high ground for "and therefore it's not *my* responsibility to help fix this problem". It's a call for, "*is* it disruptive if the quest-giver dies while the opening credits are still rolling", and, if so, "here's a quest the quest-giver could give that *wouldn't* get them murdered" or "here's a character who *wouldn't* murder such a sketchy quest-giver".

In other words, noticing that role-playing will lead to a conflict does *not* imply fault to the one noticing, nor to the one role-playing.

[quinron]

Honestly, this scenario just strikes me as a failure to communicate and be flexible in both directions. If a player's actions might be considered disruptive, they should consider backpedaling on those actions and/or changing their behavior going forward; likewise, the other group members should consider whether the actions are genuinely disruptive and allow some leeway for minor disruptions. As others have mentioned, a lot of conflict can be avoided by making sure everyone at the table is on the same page about what kind of game we're playing and what sorts of characters will fit into it.

That said, I've got a kneejerk opposition to the "IWMCWD" defense, for the reasons spelled out by others - by the time you're saying that, you already know you've done something that's going to upset someone, and you're trying to deflect blame. If you're worried that's going to be the case, bring it up as table talk and figure out if everyone wants to deal with the possible ramifications - which, in my experience, is just as likely as them not wanting to.

[KaussH]

This is just an attempt to justify anti-social "troll" behaviour. The point of an RPG is that everyone at the table has fun: by asking this question you are accepting that your proposed course of action is fun for you but not everyone else; you acknowledge that they will not like it. Having fun at the expense of other people is a definition of a troll or bully.

Remember that you get to decide when and how your character will act in different situations: that includes how their flaws will manifest, and it means that you - not your imaginary character - are responsible for how you act in the game. You can also decide to talk to the DM and fellow players beforehand: if everyone is ok with your plan and character then that's ok, but might vary between tables.

I disagree. While dnd may have pointless flaws that have are all fluff, other games have flaws that are worth points, give you stuff, can be enforced by the gm, ect.
Making a pc that is intended to be a troll is one thing, but ignoring your character traits is a no no. And if it gets the party into a little trouble well heck, isnt a little trouble why you are playing.


Not every party has to be lock step during the game.

This is also why we have groups where bob might want to torture an npc and that's ok as it's for the good of the party. But Sam who is a nice guy isnt alowed to stop it as that is "inter party conflict" often the answer is "well Sam didnt have to make a nice guy." Or " sam didnt need to make his charicter stop the torture."

In short I find saying a pc can never say "this is what my charicter would do" can be just as bad .

And to be honest, if you make an empty suit pc who's convictions are all party based and isnt an individual, then in my view that is a poor charicter. Team player is one thing, team minion is another.

[Pex]

I disagree. While dnd may have pointless flaws that have are all fluff, other games have flaws that are worth points, give you stuff, can be enforced by the gm, ect.
Making a pc that is intended to be a troll is one thing, but ignoring your character traits is a no no. And if it gets the party into a little trouble well heck, isnt a little trouble why you are playing.


Not every party has to be lock step during the game.

This is also why we have groups where bob might want to torture an npc and that's ok as it's for the good of the party. But Sam who is a nice guy isnt alowed to stop it as that is "inter party conflict" often the answer is "well Sam didnt have to make a nice guy." Or " sam didnt need to make his charicter stop the torture."

In short I find saying a pc can never say "this is what my charicter would do" can be just as bad .

And to be honest, if you make an empty suit pc who's convictions are all party based and isnt an individual, then in my view that is a poor charicter. Team player is one thing, team minion is another.

You can have flaws without being disruptive to the game. There's a reason in Dragonlance games why Kender and Gullydwarves are vehemently disliked. It doesn't matter the rules themselves give permission and encourage their behavior. It's disruptive play that makes the game unfun for many. Having a flaw of alcoholism is fine. During downtime the PC goes to a tavern, gets drunk, starts or otherwise gets involved in a bar fight, and the party needs to deal with the consequences for a real world hour of light-hearted silliness. The PC may get a reputation that precedes him so when the party first enters a town the local law enforcement confront the PCs to give a warning. A flaw of kleptomania means the PC must steal from party members or the Duke during the middle of negotiations or an enemy of my enemy scenario trying to form a detente with a dragon is not conducive to engaging play.

[Lemmy]

It's also a matter of quantity...

We all annoy other people at some point in our lives, including family and friends. What changes is how often and how much.

If you get on your friends' nerves once or twice a year, that's ok. If you do it once a twice a month, you should at very least reevaluate your behavior.

So it's ok to, once in a blue moon, go with what your character would do, even if it's a bit annoying... But do it a litte more often, and your friends will understandably grow tired of your antics.

[AntiAuthority]

Depends. If the character is just jerk is a thinly veiled excuse to be disruptive (killing plot important NPCs, trying to kill party members, stealing from the party, etc.) that's one thing, as I had a player who justified all this as it being his character's personality... He was just using it as an excuse and was a horrible player. He outright admitted as much once.

If your character is face to face with, say, the person who killed their family, ruined their lives or finds a lost family heirloom and becomes uncooperative/laser focused until that issue is resolved (like killing their family's murderer, even if the party needs said murderer alive) is justified in that case.

As long as the character isn't a constant thorn in the party's side it should be fine from time to time.

[quinron]

It's also a matter of quantity...

We all annoy other people at some point in our lives, including family and friends. What changes is how often and how much.

If you get on your friends' nerves once or twice a year, that's ok. If you do it once a twice a month, you should at very least reevaluate your behavior.

So it's ok to, once in a blue moon, go with what your character would do, even if it's a bit annoying... But do it a litte more often, and your friends will understandably grow tired of your antics.

By that same token, I'd say it's a matter of individual frequency. If everyone's taking turns getting the group into trouble, that's just the game you're all playing; if it's only ever you getting everyone else into trouble, then even if it's rare, it's going to start to grate.

[KaussH]

You can have flaws without being disruptive to the game. There's a reason in Dragonlance games why Kender and Gullydwarves are vehemently disliked. It doesn't matter the rules themselves give permission and encourage their behavior. It's disruptive play that makes the game unfun for many. Having a flaw of alcoholism is fine. During downtime the PC goes to a tavern, gets drunk, starts or otherwise gets involved in a bar fight, and the party needs to deal with the consequences for a real world hour of light-hearted silliness. The PC may get a reputation that precedes him so when the party first enters a town the local law enforcement confront the PCs to give a warning. A flaw of kleptomania means the PC must steal from party members or the Duke during the middle of negotiations or an enemy of my enemy scenario trying to form a detente with a dragon is not conducive to engaging play.

Thats not really a "flaw" if it only happends in down time.

Flaws are meant to both flesh out a pc, as well as make things fun.
If you were playing fate for example, and had a trouble aspect called " sticky fingers" then a gm may well compel (game term) you to lift something. Or you may well self compel. This does not make the game end however. The party is still playing, it just throws a kink in things.

So if the alcoholic takes a 10 gp treasure bottle of wine an guzzles it due to being dry, is that stealing from the party?

[Pex]

Thats not really a "flaw" if it only happends in down time.

Flaws are meant to both flesh out a pc, as well as make things fun.
If you were playing fate for example, and had a trouble aspect called " sticky fingers" then a gm may well compel (game term) you to lift something. Or you may well self compel. This does not make the game end however. The party is still playing, it just throws a kink in things.

So if the alcoholic takes a 10 gp treasure bottle of wine an guzzles it due to being dry, is that stealing from the party?

The stereotypical prisoner dilemma is a flaw. The rogue wants to kill the captured orc after interrogation. The paladin wants to let him go because it's not correct to kill an unarmed helpless foe. Both are right. Both are wrong. The party deals with it. In the treasure hoard are five bottles of expensive wine. The PC drunk claims them all for his share. Not a problem even if total gp worth is more than others' share value. It's out in the open of obviousness. Nevertheless, it really doesn't matter what your flaw is. You don't disrupt the game. You don't make the game unfun for others. Choose to play differently or choose to play somewhere else where your behavior is accepted.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Hmm. It largely depends on the group and what they are willing to tolerate, but also theres a difference between a character like say Bender vs Zapp Brannigan.

Both are known to lie, cheat, steal, casually disregard the wellbeing of others, etc. and generally do even good things for selfish reasons but a key difference is Bender has some redeeming qualities where Zapp really... doesn’t. Bender is driven by a desire to be accepted and respected and is really insecure about that, but if he gets it he actually treats those people rather well (comedy and above flaws aside).

Now some tables wouldn’t like either of these in a party, some would like one but not the other and some would be fine with both. It comes down to how the people in the group respond to flaws, anti-party interplay and so on. ‘What my character would do’ is often shorthand for ‘we now have a problem with this character’ either on an individual or consistent basis.

[Rater202]

Honestly, this scenario just strikes me as a failure to communicate and be flexible in both directions. If a player's actions might be considered disruptive, they should consider backpedaling on those actions and/or changing their behavior going forward; likewise, the other group members should consider whether the actions are genuinely disruptive and allow some leeway for minor disruptions. As others have mentioned, a lot of conflict can be avoided by making sure everyone at the table is on the same page about what kind of game we're playing and what sorts of characters will fit into it.

That said, I've got a kneejerk opposition to the "IWMCWD" defense, for the reasons spelled out by others - by the time you're saying that, you already know you've done something that's going to upset someone, and you're trying to deflect blame. If you're worried that's going to be the case, bring it up as table talk and figure out if everyone wants to deal with the possible ramifications - which, in my experience, is just as likely as them not wanting to.

Question: How do you feel about "it's what my character has been doing the entire campaign so far why is it a problem now?"

Most of the time "IWMCWD" used as a defense for disruptive behavior comes from people who were going to be disruptive anyway: Say, the guy who makes a chaotic neutral rogue and then says "it's what y character would do" when he steals from the party.

But if a normally non-disruptive player's character has reacted a specific way during certain situations several times in the past and it's only disruptive this time then that's hardly the player's fault.

You can't expect someone to have their character change in behavior for no reason, especially if you never told them "that's not gonna be okay this time" out of character.

If if the behavior was disruptive all along but you never talked to them about it or even showed annoyance, then it's still not their fault becuase you never let them know that it was a problem.

A game I was in for a few years stalled for a bit because I got railroaded(arguably Godmodded) into being captured and every suggestion for resolving that conflict given to me required my character to act out of character and every suggestion I made was shot down out of hand, often without explanation. I wasn't trying to be disruptive and, from my perspective, it was other players acting improperly, I was just playing my character the way she was established to act.

[HeraldOfExius]

Eh, "attack the quest-giver for suggesting that we assassinate the rightful and goodly king" is "what my character would do" for the player of the Paladin (and 6/12 of the PCs in the party where that happened), but it can easily be viewed as more a statement of "this *quest* is disruptive" or "the assumption (made by any - GM or other player) that we'd go along with this is disruptive" than an admission by the player that it is their action that is disruptive.

It takes at least two for something to be disruptive. The question is, once a disruption is noticed, who is working to fix it?

"It's what my character would do" is not moral high ground for "and therefore it's not *my* responsibility to help fix this problem". It's a call for, "*is* it disruptive if the quest-giver dies while the opening credits are still rolling", and, if so, "here's a quest the quest-giver could give that *wouldn't* get them murdered" or "here's a character who *wouldn't* murder such a sketchy quest-giver".

In other words, noticing that role-playing will lead to a conflict does *not* imply fault to the one noticing, nor to the one role-playing.

This ties in to the possible larger conversation that I mentioned. Someone who says "it's what my my character would do" can follow it up with "so how do we fix this?" If the player is willing to collaborate with the other people at the table, then there isn't actually anything wrong with saying it. But it seems like this particular phrase is used more than others by people who want to play a disruptive character and won't listen to anything that anybody else has to say. It's the "it was a dark and stormy night" of table arguments. It could be followed up by something good, but everybody groans as soon as they hear it because they're expecting something bad from its past use (at least from what the other players believe about its past use).

[NichG]

In terms of forgiving infrequent annoying behavior and stuff like that, think about it this way:

If you think it would be over the line to explain the behavior with 'I just felt like doing it this way this time' instead of 'its what my character would do', then it's still over the line. If it wouldn't be over the line to say 'I just felt like doing it this way this time', then you don't need to defend it with 'its what my character would do'.

The fallacy is in assuming that the call to the character justifies taking liberties beyond that which the player already has the right to take in that group by virtue of being a player in the group.

[Batcathat]

In terms of forgiving infrequent annoying behavior and stuff like that, think about it this way:

If you think it would be over the line to explain the behavior with 'I just felt like doing it this way this time' instead of 'its what my character would do', then it's still over the line. If it wouldn't be over the line to say 'I just felt like doing it this way this time', then you don't need to defend it with 'its what my character would do'.

The fallacy is in assuming that the call to the character justifies taking liberties beyond that which the player already has the right to take in that group by virtue of being a player in the group.

This is an interesting way of look at it but personally I would be more understanding if some potentially annoying behaviour was in line with how the player has previously portrayed their character. Let's say someone in the party kills a captured enemy who the party was planning to interrogate. It's certainly cause for the party to be upset both in and out of character, but I would be more okay with it if the character was established as bloodthirsty and impulsive than if they had previously been merciful and thoughtful.

[Zhorn]

I'll admit the "it's what my character would do" is often annoying if the player is just using it as an excuse to act like a jerk and be generally antagonistic to the party's general goals and interest. The other players are fully within their right to abandon said character and have the party move on without them.

This is where the key priority need to be set; put more attention and value into why the party would want to keep you around.
Want to have your character be a jerk or have negative behaviours and flaws? Sure thing, BUT the value you bring to the party needs to be worth the trouble.
If the party is more successful WITHOUT you, then you're doing it wrong.
If killing you solves more problems for the party than it causes, you've gone too far.

[King of Nowhere]

there are a lot of situations where "my character would do it" is a suboptimal action that is not disruptive to the game, and it's not just acceptable, but it's good. the difference is between "suboptimal" and "disruptive". killing the prisoner that the rest of the party wanted to take alive because he's your personal nemesis is one thing. killing the quest giver is another entirely.

I believe the problem with the "but this is what my character would do" statement is that it's got a bad reputation. A bit like statements as "some of my best friends are X" or "i'm not racist but ...", there are some situations where they could be legitimately used; unfortunately, they are favourite paper-thin excuses of people trying to get away with bull****, and so people are trained to mistrust/think the worst of anyone using that turn of phrase.

[JNAProductions]

there are a lot of situations where "my character would do it" is a suboptimal action that is not disruptive to the game, and it's not just acceptable, but it's good. the difference is between "suboptimal" and "disruptive". killing the prisoner that the rest of the party wanted to take alive because he's your personal nemesis is one thing. killing the quest giver is another entirely.

I believe the problem with the "but this is what my character would do" statement is that it's got a bad reputation. A bit like statements as "some of my best friends are X" or "i'm not racist but ...", there are some situations where they could be legitimately used; unfortunately, they are favourite paper-thin excuses of people trying to get away with bull****, and so people are trained to mistrust/think the worst of anyone using that turn of phrase.

Yeah.

A hypothetical example of how, to me, to properly use "That's what my character would do," goes something like this:

The party consists of three do-gooders and one more nefarious individual-not really evil or anything, just pretty greedy and uncaring. The greedy one's player realizes that, when an opportunity arises, he'd steal from the party or hide loot from them or whatever bad shenanigans of the same. When the situation arises, he says "So, what my character would do is . I don't think there's any way around it-that being said, would the DM be alright if I intentionally flub my rolls, get caught by the Paladin, and have that PC put the fear of god into mine? I think that would work as an impetus to keep it on the up-and-up, at least with the party."

Because, ultimately, you made the PC. You are responsible for their actions. If the actions would make the game less fun, you work to make it not the case.

Also, as others have said, it's not about "Mechanically suboptimal" or anything like that. You can have a PC that the other PCs HATE, but if the [B]players are having a grand ol' time, that's good!

I'll also agree with those who say that this is a grey sorta area. It's not something you can blanket say is bad or good (though I'll definitely agree with King of Nowhere that it has bad connotations) but something you have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. At the end of the day, do what will be the most fun for the table-that includes you, but also all the other players. If your playstyle is just plain incompatible with the rest of the players, then it's just not the table for you.

[Quertus]

The player is not the character.

The group is not the party.

The character is not the player.

The party is not the group.

I poke at people who post about "killing the players" that "that's murder", despite it being obvious what they *mean* because, threads like this, the distinction matters.

The player is not the character.

The group is not the party.

The character is not the player.

The party is not the group.

If the actions of the character are disruptive to the party? That's likely outside the scope of this thread.

If the actions of the character are disruptive to the group? That is (or, depending on the extent, I suppose, *can be*) a problem - and one which "it's what my character would do" is relevant to.

If the actions of the player - regardless of what character they are running - are disruptive to the group? Then that's a problem, but one outside the scope of this thread.

… or, at least, that's my take, my understanding of, "that's what my character would do". The OP is welcome to correct me regarding the intended… scope / intent of this thread.


I disagree. While dnd may have pointless flaws that have are all fluff, other games have flaws that are worth points, give you stuff, can be enforced by the gm, ect.
Making a pc that is intended to be a troll is one thing, but ignoring your character traits is a no no. And if it gets the party into a little trouble well heck, isnt a little trouble why you are playing.


Not every party has to be lock step during the game.

This is also why we have groups where bob might want to torture an npc and that's ok as it's for the good of the party. But Sam who is a nice guy isnt alowed to stop it as that is "inter party conflict" often the answer is "well Sam didnt have to make a nice guy." Or " sam didnt need to make his charicter stop the torture."

In short I find saying a pc can never say "this is what my charicter would do" can be just as bad .

And to be honest, if you make an empty suit pc who's convictions are all party based and isnt an individual, then in my view that is a poor charicter. Team player is one thing, team minion is another.

While I don't disagree, what do you do when the flaws / personality / "not a minion" nature of a PC conflicts with the fun of the group?


This is an interesting way of look at it but personally I would be more understanding if some potentially annoying behaviour was in line with how the player has previously portrayed their character. Let's say someone in the party kills a captured enemy who the party was planning to interrogate. It's certainly cause for the party to be upset both in and out of character, but I would be more okay with it if the character was established as bloodthirsty and impulsive than if they had previously been merciful and thoughtful.

Suppose, when that bloodthirsty and impulsive PC attacked the prisoner, they found themselves ensorcelled into immobility. Then the responsible PC carried them over to a volcano, dropped them in, and watched them sink beneath the lava. Would you be more understanding of this behavior if the responsible PC had been depicted as merciless and thoughtful?

Personally, I was trained that "role-playing is [good]". So of course I believe that correctly role-playing the character is the correct answer.

However, if that correct answer breaks the social contract, what then?

I don't fault role-playing for role-playing, but I do fault breaking the social contract for breaking the social contract. The puzzle is, how do you make those line up, or, if you cannot, which do you sacrifice, and why?

[Talakeal]

So, most of the time when I see this argument, its over something like the following:

The villain fumbles and drops his weapon, and the honorable paladin allows him to pick it up before attacking.

The fighter is afraid of spiders, so when the giant spiders attacks he stays back and uses his bow even though he could do more damage in melee.

The wizard specializes in fire spells rather than a diverse array of damage types, which could hinder his effectiveness when fighting fire resistant enemies,

The warrior has an academic background and is a bit of a history buff, so he selects skill focus history feat rather than something more useful like power attack.

Bob like wuxia and wants to play a monk in 3e.

Again, a conflict between RPers and power gamers.

On the other hand, its often just an excuse for different play-styles clashing, for example the stick up her butt paladin and the sociopathic rogue constantly butting heads over moral decisions.

Also, sometimes its about player preferences for tactics, one guy gets bored easily and prefers kick in the door and roll a fist-full of dice, while the other prefers to plan out careful tactics and play every move optimally. Both make characters with personalities to support their play-style.


These are all legitimate conflicts without any right or wrong, and compromise is needed, even if the rest of the players and / or the DM agree with one person or the other.


Let me tell one of my oldest gaming horror stories, which was brought up to the police this weekend as an example of how I am a violent and unstable person.


I am playing a rogue who has a fear of water.
My friend is playing a fighter who is a bully.

Both are fine flawed characters.

I play like a rogue, only fighting when I have the advantage and preferring to hide and go for backstabs rather than frontline. This annoys the fighter.

The fighter constantly bullies my character and mocks me for being weak, cowardly, and useless. This hurts my feelings both in and out of character, but I tolerate it.

We come to a lake that lies directly between use and our goal. Fighter wants to swim, I want to go around. We argue, fighter picks my character up and throws her off the dock. I am attacked by a lake monster (because of course I am) and nearly killed.

At this point I realize something needs to be done, but I cannot stand up to the fighter in a fair fight, I don't want to leave the group as I want to keep playing, and we are both too immature to talk things over and back down.

So, that night while I am on watch, I coup de grace the fighter in his sleep.

The DM, who had until then said or done nothing, decides now I have crossed the line, and has a deus ex machina level 20 npc teleport in, kill my character, and resurrect the fighter. He then kicks me out of the group and forbids our mutual friends from gaming with me.

So, yeah, there is an example of a toxic situation.

In my opinion the point where a line was crossed was when the fighter threw me off the dock and then things escalated out of control from there, but some people put the line at a different point or blame one side or the other.

[jjordan]

I know it is popular to dump on people who defend their actions as “it is what my character would do.” And yes. They created the character and put said character in the situation. But I would like to propose a counter to said argument because I’ve noticed that many people try to attack “that person” when they do something unpopular with the table. Or NOT in the best interest of the party/table.

What if it IS what my character would do? I spent time and created a well rounded character. I have a backstory that I created that was approved by the DM. It works well with the story and gives reason my character to be in the group. I have given them motives for the quest and side quests. I did all the work and then I play that character based on that story. Even allowing them to grow with the story.

But remember when I said well rounded? That means I included FLAWS. If your character has NO flaws? You created a poor character. And sometimes flaws mean you will do something counter to the interest of the group. And the defense “it is what my character would do” is a perfectly adequate defense.

NOW...if I do it all the time? Sure. I made that character and that makes me the jerk. But it is OK to hurt the group for the sake of story. That is part of it being a moral conundrum. It is a question of repetition by the player. Not specifically the “it is what my character would do” that is the problem.

So. How do y’all feel?Are you going to take offense if the party murders your character and hides the body? Because that's what my character would do.

Long story short, talk to the other participants at the table about this and work out what boundaries everyone is willing to work in. PvP is a tough sell and, arguably, counter to the basis of the game.

[icefractal]

I think one thing that causes the conflicts is groups not having a clear idea of how much PVP they want, or not even a clear idea of what PVP is.

Like: "PVP means attacking another PC to cause damage". That's an overly simplistic definition, and it falls apart very quickly as soon as you have, say, an Enchanter mind-controlling other PCs.

"PVP means any kind of attack that would break invisibility". Still overly simplistic and leads to dumb results. So if another PC is trying to burn all your possessions and you disarm them of the torch, you're the one who's doing PVP?

"PVP means any kind of mechanical disadvantage". Beyond being overly broad (does not assisting in haggling count as PVP, since they now have slightly less gold?), it falls apart as soon as you want to get even slightly invested in the characters. "Grappling another PC because they're on their way to kill your family is wrong" ... is a sentence that sounds stupid as hell.

PVP is a spectrum. If you truly want "no PVP", then you have to start out in Session 0 with characters that are fully compatible in their beliefs and goals. Otherwise, you're going to have some amount of PVP, and the only question is how much. And for reducing how much, being willing to pause the action and discuss things OOC for a minute works a lot better than setting an arbitrary line which people can dance right up to.

[Talakeal]

I think one thing that causes the conflicts is groups not having a clear idea of how much PVP they want, or not even a clear idea of what PVP is.

Like: "PVP means attacking another PC to cause damage". That's an overly simplistic definition, and it falls apart very quickly as soon as you have, say, an Enchanter mind-controlling other PCs.

"PVP means any kind of attack that would break invisibility". Still overly simplistic and leads to dumb results. So if another PC is trying to burn all your possessions and you disarm them of the torch, you're the one who's doing PVP?

"PVP means any kind of mechanical disadvantage". Beyond being overly broad (does not assisting in haggling count as PVP, since they now have slightly less gold?), it falls apart as soon as you want to get even slightly invested in the characters. "Grappling another PC because they're on their way to kill your family is wrong" ... is a sentence that sounds stupid as hell.

PVP is a spectrum. If you truly want "no PVP", then you have to start out in Session 0 with characters that are fully compatible in their beliefs and goals. Otherwise, you're going to have some amount of PVP, and the only question is how much. And for reducing how much, being willing to pause the action and discuss things OOC for a minute works a lot better than setting an arbitrary line which people can dance right up to.

Excellent post.

[OldTrees1]

If the actions of the character are disruptive to the group? That is (or, depending on the extent, I suppose, *can be*) a problem - and one which "it's what my character would do" is relevant to.

If the actions of the player - regardless of what character they are running - are disruptive to the group? Then that's a problem, but one outside the scope of this thread.

… or, at least, that's my take, my understanding of, "that's what my character would do". The OP is welcome to correct me regarding the intended… scope / intent of this thread.


When the actions of the character are disruptive to the group, ask does the controlling player want the character to do those actions?
No: If nobody wants the character to be that way, then don't have them be that way. Characters rarely have enough of a life of their own that they justify overruling the interests of the players.*
Yes: Then forget the character and talk about the conflict of player interests.

* Batman might disagree if you write them incorrectly, but Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide is unlikely to talk back if I try to change their characterization.



While I don't disagree, what do you do when the flaws / personality / "not a minion" nature of a PC conflicts with the fun of the group?

Assuming there is a conflict of player interests (see above), then this generalizes to what do I do when there is a conflict of player interests. We talk. We respectfully try to understand from all perspectives. Then we try to find common ground. At some point the issue gets to complicated to speak about this abstractly, however communication has been a panacea so far.

[KineticDiplomat]

As with all things, trying to create an absolutist ruling/view on this is going to fail because it is a “where on the spectrum” type of issue.

At one end, this has been used as a hackneyed excuse to try to hand wave atrocious behavior and wild stupidity, often as a less than paper thin cover of the fact that the PC is doing it “for the lulz”.

At the other, there is a lot to be gained by playing a character with a real personality who reacts to things in a character appropriate way, and RPGs do not exist to be small scale miniatures war games.

Somewhere in the mix of this is a social contract that one player’s character should not generally speaking completely destroy the game for everyone else. That’s not a slave to the table, just a basic bit of etiquette.

My opinion is that you should feel free to play your character, subject to the following three questions:

1) Am I trying to use this to get away with being a wacky-bad-lulz-manchild?

2) Is this going to cause potentially game or table wrecking consequences?

3) If the answer to either of the above is yes, is there a way to express the same character feature in a way that turns them in to no?

[KaussH]

While I don't disagree, what do you do when the flaws / personality / "not a minion" nature of a PC conflicts with the fun of the group?



Suppose, when that bloodthirsty and impulsive PC attacked the prisoner, they found themselves ensorcelled into immobility. Then the responsible PC carried them over to a volcano, dropped them in, and watched them sink beneath the lava. Would you be more understanding of this behavior if the responsible PC had been depicted as merciless and thoughtful?

Personally, I was trained that "role-playing is [good]". So of course I believe that correctly role-playing the character is the correct answer.

However, if that correct answer breaks the social contract, what then?

I don't fault role-playing for role-playing, but I do fault breaking the social contract for breaking the social contract. The puzzle is, how do you make those line up, or, if you cannot, which do you sacrifice, and why?

I would have to say that depends a lot on the the fun of the group is.
If you have group that only wants to play out the plot and get the treasure/reward where things like side quests, pc events, traps and random encounters at just a delay, then the gm may want to run a game that has no flaws, and allows for the "party is the way and npcs are lesser than pcs. (Aka stealing from party bad, stealing from monsters good, ect)

For most the groups I have run and played with, it's fun as long as everyone still gets to play. So most of the "its what my charicter would do" is fine, as long as the game is still engaging the players.

So I would say communication and keeping an eye on the flaws to make sure no one or set of pcs have game breaking ones. (The classic example. 2 pcs have hates and will always kill x race. And are playing said races.. a session 0 word will fix this up
)

[NichG]

This is an interesting way of look at it but personally I would be more understanding if some potentially annoying behaviour was in line with how the player has previously portrayed their character. Let's say someone in the party kills a captured enemy who the party was planning to interrogate. It's certainly cause for the party to be upset both in and out of character, but I would be more okay with it if the character was established as bloodthirsty and impulsive than if they had previously been merciful and thoughtful.

For me there's just a different set of judgments to use when it comes to acceptable/unacceptable behavior, versus interesting/boring/coherent/incoherent/pleasant/unpleasant/etc sorts of evaluations of another player's choices in roleplay. If someone wants to play a character that basically just reflects their mood, I might not think highly of that or be impressed by that, but its not usually a violation of any sort of social compact or agreement about how things should be done at that table. People are, generally, permitted to be bad RPers. That doesn't make it good that they're bad at it, but its also not really a transgression.

So the real question to me would start: is stealing a scene and preventing others from going forward with something considered to be bad form at that table, or not, and how is that handled? You could have tables where its just not allowed, tables where people can take turns at it, tables where generally you're protected from PvP by social contract but if you do something like that then you lose that protection, tables where anything goes, etc.

If its a table where that's not acceptable, then building an in-character case for it doesn't change that fact. If you have a table where its broadly considered acceptable if its sufficiently cool, then its not an issue of transgression at all and I don't think it requires a defense. By the time someone is saying 'but, its what my character would do!' as a defense of actions they've already taken then someone has already objected to the behavior OOC, and at that point I think thats where the resolution belongs.

[Lord Torath]

I like the idea of saying "This is what my character would do. I know this will be disruptive. Let's stop and talk about how we got where we are, and how we can move forward." Maybe the other players will say "You're right. Let's come up with a way to play this differently." Maybe they'll say "That will be hilarious! Do it! The party will deal with it."

Talakael's example, (and this is easy, because I have the benefit of not being invested, and having plenty of time to think about it) could have been avoided.

Bully PC's player: "I throw Talakael's character into the lake."
Talakael: "Wait. Before you do that, you should know that my character, who is deathly afraid of water, will consider this a serious attempt on her life. Are you ready for the consequences of attempting to kill my character? I realize your character doesn't think he's trying to kill her, but my character will think you are, and will react accordingly."
Presumably reasonable-adult discussion follows, and the night takes a very different, less confrontational turn. Maybe one of the other players could have had their PC call out to Bully, and urge him not to toss her. It might require the intervention of other players.

This is sort of off-topic, but if ever you feel you're the victim of PVP, bring it up and talk it out before retaliating. If possible, bring it up before the 'attack' on you (for whatever action you feel is an attack) is resolved. It's easier to ret-con a single unresolved action than a whole string of resolved ones that lead to player PC death (that one's for you, Quertus! :smallwink:).

In a Dark Sun Discord group I'm on, many of the players have PCs that are clerics, druids, or preservers, and are vehemently against defilers. As in 'kill on sight." As soon as one player started talking about making a Defiler PC, I brought up PVP, asking what would be allowed, and the likely consequences of including the PC in a party with any of the Kill-all-defilers-on-sight PCs. As a result, we had a bit more discussion on what counts as PVP, and how far we as a group want to allow it to go. And what kinds of adventures we want to take part in.

[Pex]

As with all things, trying to create an absolutist ruling/view on this is going to fail because it is a “where on the spectrum” type of issue.

At one end, this has been used as a hackneyed excuse to try to hand wave atrocious behavior and wild stupidity, often as a less than paper thin cover of the fact that the PC is doing it “for the lulz”.

At the other, there is a lot to be gained by playing a character with a real personality who reacts to things in a character appropriate way, and RPGs do not exist to be small scale miniatures war games.

Somewhere in the mix of this is a social contract that one player’s character should not generally speaking completely destroy the game for everyone else. That’s not a slave to the table, just a basic bit of etiquette.

My opinion is that you should feel free to play your character, subject to the following three questions:

1) Am I trying to use this to get away with being a wacky-bad-lulz-manchild?

2) Is this going to cause potentially game or table wrecking consequences?

3) If the answer to either of the above is yes, is there a way to express the same character feature in a way that turns them in to no?

There is a third distinct enough not to be part of wrecking consequences. Some players are not in it for the lulz but their own selfishness. They play the game despite the other players. They don't provoke NPCs to force a combat nor steal directly from party members. Their common behavior traits are to go lone wolf doing their own thing passing notes with the DM, and when they receive plot/adventure relevant information from the DM they never share it and get all smug they Know Something the others don't. If another player gets frustrated by the not sharing all the better. If they do find treasure by themselves that was meant for the party they will keep it, never revealing they have it, and don't give a Hoover if the other players know "out of character". It's more fun to them if they do.

This type of player I think is worse than the disruptor. It's easier to call out the disruptive player. The DM has plausible deniability of guilt to tell the disruptive player to knock it off or get out. It's harder against the selfish player, presuming the DM is not himself supportive and enabling of such behavior. This is where "I'm just roleplaying" is the most difficult to refute. The uncooperative nature will ruin the campaign, either because the other players quit in frustration or it's a TPK because the players are not working together. Rather, it's a TPK minus the offending player because of course his character will escape and the player is smug knowing he won D&D and his fellow players lost. The campaign plot is irrelevant and never the point to him. By not sharing information the lack of knowledge hurts the party, such as a trap location or what monster lies ahead. By keeping found treasure the magic item does not go to the PC it was supposed to, so it doesn't get used when it would have made a difference.

[Bohandas]

Ideally the DM should take steps avoid putting the party in situations where someone has to break character in order for the game to progress correctly.

[Glorthindel]

Where this usually goes wrong, is "what my character would do" is often "not in the slightest what the character would do", because the "what" invariably defaults to an excessive level of violence, because the personality trait has been dialled up to a level that is unreasonable and unrealistic, such that it in their heads demands a violent and immediate response when in reality, almost no-one would react in that manner in real life to the presented situation. Unfortunately we kinda get conditioned when playing these games that the solution to a problem is an attack roll, but that is where things go wrong.

Lets just look at a couple of situations from this thread:


If I made a character whose backstory is that he was a slave and suffered horribly for it and now that he's free he refuses to serve anyone unless it's his choice or let the same happen to innocent people, that he will kill anyone who tries to enslave him or any innocents or die trying, the GM-approved this character backstory, and nobody's had any problems with me acting consistently with that backstory in situations where it's relevant, and then midway through the campaign the GM has the party arrested on trumped-up charges by a corrupt government and sentenced to ten-years-hard labor in a "make-believe trial" to quote a certain country song, it's the GM's fault, not mine, if I then play m character the same way I've been playing him the entire campaign with no issue and that somehow ruins the adventure.

Nope. Why is it always "kill anyone who does x or die trying"? Who in real life does that, for anything? Opposing x wherever you encounter it is a good and flavourful character trait, and there are multiple ways to oppose something that is both non-disruptive, and in fact could even create content for everyone at the table, but just ratcheting it up to "must engage in violence immediately, to the death" is just massively inflexible and unrealistic. Apply some nuance to the trait and everyone benefits, play it flat and uncompromising, and that's when you have a problem.



I am playing a rogue who has a fear of water. My friend is playing a fighter who is a bully. Both are fine flawed characters. I play like a rogue, only fighting when I have the advantage and preferring to hide and go for backstabs rather than frontline. This annoys the fighter. The fighter constantly bullies my character and mocks me for being weak, cowardly, and useless. This hurts my feelings both in and out of character, but I tolerate it. We come to a lake that lies directly between use and our goal. Fighter wants to swim, I want to go around. We argue, fighter picks my character up and throws her off the dock. I am attacked by a lake monster (because of course I am) and nearly killed.

There was potential for a very interesting party dynamic here, but the Fighter blew it to defaulting to violence. A party are supposed to be, at best, a group of friends, at worst, a group of co-workers who tolerate each other. Interpersonal friction is certainly within the bounds of play, but violence is not; what friend group would survive one member outright attacking another? None, it is just utterly unreasonable. There were plenty of ways to play out the situation that didn't involve violence, but the fighters player stepped over the line.



At this point I realize something needs to be done, but I cannot stand up to the fighter in a fair fight, I don't want to leave the group as I want to keep playing, and we are both too immature to talk things over and back down. So, that night while I am on watch, I coup de grace the fighter in his sleep

Sure, the fighter has already broken the fellowship, but again, premeditated murder is not the solution to a disagreement. You could argue that the rogue saw the water incident as an attempt on his life, and a sign of escalation, and knew a more serious attempt on his life was only a matter of time, but still, why murder, and not just abandon the party in the night and make a new character? Either way, your characters membership is over (no-one is keeping someone in the party who will just outright murder a companion in the night, regardless of provocation), so taking the Fighter out first served no useful purpose.

[King of Nowhere]

Where this usually goes wrong, is "what my character would do" is often "not in the slightest what the character would do", because the "what" invariably defaults to an excessive level of violence,

then again, this is a game about solving problems with violence. it's not surprising that some people default to it even when it's not appropriate

[Rater202]

Nope. Why is it always "kill anyone who does x or die trying"? Who in real life does that, for anything? Opposing x wherever you encounter it is a good and flavourful character trait, and there are multiple ways to oppose something that is both non-disruptive, and in fact could even create content for everyone at the table, but just ratcheting it up to "must engage in violence immediately, to the death" is just massively inflexible and unrealistic. Apply some nuance to the trait and everyone benefits, play it flat and uncompromising, and that's when you have a problem.

You're missing the point.

the point is that in this scenario, "kill slavers whenever we encounter them" has been a permitted behavior for the entire campaign so far.

It is only when the PCs are enslaved by a corrupt Government after being framed by a crime that killing the slavers—in this case,t eh people actively trying to enslave the PC—becomes disruptive.

That's not the player's fault. He is playing his character the exact same way he's been playing that character for the entire game. He is being consistent.

If it disrupts the game now, it's not his fault, it's the fault of the GM for changing the rules without talking to that player first and working with him to find a way to do the plot he wants without requiring to player to play his character in a way that goes against everything established so far in the campaign.

[Democratus]

That's not the player's fault. He is playing his character the exact same way he's been playing that character for the entire game. He is being consistent.

It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table.

Better for a character to be a bit inconsistent, and figure out an interesting justificaiton for the inconsistency, so the fun at the table continues.

Later on, have a talk with the DM about the situation and your concerns with your character.

[Quertus]

Characters rarely have enough of a life of their own that they justify overruling the interests of the players.*

* Batman might disagree if you write them incorrectly, but Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide is unlikely to talk back if I try to change their characterization.

The phrase, "X's depiction of Batman was not true to the original" cannot be parsed as a meaningful statement unless characters do/can have such a life of their own.

I, of course, was trained in a school of thought that took the exact opposite stance from the one you describe. A school of thought that held that role-playing was the highest good, and the interests of the players had no grounds to justify overruling their characterization.

My personal opinion? If you sacrifice *either*, you've already lost. If the only way forward that matches the interests of the players is to depict Vader¹ as a snuggly kitten lover, who funds charities and gives stickers to children, then you should stop moving forward.

¹ real Vader, not spoof Vader, not a dream, not an alternate reality, not…

[Rater202]

It is always a player's fault.

so the GM is completly blameless.

If the GM changes the rules without telling anyone and then gets made at the players for doing the stuff that wasn't wrong until literally this one time when they had no warning, it's the player's fault, not the GM?

The GM bares no responsibility for making an adventure that they know will be disrupted if one payer has his character act the way the character has been acting the entire game with no problems until now?

No, I reject that. In the case I gave, the blame rests entirely on the GM for changing the rules of engagement and deliberately creating an adventure that would be disrupted by the way he knows the PCs are going to act without giving them any warning or reason to suspect that things are different this time.

[MoiMagnus]

I don't think trying to put the blame on a single person is reasonable.

In this situation, the GM "set up the trap" by crafting a situation that can easily degenerate and ruin the game, and the Player "pulls the lever" by choosing character consistency over preserving the game (or what's remaining of it).

[Then, depending on how the GM and the Player continue to react, they might be either sending some rope to the poor game at the bottom the pit, or pouring some oil in the pit and starting a big fire]

[Democratus]

so the GM is completly blameless.

Well, if you would actually quote all of what I said.

"It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table."

Then yes.

If a player chooses to disrupt a game then it is on them.

Don't quote half of a sentence and then try to argue against that misleading quote, please. :smallmad:

[Tanarii]

The phrase, "X's depiction of Batman was not true to the original" cannot be parsed as a meaningful statement unless characters do/can have such a life of their own.
Thats only true after the original author no longer writes the character tho.

[Rater202]

In this situation, the GM "set up the trap" by crafting a situation that can easily degenerate and ruin the game, and the Player "pulls the lever" by choosing character consistency over preserving the game (or what's remaining of it).

Not quite.

In this situation, there's no choice to be made.

The player has been killing slavers wherever they find them for the entire campaign and it has not been a problem, and this is maybe the halfway point.

In this situation, there is no reason to suspect at all that the players aren't expected to kill the people trying to literally enslave them.

If killing said slayers derails or disrupts the adventure, that's the GM's fault for deliberately planning the adventure that way without giving the players reason to suspect that doing what they've been doing the entire game won't work this time or an in-character reason to act differently.

that's the flaw in the "it's what my character would do is wrong" argument. The character doesn't know that they're a character. They do not know what the actions of themselves and everyone around around them are. If someone is playing these games to roleplay then staying in character, no matter the consequences, may well be more important than winning or losing a conflict. If there are no in-character reasons to act differently, such a person can't act differantly.

But, in this case, the player isn't making a choice to be consistent. They're just playing the game the way they were playing it the entire time without even knowing that there's a reason to consider that they should think of other ways to approach the situation.
Well, if you would actually quote all of what I said.

"It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table."

Then yes.

If a player chooses to disrupt a game then it is on them.

Don't quote half of a sentence and then try to argue against that misleading quote, please. :smallmad:

You're still missing the point.

The Player isn't choosing to disrupt the game. The player has no reason to think that what they do will disrupt the game.

The GM however, in this situation, chose to create a scenario that would be disrupted if the character acts the way they've been acting the entire game while giving the player no reason, in character or out f character, to even think of that.

The player is not making the choice.

The GM made the choice, and thus bears the responsibility.

In this case, "it's what my character would do" is a valid defense because this is what their characters have been doing literally the entire game and it as never been a problem until the gM deliberately made it a problem.

[Democratus]

Not quite.

In this situation, there's no choice to be made.

The player has been killing slavers wherever they find them for the entire campaign and it has not been a problem, and this is maybe the halfway point.


There's always a choice to be made. Players aren't slaves.

On many an occasion I have had a character behave inconsistently for the sake of the fun of the other players at the table.

If you chose to behave as if your character's "holy consistency" is more important than the table at large, that is entirely on you. It's a choice and you have made it.

[JNAProductions]

There's always a choice to be made. Players aren't slaves.

On many an occasion I have had a character behave inconsistently for the sake of the fun of the other players at the table.

If you chose to behave as if your character's "holy consistency" is more important than the table at large, that is entirely on you. It's a choice and you have made it.

I think you're presenting it as significantly too binary.

It's possible for blame to be shared-heck, it's possible for there to be no point in assigning blame. Honestly, I'd consider that more probable than not-the goal should be resolving the situation, not figuring out who did wrong.

[Rater202]

There's always a choice to be made. Players aren't slaves.

On many an occasion I have had a character behave inconsistently for the sake of the fun of the other players at the table.

If you chose to behave as if your character's "holy consistency" is more important than the table at large, that is entirely on you. It's a choice and you have made it.I'm going to explain myself one more time. If I have to explain it again, I am going to assume that the breakdown in communication is not my fault and begin acting accordingly.

It's not the other players whose fun is being ruined here.

The GM made a choice that disrupted the game. The other players, including the one who chose to have his player act consistently, made no choices, they just continued playing the game the way they'd been playing it the entire time. This ruined what the GM had planned, and ruined the GM's fun.

"It's what my character has been doing the entire game" is a valid defense when the GM thus accuses the player of disrupting the game.

The player did not choose to be disruptive. The player did not choose to put his fun over that of the rest of the table. The player's only decision was to keep playing the way he'd been playing for the entire game to no complaint thus far. It is not his fault that the GM designed an adventure that would be derailed or disrupted by such behavior and elected not to tell him.

[Talakeal]

You know, I have been thinking more about what Icefractal said about PvP being a spectrum, and I think that needs to be more common knowledge. And I think being able to DETECT pvp is an incredibly valuable skill for GMs, as I think most of it just flies right over their head.

To use my example, the DM did absolutely nothing until I crossed a line that existed only in his head, and then decided to ruin both the dynamic of the gaming group and the verisimilitude of the setting with an extremely heavy-handed over reaction.

On the other hand, the best GM I have ever played under, we had this situation: We came across someone was injured, I was playing a surgeon and went to heal them. Another player, a diviner, cast a spell to find the optimal way to treat them. The GM saw that this was a "pvp microaggression" as he was attempting to steal the spotlight, and so the divination's answer came back "The best way to heal them is to let Talakeal do what she is doing."



Nope. Why is it always "kill anyone who does x or die trying"? Who in real life does that, for anything? Opposing x wherever you encounter it is a good and flavourful character trait, and there are multiple ways to oppose something that is both non-disruptive, and in fact could even create content for everyone at the table, but just ratcheting it up to "must engage in violence immediately, to the death" is just massively inflexible and unrealistic. Apply some nuance to the trait and everyone benefits, play it flat and uncompromising, and that's when you have a problem.

You know, I just had a long thread about the very same topic. In my case, it is that every group I have ever had (and apparently a majority of GitP posters) really do feel that "kill anyone or die trying" is the correct response to ANY situation where you are going to be captured.


There was potential for a very interesting party dynamic here, but the Fighter blew it to defaulting to violence. A party are supposed to be, at best, a group of friends, at worst, a group of co-workers who tolerate each other. Interpersonal friction is certainly within the bounds of play, but violence is not; what friend group would survive one member outright attacking another? None, it is just utterly unreasonable. There were plenty of ways to play out the situation that didn't involve violence, but the fighters player stepped over the line.



Sure, the fighter has already broken the fellowship, but again, premeditated murder is not the solution to a disagreement. You could argue that the rogue saw the water incident as an attempt on his life, and a sign of escalation, and knew a more serious attempt on his life was only a matter of time, but still, why murder, and not just abandon the party in the night and make a new character? Either way, your characters membership is over (no-one is keeping someone in the party who will just outright murder a companion in the night, regardless of provocation), so taking the Fighter out first served no useful purpose.

My thinking at the time was, one of us will be making a new character, but we both like and want to keep playing our current character, so I am going to force the issue by striking first. The rest of the party would have been fine either way. What I didn't expect was the DM to then intervene (both in and ooc) against me as he had previously been totally hands off in the conflict, and had actually ramped it up by having me attacked by monsters after being thrown in the lake.

Obviously, it was stupid and immature, but we were teenage gamers.

We were also a band of murder hobos. We regularly committed murder, we just did it on the battlefield with swords drawn. Saying that killing someone in their sleep is somehow worse is basically doing the same thing the fighter was doing, assuming that anyone who uses stealth is morally inferior and worthy of disdain.

[Glorthindel]

You're missing the point.

the point is that in this scenario, "kill slavers whenever we encounter them" has been a permitted behavior for the entire campaign so far.

It is only when the PCs are enslaved by a corrupt Government after being framed by a crime that killing the slavers—in this case,t eh people actively trying to enslave the PC—becomes disruptive.

But that's my point - it's only a problem because the PC set the extreme requirement of "they must die or I must die". Sure, it was fine when they were just running into groups that the PC could take out, but there is always a bigger fish, and when the PC ran into that bigger fish, their ethos came apart, because they were stuck with one and only one strategy "I must kill every one, or die trying". His one-dimensional character trait dictated he couldn't attempt to bribe or barter with factions of the slavers to bring down the other slavers, that he couldn't bide his time and wait for an opportunity to break free, all because "slaver: must die immediately" was his only setting. And that's unrealistic. If his life goal was to end slavery, there is much more efficient (and likely more successful) means than just attempting to kill every single slaver on sight, immediatly and regardless of his own safety.

To blame the DM for presenting a situation that the PC's narrow inflexible 'personality trait' couldn't handle is not a problem of the GM; it's his goddamn job to present situations that the party have got to plan and strategise to overcome. It is absolutely the players fault that he is treating his characters personality like a line of computer code (see slaver - attack immediately). It is not the DM's obligation to go "well, better never put a single slaver in the game who can't be immediately killed with no repercussion", its the player's obligation to portray a reasonable and rational character.


I'm going to explain myself one more time. If I have to explain it again, I am going to assume that the breakdown in communication is not my fault and begin acting accordingly....

It's not the other players whose fun is being ruined here.

The GM made a choice that disrupted the game. The other players, including the one who chose to have his player act consistently, made no choices, they just continued playing the game the way they'd been playing it the entire time. This ruined what the GM had planned, and ruined the GM's fun.

Looks like we posted simultaneously, so I will edit to address this; its possible we are discussing different ways the game was "disrupted" - if the DM was expecting the party to switch personality and suddenly by ok with slavers (and the player continued to oppose them 'in character'), and that not doing so "disrupted his game", then yes, he's a moron and not reading his own room. Where I am coming from is if the player is expecting every enemy to be instantly killable with no repercussions, and then the DM finally presented someone who couldn't be beaten in that manner, then it is the players fault for presenting a personality trait so one-dimensional that he isn't able to adopt an alternative strategy, and feels "forced" to disrupt the game by enacting the "or die trying" half of his personality.

[Rater202]

That's the same situation.

If the GM has been letting the players just kick in the door and kill the antagonists or die trying the entire game and then throws something more complex their way without any warning or any reason in-game for the characters to approach it differently, the GM is the one to blame if the characters continue to play in a way consistent with the previous narrative.

Don't change what kind of game your running without warning or you have no one to blame but yourself hen things go wrong.

[Batcathat]

On the other hand, the best GM I have ever played under, we had this situation: We came across someone was injured, I was playing a surgeon and went to heal them. Another player, a diviner, cast a spell to find the optimal way to treat them. The GM saw that this was a "pvp microaggression" as he was attempting to steal the spotlight, and so the divination's answer came back "The best way to heal them is to let Talakeal do what she is doing."

Am I misunderstanding or is this supposed to be a positive example of GM behavior? Because I find interpreting the situation as any sort of PvP or negative behavior at all rather odd.

[KaussH]

Am I misunderstanding or is this supposed to be a positive example of GM behavior? Because I find interpreting the situation as any sort of PvP or negative behavior at all rather odd.

Yah i agree. To me this looked like an attempt to assist/give an assistance bonus.

[OldTrees1]

The phrase, "X's depiction of Batman was not true to the original" cannot be parsed as a meaningful statement unless characters do/can have such a life of their own.

I, of course, was trained in a school of thought that took the exact opposite stance from the one you describe. A school of thought that held that role-playing was the highest good, and the interests of the players had no grounds to justify overruling their characterization.

My personal opinion? If you sacrifice *either*, you've already lost. If the only way forward that matches the interests of the players is to depict Vader¹ as a snuggly kitten lover, who funds charities and gives stickers to children, then you should stop moving forward.

¹ real Vader, not spoof Vader, not a dream, not an alternate reality, not…

There is a space between when a character has a consistent characterization and when the author loses the power to change the characterization. I used Batman as an imperfect example of a character who exists beyond the control of a single author (partially because the cultural image makes it resilient to changes) but Dun is a character that still remains under the control of a single author. Although this is a continuum.

In that space something is lost if the players' interests come in conflict with the character acting in character. However I would argue the players' interest come first. And I think your school of thought would agree, although I will need to elaborate.

The school of thought you were trained in has one of the foundational player interests be consistent characterization. So when a character's characterization comes in conflict with other player interests, it is also coming into conflict with this foundational player interest your school of thought has. I don't conclude the character must change. I conclude you should address the conflict of player interests.

From there, the rest of your post seems like one of multiple valid outcomes of addressing that conflict of player interests.

Personally I too highly value character consistency as one of my values, this is why my consistent answer through this thread was "ignore the excuse that hides the player's interests, talk about the harder topic OOC" rather than a concrete always X or always Y.


Well, if you would actually quote all of what I said.

"It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table."

Then yes.

If a player chooses to disrupt a game then it is on them.

Don't quote half of a sentence and then try to argue against that misleading quote, please. :smallmad:

Sometimes multiple players contribute to the same conflict. The DM and the player controlling the PC can both bear some responsibility.

As always I suggest dealing with conflicts of player interests OOC.

[Talakeal]

Am I misunderstanding or is this supposed to be a positive example of GM behavior? Because I find interpreting the situation as any sort of PvP or negative behavior at all rather odd.


Yah i agree. To me this looked like an attempt to assist/give an assistance bonus.

Maybe without context yes, but if you knew the player in question, it really isn’t.

Said player was an extreme control freak / spotlight hog, and would constantly try and put himself center stage when anyone else was having a moment to shine.

The GM picked up on this and nipped it in the bud before it could escalate into any sort of PVP or ooc hurt feelings.

[kyoryu]

A few thoughts:

1. Most people aren't two dimensional. Even if someone HaTeS oRcS, that doesn't mean that they're going to fly into a frenzy whenever they see one - that ends up being suicidal. People have multiple goals - hatred can be one, but not dying is another, and effectively getting what they want is another too.
2. Keep in mind that PCs are usually reasonably competent and useful allies - even a completely self-centered character would see the value in keeping them around.
3. What someone would do is rarely just one thing. Usually there's a few things they might do. Think about that. Pick something that's plausible that they would do but isn't disruptive.
4. You made the character. You're responsible for them. And characters change.
5. If it's really disruptive, have an out of game talk about it, and figure out how to not be disruptive.
6. If all of that still happens and the character still does what they do, that's fine... but then the party can do what they would do, too. At the minimum, that's probably "no, we're not going to hang with you." The worst case scenario is what I call "social contract abuse" - one player does things that the party wouldn't tolerate, but does, because of the implicit social contract of "we're playing together as a group". That needs to cut both ways - yes, you stick together Because Party, but you also don't be overly disruptive, Because Party. If one side violates that, the other side is free to as well.

[Composer99]

I'm going to explain myself one more time. If I have to explain it again, I am going to assume that the breakdown in communication is not my fault and begin acting accordingly.

It's not the other players whose fun is being ruined here.

The GM made a choice that disrupted the game. The other players, including the one who chose to have his player act consistently, made no choices, they just continued playing the game the way they'd been playing it the entire time. This ruined what the GM had planned, and ruined the GM's fun.

"It's what my character has been doing the entire game" is a valid defense when the GM thus accuses the player of disrupting the game.

The player did not choose to be disruptive. The player did not choose to put his fun over that of the rest of the table. The player's only decision was to keep playing the way he'd been playing for the entire game to no complaint thus far. It is not his fault that the GM designed an adventure that would be derailed or disrupted by such behavior and elected not to tell him.

There is no breakdown in communication happening, only straight-up disagreement over gameplay preferences/values. If another person very strongly disagrees with you about gameplay preferences/values, there is nothing to be gained by repeating yourself over and over, compared to working to find common ground, if doing so is important for whatever reason, or acknowledging the disagreement (or remaining points of disagreement) and moving on.

The presumably hypothetical situation you raised has some issues:
(1) The character is made to be uncompromisingly inflexible about some in-fiction phenomenon, without indicating whether any effort was made to fit that characteristic in with the norms of the table culture with respect to PC characterisation, or whether any effort was made to discuss and modify those norms in order to ensure there would be no problems down the road with that characteristic.
(2) Sustaining the character's uncompromising inflexibility requires valuing not merely consistent characterisation, but exactingly consistent characterisation. That might be something you personally value highly in a character, and if so, well and good, but it does not follow that the rest of the table does or must.
(2) In your claim "nobody's had any problems with me acting consistently with that backstory in situations where it's relevant", it seems you did not account for the possibility that the reason "nobody's had any problems" is because in those situations, your desire to portray your character as being uncompromisingly inflexible did not fall foul of the table culture's norms and/or did not register strongly enough with the other players (including the GM) for them to realise that there could be a problem down the road.

Contra Democratus, I would not say that these issues are solely the responsibility of the hypothetical you to resolve when they come up in a real game (as compared to a hypothetical). Contra you, I would not say they are solely the responsibility of the other GM, or the other players writ large (including the GM). Instead, it comes across as there being a general lack of communication about:
(1) What people's gameplay preferences or values are;
(2) The implications of PC's personal characteristics, if those implications include possible disruption of play;
(3) How the norms of the table culture can or must be adjusted to accommodate the gameplay preferences and values of everyone at the table.

[Rater202]

There is no breakdown in communication happening

From he beginning, I to th best of my ability made it clear that I was describing a scenario where the player's actions up to this point had been accepted, valid, and not been considered disruptive but the GM made a choice that resulted in the game being disrupted: Changing the rules of engagement so that the player's actions were no longer acceptable without telling the player or giving any in-game reason for them to suspect tat things would not work out this time.

This is, objectively, the GM's fault and works s an example of my point "this is what my character would do" is an acceptable reason to disrupt the game if it is not only actually what your character would do, but had not at all been disruptive util that exact moment.

To which, no matter how many time I explained it, I was told that no, it doesn't work becuase the player chose to be disruptive. No matter how many times I explained that it was the GM's choices, not the player's, that led to the disruption, even when I explain that in this case there was never a choice presented to th ePC.

If someone continues to insist the exact opposite of what I have explained is true, that tells me that there is a breakdown in communication.

[Man_Over_Game]

Act true to your character, apologize when it hurts other people, and you work on it. Like real people.

Flaws are only annoying when they're ignored and they control you, but real people don't like being controlled by those flaws. Sometimes, people run away from having to address those problems and get others hurt in the crossfire, and that's what starts the path to recovery.

But if a druggy relative took advantage of you for the second time after promising they were working on changing, that's it. Get rid of them until they have proven that they've changed so much that they don't need you to know about it.

Same thing applies to an RPG. People can make mistakes that hurt others, but mistakes are not things that generally get repeated. And if people aren't having fun with your character's "path to recovery", then you change the character (as in, change their behavior or change the character sheet).

[icefractal]

Is that scenario even a case where the player sticking to their guns "breaks" things? IMO, it seems like there's not a problem if they fight the slavers. Either:
* They lose and die - in most campaigns, a thing that can sometimes happen
* They lose and are KO'd - just pushes the issue down the road, but if any rescue or breakout opportunity is going to happen, down the road might be enough.
* They win - and the campaign continues down a different path

I'd say that even having a plot where "fighting back against being enslaved" ruins things speaks to a rather high degree of railroading.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sometimes multiple players contribute to the same conflict. The DM and the player controlling the PC can both bear some responsibility.

As always I suggest dealing with conflicts of player interests OOC.

This. Blame is not conserved, multiple people can be 100% at fault.

[Rater202]

This. Blame is not conserved, multiple people can be 100% at fault.

Yes, sometimes.

But not in the scenario I described.

In this scenario, the GM made design to change the rules of engagement for the campaign midway through while giving neither hints in-game or statements in real life that the rules had changed. The player who continued to act the way they acted the entire game with no complaints bears no responsibility for the fallout. It s not like he can read the GM's mind.

[Composer99]

From he beginning, I to th best of my ability made it clear that I was describing a scenario where the player's actions up to this point had been accepted, valid, and not been considered disruptive but the GM made a choice that resulted in the game being disrupted: Changing the rules of engagement so that the player's actions were no longer acceptable without telling the player or giving any in-game reason for them to suspect tat things would not work out this time.

This is, objectively, the GM's fault and works s an example of my point "this is what my character would do" is an acceptable reason to disrupt the game if it is not only actually what your character would do, but had not at all been disruptive util that exact moment.

To which, no matter how many time I explained it, I was told that no, it doesn't work becuase the player chose to be disruptive. No matter how many times I explained that it was the GM's choices, not the player's, that led to the disruption, even when I explain that in this case there was never a choice presented to th ePC.

If someone continues to insist the exact opposite of what I have explained is true, that tells me that there is a breakdown in communication.

You have not, in fact, stated anything that is objectively true. You have constructed a hypothetical situation for the sake of argument and are insisting that it is a statement of fact.

There is no breakdown in communication. Democratus has read what you wrote and disagreed with it.

And now I am going to take my own advice.

[Rater202]

I created a hypothetical situation where the person saying "it's what my character would do" is a valid defense: IE, a situation where the player saying that is objectively not responsible for the disruption. the GM is.

If you want objective facts, however, here's another example. This one actually happened.

I was in middle school, fourth edition just came out, I played my first ever evil character, an "evil" aligned tiefling fiend pact warlock. As an evil PC in a good party, his malicious schemes were mostly limited to background details. I'm pretty sure the worst thing I ever did prior to this incident was aim to put down an animal after we'd killed its master when another pc wanted to take it as a pet.

In an early session, we found a tomb buried under a stone that had the symbols of three good-aligned god carved in it and an enchantment that I was able to identify with an arcana check to be the kind of Juju that doesn't keep something out but something in. The GM told me that it was something serious enough that fear would be the appraite response.

Despite sharing this with the rest of the party, they pushed on and went in, taking an puzzle box from the tomb and pressuring my character to try opening it.

The other PCs tried and failed to figure out the puzzle to no consequence, but the GM pulled me aside and told me that since my PC was evil he'd developed an obsession with the box and trying to open it and, furthermore, told me out of character that one of my character's in-game goals could be achieved if I got what was inside the puzzle box without specifically telling me what it was, and honestly, out of character I started to get curious.

So, naturally, I roleplayed my character as being obsessed with the box, trying to open it at any opportunity, to the point that the other PCs wouldn't let me handle it without supervision... Note, my PC only tried to open it in the first place becuase I was pressured by other players in and out of character, initially my character wanted nothing to do with it.

Then, after combat when the other PCs were distracted and attention was drawn to how the box was hanging out of another PC's bag... I succeeded on a sleight hand check and absconded with the box.

I was caught in a back ally trying to open the box... Overpowered by the other PCs, dragged to a church, had the compulsion to open the box purged, and my character was made physically unable to lie as punishment for stealing the box(this was entirely a call by the GM and IIRC the other players didn't even know about the compulsion) while the other players all got angry at me out of character for stealing the box.

"It's what my character would do" is a perfectly valid justification for that, though not one I made becuase I knew it was used exclusively by jerkfaces in the olden days. My character was supernaturally compelled to keep trying to open the box and an opportunity was almost literally shoved in my face.

[NichG]

Yes, sometimes.

But not in the scenario I described.

In this scenario, the GM made design to change the rules of engagement for the campaign midway through while giving neither hints in-game or statements in real life that the rules had changed. The player who continued to act the way they acted the entire game with no complaints bears no responsibility for the fallout. It s not like he can read the GM's mind.

If you make a character with an extreme button and are told its okay, but then the GM creates a situation where it will absolutely not be okay, you blindly take the action, and no one says anything at the time but complains later, then sure, you're blameless.

But if the GM or another player says 'wait, in this case that's going to cause real problems, please do something else here' and you say 'no, I refuse to back down, its what my character would do' then you had awareness that it would be a problem, a chance to back down or behave differently, but refused. In which case, yes, you are to blame, even if the GM also is to blame. And in that case I'd say that would be far worse than what the GM did. What the GM did there could be an honest mistake, but actively refusing to work with the rest of the table to find an appropriate resolution is overt and intentional.

[JNAProductions]

I would also like to echo my earlier point-namely, why assign blame?

Unless you're looking to scapegoat a victim or something, it's more important to just make the game better.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, sometimes.

But not in the scenario I described.

In this scenario, the GM made design to change the rules of engagement for the campaign midway through while giving neither hints in-game or statements in real life that the rules had changed. The player who continued to act the way they acted the entire game with no complaints bears no responsibility for the fallout. It s not like he can read the GM's mind.

If I were the player, then despite the lack of forewarning I would accept some of the responsibility because my continued actions contributed to the issue, even if the GM is 100% to blame. I would work with the GM to resolve the fallout.

In the scenario you describe, I can see some hints with the benefits of 20-20 hindsight. So I would accept even more responsibility and be even more committed to working to resolve the fallout.

Situations like this take 2 people and since I control myself, I should think of it as always being at least a bit my responsibility , even if it is also 100% the other person's fault. Fault/responsibility is not conserved.


I would also like to echo my earlier point-namely, why assign blame?

Unless you're looking to scapegoat a victim or something, it's more important to just make the game better.

A very good point. I can think of only 1 reason:
Who can do something differently next time? Usually multiple people have that opportunity. Usually I have that opportunity.

[Rater202]

I would also like to echo my earlier point-namely, why assign blame?

Unless you're looking to scapegoat a victim or something, it's more important to just make the game better.

"It's what my character would do" is exclusively used as a defense when your in-character actions are questioned or criticized.

If the phrase is uttered, blame is already being assigned.

[Rynjin]

"former slave who will not be recaptured" is a perfectly reasonable character trait. It's consistent with real life and to an even greater extent media, and usually results in great tragedy. Because "die trying" is the usual result of fighting monolithic organizations alone.

I don't see any issue with playing that out unless you're so great a control freak you can't abide your players eating up whatever slop you put out and gratefully asking for more. Not every piece of content is right for every character, or every player for that matter. Personally I can't stand "captured and forced to work" plots. They're ****ing boring, tedious slogs, and significantly more so when it's in the MIDDLE of a campaign, where it makes less sense and the tedious parts can't be made as interesting (because if you start the campaign at level 1 in captivity, there's a chance of failure for your checks).

[KineticDiplomat]

As noted above, the issue isn’t with a character who “will hold to X or die trying!”, it’s when a player is surprised that the part where the character dies trying or when he insists the group go down with hin. A GM can usually find a way for that one PC to go out in a heroic blaze without burning the rest of the party.

The problem comes when the player insists that he’s being punished when in fact he chose suicide. Take our slaver hating PC - the fact that he hates slavers and the idea of being re-enslaved even to the point of dying, is certainly a reasonable character feature. But you know what you’re doing - constant attacks with no planning or discretion, on a large income producing trade that is supported by the government and society, well those are going to end in a grave. You might be Spartacus on the way, but you sealed your fate. Racing out against the Bolivian army confirms it. It may be in character, but that doesn’t give the character a right to live.

The player chose a character who was going to commit suicide by authority. There may have been ways around that - slowly brewing an insurgency, getting foreign government sponsorship, at a minimum not just attacking every slaver he ever saw - but the player decided his character wouldn’t take those routes or anything other than racing in swords-a-blazing. He doesn’t get to say “well, when my character put the gun to his head and kept pulling the trigger, the GM punished me because they weren’t all blanks”.

[kyoryu]

A lot of that is what I call "featureism" roleplaying. Players pick one feature, amplify it to eleven, and play it as extreme as possible.

It's.... not really great roleplaying, and tends to be disruptive. People are better at pursuing their goals than that.

[Duff]

People typically only say "it's what my character would do" when they are being disruptive.
I feel like that's close but wrong in an important way.
People say it (or similar things - lots of people avoid that phrase now) when someone has accused them of being disruptive. That does not in fact mean they have been.
It does mean someone at the table thinks the player needs to reconsider their action or rethink their character, But again, it may be the complaint was misplaced.

Different players have different ideas about where the line should be on how much you compromise your play for the benefit of the game and of the party. And the two are not the same.
For example, the quest reaches a decision point. The city will be attacked soon. The thieves guild and the assassins guild of the city are at war. The party can try and recruit one (by helping them win the war), both (by brokering peace) or neither.
The party's best interest is to discuss all the info they have and come up with the best possible plan. The best interest of the game is to do what is fun; which is either discuss a plan in broad strokes and move forward or make the conversation fun by including some acting*. And the game can be more fun if the characters have their own preferences rather than just "what will be most successful".

* I know not every player or table will consider this fun. If you're the odd player out at your table, you suck it up. If it's not your table's thing, move it along

[icefractal]

The player chose a character who was going to commit suicide by authority. There may have been ways around that - slowly brewing an insurgency, getting foreign government sponsorship, at a minimum not just attacking every slaver he ever saw - but the player decided his character wouldn’t take those routes or anything other than racing in swords-a-blazing. He doesn’t get to say “well, when my character put the gun to his head and kept pulling the trigger, the GM punished me because they weren’t all blanks”.Well ... maybe. It depends a lot on how that situation came to pass.

I mean, the PCs in any "vs the evil empire" campaign could be considered to be "committing suicide by authority" when they take any action significant enough to get that empire's attention. It would be plausible for one session to start with:
"So as you're sitting in the tavern planning your next move, several dozen elite soldiers teleport in and jump you."
* fight ensues, the PCs lose*
"And you're executed for your treasonous activities. Everyone roll up new PCs, I guess."

But you'll seldom see that in practice, because it wouldn't be fun.

So if the PCs were captured (and the one PC ended up dead) via events that made sense IC, that they had some chance to see coming and prevent, but they didn't - well, so it goes. If the capture was a railroad that the GM justified as "but it's ok because you won't be killed" then I'd say the player(s) have good reason to be annoyed.

[Tanarii]

I mean, the PCs in any "vs the evil empire" campaign could be considered to be "committing suicide by authority" when they take any action significant enough to get that empire's attention. It would be plausible for one session to start with:
"So as you're sitting in the tavern planning your next move, several dozen elite soldiers teleport in and jump you."
* fight ensues, the PCs lose*
"And you're executed for your treasonous activities. Everyone roll up new PCs, I guess."
Reminds me of the All Guardsman Party.

Of course the purported players in the story knew their DM was a killer DM, and rolled up a handful of characters each before they even began. It wasn't enough, but still that's a difference.

[TheMango55]

If you want to go down this road you have to realize your character isn't the only one with agency.

If your character is consistently disruptive or harmful to the groups, the other players might decide that what their characters would do is kick his ass to the curb and you can roll a new character that's less of an *******.

[Batcathat]

The problem comes when the player insists that he’s being punished when in fact he chose suicide. Take our slaver hating PC - the fact that he hates slavers and the idea of being re-enslaved even to the point of dying, is certainly a reasonable character feature. But you know what you’re doing - constant attacks with no planning or discretion, on a large income producing trade that is supported by the government and society, well those are going to end in a grave. You might be Spartacus on the way, but you sealed your fate. Racing out against the Bolivian army confirms it. It may be in character, but that doesn’t give the character a right to live.

This is my take on it as well. I'm fine with a character doing (almost) whatever they want, but they'll have to live (or die) with the consequences of it.


A lot of that is what I call "featureism" roleplaying. Players pick one feature, amplify it to eleven, and play it as extreme as possible.

It's.... not really great roleplaying, and tends to be disruptive. People are better at pursuing their goals than that.

While I agree that such behavior can be annoying, I suspect we've all met people like that in real life – who've picked a personality trait or hobby or issue and pretty much turned it into their entire personality – so it's not exactly unrealistic.

[Zombimode]

While I agree that such behavior can be annoying, I suspect we've all met people like that in real life – who've picked a personality trait or hobby or issue and pretty much turned it into their entire personality – so it's not exactly unrealistic.

Sure, but there are many personallity traits that are realistic but nevertheless undesireable for player characters.

[Willie the Duck]

so the GM is completly blameless.
If the GM changes the rules without telling anyone and then gets made at the players for doing the stuff that wasn't wrong until literally this one time when they had no warning, it's the player's fault, not the GM?
The GM bares no responsibility for making an adventure that they know will be disrupted if one payer has his character act the way the character has been acting the entire game with no problems until now?
No, I reject that. In the case I gave, the blame rests entirely on the GM for changing the rules of engagement and deliberately creating an adventure that would be disrupted by the way he knows the PCs are going to act without giving them any warning or reason to suspect that things are different this time.

I don't think trying to put the blame on a single person is reasonable.
In this situation, the GM "set up the trap" by crafting a situation that can easily degenerate and ruin the game, and the Player "pulls the lever" by choosing character consistency over preserving the game (or what's remaining of it).
[Then, depending on how the GM and the Player continue to react, they might be either sending some rope to the poor game at the bottom the pit, or pouring some oil in the pit and starting a big fire]
DMs, like players, are capable of being ‘the problem individual,’ no argument. If a DM decides to turn over the whole apple cart that is the lovely time everyone has been having, they are certainly not immune to critique, and have additional levers (compared to an individual player) to pull in the effort to accomplish this antisocial endeavor.

What that does not do, however, is excuse anyone else’s potential apple cart flipping. ‘He bit me, so I bit him’ is the thing we have to try to get out of our children’s behavior arsenal at a young age and it doesn’t change later.

That’s basically my response to the OP as well – what your character would really do is an important consideration for the roleplay experience, but it doesn’t excuse behavior that is clearly disruptive. If your character’s actions would be disruptive (were you to do what they really would do), and you want to act in some manner towards a believable character, but you have to deal with basic consideration to the rest of your group, you discuss the issue. That’s it. Talk it out OOC, discuss how you see things and ask for input, negotiate, compromise (while hopefully retaining those things most important to your enjoyment), and come to a consensus (and your character might get to do their what-otherwise-would-be-disruptive actions, provided that there was a consensus that it was appropriate given the situation).

Same thing with the DM putting your no-jail character in chains – you ask, ‘hey, um GM, what’s the plan here? I’ve been playing this guy as fanatically anti-bars&chains this whole time, with (I believe) everyone’s buy-in and encouragement. If he gets imprisoned, I’d think his immediate response would be suicidal charge on the first guard he sees. Is that not what you foresaw, when setting this up?’ and then the commencement with the sharing of perspectives and goals and negotiations, etc. etc. Perhaps the DM didn’t see things the same way. Maybe they did and they really are trying to blow things up (in which case this shifts to a discussion about DM meltdowns, group breakdowns, whether to stick with bad gaming situations and so forth; but even then the list of excused reactions does not include blowing things up in response).

[Quertus]

The Player isn't choosing to disrupt the game. The player has no reason to think that what they do will disrupt the game.

+1 this.

A lot of posters (not just in replying to you) don't seem to grok the idea (or seem to overlook the fact) that one can do something "disruptive" without knowing that it is disruptive. Or can choose a trait that is "disruptive" without having any knowledge of that fact.

The GM is the only one who knows the "needs" of the campaign. They're the only one who is in the position to notice that "kill all slavers" might not be a workable character trait. It is 100% the GM's responsibility to catch this, *or* to not care, to have a flexible campaign that isn't dependent on accepting slavers.

(Of course, I'm not a fan of needy railroad games to begin with… but… "wants to work with quest-giver" "kill all slavers" "quest-giver is a slaver" is an easy logic puzzle to spot the issues)

This does absolutely nothing to change the fact that it's still the player's reasonability to be as flexible with their character as their character's personality allows them to be, and to be on the lookout for and point out any potential problems as early as possible.

But some problems, the GM is uniquely positioned to notice *long* before the players. And, if the players have telegraphed the appropriate information, the GM has no-one to blame but themselves for not catching it earlier. And, even if the players haven't telegraphed those personality traits, the GM *still* often has no-one to blame but themselves for not telegraphing any campaign requirements.


There is a space between when a character has a consistent characterization and when the author loses the power to change the characterization. I used Batman as an imperfect example of a character who exists beyond the control of a single author (partially because the cultural image makes it resilient to changes) but Dun is a character that still remains under the control of a single author. Although this is a continuum.

In that space something is lost if the players' interests come in conflict with the character acting in character. However I would argue the players' interest come first. And I think your school of thought would agree, although I will need to elaborate.

The school of thought you were trained in has one of the foundational player interests be consistent characterization. So when a character's characterization comes in conflict with other player interests, it is also coming into conflict with this foundational player interest your school of thought has. I don't conclude the character must change. I conclude you should address the conflict of player interests.

From there, the rest of your post seems like one of multiple valid outcomes of addressing that conflict of player interests.

Personally I too highly value character consistency as one of my values, this is why my consistent answer through this thread was "ignore the excuse that hides the player's interests, talk about the harder topic OOC" rather than a concrete always X or always Y.

I really do need to stop being surprised by just how wise and sane you are.

Thank you for being you.

I think (and hope) that you have accurately described my "modern adaptation" of the ancient and noble house of Roleplay. I am not 100% that the ancient house is as wise as you credit them with being… but it *is* a logical outcome if you start with their core values, and build outwards wisely.


I feel like that's close but wrong in an important way.
People say it (or similar things - lots of people avoid that phrase now) when someone has accused them of being disruptive. That does not in fact mean they have been.
It does mean someone at the table thinks the player needs to reconsider their action or rethink their character, But again, it may be the complaint was misplaced.

Different players have different ideas about where the line should be on how much you compromise your play for the benefit of the game and of the party. And the two are not the same.
For example, the quest reaches a decision point. The city will be attacked soon. The thieves guild and the assassins guild of the city are at war. The party can try and recruit one (by helping them win the war), both (by brokering peace) or neither.
The party's best interest is to discuss all the info they have and come up with the best possible plan. The best interest of the game is to do what is fun; which is either discuss a plan in broad strokes and move forward or make the conversation fun by including some acting*. And the game can be more fun if the characters have their own preferences rather than just "what will be most successful".

* I know not every player or table will consider this fun. If you're the odd player out at your table, you suck it up. If it's not your table's thing, move it along

There's a lot I've wanted to say in this thread, but I didn't know how… or didn't until I read your post. This post says a lot of what I've been wanting to say, so I'm so glad that you put it into words!

Well… I do differ *slightly*. I think you can recognize that something needs to change, and emphasize the *something* nature, rather than assigning blame. Like, when sketchy quest-giver wanted us to assassinate the good and rightful king, 6 PCs said, "sure", 6 said "no way!". One can decide *something* needs to change, without assigning either side blame for holding their particular stance.

And… I'm not 100% on the idea that, if only you care about something, tough luck. It's a group game, but that doesn't mean every action (such as the epic challenge of the locked door) must be handled as a group - spotlight sharing is a thing. Talakeal's example of his doctor helping someone was (as I've heard the full explanation in another thread) an example of a character *finally* getting some spotlight time. Which… can be handled well or poorly… but the fact that it *can* be handled well, that you *can* give "wallflower" characters a chance to shine in their own minigame that no one else cares about without it being disruptive, means I'm not 100% on board with "everything is everyone or no-one". Maybe upper 90's on that idea, of balancing the fun of the table by strictly limiting (and, yes, *often* foregoing) things that don't interest the group.

But your example is excellent for explaining the difference between what's best for the party, and what's best for the group, and your post really says things that I feel needed to be said. Kudos!


If you want to go down this road you have to realize your character isn't the only one with agency.

If your character is consistently disruptive or harmful to the groups, the other players might decide that what their characters would do is kick his ass to the curb and you can roll a new character that's less of an *******.

Less… aggressively(?)… and more "taking personal responsibility", if you have an intended course of action that isn't fun for the group, consider whether another, fun course of action is also available and acceptable. If you have a character that isn't fun for the group, consider whether you are capable of creating and enjoying playing a character who *is* fun for the group.

[kyoryu]

While I agree that such behavior can be annoying, I suspect we've all met people like that in real life – who've picked a personality trait or hobby or issue and pretty much turned it into their entire personality – so it's not exactly unrealistic.

I mean, sorta?

But like those things are usually fairly benign (Harry Potter! Sports!) and don't cause disruptions in every day life, and the people still usually have goals and values beyond that (family, friends, etc.)

Living in OC for a while, I knew a lot of people that were like that with Disney. They still had jobs. They had families. They usually had other hobbies too, but if they played golf you can guarantee they'd have Disney golf toppers. It wasn't the "meat" of their life, in general, but it was a seasoning that they sprinkled on everything.

In contrast, in RPGs I'm usually talking about OrcSlayer McOrcHater the Slayer of Orcs, who hates orcs because <tragic backstory> and can't stop himself from killing an orc if he sees one. That's another level.

[Talakeal]

If you want to go down this road you have to realize your character isn't the only one with agency.

If your character is consistently disruptive or harmful to the groups, the other players might decide that what their characters would do is kick his ass to the curb and you can roll a new character that's less of an *******.

This is a lot easier said than done.

First, the players and the characters have to be in agreement.

Then you need the DM to actually put their foot down and tell someone "I am taking your PC away from you."

There is also the term of what constitutes "the group". Is it unanimous? Majority vote? The guy who owns the house? The people who are on the DM's nice list? The guy whose character can is so OP they can take out anyone else in the group or possibly the entire group by himself?


There is also the break of verisimilitude when it comes to consequences. In real life, if you get fired from a job, you find a new one, but in RPGs characters effectively cease to exist, thus there is a lot more incentive to put up with an abusive situation and try and find a way to make it work.

On the other hand, rolling a new character doesn't really have a real life equivalent. For example, if I were to be fired from my job, they would lose out on the two years and hundred thousand dollars they spent training me, and then have to go through all of that over again to get someone who may not be any better than I am, leaving them understaffed the whole time. You would think it would be even harder to replace a PC, especially at high level, as PCs are supposed to be pretty rare, and the idea that you would just quickly find someone willing and able to fill in the kicked guy's role is pretty contrived. Of course, being a game, the GM will just make it happen, which is a break in RP.



To illustrate, let me tell you the tale of Bubble Boy.

It was a three person party. They were in dangerous enemy territory, and a god granted them shelter. The PCs felt that the god "talked down to them", and decided to repay the God's generosity by raiding a cathedral dedicated to said god. One of the PCs backed out at the last moment, which meant that the other two were unprepared for the fight, one of them died and the other was badly injured. The injured PC decided to leave the party as he felt betrayed by the PC who backed out of the raid at the last moment. He felt that this would be a mutual death sentence as they were now alone in hostile territory, but I instead allowed the lone surviving PC to finish the adventure as written while the other two rolled up new characters. I adjusted the difficulty to be balanced for one person, and when the other PCs saw this they lost it and spent the next several years calling the play names like "bubble boy" and "DM's pet," feeling that he should have died for his betrayal.

[OldTrees1]

I really do need to stop being surprised by just how wise and sane you are.

Thank you for being you.

I think (and hope) that you have accurately described my "modern adaptation" of the ancient and noble house of Roleplay. I am not 100% that the ancient house is as wise as you credit them with being… but it *is* a logical outcome if you start with their core values, and build outwards wisely.


Thank you.

I find if you assume but do not require wisdom, people will try to match that expectation.

This is part of why I think "It is what my character would do." does everyone a disservice. If we consider that "never be a slave again" character and the "captured by slavers" arc we can argue about it in character or out of character.

In character the only real discussion is "whether that is in character or not"
Out of character the player can communicate why they value consistent characterization and why they chose that characterization. Likewise the DM (in the current example) can communicate how they understood the character, how they expected things would go, and why the characterization and arc are in conflict. This can lead to a united group seeing the problem and working on how to best resolve it.

There are many solutions of various value once the group unifies against the problem rather than arguing. Maybe the PC dies, the player uses a temporary PC, and the party later revives the PC. Maybe the DM figures out how to accommodate the suicidal escape attempt. Maybe it is a big enough deal to retcon and rollback the capture (less likely for a capture arc, but this is in the DM's power and easier if caught earlier).

[Segev]

Let's try to construct a scenario that might make us sympathetic to the OP's point.

Let's say the OP makes a well-rounded character whose motivation for adventuring is trying to find his children, who were kidnapped by slavers when his town was raided and his wife killed. Most of the time, he backgrounds this and looks in orphanages and in slave pits and asks around after people of their description, as well as hunting for the slavers who took them.

Then, one adventure, the lead they were following happened to be one the DM used his interests to hook them with: he heard about a black market that sold slaves and that one of the people unrelated to the group he's hunting might be involved. The party wants blackmail on this fellow, and in principle the PC in question is okay with just getting that blackmail to later make him pay for his evil. Then, they find him with a line of child-sized humanoids in chains with bags over their heads, and he's about to kill one because it fell and broke its leg. The DM just planned this as a confirmation of "he's so evil," and the party are grimacing but accepting that they NEED him to get back and do things for them vis a vis their now-secure blackmail material.

The PC can't - CAN'T - risk that that broken-legged figure is one of his children. Even if it's low probability, the combination of it being wrong to let him be murdered and the fact that it COULD BE is just too counter to his character to let him say, "Okay, my PC will also just watch, agonized, as the guy kills the kid." It just is not in the character's nature.

Is he really in the wrong for saying, "I'm sorry, guys, I know this ruins the plan, but my character can't sit idly by and let this happen?"

We can say, "It's the DM's fault for creating the conflict," but the truth is that while this one's kind-of obvious, other scenarios may not be obvious to the DM until the player raises his hand and says, "Um...." And then suddenly the DM winces and realizes just how that will impact that character.

The proper and mature thing to do at this point is to discuss, OOC, possible solutions to let the PC stay in-character and the game not be ruined for everyone else. Ideally, to me, the other players would accept that sometimes their plans don't go off optimally. Others, the agreement is for the DM to initiate a deus ex machina (the kid is saved by a third party, or the villain kills the kid before anybody can do anything about it and thus the seething-angry father PC can be restrained from immediate action that will save nothing and noone). Or even the player of the father PC agreeing to allow the other PCs to take immediate action to thwart him as he struggles futilely to try to stop it.

There are ways to preserve characterization that a player may not be able to institute on his own; cooperation from the group to make something happen that preserves the narrative fun is important.

[OldTrees1]

Is he really in the wrong for saying, "I'm sorry, guys, I know this ruins the plan, but my character can't sit idly by and let this happen?"

We can say, "It's the DM's fault for creating the conflict," but the truth is that while this one's kind-of obvious, other scenarios may not be obvious to the DM until the player raises his hand and says, "Um...." And then suddenly the DM winces and realizes just how that will impact that character.

This is the time to have the harder OOC discussion (like you elaborate about below). This is a time for the player to mention the characterization, that consistent characterization would be for the character to act, and why the player wants the character to have that characterization. It is also a good time for the player to ask the DM about what they wanted from the scene. Once you get past arguing about the "facts" and start discussing the player interests you can find some possible solutions even when no perfect solution exist.


The proper and mature thing to do at this point is to discuss, OOC, possible solutions to let the PC stay in-character and the game not be ruined for everyone else. Ideally, to me, the other players would accept that sometimes their plans don't go off optimally. Others, the agreement is for the DM to initiate a deus ex machina (the kid is saved by a third party, or the villain kills the kid before anybody can do anything about it and thus the seething-angry father PC can be restrained from immediate action that will save nothing and noone). Or even the player of the father PC agreeing to allow the other PCs to take immediate action to thwart him as he struggles futilely to try to stop it.

There are ways to preserve characterization that a player may not be able to institute on his own; cooperation from the group to make something happen that preserves the narrative fun is important.

Good example solutions. Talk about the player interests involved (including the DM's) and figure out which is the best solution for everyone. Depending on the interests I can see some of those solutions being terrible while others being great. Talk it out. Have that harder conversation.

[Batcathat]

The proper and mature thing to do at this point is to discuss, OOC, possible solutions to let the PC stay in-character and the game not be ruined for everyone else. Ideally, to me, the other players would accept that sometimes their plans don't go off optimally. Others, the agreement is for the DM to initiate a deus ex machina (the kid is saved by a third party, or the villain kills the kid before anybody can do anything about it and thus the seething-angry father PC can be restrained from immediate action that will save nothing and noone). Or even the player of the father PC agreeing to allow the other PCs to take immediate action to thwart him as he struggles futilely to try to stop it.

Maybe it's just me, but if I was one of the other players in this situation I wouldn't feel the game was ruined because our plan was messed up. People doing objectively stupid but emotionally understandable things is a great source for interesting drama, after all.

Something that might ruin, or at least lessen, my enjoyment though? Pausing the game to have a big OOC discussion instead of just resolving it in character. I might be in the minority here, but still.

[Talakeal]

Maybe it's just me, but if I was one of the other players in this situation I wouldn't feel the game was ruined because our plan was messed up. People doing objectively stupid but emotionally understandable things is a great source for interesting drama, after all.

Something that might ruin, or at least lessen, my enjoyment though? Pausing the game to have a big OOC discussion instead of just resolving it in character. I might be in the minority here, but still.

I fully agree.

I think its a personality type issue though, some people play for drama and immersion, others for tactics and winning, and others for social bonding.

[Willie the Duck]

Maybe it's just me, but if I was one of the other players in this situation I wouldn't feel the game was ruined because our plan was messed up. People doing objectively stupid but emotionally understandable things is a great source for interesting drama, after all.
Something that might ruin, or at least lessen, my enjoyment though? Pausing the game to have a big OOC discussion instead of just resolving it in character. I might be in the minority here, but still.

I mean, it is until it isn't. Is the objectively stupid thing having Segev's anti-slaving father stop the contact they need from killing the might-be-a-kid, another anti-slaver PC ruining days of preparation for infiltrating bad guy base #17B and getting the whole party imprisoned because he couldn't stick to a role/stay quiet, or (an iconic 'what my character would do' character which formed the negative image) the character who is 'in character' stealing from or betraying the party?

Regardless, if everyone is on board with the stupid, then there is no problem. However a given group is comfortable inter-relaying that buy-in is fine, so long as it actually works. Whether that's an in depth OOC discussion, a quick 'hey guys, I want to do something crazy, everyone good?,' or just knowing darn well your group would be okay with it (better be right, though). The problem comes when one player thinks it'd be hilarious if they had their character knee the king in the groin, while one-to-many other players were hoping to see their well-laid plans come to fruition (and, if they not succeed, do so because they actually failed at their attempt).

[Tanarii]

A far more "it's what my character would do" moment would be if a character shot the hostage in order to kill the slaver.

[Beleriphon]

I created a hypothetical situation where the person saying "it's what my character would do" is a valid defense: IE, a situation where the player saying that is objectively not responsible for the disruption. the GM is.

If you want objective facts, however, here's another example. This one actually happened.

I was in middle school...
"It's what my character would do" is a perfectly valid justification for that, though not one I made becuase I knew it was used exclusively by jerkfaces in the olden days. My character was supernaturally compelled to keep trying to open the box and an opportunity was almost literally shoved in my face.

You were in middle school, I don't think you're going to have an adult conversation. Half the problem is you're a bunch of kids.

[Rater202]

You were in middle school, I don't think you're going to have an adult conversation. Half the problem is you're a bunch of kids.

Actually, that was a multi-age group. Other than the GM, everyone was newish to tabletop roleplaying but we were a variety of ages. There were two kids younger than me, there were also some college kids, for a while we had a middle-aged dad, and the GM had been playing since Gygax was the one writing the modules.

This was arranged via the local gaming shop, which closed down years ago.

But this was still a situation where I essentially got bullied into a situation where my character was supernaturally compelled, did what the GM wanted my character to do, but still got in trouble for PVP that I was pretty clearly set up for and "It's what my character would do" was, in hindsight, the appropriate defense in that situation.

[Quertus]

,' or just knowing darn well your group would be okay with it (better be right, though). The problem comes when one player thinks it'd be hilarious if they had their character knee the king in the groin, while one-to-many other players were hoping to see their well-laid plans come to fruition (and, if they not succeed, do so because they actually failed at their attempt).

The power of retcon is your friend. Trust the retcon.


You were in middle school, I don't think you're going to have an adult conversation. Half the problem is you're a bunch of kids.

Is it strange that the kids I game with are generally better at having adult conversations than most of the adults I've gamed with?


essentially got bullied into a situation where my character was supernaturally compelled, did what the GM wanted my character to do, but still got in trouble for PVP that I was pretty clearly set up for and "It's what my character would do" was, in hindsight, the appropriate defense in that situation.

Actually, I think "that's *not* what my character would do" and "I was mind controlled" are *much* more appropriate responses to that scenario.

[quinron]

Maybe it's just me, but if I was one of the other players in this situation I wouldn't feel the game was ruined because our plan was messed up. People doing objectively stupid but emotionally understandable things is a great source for interesting drama, after all.

I do often see the accusations of disruptive play being thrown at people for making only very minor suboptimal choices - we're talking stuff on the level of "you could've made an extra attack there, but you moved instead - why are you so disruptive!" So this is a very good point.

However, I've also personally seen a few just-past-newbie-grade players decide to fixate on one annoying habit for their character that always hampers both them and the group and refuse to be talked out of it because "I'm roleplaying." And again, I'm talking minor stuff, usually spur-of-the-moment quirks that end up being a real pain for the group - like a character having his speed reduced to 1/4 and becoming totally useless in combat just because the player wanted him to carry a full barrel of beer on his back. It's kyoryu's "featurism" complaint dialed up to max.

[Telok]

The PC can't - CAN'T - risk that that broken-legged figure is one of his children. Even if it's low probability, the combination of it being wrong to let him be murdered and the fact that it COULD BE is just too counter to his character to let him say, "Okay, my PC will also just watch, agonized, as the guy kills the kid." It just is not in the character's nature.

Is he really in the wrong for saying, "I'm sorry, guys, I know this ruins the plan, but my character can't sit idly by and let this happen?"

On my shelf are Greek plays from more than 2200 years ago that have people making emotional decisions based on family relationship (mis)identification. I've had season tickets to the local opera company for two decades or more and have seen nearly that precise thing on a live theater stage. People make a living writing and acting that stuff.

Behaving in character when it creates conflict isn't a problem. It's classic high drama that drives the plot.

The two problems that I have seen are people intentionally being screwball to mess stuff up (includes general immaturity and jerkiness), and railroads that can't flex (not always totally the DM - adventure writing influences it). The first usually takes the form of the character PeeCee McMurderHobo who has no personality or backstory until it messes with stuff, this is a purely ooc issue. The second... highly skilled DMs and sandbox games as the way out? I mean, Juliet, Hamlet, Prospero, and Titus Andronicus may be a great dramatic adventuring party, but I don't see them engaging with something like the plots of Out of the Abyss or Lost Mine of Phandelver without a really good DM very heavily modding the adventures.

[kyoryu]

For railroads/linear games, the solution is to, if you want to run a railroad game, get the players to agree to it OOC and go along with it.

Some people really like that style of gameplay - sandbox isn't the answer for them. The answer is, if you ask for that, to actually do it and not push against it. And, of course, being honest with the players about what type of game you're running.

[Pex]

For railroads/linear games, the solution is to, if you want to run a railroad game, get the players to agree to it OOC and go along with it.

Some people really like that style of gameplay - sandbox isn't the answer for them. The answer is, if you ask for that, to actually do it and not push against it. And, of course, being honest with the players about what type of game you're running.

The Trolley Tracks as I once brought up. Players agree to play whatever Plot the DM sets up for the Campaign and the adventure arcs therein. Players have freedom to Solve the Plot/Adventure Arcs as they see fit.

[NichG]

I do often see the accusations of disruptive play being thrown at people for making only very minor suboptimal choices - we're talking stuff on the level of "you could've made an extra attack there, but you moved instead - why are you so disruptive!" So this is a very good point.


Wouldn't "My enjoyment of this game comes from me getting to make choices about what to do, even if they're suboptimal." be a better response to this kind of accusation? Then the accuser has to defend the position "Your fun does not matter" which is untenable.

"It's what my character would do." sounds like "Well if it were me, I'd rather let you tell me the optimal action and just do what you say, but it can't be helped, gotta roleplay right?"

[Batcathat]

Wouldn't "My enjoyment of this game comes from me getting to make choices about what to do, even if they're suboptimal." be a better response to this kind of accusation? Then the accuser has to defend the position "Your fun does not matter" which is untenable.

"It's what my character would do." sounds like "Well if it were me, I'd rather let you tell me the optimal action and just do what you say, but it can't be helped, gotta roleplay right?"

I don't really see the difference. When someone defends a course of action with "It's what my character would do", I already assume that they're enjoying roleplaying their character. Your interpretation of it sounds rather odd to me. Then again, lots of people use the phrase so I suppose they could have lots of different meanings.

[Tanarii]

I don't really see the difference. When someone defends a course of action with "It's what my character would do", I already assume that they're enjoying roleplaying their character. Your interpretation of it sounds rather odd to me. Then again, lots of people use the phrase so I suppose they could have lots of different meanings.
"It's what my character would do" makes it sound like you, as a player, would just as soon make a different choice for the character, but you don't have any options.

But there's almost always another choice the player can make for a character in the situation that is also in character.

[NichG]

I don't really see the difference. When someone defends a course of action with "It's what my character would do", I already assume that they're enjoying roleplaying their character. Your interpretation of it sounds rather odd to me. Then again, lots of people use the phrase so I suppose they could have lots of different meanings.


"It's what my character would do" makes it sound like you, as a player, would just as soon make a different choice for the character, but you don't have any options.

Seconding this.

Basically it's passive aggressive and makes the conversation not about the fundamental disagreement or issue - that as a player in the game you get to make choices. Saying that it's about your character's choice rather than your choice is trying to resolve a difference of preferences without actually taking responsibility or ownership of those preferences.

And as a consequence, negotiation or discussion becomes much more difficult and frustrating, because now other players are naturally going to suggest things like 'well, the way I see your character they could...' or 'your character should trust us' or 'well my character would refuse to keep adventuring with a liability!' which all miss the point.

If instead the discussion starts 'hey, I'm a player in this game too, that means I want to make some decisions for myself' then what follows can be a discussion of what decisions should belong to the team and when, and how disagreement with that could be handled, etc. And it forces the backseat driver to decide whether they really want to push the argument 'I should get to decide what everyone's character does because I know best', which will certainly do more damage to them than you in any reasonable group.

[icefractal]

The full version could perhaps be:
"It's the only course of action which I can see making sense for my character's established beliefs and personality, and I would have significantly less fun playing a character who lacks any internal consistency."

Sometimes it's more like:
"Changing the character that way is possible, but the result would be a character I have less interest in playing, and/or I have little interest in following the adventures of a group who acts this way."
On some of the party deciding to go full psycho and wanting everyone to roll with it because fellow PCs, for example.

But it can also mean:
"That action was based on IC reasoning, it wasn't just me being random."
Which is a little different because you're not saying this is an action you feel you have to take, it's just an action that you felt like taking, maybe seems random to the other players, and you're explaining why you did it. This is the case where if someone objects then a simple retcon may be appropriate.

[OldTrees1]

I don't really see the difference. When someone defends a course of action with "It's what my character would do", I already assume that they're enjoying roleplaying their character. Your interpretation of it sounds rather odd to me. Then again, lots of people use the phrase so I suppose they could have lots of different meanings.

"It's what my character would do" puts the emphasis on the character's interests rather than the player's.

Consider "I want my character to remain consistent with what they would do" as a direct upgrade. Although sometimes the actual meaning is "I want my character to have this characterization" which is a different interest entirely. Saying what your interest is, rather than saying what your character's interest is, allows the discussion to continue talking about the player interests.

In this example if one player wants everyone to be perfectly optimal, and another wants they characters to have a consistent characterization, the group can resolve that OOC conflict in the best way possible. (Which I suspect would be telling one player that each player gets to control their own PC).

[Cluedrew]

You know this reminds me of a... politeness/defusing thing? I don't know what to call it. It is the idea is that you should phrase things in terms of "I" instead of "you". "I think..." or "I feel..." instead of "You are..." or "You did...". Even though everything has an element of subjectivity to it explicitly calling it out can help controversial statements go over better.

This is kind of the same, look even just try "I think it is what my character would do." Its not being framed as an objective fact or anything, but an opinion on the game. And then get into why you think that it is important and why you think that and everything everyone else has been talking about. I just wanted to make that comparison.

[Satinavian]

I think "This is what my character would do" IS a compelling argument. Yes, i disagree with the Giant here, but i am an "immersion first" player. If proper portraying characters have to give way there is little reason to continue playing anyway.

That does not mean that it is bad to look for compromises or other solutions. But there is no guarantee those will manifest themself.

[Quertus]

"It's what my character would do" makes it sound like you, as a player, would just as soon make a different choice for the character, but you don't have any options.

But there's almost always another choice the player can make for a character in the situation that is also in character.


The full version could perhaps be:
"It's the only course of action which I can see making sense for my character's established beliefs and personality, and I would have significantly less fun playing a character who lacks any internal consistency."

Sometimes it's more like:
"Changing the character that way is possible, but the result would be a character I have less interest in playing, and/or I have little interest in following the adventures of a group who acts this way."
On some of the party deciding to go full psycho and wanting everyone to roll with it because fellow PCs, for example.

But it can also mean:
"That action was based on IC reasoning, it wasn't just me being random."
Which is a little different because you're not saying this is an action you feel you have to take, it's just an action that you felt like taking, maybe seems random to the other players, and you're explaining why you did it. This is the case where if someone objects then a simple retcon may be appropriate.


"It's what my character would do" puts the emphasis on the character's interests rather than the player's.

Consider "I want my character to remain consistent with what they would do" as a direct upgrade. Although sometimes the actual meaning is "I want my character to have this characterization" which is a different interest entirely. Saying what your interest is, rather than saying what your character's interest is, allows the discussion to continue talking about the player interests.

In this example if one player wants everyone to be perfectly optimal, and another wants they characters to have a consistent characterization, the group can resolve that OOC conflict in the best way possible. (Which I suspect would be telling one player that each player gets to control their own PC).

Communication is hard. Assuming that you understand the underlying meaning for a terse statement like, "it's what my character would do" is not unlike the GM who has you wear your pants on your head because you didn't specify *where* you were wearing them.

When you get a terse response like this, you've got to talk to the player, and unpack their underlying assumptions. Perhaps even educate them about the concept of dealing with OOC problems OOC.

Of course, had you gone that route with my hypothetical younger self, I would have looked at you confused. And responded, "that's what I said - 'that's what my character would do', so clearly we need to have an OOC conversation about this OOC issue to find a solution that makes everyone happy. How did you not get that from 'that's what my character would do'?" :smallbiggrin:

Now, another thing hidden by this poor communication is whether or not the player recognizes that there are potentially multiple things that would be in character for their character to do - and, if they realize this, whether they believe (correctly or not) that this is the *best* of those options.

But, again, a conversation is the correct response, and "it's what my character would do" is simply a player revealing some information about how capable (or not) they are of having that conversation, and hinting to the group what the DC of this challenge is, and what some of the potential useful directions to steer the conversation *might* be.

[Tanarii]

I once had a party that carelessly wandered up the Caves of Chaos main gully in late evening with darkness descending. This is basically suicide in that module, but since it was single party of all new players to the game, I decided to take it easy on them, and described a veritable army of humanoids pouring out of the caves, too numerous to count. Intent was they should flee and evade and try something more sane, like a stealthy approach under the cover of daylight. The player of a 2nd level Druid try to stand and fight, because "it's what my character would do", or something that was basically the same thing. (As a new player to the concept of roleplaying, this was said without guile and full sincerity.)

It took some major hinting on my part, followed by cajoling by the entire rest of the party, followed by a flat statement by me that if they stood strong and heroic in this particular way against the forces of darkness invading their land, they were dead, and it was obvious to them. Were they suicidally dedicated to their belief?

Turns out the answer was no, this particular characters belief didn't outweigh sanity. They just didn't understand the situation, and thought there was only one way they could act in that situation. Returning and killing / driving off the denizens of the caves met their requirement better than dying on the spot, they just hadn't understood they could choose to act differently.

[kyoryu]

I think "This is what my character would do" IS a compelling argument. Yes, i disagree with the Giant here, but i am an "immersion first" player. If proper portraying characters have to give way there is little reason to continue playing anyway.

That does not mean that it is bad to look for compromises or other solutions. But there is no guarantee those will manifest themself.

And yet you made the character, so you own that decision.

If the character really would do that, and it's disruptive to the game, and you can't see any way the character would do anything different, then play a different character.

Or, to put it differently, if you're unwilling to hold to the social contract of "make characters that can deal with each other and don't be too disruptive", the party shouldn't be held to the social contract of "don't kick people out of the party."

I've been in this situation, and I did offer to make another character. The game fell apart right after for any number of reasons, but I do practice what I preach.

[Batcathat]

We should also keep in mind that what "disrupts the game" is almost always a matter of personal preference. "My character must do this" can be selfish but so can "Your character can't do that".

[kyoryu]

We should also keep in mind that what "disrupts the game" is almost always a matter of personal preference. "My character must do this" can be selfish but so can "Your character can't do that".

That's true, but if it's causing a problem, it's causing a problem.

If the problem is evenly split, then get aligned. If the problem is one player's actions, then they need to get aligned.

If only one player has an issue, and nobody else does (or everybody else is doing the same thing), then that player needs to either get along with it, or leave, especially if the other players find changing to be undesirable.

In the context of "my character would do that", the implicit context is pretty much always one player doing things that the rest of the table finds disruptive. While it can be the other way around, and that should be dealt with appropriately, in this situation it's pretty much always this context.

[OldTrees1]

But, again, a conversation is the correct response, and "it's what my character would do" is simply a player revealing some information about how capable (or not) they are of having that conversation, and hinting to the group what the DC of this challenge is, and what some of the potential useful directions to steer the conversation *might* be.

Exactly.

If you are the one saying "it's what my character would do", then I suggest starting with what you want and why since I care about player interests much more than character interests.

If you are the one hearing "it's what my character would do", then you are better off if you steer the direction towards what that player wants and why they want it.

Once the conflicting player interests are known, then it is possible to look for a resolution. This also allows addressing unreasonable demands from either player.

The harder conversation can be hard, but it is better than ignoring it.

[Quertus]

You know this reminds me of a... politeness/defusing thing? I don't know what to call it. It is the idea is that you should phrase things in terms of "I" instead of "you". "I think..." or "I feel..." instead of "You are..." or "You did...". Even though everything has an element of subjectivity to it explicitly calling it out can help controversial statements go over better.

This is kind of the same, look even just try "I think it is what my character would do." Its not being framed as an objective fact or anything, but an opinion on the game. And then get into why you think that it is important and why you think that and everything everyone else has been talking about. I just wanted to make that comparison.

Well, I'm the wrong one to evaluate this, given that I generally find such attempts at being "polite" to be insulting, but… I think that it *is* more polite than attempting to weigh in on other people's motives.


I think "This is what my character would do" IS a compelling argument. Yes, i disagree with the Giant here, but i am an "immersion first" player. If proper portraying characters have to give way there is little reason to continue playing anyway.

That does not mean that it is bad to look for compromises or other solutions. But there is no guarantee those will manifest themself.

"It's what the character would do" *is* compelling… but it isn't an argument. Coupled with one of several possible stances on role-playing and fun (such as "my fun requires role-playing" or "while X alternative course of action might be in character, it would result in a character that i would no longer find fun to play"), it's a great call to action for the group to work to find a solution.

[NichG]

We should also keep in mind that what "disrupts the game" is almost always a matter of personal preference. "My character must do this" can be selfish but so can "Your character can't do that".

Personal preference matters, so that's why it's important for people to discuss their preferences as preferences so that conflicts between those preferences can be anticipated and resolved.

"I want to play a game of high drama with potential for in-character conflict." or "My fun comes from high immersion, and this thing you're asking me to do is going to break that for me." are better than "This is called a role playing game and I'm playing my character correctly."

[kyoryu]

Also, not all people should game together.

And not all desires need to be satisfied by one game.

Like, if you like X, Y, and Z, and the group likes A, B, C, maybe you shouldn't play with them. If they like A, B, and X, maybe you just need to accept you're not gonna do Y and Z in that game.

It doesn't mean that X, Y, or Z are bad things. Just... not in line with what the group wants.

[Satinavian]

And yet you made the character, so you own that decision.Yes. I would never create a character that would not fit the game and the group as far as i am aware of those. But if problems still arise, i would likely still play my character.

If the character really would do that, and it's disruptive to the game, and you can't see any way the character would do anything different, then play a different character.

Or, to put it differently, if you're unwilling to hold to the social contract of "make characters that can deal with each other and don't be too disruptive", the party shouldn't be held to the social contract of "don't kick people out of the party."

I've been in this situation, and I did offer to make another character. I have no problems with characters being kicked by the party because other people have the right to play their characters as well. I also have no problem changing characters when things don't work even if the problem only exists Out Game and the characters don't really have a compelling reason to split ways. And yes, i have on occassion offerred to make other characters as well long before things escalated.

But in all those cases i still get to play my character as i see fit. The character gets replaced, not his behavior and ideals changed by some other players. I play my character not the DM or someone else. And I want to be immersed in my character and have little interest in the story or even the the chances of the party to succeed, if i can't get that.


This is mostly a theoretical discussion though. I can hardly even remember that any of my groups had such arguments. People usually manage to make characters that fit and if by some mistake or misunderstanding that doesn't work change characters long before it gets messy.

But I do remember a few actions that were both in character and extremely unwise, hurting the efforts of the party a lot or even causing an end to the whole campaign in defeat. But i can't remember people actually complaining about those.

"It's what the character would do" *is* compelling… but it isn't an argument. It is an argument. It states that this behavior is how the player perceives his character, it reaffirms that the player is the sole authority about how their characters think and implies that actions of characters should be based on character knowledge, motivation and reasoning. All of that in a fine little sentence.

[OldTrees1]

It is an argument. It states that this behavior is how the player perceives his character, it reaffirms that the player is the sole authority about how their characters think and implies that actions of characters should be based on character knowledge, motivation and reasoning. All of that in a fine little sentence.

It does state this behavior is how the player perceives their character.

It implies that is relevant.

It does not state which reason the player is considering when they imply the statement is relevant.
(Your example reason you inferred is one of multiple different examples)

It does not state an argument. It implies there is an unstated argument by politely couching the language within a redirection towards the character's interests rather than the conflicting player interests.

As a DM If I want to resolve that conflict between player interests, I am going to need both players to fess up about their interests.

Consider a less obvious case. Rather than the jerk PC or the controlling other player, what about a case where there are reasonable reasons for and against the characterization? It does not make sense to stop at "that is what the character would do".


For example of someone is playing a Kender and another player (say with a Dwarf PC) is complaining about the kleptomania, it helps the DM to understand why the Kender Player wants the character to act like that. Do they have no desire for the kleptomania but want the kender to have a consistent characterization? Do they want to deal with and explore the condition of kleptomania. Likewise why is the Dwarf Player objecting? Do they not like the PvP? Is mental illness a sensitive topic for them? Do they have a character who would have a disruptive reaction and they are trying to find a solution before facing that situation and considering their alternatives (if so, recursively ask about why the Dwarf Player wants the Dwarf to have that characterization)? All of those combinations have different ideal solutions.

[quinron]

I once had a party that carelessly wandered up the Caves of Chaos main gully in late evening with darkness descending. This is basically suicide in that module, but since it was single party of all new players to the game, I decided to take it easy on them, and described a veritable army of humanoids pouring out of the caves, too numerous to count. Intent was they should flee and evade and try something more sane, like a stealthy approach under the cover of daylight. The player of a 2nd level Druid try to stand and fight, because "it's what my character would do", or something that was basically the same thing. (As a new player to the concept of roleplaying, this was said without guile and full sincerity.)

It took some major hinting on my part, followed by cajoling by the entire rest of the party, followed by a flat statement by me that if they stood strong and heroic in this particular way against the forces of darkness invading their land, they were dead, and it was obvious to them. Were they suicidally dedicated to their belief?

Turns out the answer was no, this particular characters belief didn't outweigh sanity. They just didn't understand the situation, and thought there was only one way they could act in that situation. Returning and killing / driving off the denizens of the caves met their requirement better than dying on the spot, they just hadn't understood they could choose to act differently.

This is an interesting example. I wonder what the response from the rest of the table would have been if the druid had decided to stand firm - I think the answer to that question would be a pretty good baseline by which to gauge an "IWMCWD" defense. If the rest of the group is going to get upset at the disrupting player for dragging their characters into something against their wishes, that's bad play. If the disrupting player is going to get upset at the rest of the group for abandoning their character because of their actions, that's bad play. If the rest of the party abandons the disruptive character and both the group and the disruptive player are happy with it (and willing to roll up a new, more party-compatible character if necessary), that's good play.

[Jay R]

If what your character would do is betray my character and his friends, then what my character would do is kill your character. [Or at best, permanently banish your character from the party.]

There are billions of character ideas -- ideas for well rounded characters with flaws -- which allow working together as a group. Choosing a well-rounded character idea with flaws that require betraying the party is (out of character) choosing to hurt the game, and (in character) betraying the party. After you betray the party, the only in-character response for the party is to treat you like a traitor.


The problem with your logic is that at NO time during a campaign can I do something counter to the interest of the table or other players. If I do? I’m a bully or a troll. How is that NOT you or others trying to justify dictating to others how they MUST play the game?

It's not inherently a moral judgment, just a practical response to somebody working counter to our interests.

All the people I currently play with want to play at being heroes. We want to work together to protect people from threats. When goblins are threats, we work together to stop the goblins. When ogres are threats, we work together to stop the ogres. When wizards, or kings, or clerics are threats, we work together to stop them.

And if you become a threat, we will work together (because that's what we want the game to be) to defend our interests against you (because that's what you want the game to be).

It feels like you want to work against our interests for your own interests, but feel mistreated when we work for our own interests by trying to stop you. That's not consistent.

If you try to hurt us, we will defend ourselves against you.


If you find a group of gamers who are willing to form a party that doesn't work together, and welcomes somebody who will work against their interests, then great! Have a fun time! I love KingMaker, Civilization, Monopoly, chess, football, baseball, fencing, and many other games in which players or groups of players compete against other players or groups of players.

I don't want to play a role-playing game like that, but I don't insist that you have to share my goals.

But if your role-playing goals and mine are incompatible, then we should play at different tables, That's all.


Further...what is the point of having character flaws that have absolutely 0 impact on the game itself?

There is no inherent logical connection between "having a flaw" and "countering the interests of the people you travel with". None.

My current wizard has a flaw that he is weak at all schools but one, in order to be strong in that school (the trait "Spellgifted"). He is also overly judgmental, and too quick to react. He has a quest which is his own goal -- but he doesn't use it as an excuse to hurt other characters' goals.
Before that, I played a ranger who didn't understand cities, and didn't want to.

I played an AD&D elven wizard/ thief who grew up an orphan where there were no elves. He was just "that pointy-eared weird kid". He always feels like an outcast and distrusts strangers. I quickly found a reason for him to trust the party in his first adventure so that flaw would not hurt the game for other people.

There are lots of fun flaws that aren't excuses for hurting other people's fun, and that have real impact on the game.

You can even have directly competing interests and still work together against the invading army. I played a game in which all PCs were children of the Pharaoh, and our goal was to prove to the Pharaoh that we were worthy to be his successor. Even though our long-term goals were directly counter to each other, that didn't mean hurting each other in the game. When the undead attacked, we defended each other, fought together, and could always trust each other.

Don't pretend that "having a flaw", or having a personal goal, are excuses for hurting other people's fun. They aren't.

[Tanarii]

This is an interesting example. I wonder what the response from the rest of the table would have been if the druid had decided to stand firm - I think the answer to that question would be a pretty good baseline by which to gauge an "IWMCWD" defense. If the rest of the group is going to get upset at the disrupting player for dragging their characters into something against their wishes, that's bad play. If the disrupting player is going to get upset at the rest of the group for abandoning their character because of their actions, that's bad play. If the rest of the party abandons the disruptive character and both the group and the disruptive player are happy with it (and willing to roll up a new, more party-compatible character if necessary), that's good play.
The Druid character would have died alone while the rest of the party retreated. They were already retreating, the cajoling was a player to player discussion, not character to character.

I don't know how the player would have felt, he was upset enough at the time at having to retreat. And very happy later on at the way things were going.

[Duff]

Well… I do differ *slightly*. I think you can recognize that something needs to change, and emphasize the *something* nature, rather than assigning blame. Like, when sketchy quest-giver wanted us to assassinate the good and rightful king, 6 PCs said, "sure", 6 said "no way!". One can decide *something* needs to change, without assigning either side blame for holding their particular stance.


True enough. Blame as such is rarely helpful. Sometimes though, one player is out of step with the rest of the table, and however tactfully that is pointed out, it can feel like blame. So, be tactful, be kind and be willing to accept feedback and make changes



And… I'm not 100% on the idea that, if only you care about something, tough luck. It's a group game, but that doesn't mean every action (such as the epic challenge of the locked door) must be handled as a group - spotlight sharing is a thing. Talakeal's example of his doctor helping someone was (as I've heard the full explanation in another thread) an example of a character *finally* getting some spotlight time. Which… can be handled well or poorly… but the fact that it *can* be handled well, that you *can* give "wallflower" characters a chance to shine in their own minigame that no one else cares about without it being disruptive, means I'm not 100% on board with "everything is everyone or no-one". Maybe upper 90's on that idea, of balancing the fun of the table by strictly limiting (and, yes, *often* foregoing) things that don't interest the group.

Agreed, if you're the only one who cares about a thing, that does not have to be and shouldn't always be "tough luck". But if you're the only one who doesn't care about a thing, that's where you need to be willing to be patient (or decide the group isn't for you). But also, the group can make sure they look out for everyone, because if our hypothetical non-theatric player leaves due to too much theatre, the group is loosing out as well



But your example is excellent for explaining the difference between what's best for the party, and what's best for the group, and your post really says things that I feel needed to be said. Kudos!

Thank you



Less… aggressively(?)… and more "taking personal responsibility", if you have an intended course of action that isn't fun for the group, consider whether another, fun course of action is also available and acceptable. If you have a character that isn't fun for the group, consider whether you are capable of creating and enjoying playing a character who *is* fun for the group.
Very much this. But note that this should be a big picture thing. As you alluded to earlier, its a group activity and it's not realistic to expect everything to be equally fun foreveryone all the time

[Quertus]

Personal preference matters, so that's why it's important for people to discuss their preferences as preferences so that conflicts between those preferences can be anticipated and resolved.

"I want to play a game of high drama with potential for in-character conflict." or "My fun comes from high immersion, and this thing you're asking me to do is going to break that for me." are better than "This is called a role playing game and I'm playing my character correctly."

Why do you think that referencing the preference is more productive than explaining the result of that preference?


And not all desires need to be satisfied by one game.

Like, if you like X, Y, and Z, and the group likes A, B, C, maybe you shouldn't play with them. If they like A, B, and X, maybe you just need to accept you're not gonna do Y and Z in that game.

It doesn't mean that X, Y, or Z are bad things. Just... not in line with what the group wants.

Unless the group actively *dislikes* Y and Z, I see no reason to make such an assumption.


It does not state an argument. It implies there is an unstated argument by politely couching the language within a redirection towards the character's interests rather than the conflicting player interests.

Another great post - keep being amazing!

This piece, though… *I'll* probably never understand how this is "polite", but, just in case there's someone else equally confused, but more able than me to "get it", care to explain the thought process / etiquette here?


This is an interesting example. I wonder what the response from the rest of the table would have been if the druid had decided to stand firm - I think the answer to that question would be a pretty good baseline by which to gauge an "IWMCWD" defense. If the rest of the group is going to get upset at the disrupting player for dragging their characters into something against their wishes, that's bad play. If the disrupting player is going to get upset at the rest of the group for abandoning their character because of their actions, that's bad play. If the rest of the party abandons the disruptive character and both the group and the disruptive player are happy with it (and willing to roll up a new, more party-compatible character if necessary), that's good play.

You left out everyone being happy about their characters being dragged into it.

And I feel… that this whole post… is… hmmm… brushing on something that I'm not quite grasping. I want to say that it feels like "consequentialist ethics" (my own term)… and, maybe, "if it's not broke, don't fix it" is a good attitude to take here.


There is no inherent logical connection between "having a flaw" and "countering the interests of the people you travel with". None.

My current wizard has a flaw that he is weak at all schools but one, in order to be strong in that school (the trait "Spellgifted"). He is also overly judgmental, and too quick to react. He has a quest which is his own goal -- but he doesn't use it as an excuse to hurt other characters' goals.
Before that, I played a ranger who didn't understand cities, and didn't want to.

I played an AD&D elven wizard/ thief who grew up an orphan where there were no elves. He was just "that pointy-eared weird kid". He always feels like an outcast and distrusts strangers. I quickly found a reason for him to trust the party in his first adventure so that flaw would not hurt the game for other people.

There are lots of fun flaws that aren't excuses for hurting other people's fun, and that have real impact on the game.

You can even have directly competing interests and still work together against the invading army. I played a game in which all PCs were children of the Pharaoh, and our goal was to prove to the Pharaoh that we were worthy to be his successor. Even though our long-term goals were directly counter to each other, that didn't mean hurting each other in the game. When the undead attacked, we defended each other, fought together, and could always trust each other.

Don't pretend that "having a flaw", or having a personal goal, are excuses for hurting other people's fun. They aren't.

See, I think that I would find the "earn the orphan's trust" minigame fun, that would add depth to the game, and the "competing Pharaoh's children" minigame unfun PvP. And I'm not sure that my *characters* would necessarily consider "distrust" or

So I don't think that these flaws have inherent truth values for "do they hurt others' fun?".

Which means that… planning for fun… should be a conversation?


Very much this. But note that this should be a big picture thing. As you alluded to earlier, its a group activity and it's not realistic to expect everything to be equally fun foreveryone all the time

Ah, I fell for the trap! Not just "isn't fun" but "runs contrary to fun". Dang. This is another concept that *really* needs ironing out in this thread.

So, if you use the word "zebra", that isn't fun for me. Now, the word "aardvark", on the other hand? Fun.

But using the word "zebra" isn't inherently unfun for me. It's "fun neutral".

And I think that this trinary state is getting confused for a binary state in too many posts - mine included.

So, thank you for catching that!

[NichG]

Why do you think that referencing the preference is more productive than explaining the result of that preference?

Because the humans at the table are ultimately where the buck stops. For example if you follow the rules its not because the rules must be followed, its because people at the table choose those rules and choose to follow them, not because at some kind of abstract deontological level 'there are rules, and because there are rules it is moral to follow them and immoral to violate them'.

Generally I see trying to tie things to inviolable abstracts as a kind of trick of argumentation - someone says something that implicitly assigns a value to some abstract thing which others at the table might not agree with, but because it sounds principled it's harder to argue against for some people if they don't understand the fallacy. That failure to articulate a response doesn't actually relieve the tension though, and the issue isn't going to go away, but it may leave people with a sort of unsettled feeling like they're not really comfortable with how things resolved.

Or, for people who are a bit more used to dealing with that kind of argument, you get counters that will take literally the person's argument without addressing the reason behind it, which may feel like a win or score points or shut them up, but it just flips this the other way around and leaves that person uncomfortable with the resolution. It can also lead to a sort of 'uh huh!' 'nuh uh!' kind of back and forth like you get. Something like 'your character has lots of other things they could do here, choose one of those instead' legitimately answers 'its what my character would do' in many cases, but it wouldn't legitimately answer 'I want to have control of my character's decisions because thats where the fun is for me'. So the person might in turn respond 'well those things don't feel like what my character would do to me', 'then you have too limited a view of your character', etc kinds of lines of argument that are ultimately pointless.

It's easy to just overtly deny 'this is my only choice' and 'what about this choice instead?'. Its very hard to say at a table 'your fun doesn't matter and you don't get a say about that'. Preferences don't have to be defended or justified, but you do need to negotiate how they can become compatible. So its a different mode of discussion entirely than the kind of unproductive attack/defense dynamic.

[Quertus]

@NichG - thank you for spelling that out. I knew there was a lot behind your words, and thought that it'd be beneficial for us to see those things.

I certainly hope that you explaining it in detail like that will help us become better communicators at the table, at the very least when dealing with similar problems.

There's probably some broader lessons to be learned from your analysis of (un)productive argumentation strategies, too. :smallwink:

That said, I think that I, personally, hold more stock in principles than your position… affords / acknowledges / something (I'm batting for team Lawful Evil - you'd expect me to be more principled than most). But, yes, even if you *do* hold to principles, rather than thinking of them as meaninglessly abstract, I agree that it is *still* good to be able to… *and* to… hold the conversation at the concrete "preferences" / causes of fun and unfun layer, too.

[OldTrees1]

This piece, though… *I'll* probably never understand how this is "polite", but, just in case there's someone else equally confused, but more able than me to "get it", care to explain the thought process / etiquette here?


Warning, I will answer twice as a means of giving examples. Be warned these are extremes meant to convey tone.

--------

Well, I am not exactly sure. If I recall correctly someone once described how softening your language makes it seem gentler and less aggressive. Maybe it is the increased tone of deference or the increased number of qualifiers?

vs

Of course I know why it is polite. You put people on the defensive when your language is too direct or aggressive. Stating definitively and directly that you disagree is equivalent to saying I am wrong.

--------

Basically there is an impression that softening your language makes it less aggressive and more polite. Shifting the subject to "the character" instead of "I" is similar to what I did when I said "someone once described". They are explicitly omitting themselves when framing the conflict. This lets them use indirection to soften the language.



Of course, being too polite is not ideal. I think this is one of the cases where the more direct statements are better for a healthy discourse than the more polite indirect statements.

[NichG]

@NichG - thank you for spelling that out. I knew there was a lot behind your words, and thought that it'd be beneficial for us to see those things.

I certainly hope that you explaining it in detail like that will help us become better communicators at the table, at the very least when dealing with similar problems.

There's probably some broader lessons to be learned from your analysis of (un)productive argumentation strategies, too. :smallwink:

That said, I think that I, personally, hold more stock in principles than your position… affords / acknowledges / something (I'm batting for team Lawful Evil - you'd expect me to be more principled than most). But, yes, even if you *do* hold to principles, rather than thinking of them as meaninglessly abstract, I agree that it is *still* good to be able to… *and* to… hold the conversation at the concrete "preferences" / causes of fun and unfun layer, too.

It's also useful to recognize that just because you hold to particular principles, others at the table may not share those or agree on them, so things that sound like strong arguments if they were spoken to you might not be so strong (or could even be anti-arguments) when spoken to someone else. So its better to say for example "I believe that roleplay is more important than fun" than "Roleplay is more important than fun, (surely you must agree!)". In the latter case, someone can just say 'no, it isn't'. In the former case, 'no, you don't' is clearly nonsensical.

[Satinavian]

For example of someone is playing a Kender and another player (say with a Dwarf PC) is complaining about the kleptomania, it helps the DM to understand why the Kender Player wants the character to act like that. Do they have no desire for the kleptomania but want the kender to have a consistent characterization? Do they want to deal with and explore the condition of kleptomania. Likewise why is the Dwarf Player objecting? Do they not like the PvP? Is mental illness a sensitive topic for them? Do they have a character who would have a disruptive reaction and they are trying to find a solution before facing that situation and considering their alternatives (if so, recursively ask about why the Dwarf Player wants the Dwarf to have that characterization)? All of those combinations have different ideal solutions.
They should not be in the same party as those characters are clearly imcompatible. If people still put them in the same party i would expect both to behave like it befits their character and the party to blow up.
Sure, you could tweak the characters to mesh better. But this is usually done before they actually see play to avoid a shift in characterization. And it should never be forced onto one of the players. Even when it turns out that characters really don't work together it should still be the player alone who decides how his character acts, not a group decision.

[OldTrees1]

They should not be in the same party as those characters are clearly imcompatible. If people still put them in the same party i would expect both to behave like it befits their character and the party to blow up.
Sure, you could tweak the characters to mesh better. But this is usually done before they actually see play to avoid a shift in characterization.

Not so fast. Those characters are not "clearly incompatible". It depends on what the conflicting player interests are. Some conflicts are incompatible interests, some are minor tweaks to restore compatibility, some are no operation. If the Dwarf Player is concerned about the risk of sabotage and the Kender Player wants to explore Kleptomania of trivial items, then explaining their positions resolves the conflict without a need for any change in characterization. Especially if the Kender Player now knows to double check if the Dwarf Player also considers the Dwarf's soup spoon to be trivial rather than sabotage.

You are right that when the conflict can be resolved with a minor tweak (or even a no operation) then it is best and common for that to be done during Session 0. When it arises later, addressing the conflict of player interests OOC is the best way to replicate the benefits of Session 0.



And it should never be forced onto one of the players. Even when it turns out that characters really don't work together it should still be the player alone who decides how his character acts, not a group decision.

Yes and no. The group can have boundaries on what is accepted, but the player ultimately decides how their character acts. If the result of resolving the conflict of player interests alters or clarifies the group's boundaries, then it is expected all the players will keep their characters within those boundaries. So while the player ultimately decides how their character acts, the group does enforce their boundaries.

[Cluedrew]

Of course, being too polite is not ideal. I think this is one of the cases where the more direct statements are better for a healthy discourse than the more polite indirect statements.And polite direct statements are impossible?

This might be my second least faviourite myth about politeness, that you have to be indirect or never really get to any hard truths while being polite. Is it polite to lie to someone? Not really, I would describe that as inconsiderate and disrespectful more often then not. So why would being polite require lying? It doesn't, if you have something unpleasant to say, well double check that it needs to be said but if it does you had better say it. But that doesn't mean you can't be polite about it.

Also my least faviourite myth about politeness is that if you ever get angry that is somehow the mask slipping and your pervious politeness is now retroactively phony. I have no idea where that idea comes from; do people not understand that emotions change over time. Also you can still be polite and obviously angry.

Maybe I'm just venting about how being considerate and respectful seems to be undervalued now adays. (Or perhaps demonized by people who are terrible at it.) But it is related.

[Tanarii]

Also my least faviourite myth about politeness is that if you ever get angry that is somehow the mask slipping and your pervious politeness is now retroactively phony. I have no idea where that idea comes from; do people not understand that emotions change over time. Also you can still be polite and obviously angry.
Interestingly, people who are being coldly polite and visibly controlling their anger are often viewed with trepidation. Of course they are angry, but they're controlling it. If you point out they're angry as if it's some kind of flaw, all you're likely to do is see what happens when they stop controlling their anger.

[Satinavian]

You are right that when the conflict can be resolved with a minor tweak (or even a no operation) then it is best and common for that to be done during Session 0. When it arises later, addressing the conflict of player interests OOC is the best way to replicate the benefits of Session 0.I am not opposed to looking for such a solution as finding one is often the best way forward. But I would never require that players accept some tweak they don't agree with at this late stage. The time to not accpet a character that can't be made to fit the party and still keep the players vision was before the game. This late it is often better to let escalation happen and the party to split, then decide which remnant is the interesting to follow and everyone else makes new characters.


Yes and no. The group can have boundaries on what is accepted, but the player ultimately decides how their character acts. If the result of resolving the conflict of player interests alters or clarifies the group's boundaries, then it is expected all the players will keep their characters within those boundaries. So while the player ultimately decides how their character acts, the group does enforce their boundaries.Well, yes. Every player is to to only create and develop characters whose behavior falls within those boundaries. So "This is what my character would do" should never actually test those boundaries - unless the group never talked about them and people come with different assumptions. But when that happens, you have more problems to solve than just a single PCs action, you have to finally have your proper boundary discussion. And to find out if you all are even looking for the same kind of game.

[OldTrees1]

Maybe I'm just venting about how being considerate and respectful seems to be undervalued now adays. (Or perhaps demonized by people who are terrible at it.) But it is related.

Lots of traditional guidelines for politeness* deal with saving face or avoiding conflict. They do this by using indirection, allusion, and even lies to avoid a direct conflict or to create an out for the other side. There are many times such behavior is not respectful. On the other hand forums like this one have rules requiring a minimum amount of politeness in order to avoid certain forms of disrespect (flaming for example).

So while being too direct is not polite, it can be refreshingly respectful.

That is why I have been advising people state their player interests rather than using "it is what the character would do" as indirection.

* As always there are many mutually conflicting cultures. I am primarily referring to the extreme cases with stricter requirements where more decorum and politeness is presumed and required by convention.

[Calthropstu]

I once had a gm, during a commune spell WITH MY GOD say "they should be destroyed" referring to a pair of artifacts we had. Both of them were INCREDIBLY valuable. One contained knowledge from a prehistoric civilization and one amounted to a super deck of many things that we KNEW were both valuable and ultra dangerous.

So I destroyed them. The process of destroying the latter meanted taking it literally to my god. I suddenly recieve from the gm "and 300 years later you emerge from your god's realm." It was "To dispel party conflict because they didn't agree to destroy it."

I dropped then and there. So yes, "what your character really would do" is a viable response. But I have seen it too many times used to justify flat out dickery. Flat out if you deliberately screw over the party or attack party members, expect both retaliation and removal from table whether you are legitamately playing your character or not.

[OldTrees1]

I am not opposed to looking for such a solution as finding one is often the best way forward. But I would never require that players accept some tweak they don't agree with at this late stage. The time to not accept a character that can't be made to fit the party and still keep the players vision was before the game. This late it is often better to let escalation happen and the party to split, then decide which remnant is the interesting to follow and everyone else makes new characters.

Well, yes. Every player is to to only create and develop characters whose behavior falls within those boundaries. So "This is what my character would do" should never actually test those boundaries - unless the group never talked about them and people come with different assumptions. But when that happens, you have more problems to solve than just a single PCs action, you have to finally have your proper boundary discussion. And to find out if you all are even looking for the same kind of game.

The full boundary discussion is never 100% finished. We all rely on assumptions at some level. So if an unforeseen conflict results in clarifying / redrawing the boundaries then those boundaries get clarified / redrawn. Although I think a good session 0 makes this a very rare occurrence.

If the group decides a player's previous expectation falls outside the new boundaries, then something should be done. What is done depends on context. If the group reaches a consensus but the affected player (reminder, the group might decide the character is fine and the player with the objection is the affected player) does not agree, how does the group handle that. Different groups will have different answers to that question.

I think your answer to that question is a reasonable answer. Personally my answer would be to continue to look for an answer that everyone can agree with. I have been fortunate enough with conflicts of player interest that I still expect to reach unanimous agreement.

[Quertus]

It's also useful to recognize that just because you hold to particular principles, others at the table may not share those or agree on them, so things that sound like strong arguments if they were spoken to you might not be so strong (or could even be anti-arguments) when spoken to someone else. So its better to say for example "I believe that roleplay is more important than fun" than "Roleplay is more important than fun, (surely you must agree!)". In the latter case, someone can just say 'no, it isn't'. In the former case, 'no, you don't' is clearly nonsensical.

:smallsmile:

Definitely, stating (and being able to state) the underlying principles, and being prepared for the possibility that others do not share those principles? Priceless.

"I believe that roleplay is more important than fun"? That's tricky. That's either valid, suboptimal, or a strawman. How to explain? Hmmm…

Eh, it's complicated, and I'm lazy. I'll avoid doing all that work unless people are confused *and* interested.

Instead… I suppose… my personal stance is more, "roleplay and following the rules and…" is the *source* of *this particular flavor* of fun. If you try to remove the chocolate, and replace it with strawberries, it's no longer a chocolate cake.

It's not that a given set of principles is more important than fun, it's that those principles *are* fun. If they're not, then you have to check the implementation details… or the compatibility with that flavor of fun. Yes, it's possible that someone is allergic to chocolate. It's also possible that they like strawberry better. Or that they've never had anything besides strawberry, and simply cannot comprehend chocolate.

But until you suss out those details, you can't know whether to introduce them to the joy of chocolate cake, try mixing chocolate and strawberries, or grab the epipen.

[Cluedrew]

Lots of traditional guidelines for politeness* deal with saving face or avoiding conflict.
[...]
* As always there are many mutually conflicting cultures. I am primarily referring to the extreme cases with stricter requirements where more decorum and politeness is presumed and required by convention.I'd say in those extreme cases they have confused decorum and politeness. I mean yes I can't definitely say what everyone should mean by politeness here is what I got: Respect and consideration are the core of politeness and if you are going against that it is not polite.

So its not related to saving face at all and it is only related to avoiding conflict in that people tend not to want to fight you. Politeness is described mostly in terms of actions but really I'd say it is more about the underlying mindset. Are you going to treat the people around you like people? Saying thank-you to a waiter (or whoever) by itself is decorum. Politeness is more about thinking about how they just made your day a little bit better and you can make their day a little bit better by showing you appreciate that.

Part way though I realized: Why am I writing this? It's weirdly grandiose. But I decided to finish it.

[NichG]

I'd say in those extreme cases they have confused decorum and politeness. I mean yes I can't definitely say what everyone should mean by politeness here is what I got: Respect and consideration are the core of politeness and if you are going against that it is not polite.

So its not related to saving face at all and it is only related to avoiding conflict in that people tend not to want to fight you. Politeness is described mostly in terms of actions but really I'd say it is more about the underlying mindset. Are you going to treat the people around you like people? Saying thank-you to a waiter (or whoever) by itself is decorum. Politeness is more about thinking about how they just made your day a little bit better and you can make their day a little bit better by showing you appreciate that.

Part way though I realized: Why am I writing this? It's weirdly grandiose. But I decided to finish it.

In a sense, decorum-style politeness isn't just about avoiding a fight, it's about outwardly being seen by others as respectful, which in particular has a lot to do with not undermining someone else's social position or creating mutual damage. That kind of situation is where the dishonest parts of politeness often emerge: even if it's not respectful to the person themselves, it's more respectful to their public image and relationships with others to avoid directly confronting them with something awkward in public. And a lot of those weightings are cultural and contextual.

For example, there's a Japanese business practice of doing private pre-meetings to decide ahead of an all hands meeting what should be done, so agreement appears unanimous at the more public meeting. But from a point of view outside of that culture it can also feel personally disrespectful: you're not being given a chance to participate equally, it has connotations of people going behind your back, it's presumptive and very hierarchical, etc.

[ebarde]

Make a better character idk like if your character can't justify any other action than being obstrusive in a way that annoys your other players, then I feel that character shouldn't be played in the first place. Like, a character isn't a real person, everything they are is because their player made an active decision for them to be that way.

[Kane0]

Its not always immediate though. Imagine creating a character that works just fine for 38 sessions and 13 levels and only then comes along a point where the dreaded ‘thats what Torg would do’ comes up.
Was it the players fault months or even years ago that he made Torg with the trait of ‘refuses to pay tax to tyrants’ and only now is causing party conflict because they face almost certain death otherwise? Should Torg be replaced because of it? Is this bothering the characters, the players, the DM or a combination of them?

[Pex]

Its not always immediate though. Imagine creating a character that works just fine for 38 sessions and 13 levels and only then comes along a point where the dreaded ‘thats what Torg would do’ comes up.
Was it the players fault months or even years ago that he made Torg with the trait of ‘refuses to pay tax to tyrants’ and only now is causing party conflict because they face almost certain death otherwise? Should Torg be replaced because of it? Is this bothering the characters, the players, the DM or a combination of them?

Barring deliberately betraying the party, while technically it is a "what my character would do" scenario it really isn't. After playing so long together the other players expect the character to behave this way. They may even anticipate it to enjoy dealing with the consequences or in character make it up to the character in question whom they convince not to do what he needs to do or do what he doesn't want to. The player in question may even bring it up in character to the party before the event that he can't or must do something because of reasons and hope they can find a solution. That's called friendship and being in a party. "It's what my character would do" never even comes up verbatim. Everyone already knows. This defense only comes up when the player in question deliberately does a jerk move or not do something the party needs him to do for the sake of he just doesn't want to do it. He's being disruptive on purpose either to cause chaos and mayhem or for his own selfish jollies to Win D&D because he's so superior.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Yeah im pretty sure this was touched on previously in the thread, a lot of the time when ‘what my character would do’ gets discussed it comes down to either a mismatch of definitions (which can be ill defined to begin with due to the nature gentleman’s agreements) or something of a no true scotsman.

Not saying you did that, its just super hard to narrow down ‘what my character would do’ in a way that isnt specific to a particular situation context.

Basically, what i said earlier. It comes down to what the other people at the table reckon and what sort of party interplay is considered OK.

Otherwise, i’d call it ‘player is being a **** and using their character as a scapegoat’

[kyoryu]

And polite direct statements are impossible?

This might be my second least faviourite myth about politeness, that you have to be indirect or never really get to any hard truths while being polite. Is it polite to lie to someone? Not really, I would describe that as inconsiderate and disrespectful more often then not. So why would being polite require lying? It doesn't, if you have something unpleasant to say, well double check that it needs to be said but if it does you had better say it. But that doesn't mean you can't be polite about it.

Also my least faviourite myth about politeness is that if you ever get angry that is somehow the mask slipping and your pervious politeness is now retroactively phony. I have no idea where that idea comes from; do people not understand that emotions change over time. Also you can still be polite and obviously angry.

Maybe I'm just venting about how being considerate and respectful seems to be undervalued now adays. (Or perhaps demonized by people who are terrible at it.) But it is related.

It's very possible to be polite and direct.

For instance, "D&D 3.x is a game that does a lot of things well - they're just not things that I want to do."

vs.

"D&D 3.x is a terrible game and I hate it and I will never play it."

Frankly, both are communicating the same sentiment. The first just frames it as a matter of opinion, acknowledges its qualities, and states the dislike as a mismatch. It states my preference directly, yet politely and in a non-aggressive manner.

The second one is just aggressive and over the top, and will cause people to get defensive.

[Satinavian]

It's very possible to be polite and direct.Now that is kind of a cultural thing and i am not sure we are really all on the same page in such an international forum.

Frankly, both are communicating the same sentiment. For me, they simply don't.

Acknowledging that a game does things well but is not to personal taste is a very different assessment from saying a game was bad. If a game does things you don't particularly enjoy really well, you would still recommend it to other players with different taste. If you actually thought the game was bad, you really wouldn't. Instead you would have other games in mind that try to serve that particular taste as well and do a better job.

"I hate it" is a statement about your feeling. In the first statement there is nothing indicating that you have strong feelings about the game. It is additional information in the second part.

"I will never play it" is also additional information that is not included in the other one. You could reasoably guess that the first example comes from someone who would sooner play some other game but could still partcipate in cuch a game if that is what most of the group wants to do next or where one volunteeres to DM. In the second example those options are explicitely negated.

[JNAProductions]

Now that is kind of a cultural thing and i am not sure we are really all on the same page in such an international forum.
For me, they simply don't.

Acknowledging that a game does things well but is not to personal taste is a very different assessment from saying a game was bad. If a game does things you don't particularly enjoy really well, you would still recommend it to other players with different taste. If you actually thought the game was bad, you really wouldn't. Instead you would have other games in mind that try to serve that particular taste as well and do a better job.

"I hate it" is a statement about your feeling. In the first statement there is nothing indicating that you have strong feelings about the game. It is additional information in the second part.

"I will never play it" is also additional information that is not included in the other one. You could reasoably guess that the first example comes from someone who would sooner play some other game but could still partcipate in cuch a game if that is what most of the group wants to do next or where one volunteeres to DM. In the second example those options are explicitely negated.

You can nitpick differences, but the general sentiment is very similar-or at least, can be.

"It's a terrible game," can be the same as "It doesn't do what I want it to do."

People use universals like that even when it's not the most correct thing to do.

[Segev]

You can nitpick differences, but the general sentiment is very similar-or at least, can be.

"It's a terrible game," can be the same as "It doesn't do what I want it to do."

People use universals like that even when it's not the most correct thing to do.

I think "D&D is a terrible game and I hate it" is only rude if you're telling it to people who have investment in it not being objectively terrible. At which point the only requirement for being polite is removing the seeming-objective claim of its terribleness. You can be very direct and still be polite, and I think from the original example, "I don't like D&D; it bores me and isn't fun for me to play," would be even more direct and still perfectly polite. The key is focusing on the subjective statements being matters of personal taste/opinion. You need say nothing nice at all about the game to be polite as long as you don't imply that others are objectively wrong for having different feelings about it than you do.

[JNAProductions]

I think "D&D is a terrible game and I hate it" is only rude if you're telling it to people who have investment in it not being objectively terrible. At which point the only requirement for being polite is removing the seeming-objective claim of its terribleness. You can be very direct and still be polite, and I think from the original example, "I don't like D&D; it bores me and isn't fun for me to play," would be even more direct and still perfectly polite. The key is focusing on the subjective statements being matters of personal taste/opinion. You need say nothing nice at all about the game to be polite as long as you don't imply that others are objectively wrong for having different feelings about it than you do.

Yeah, I agree. But people do use "This is bad," to mean "I don't like this."

Overall, though, excellent point.

[kyoryu]

I think "D&D is a terrible game and I hate it" is only rude if you're telling it to people who have investment in it not being objectively terrible. At which point the only requirement for being polite is removing the seeming-objective claim of its terribleness. You can be very direct and still be polite, and I think from the original example, "I don't like D&D; it bores me and isn't fun for me to play," would be even more direct and still perfectly polite. The key is focusing on the subjective statements being matters of personal taste/opinion. You need say nothing nice at all about the game to be polite as long as you don't imply that others are objectively wrong for having different feelings about it than you do.

For sure, I was going over the top.

The main soft skill thing there is phrasing the opinion in a way that makes it about your subjective opinion ("Yeah, I don't find it particularly fun") as well as not exaggerating the badness, vs. making it objective ("it's a terrible game") while exaggerating your dislike.

There's a reason "I statements" work. "I don't really enjoy D&D 3.x" doesn't cause contention in the same way that "D&D 3.x is the worst game ever" does.

I personally like to go the one step further in scenarios like that and acknowledge the good it does do, but it's not necessary.

[NichG]

"D&D bores me" -> "I'm not that interested in playing D&D" is an increase in politeness by some standards at least, even if by others it would be over the top. This gets into the realm where pretending to be able to be convinced otherwise is more polite than a hard denial, but that can be a very dysfunctional sort of politeness.

It's kind of like how ultimatums raise the level of tension even if they're about things that are in fact your decision.

[Batcathat]

The main soft skill thing there is phrasing the opinion in a way that makes it about your subjective opinion ("Yeah, I don't find it particularly fun") as well as not exaggerating the badness, vs. making it objective ("it's a terrible game") while exaggerating your dislike.

While I do agree that people remembering the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact is nice (people not doing so is probably one of the few things that make me genuinely angry), it's not like one is necessarily more polite than the other. I would argue that "I think that D&D is a pile of **** and consider people who play it utter morons" is less polite than "D&D is a boring game", for example.

[Tanarii]

"D&D bores me" -> "I'm not that interested in playing D&D" is an increase in politeness by some standards at least, even if by others it would be over the top. This gets into the realm where pretending to be able to be convinced otherwise is more polite than a hard denial, but that can be a very dysfunctional sort of politeness.

It's kind of like how ultimatums raise the level of tension even if they're about things that are in fact your decision.
"I'm not interesting in playing D&D", leaving out the word "that", should be a statement not open to being convinced otherwise. Without getting into the details of why you're not interested. We don't owe an explanation nor commentary/opinion, which is what the first statement is.

[NichG]

"I'm not interesting in playing D&D", leaving out the word "that", should be a statement not open to being convinced otherwise. Without getting into the details of why you're not interested. We don't owe an explanation nor commentary/opinion, which is what the first statement is.

Subtle gradations here, but yes, the 'that' does make it more polite than without it. And 'I'm not interested' is softer than 'D&D bores me' due to ambiguities in the former: I'm not (currently? ever?) interested (why?). Those ambiguities leave room for the statement to be interpreted in whatever way would be less offensive to the listener, and it leaves out potential pet peeves or taboos. Someone could interpret 'D&D bores me' as a criticism and want to argue against it, for example, where 'I'm not interested' is much more opaque.

Anyhow, absolutely not suggesting that this level of finicky politeness should be required for basic civility. But if you ever want to RP a noble who can underhandedly insult someone higher up in the hierarchy while being above reproach in their politeness, its useful stuff...

[SunsetWaraxe]

I rarely find something like this comes up if the DM and the players agree to a set of expectations in session 0.

[fof3]

And yet you made the character, so you own that decision.

That assumes that the character has not evolved since you created them. The character will change based on how they interact with the rest of the players, how the game evolves and the way the DM pushes things. You could find that after 4 Acts and 18 months of playing you've been backed into a corner of "it's what my character would do" (and it's because of what other player X did when event Y was checked in by the DM which forced the group outcome Z).

[Cluedrew]

I would argue that "I think that D&D is a pile of **** and consider people who play it utter morons" is less polite than "D&D is a boring game", for example.I think the reason the objective statement is ruder is because it implies that the people who don't agree with you are wrong*, or are stupid. In this case you have removed the implication in the wrong way here.

* Or at least that you haven't thought about people who don't have your preferences. Fits with consideration as part of politeness.

[Duff]

Sure, you could tweak the characters to mesh better. But this is usually done before they actually see play to avoid a shift in characterization.
Ideally, That is the best way. But people misjudge. Characters sometimes morph a bit once you start playing and find their "voice", as noted by Fof. Different people interpret an explanation of a character differently, and then someone is surprised when play starts.
And then it's best to have a chat. Be willing to compromise on consistency to make the game work or accept that a character (or worse yet player) has to go.



And it should never be forced onto one of the players. Even when it turns out that characters really don't work together it should still be the player alone who decides how his character acts, not a group decision.

Kind of like Oldtrees said above, but I'll be more direct on a specific point. It can be a group decision. Examples of when it might be done as a group or GM-as-leader decision:
- One of the players can't or won't change. "Nat, I know you're having fun with your klepto kendar, but Drew can't handle it and you know he can't change. You're the better player and I know you can change it around and still have fun"
- One of the characters is clearly a better fit for the campaign or party. "Drew, your grumpy dwarf is going to keep clashing with Nat's kendar, but it's also going to make it really hard for the party to get along with the thieves' guild, and you can probably tell by now they're going to be important to the plot. Can you please dial it back a bit?
- One of the characters was there first. "Nat, I'm sorry I killed your mage, and your kendar is a fun character, but it's really not working out with Drew's dwarf. Do you want to tweak it a bit or have him leave the party and we'll work out a new character?

[Satinavian]

@ Duff

You are mixing "the character has to be changed" and "the party composition has to be changed" solutions. For me those are very diferent things with different people in charge of.

I strongly believe that a player should have the last say about their own character. Others can make suggestions, sure and those might be followed but if the player refuses, that should be the end of that.
But which characters are in the party would obviously be a group decision. No one gets to insist that the group accepts/keeps some character when the other players or the GM don't want to.


Even your last example shows that the player can decide between tweak or leave. That is fine. What would not be fine were if the player gets just ordered to play the character differently without the option to switch charaters because e.g. the problematic character has still plot the GM wants to use.

[Mr Beer]

NOW...if I do it all the time? Sure. I made that character and that makes me the jerk. But it is OK to hurt the group for the sake of story. That is part of it being a moral conundrum. It is a question of repetition by the player. Not specifically the “it is what my character would do” that is the problem.

So. How do y’all feel?

It depends but sure. It's fine to have a character who causes minor problems for the party because of their behaviour. These should be roleplaying opportunities and allow the group to have some fun. It may require some buy in from the other players, but it's perfectly reasonable for the group to not be a perfectly coordinated war machine that's well, a Party rather than a party. Also the DM should probably ensure that the character who caused the problem is usually the one to suffer the consequences.

I also think this kind of stuff should be more in the roleplaying/socialising type arena rather than the combat minigame or the resource game. Having a problem member of the crew who is completely reliable when chit gets real is a solid trope. Having people lose valuable items over one player's problem behaviour will tend to annoy most players. So that's stuff I'd keep in mind.

[Tanarii]

I strongly believe that a player should have the last say about their own character. Others can make suggestions, sure and those might be followed but if the player refuses, that should be the end of that.What characters and behavior are allowed and not allowed is ultimately the decision of the GM (if it's their table) or the group consensus (if it's a consensus table). Not the individual player.

So no, a player doesn't have any final say. There is always an unstated "or the character goes" to any request to change the character. Or even "or you, the player, go". One or the other.

[Quertus]

I think the reason the objective statement is ruder is because it implies that the people who don't agree with you are wrong*, or are stupid. In this case you have removed the implication in the wrong way here.

* Or at least that you haven't thought about people who don't have your preferences. Fits with consideration as part of politeness.

Or that the speaker is wrong? Learning is the best, and I can only learn when I'm wrong, or my answer is incomplete, or when I'm… too ignorant to have an answer in the first place, not when I'm right.

Posting in the declarative makes my current stance much more visible, and makes it much easier for others to tell me where I'm wrong / what I'm missing, thereby making it much more likely that I'll get to learn.


@ Duff

You are mixing "the character has to be changed" and "the party composition has to be changed" solutions. For me those are very diferent things with different people in charge of.

I strongly believe that a player should have the last say about their own character. Others can make suggestions, sure and those might be followed but if the player refuses, that should be the end of that.
But which characters are in the party would obviously be a group decision. No one gets to insist that the group accepts/keeps some character when the other players or the GM don't want to.


Even your last example shows that the player can decide between tweak or leave. That is fine. What would not be fine were if the player gets just ordered to play the character differently without the option to switch charaters because e.g. the problematic character has still plot the GM wants to use.

+1 this.

I feel that this is kinda… tangential to the central core of role-playing, that is the player who is in charge of their character.


What characters and behavior are allowed and not allowed is ultimately the decision of the GM (if it's their table) or the group consensus (if it's a consensus table). Not the individual player.

So no, a player doesn't have any final say. There is always an unstated "or the character goes" to any request to change the character. Or even "or you, the player, go". One or the other.

Allowed? No, that's not the focus of that statement. Their statement was that rhyme about… uh… GM is birds and bees and trees, but not the PCs. Or something.

Point is, the *player* is the final arbiter of what is in character for their character.

As nothing in your post has anything to do with that statement, it is a non-sequitur to the part of the post to which you replied.

(They even agreed with your sentiment in another part of their post)

[kyoryu]

That assumes that the character has not evolved since you created them. The character will change based on how they interact with the rest of the players, how the game evolves and the way the DM pushes things. You could find that after 4 Acts and 18 months of playing you've been backed into a corner of "it's what my character would do" (and it's because of what other player X did when event Y was checked in by the DM which forced the group outcome Z).

I think the point is "it's what my character would do" isn't a trump card. It doesn't mean the table has to deal with the behavior.

The player can always pick a different option (there's rarely just one thing that a well-developed character would do, people are complex). Even if there is just one thing, and it's a constant thing, and it's disruptive, then the options are: "change the character, play a different character, or leave the game".

The basic social contract is "we'll make characters that work for the game, however that's defined, and as such we'll continue playing the same game together". If somebody is not following the first part of that (in most games, "play a character that can work with the party"), then the second half ("the party will work with everyone and include everyone") isn't in play either.

[icefractal]

This brings to mind - what about the case where the problem character is actually the one who remained the same, while the rest of the party changed? Campaigns don't always follow their original premise, after all.

For example, the PCs initially start out as special forces for Kingdom A, but over time most of them become disillusioned and start thinking about deserting to make a life somewhere else, or even defecting to another nation. Because of this, they start holding back certain important information because they don't trust Kingdom A with it and/or want to utilize it themselves. This isn't because of a twist - Kingdom A was always overall-neutral with some dark parts, people just focused on the latter more over time.

However, one PC is still loyal to Kingdom A, possibly for reasons which are fairly integral to the character. The right solution is for that PC to leave the party, one way or another, but the player isn't being a jerk by having that conflict of interest exist, IMO.

[kyoryu]

This brings to mind - what about the case where the problem character is actually the one who remained the same, while the rest of the party changed? Campaigns don't always follow their original premise, after all.

For example, the PCs initially start out as special forces for Kingdom A, but over time most of them become disillusioned and start thinking about deserting to make a life somewhere else, or even defecting to another nation. Because of this, they start holding back certain important information because they don't trust Kingdom A with it and/or want to utilize it themselves. This isn't because of a twist - Kingdom A was always overall-neutral with some dark parts, people just focused on the latter more over time.

However, one PC is still loyal to Kingdom A, possibly for reasons which are fairly integral to the character. The right solution is for that PC to leave the party, one way or another, but the player isn't being a jerk by having that conflict of interest exist, IMO.

They're still choosing to act in a way that isn't conducive to group play. As I said, characters are rarely so one dimensional they can't do other things.. if you're loyal to Kingdom A, find a way to work in the best interests of Kingdom A, against the dark parts, and go from there. So long as it's reasonable, the rest of the party should go along with this as well. I mean, that's their part of that social contract, right?

If there's really no solution, then, as you say, make another character or stop playing.

The key isn't "you have to play your character a certain way", though in many ways there's a way you can play that's not disruptive. The key is "my character would do that" isn't an excuse to be disruptive to play - figure out other things your character could do, or play a different character. You own your character and their decisions - not just the "I get to decide" bits, but the responsibility for them. A big part is also going to be "don't make them so inflexible around nearly anything that you write yourself into a corner".

[Satinavian]

If somebody is not following the first part of that (in most games, "play a character that can work with the party"), then the second half ("the party will work with everyone and include everyone") isn't in play either.
This has gone for seven pages now.

Has anyone ever argued that was not the case ?

[kyoryu]

This has gone for seven pages now.

Has anyone ever argued that was not the case ?

Not explicitly. But it's the unspoken assumption behind "it's what my character would do". It's the core broken assumption that enables disruptive play.

If somebody wasn't using that logic at some level, "it's what my character would do" and "my guy syndrome" wouldn't be known, talked about things.

[Satinavian]

I think that this particular "unspoken assumption" is the cause of most disagreements here because it seems as if many people don't actually assume it at all.

[Quertus]

Not explicitly. But it's the unspoken assumption behind "it's what my character would do". It's the core broken assumption that enables disruptive play.

If somebody wasn't using that logic at some level, "it's what my character would do" and "my guy syndrome" wouldn't be known, talked about things.

I would say that it's the assumption that that's the assumption behind the statement that's the most problematic.

In order to have a good conversation, you've got to move past "assumptions" to "facts", have to actually ask questions, like, "why did you say, 'it's what my character world do'?"

If the answer is, "because it'll let me break the social contract", yeah, you've got a problem.

But that's different from… huh. I feel like I've said all this before. Hold on (darn senility)… huh. I guess it wasn't in this thread?

Anyway, the statement, *if given by itself*, pretty well indicates that the speaker had unpacked assumptions, or is otherwise not doing a good job communicating. They *could* be attempting to communicate numerous things, including, "I don't see another course of action for this character (possibly with an implied, 'any suggestions?')", or "I don't see any *good* answers that would be in character", or "putting me in this position is the equivalent of starting PvP", or "there's nothing disruptive about my character's actions unless you *choose* to consider them disruptive (with an implied, 'so choose differently')", or "so now's a good time to have an OOC conversation (likely with an implied, 'since I don't think we'll get anywhere IC')", or numerous other things, yes, including the not so great, "it's what my character would do, so deal with it".

Communication is hard. People can mean different things by the same words. If your friend has demonstrated rolling poorly on their "communicate" skill, don't just assume the worst possible meaning for their words.

[Cluedrew]

:smallsmile:

Definitely, stating (and being able to state) the underlying principles, and being prepared for the possibility that others do not share those principles? Priceless.

"I believe that roleplay is more important than fun"? That's tricky. That's either valid, suboptimal, or a strawman. How to explain? Hmmm…

Eh, it's complicated, and I'm lazy. I'll avoid doing all that work unless people are confused *and* interested.

Instead… I suppose… my personal stance is more, "roleplay and following the rules and…" is the *source* of *this particular flavor* of fun. If you try to remove the chocolate, and replace it with strawberries, it's no longer a chocolate cake.

It's not that a given set of principles is more important than fun, it's that those principles *are* fun. If they're not, then you have to check the implementation details… or the compatibility with that flavor of fun. Yes, it's possible that someone is allergic to chocolate. It's also possible that they like strawberry better. Or that they've never had anything besides strawberry, and simply cannot comprehend chocolate.

But until you suss out those details, you can't know whether to introduce them to the joy of chocolate cake, try mixing chocolate and strawberries, or grab the epipen.My opinion on both matters is pretty much the same: Err on the side of more information, that will clear up the confusion.

[Duff]

@ Duff

You are mixing "the character has to be changed" and "the party composition has to be changed" solutions. For me those are very diferent things with different people in charge of.
Can you give an example of how you see those differences playing out? I'm not sure what you mean by them.



I strongly believe that a player should have the last say about their own character. Others can make suggestions, sure and those might be followed but if the player refuses, that should be the end of that.
But which characters are in the party would obviously be a group decision. No one gets to insist that the group accepts/keeps some character when the other players or the GM don't want to.


I agree with some of what you say, but differ on the important point of "if the player refuses, that should be the end of that"
If the player refuses, the end of that is the one thing it can't be.
The next step might be as direct as "Then it's time to leave" but it doesn't have to be. There's still so many other options:
"Your character isn't working in this adventure, if he keeps this up she's going to get herself killed. How about she gets called away on personal business and you can play a different character for a bit"
"My character would never abandon this adventure for personal reasons"
"OK, do you like the rest of the plan? If so, how do we get her out of the adventure"
"How about if we have her get arrested for that thing in Paris? She wants to argue that out in court so she won't try to escape. Make the arrest public so the rest of the party know not to break her out"

Or "Nat and Drew, the conflict between your characters is taking up too much game time, how do you want to deal with that?"

The bit I agree with is that a player always chooses how they play their character. the other option would be the GM saying "No, your character doesn't do that, they do this instead" which, mind control effects aside, is never ok.





What would not be fine were if the player gets just ordered to play the character differently without the option to switch characters because e.g. the problematic character has still plot the GM wants to use.
Even this example has more options to it.
"Drew, your dwarf's grumpyness and hatred of thieves is not working out as well as I thought. It's not adding the fun kind of conflict, it's just annoying the other players. Sorry about that. I need him for the plot, so if you want to switch to a different character, I'm still going to need him around as an NPC. How do you want to do this?"*
"I'm not willing to change the character now, that would be inconsistent, and I'm not going to be happy with you puppetting my character"*
"I don't have time to change the plot now. It'd be a month with no gaming to rewrite the plot or a month to play it out. I guess we'll see you in a month" *

* I don't think any of these are "best practice" but still better than "Do it this way" "No" "Then leave"

[icefractal]

I'd say that basing your plot around a particular character's presence and having defined ideas of how that character would act (to the extent that the player deciding otherwise breaks things) is setting up a recipe for failure. So in that case I'd call it primarily a GM screwup, and if it takes a month to fix, that's a lesson for the future.

[Duff]

I'd say that basing your plot around a particular character's presence and having defined ideas of how that character would act (to the extent that the player deciding otherwise breaks things) is setting up a recipe for failure. So in that case I'd call it primarily a GM screwup, and if it takes a month to fix, that's a lesson for the future.

Agreed. In this case, the GM might simply run the game without that player for the month or fix it.
But GMs do screw things up, and everybody's enjoyment of the game is better if players make it easy to set things right
And perhaps more importantly, knowing who's screw up it is (especially if it's the GM) doesn't improve the game as much as fixing it does.

[kyoryu]

In order to have a good conversation, you've got to move past "assumptions" to "facts", have to actually ask questions, like, "why did you say, 'it's what my character world do'?"

It doesn't actually matter why. It really doesn't.

What matters is if the rest of the table finds it disruptive. That's really the only thing that matters.

Because the player engaging in the disruptive behavior doesn't get the benefit of "we're gonna be a party and play D&D as a party!" if they don't follow the other part of it "and therefore I'll make a character that can get along with the party at a functional level!"

It's what your character would do, fine. And the rest of the party would boot your ass. Or it would turn the game into PvP and the rest of the group doesn't want that, so the group boots your ass.

"It's what my character would do" may explain what you're doing, but it doesn't excuse it.

[Quertus]

My opinion on both matters is pretty much the same: Err on the side of more information, that will clear up the confusion.

I… don't *think* that's what I was remembering, but thanks for checking. I agree that both do have very similar "best practices" responses, though.


It doesn't actually matter why. It really doesn't.

What matters is if the rest of the table finds it disruptive. That's really the only thing that matters.

Because the player engaging in the disruptive behavior doesn't get the benefit of "we're gonna be a party and play D&D as a party!" if they don't follow the other part of it "and therefore I'll make a character that can get along with the party at a functional level!"

It's what your character would do, fine. And the rest of the party would boot your ass. Or it would turn the game into PvP and the rest of the group doesn't want that, so the group boots your ass.

"It's what my character would do" may explain what you're doing, but it doesn't excuse it.

Sigh. Let's try again.

Never said that it excuses it.

Only that it (poorly) indicates where the player thinks one might look for solutions. Or possibly even that the player might not even know that their choice is (or is viewed as) disruptive.

See, communication is hard, and people are *really* bad at it.

I've seen plenty of people foolish enough to *think* that they've communicated that something is disruptive, when they really *really* haven't. My current goto example is the pirate player telling rapier jokes. The GM asks them to stop, they do. Then they go on to do some similarly disruptive behavior, because the GM didn't explain *what made that behavior disruptive*, and both sides just *assumed* that the player understood.

This is why I try to be very explicit with my language when discussing disruptive behavior, get the player to agree to do X. Then, if they fail, I explain how they agreed to do X, then did Y, explain how X is not Y, and ask to make sure that they understand, and see if they can *actually* do X.

And it's the same reason that I advocate one-shots as a way to test out language. Declare a "political sandbox"? Get a matchmaker, a noble, a Bard with social skills, and someone spec'd for PvP, because the players all heard something different.

Because communication is hard.

When you get a clearly incomplete response like, "it's what my character would do", *why* they said that, *what* they were expecting you to take away from their response, absolutely matters.

When the GM had a sketchy quest-giver ask the party to assassinate the rightful and just king, 6/12 PCs said "OK", while 6/12 said "let's kill this guy". IMO, the only one being definitively disruptive in this scenario was the GM. Should we have booted him for saying, "it's what the quest-giver would do"? Or should we have worked towards finding a solution?

[OldTrees1]

It doesn't actually matter why. It really doesn't.

It does matter why. Imagine this from the DM's point of view across all possible cases (not just a disruptive jerk player). As Quertus said. In order to have a good conversation resolving the conflict you have to examine the root causes rather that stopping at the surface.


What matters is if the rest of the table finds it disruptive. That's really the only thing that matters.

Not quite. Why do they find it disruptive? Why does the player want their character to act that way? Is there a resolution you are missing with the surface level analysis?

Think across all the possible cases, not just the jerk disruptive player.

Say I am playing an evil character. A dog walks by. One of the other players complains that my character did not kick the puppy. I know my character would not do that. To resolve that situation the group could seek to understand why the player objected to my character not kicking the puppy and they could seek to understand why I did not want my character to kick the puppy. Digging down into those reasons will reveal more potential solutions and better understand the conflict in question. And sometimes the player controlling the character is not the one that needs to be more flexible. (In this case I don't know yet. I would need to understand the root of the objection.)

Although maybe you will call that example unfair since I have been arguing about looking at the root player interests in conflict and thus am unlikely to leave it at "It is what my character would do". On the other hand, maybe that reinforces the point. It does matter why.


Because the player engaging in the disruptive behavior doesn't get the benefit of "we're gonna be a party and play D&D as a party!" if they don't follow the other part of it "and therefore I'll make a character that can get along with the party at a functional level!"

It's what your character would do, fine. And the rest of the party would boot your ass. Or it would turn the game into PvP and the rest of the group doesn't want that, so the group boots your ass.

"It's what my character would do" may explain what you're doing, but it doesn't excuse it.

It may explain "what they are doing" but it does not answer "why they are doing it", nor does it explain "why someone else objected". That is why Quertus and I have been saying, "It is what my character would do" is not an answer. It is not an excuse, nor is it a forfeit. The ideal resolution to the conflict would be to ask about the root player interests in conflict.

[Satinavian]

Can you give an example of how you see those differences playing out? I'm not sure what you mean by them.Ok. Some conflict arises in play. Maybe you have your bog standard hero group fighting the BIG evil and they stumble over a source of power that could really help them ... but with strings attached and clearly evil. Now you can have a fight "fire with fire" story and a sidestory about the horrible price or you can have a story about resisting temptation. Both classics. Maybe the GM has only one of them prepared maybe he could run with both results. But the group has now to decide. But ... one character chooses differently. Maybe he objects to using corrupted tool or making pacts with demon like entities in principle and would sooner fail than lose his soul. Or maybe the other way and he is willing to pay any price to succeed in the end and saving the land from big evil is totally worth it.
Whatever the case, the character does not want to folloe the majority decision. What happens now ?

a) "No, your character can't decide this way. You instead do agree with the rest of the party and move on" -> bad. And will probably ruin the fun of game a lot. Especially if consequences of the parties decision ever play a role.

b) GM does nothing. There is some PC shouting or the character tries to make the pact secretly or tries to destroy the tool. More shouting. Character leaves party/is kicked out. Next session new character comes in. -> good.


I agree with some of what you say, but differ on the important point of "if the player refuses, that should be the end of that"
If the player refuses, the end of that is the one thing it can't be.
The next step might be as direct as "Then it's time to leave" but it doesn't have to be. There's still so many other options:
"Your character isn't working in this adventure, if he keeps this up she's going to get herself killed. How about she gets called away on personal business and you can play a different character for a bit"
"My character would never abandon this adventure for personal reasons"
"OK, do you like the rest of the plan? If so, how do we get her out of the adventure"
"How about if we have her get arrested for that thing in Paris? She wants to argue that out in court so she won't try to escape. Make the arrest public so the rest of the party know not to break her out"
"That should be the end of that" means it should be the end of the discussion about what the character would do. Of course you still have to find a way to move forward in spite of this and look for solutions that work with that characters unchanged behavior. Which is what your examples are mostly about.

Even this example has more options to it.
"Drew, your dwarf's grumpyness and hatred of thieves is not working out as well as I thought. It's not adding the fun kind of conflict, it's just annoying the other players. Sorry about that. I need him for the plot, so if you want to switch to a different character, I'm still going to need him around as an NPC. How do you want to do this?"*
"I'm not willing to change the character now, that would be inconsistent, and I'm not going to be happy with you puppetting my character"*
"I don't have time to change the plot now. It'd be a month with no gaming to rewrite the plot or a month to play it out. I guess we'll see you in a month" *

* I don't think any of these are "best practice" but still better than "Do it this way" "No" "Then leave"That solution doesn't feel quite right to me. But i can see it being tolerated as the least bad thing people at the table could come up with to solve the problem Though if i remember similar cases in the past, it is more often "Problematic character leaves the party and player gets a replacement character. But instead of turning full NPC the character gets still portrayed by the player in scenes that demands their presence." Full NPC conversions only happened when a player leaves for good.

[Rynjin]

"I need [Character] for the plot" absolutely reeks of an inexperienced or unskilled (and very naive) GM in any case. What if the character had died? It would take you a month with no gaming to fix it? Get outta here.

[NichG]

Ok. Some conflict arises in play. Maybe you have your bog standard hero group fighting the BIG evil and they stumble over a source of power that could really help them ... but with strings attached and clearly evil. Now you can have a fight "fire with fire" story and a sidestory about the horrible price or you can have a story about resisting temptation. Both classics. Maybe the GM has only one of them prepared maybe he could run with both results. But the group has now to decide. But ... one character chooses differently. Maybe he objects to using corrupted tool or making pacts with demon like entities in principle and would sooner fail than lose his soul. Or maybe the other way and he is willing to pay any price to succeed in the end and saving the land from big evil is totally worth it.
Whatever the case, the character does not want to folloe the majority decision. What happens now ?

a) "No, your character can't decide this way. You instead do agree with the rest of the party and move on" -> bad. And will probably ruin the fun of game a lot. Especially if consequences of the parties decision ever play a role.

b) GM does nothing. There is some PC shouting or the character tries to make the pact secretly or tries to destroy the tool. More shouting. Character leaves party/is kicked out. Next session new character comes in. -> good.


Both bad.

Examples of good would be:

C) GM stops game, players discuss purely OOC what they want, GM moderates. If the group as a whole is okay with playing things out, the GM declares PvP officially on the table and says that all metagame assumptions of civility and cooperation between characters can be suspended, starts taking secret actions from everyone in writing, etc. No metagame surprise round defaulting advantage to the aggressor - everyone gets a chance to secretly detail the precautions they would have taken if not under a metagame pact to get along, the GM runs it neutrally, game proceeds.

If the majority insist they don't want to play out this sequence no matter what (e.g. harmful OOC to enjoyment beyond meta-fairness issues) and the one player insists on playing out the sequence, the GM tries to establish why, and if there are alternatives that would be acceptable even if it means the GM has to have an NPC act differently or deus ex something to enable a compromise. In almost all cases a compromise will be possible - this could be that the character gets the dark power but immediately becomes an NPC, the dark power whisks the character away to be dealt with later, the dark power was a trap and kills the PC on the spot, it was a fake all along, the others get a hint of what's going on in time to stop it, the player of the character agrees to act differently, the other players agree to give this sequence a chance if the GM promises that the negative consequences will primarily befall the character who took the power, the other players agree to give it a chance if the power is temporary, the other players agree to give it a chance if they're guaranteed a chance to undo the consequences will occur later, etc.

If somehow there is literally no possible compromise, the GM decides on the most reasonable resolution they can that, even if it won't leave everyone satisfied, does as much as possible to compromise between the underlying reasons the players had for their positions, and has the GM absorb as much of the unfair negative consequences as possible. And if someone wants to leave the group over that then so be it.

[Batcathat]

Both bad.

Examples of good would be:

C) GM stops game, players discuss purely OOC what they want, GM moderates. If the group as a whole is okay with playing things out, the GM declares PvP officially on the table and says that all metagame assumptions of civility and cooperation between characters can be suspended, starts taking secret actions from everyone in writing, etc. No metagame surprise round defaulting advantage to the aggressor - everyone gets a chance to secretly detail the precautions they would have taken if not under a metagame pact to get along, the GM runs it neutrally, game proceeds.

Good for some groups, maybe. As previously stated, my enjoyment would suffer more from a long OOC discussion (possibly followed by some stiff IC acting out what has already been decided OOC) than a fair amount of IC conflict.

"Don't try to solve OOC problems IC" is a pretty common piece of advice (and a good one) but I think the reverse can be true as well. If the conflict is only in-character (and I see nothing in Satinavian's example that says otherwise), then let the characters work it out.

[OldTrees1]

Good for some groups, maybe. As previously stated, my enjoyment would suffer more from a long OOC discussion (possibly followed by some stiff IC acting out what has already been decided OOC) than a fair amount of IC conflict.

"Don't try to solve OOC problems IC" is a pretty common piece of advice (and a good one) but I think the reverse can be true as well. If the conflict is only in-character (and I see nothing in Satinavian's example that says otherwise), then let the characters work it out.

1) Good for some groups
Yes. Having the discussion can help find out what works for your group. I fully expect Satinavian's example works for their group.

2) Is the "But it is what my character would do" a sign of a minor OOC problem to examine and resolve?
If the players are arguing between each other (for example see the topic of the thread) rather than their characters arguing in character, then that is a sign that some of the problem has OOC elements. Different player expectations for example. (If the players are not arguing, then is it still the main topic?)

In Satinavian's group the OOC discussion* might have reached the conclusion Satinavian is describing to us. However when I generalize to other groups I need to reintroduce the context and thus reintroduce the OOC discussion.



*
We often talk about OOC discussions. However people tend to find ways to shortcut the discussion with techniques like shared expectations, flexibility, respect, etc. So even if Satinavian's group did not have a drawn out talk, I expect they had a comparable communication through shortcuts.

This is especially true for your group Batcathat. I expect your group relies on techniques like these to minimize the about of OOC talking time because that OOC time is disruptive to your enjoyment.

[kyoryu]

Only that it (poorly) indicates where the player thinks one might look for solutions. Or possibly even that the player might not even know that their choice is (or is viewed as) disruptive.


It does matter why. Imagine this from the DM's point of view across all possible cases (not just a disruptive jerk player). As Quertus said. In order to have a good conversation resolving the conflict you have to examine the root causes rather that stopping at the surface.

Nah, it doesn't, because you deal with the behavior rather than trying to psychoanalyze. And either way, the way of dealing with it is the same.

"Okay, whoa, wait a second there. That's not the kind of game we're playing... does this work for everyone? Okay, so this isn't working for the table, so we're going to need you to reconsider what your character would do here, or bring in a different character, because at this point the group wouldn't deal with that person."

This is of course very streamlined... usually this stuff plays out over a longer period of time, you clarify the expectations (making them stated if previously unstated), and set a boundary. If the boundary is crossed, you follow through on the conditions of the boundary. And you do it kindly. Always kindly. And always make it about the action, not the person.

If it's a player trying to disrupt, either they'll fall in line, or they won't. If they don't, then they can be kicked.

If it's a player not trying to disrupt, they'll probably adjust their play accordingly. If they don't, then they've become a jerk player... doing harm unintentionally is an excuse once, after that it's not unintentional.

Short version: Don't guess why they're doing it. State boundaries. Focus on the actions. If the actions persist, re-state boundaries and consequences. Follow through if necessary.


Ok. Some conflict arises in play. Maybe you have your bog standard hero group fighting the BIG evil and they stumble over a source of power that could really help them ... but with strings attached and clearly evil. Now you can have a fight "fire with fire" story and a sidestory about the horrible price or you can have a story about resisting temptation. Both classics. Maybe the GM has only one of them prepared maybe he could run with both results. But the group has now to decide. But ... one character chooses differently. Maybe he objects to using corrupted tool or making pacts with demon like entities in principle and would sooner fail than lose his soul. Or maybe the other way and he is willing to pay any price to succeed in the end and saving the land from big evil is totally worth it.
Whatever the case, the character does not want to folloe the majority decision. What happens now ?

a) "No, your character can't decide this way. You instead do agree with the rest of the party and move on" -> bad. And will probably ruin the fun of game a lot. Especially if consequences of the parties decision ever play a role.

b) GM does nothing. There is some PC shouting or the character tries to make the pact secretly or tries to destroy the tool. More shouting. Character leaves party/is kicked out. Next session new character comes in. -> good.

I think your b case is optimistic, and I've seen it blow up more games than not.

How about c) "Okay, at this point there's no reason for your characters to hang out... so if you don't think your character would go along this, we'll turn them into an NPC, and come up with a character that would fit."

I mean, I've done it.


Good for some groups, maybe. As previously stated, my enjoyment would suffer more from a long OOC discussion (possibly followed by some stiff IC acting out what has already been decided OOC) than a fair amount of IC conflict.

"Don't try to solve OOC problems IC" is a pretty common piece of advice (and a good one) but I think the reverse can be true as well. If the conflict is only in-character (and I see nothing in Satinavian's example that says otherwise), then let the characters work it out.

If the conflict is only IC then it's not disruptive. If this stuff being IC is impacting the enjoyment of the rest of the party, then leaving it IC isn't working, the players have different ideas of what they want out of the game, and it iis an OOC problem.

NOBODY enjoys those conversations. But it's usually better than the alternative.... get the suck done and over with and get back on with the game.

[Satinavian]

@OldTrees1

Ok, yes, there probably is some OOC discussion, otherwise that argument speaking about the characters attention/behavior doesn't make much sense.

But the primary use of that is to affirm that there has been no miscommunication. Because the most likely reason of strange character behavior is some kind of misunderstanding. There can be some planning about how to write the suddenly departing character out/ a new character in or how to treat other unexpected developments as well. But really argueing OOC about IC behavior ? I can't remember an instance of that in the last two decades and dozens of tables. Seems the players authority over their characters is kinda predominant roleplaying culture here and rarely questioned. In contrast "no PvP" tends to be something that needs to explicitely be decided in session 0 or is not assumed. While people are expected to make characters that would reasonably work with the others in most groups conflicts that still arise are acceptable by default.

-------------------------


"Okay, whoa, wait a second there. That's not the kind of game we're playing... does this work for everyone? Okay, so this isn't working for the table, so we're going to need you to reconsider what your character would do here, or bring in a different character, because at this point the group wouldn't deal with that person."

This is of course very streamlined... usually this stuff plays out over a longer period of time, you clarify the expectations (making them stated if previously unstated), and set a boundary. If the boundary is crossed, you follow through on the conditions of the boundary. And you do it kindly. Always kindly. And always make it about the action, not the person.

If it's a player trying to disrupt, either they'll fall in line, or they won't. If they don't, then they can be kicked.

If it's a player not trying to disrupt, they'll probably adjust their play accordingly. If they don't, then they've become a jerk player... doing harm unintentionally is an excuse once, after that it's not unintentional.

Short version: Don't guess why they're doing it. State boundaries. Boundaries are things for session 0. Putting them in retroactively and unilaterally is just asking for trouble. If it really needs to be done, it should be done properly as you are in effect negotiating about the game you all want to play.


I think your b case is optimistic, and I've seen it blow up more games than not.

How about c) "Okay, at this point there's no reason for your characters to hang out... so if you don't think your character would go along this, we'll turn them into an NPC, and come up with a character that would fit."

I mean, I've done it.How is that any different ? IC disagreement -> character leaves party -> new character somes in.


If the conflict is only IC then it's not disruptive. If this stuff being IC is impacting the enjoyment of the rest of the party, then leaving it IC isn't working, the players have different ideas of what they want out of the game, and it iis an OOC problem.True, reason for change could be OOC only. Maybe players find a character obnoxious or broken but the other characters are fine with it. Still : OOC disagreement -> character leaves party -> new character somes in. There is no reason to force a player to portray his character differently againt his wishes.

[Tanarii]

"Don't try to solve OOC problems IC" is a pretty common piece of advice (and a good one) but I think the reverse can be true as well. If the conflict is only in-character (and I see nothing in Satinavian's example that says otherwise), then let the characters work it out.
The problem with that is player-character separation is a myth. Everything "in character" (or first person) involves the player's mind, and that means personal investment. So anything that's an "in character" conflict also involves the player.

That's why you step back to "out of character" (or third person) discussions, in a fourth wall breaking manner. To try and put some distance between the player and the character that does not, and can not, exist when you're thinking first person.

Now, I don't like breaking the third-person/fourth wall to discuss what's going on inside the game either. It breaks immersion to discuss character personalities and interactions and it often breaks verisimilitude if you start pre-discussing how events should go ("story" or "plot" thinking). But if the price must be paid to diffuse disruptive player behavior, of which disruptive character behavior is a subset because see above myth, then so be it.

[Batcathat]

The problem with that is player-character separation is a myth. Everything "in character" (or first person) involves the player's mind, and that means personal investment. So anything that's an "in character" conflict also involves the player.

Well... it does and it doesn't. I mean, yes, obviously every in-character reaction comes from the player's mind, but not every character reaction is mirrored in the player. My character can hate someone or be upset by something without me as a player being hateful or upset. A party member betraying the party and putting the world at risk would obviously be very upsetting to my character, but I would likely just think "Man, this is some cool drama".

There are exceptions, of course, but I do believe the exceptions are just that.

[OldTrees1]

Nah, it doesn't, because you deal with the behavior rather than trying to psychoanalyze. And either way, the way of dealing with it is the same.

If it's a player not trying to disrupt, they'll probably adjust their play accordingly.

Assuming the players (there are always at least 2 in these cases, even if the GM is the 2nd) is not trying to disrupt, then the disruption is an unintentional side effect of the attempts the players are using to satisfy their interests. Identifying those interests is the easy way to see a resolution.

Take the Kender and Dwarf example.

You would just tell them (which one? both are contributing) to "stop being disruptive". None of the 3 of you understands what the disruption was. If it is resolved it will be with an ax rather than a scalpel.

I would ask them about their reasons. I would discover the Kender player wanted to explore kleptomania with trivial objects and the Dwarf player is concerned about sabotage. As a result of that discussion the disruption stops happening and both characters continue their characterization. The Kender continues to pick up trivial items but the Dwarf Player knows the Kender will not sabotage the Dwarf.



Now contrast that to someone trying to be disruptive. If you find out they are trying to be disruptive, then kick them out. That is the trivial case and trivially resolved by either method.


@OldTrees1

Ok, yes, there probably is some OOC discussion, otherwise that argument speaking about the characters attention/behavior doesn't make much sense.

But the primary use of that is to affirm that there has been no miscommunication. Because the most likely reason of strange character behavior is some kind of misunderstanding. There can be some planning about how to write the suddenly departing character out/ a new character in or how to treat other unexpected developments as well. But really argueing OOC about IC behavior ? I can't remember an instance of that in the last two decades and dozens of tables. Seems the players authority over their characters is kinda predominant roleplaying culture here and rarely questioned. In contrast "no PvP" tends to be something that needs to explicitely be decided in session 0 or is not assumed. While people are expected to make characters that would reasonably work with the others in most groups conflicts that still arise are acceptable by default.

Yup, clarifying things and resolving misunderstanding is very useful. Although, as you point out, there was already communication before any OOC discussion.

These OOC conflicts are very rare in my experience too (I mostly hear about them third hand via forums). I have a theory that the groups with better communication (including via the shortcuts) have these issues less and resolve them faster.

I have seen "no PvP" as a common assumption. Not quite as common as "players control their PCs" but it is still quite common. However your solution of letting it play out IC (assuming the players are okay with that OOC) still works well. If the players are not okay with that OOC, then another solution is better. That is a reason I have not been very concrete on what the right solution is other than to suggest finding the right solution.

[kyoryu]

Boundaries are things for session 0. Putting them in retroactively and unilaterally is just asking for trouble. If it really needs to be done, it should be done properly as you are in effect negotiating about the game you all want to play.

Yes, it's best to do this stuff up front whenever possible. It's often difficult - people hear things and interpret them in various ways. That's why I always like examples. I can say "pulpy" and ten different people think ten different things. I can say "flawed heroes" and ten different people think ten different things.

But yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. I'd argue that's what disruptive behavior is, 99% of the time. Unless you're dealing with things like angry outbursts and dice throwing, which is a whole other level.

Example: I was playing a game where we were told we were basically heroes, but very shades of grey. We were told the metaplot a bit up front, that magic would be coming back and basically we'd be in line to become paragons of something based on our character.

My character was very justice-driven, but... not in a nice way. He tended towards the extremes. I thought this fit nicely in with the themes. We had some other characters that were assassin-like (in retrospect, "assassin" as a character concept in a not explicitly evil game is a red flag, but I digress. Note red flag doesn't mean "automatically bad" but it does mean "pay a little more attention to").

Everything was fine until the assassin was offered some power by a goddess in exchange for killing the priestesses of said goddess. Said priestesses were wrong about the nature of the goddess and needed to be culled.

Killing innocents like that for a scrap of power was something that my character just wasn't about. When I found out, i was going to stop it. Violently, if necessary.

Problem here is that we all had different ideas of what the scope/concept of the game was. I offered to let my character be killed by the rest of the party, and bring in someone that was more compatible with the apparent scope of the party desires. The game imploded anyway (it was headed that direction no matter what). But my character didn't fit, the intent of the game, while communicated, wasn't communicated entirely clearly (clearly one of us was mistaken, assuming good faith), and so a clarification and adjustment was needed.


How is that any different ? IC disagreement -> character leaves party -> new character somes in.

IC disagreement -> IC resolution -> character leaves party for IC reasons
IC disagreement -> OOC resolution -> character leaves party to bring in more compatible character


True, reason for change could be OOC only. Maybe players find a character obnoxious or broken but the other characters are fine with it. Still : OOC disagreement -> character leaves party -> new character somes in. There is no reason to force a player to portray his character differently againt his wishes.

Correct. Don't make a player play their character a given way. However, it is completely reasonable to give them a choice: "Play the character in a way that fits in with the party and game, or play a different character".


The problem with that is player-character separation is a myth. Everything "in character" (or first person) involves the player's mind, and that means personal investment. So anything that's an "in character" conflict also involves the player.

That's why you step back to "out of character" (or third person) discussions, in a fourth wall breaking manner. To try and put some distance between the player and the character that does not, and can not, exist when you're thinking first person.

Now, I don't like breaking the third-person/fourth wall to discuss what's going on inside the game either. It breaks immersion to discuss character personalities and interactions and it often breaks verisimilitude if you start pre-discussing how events should go ("story" or "plot" thinking). But if the price must be paid to diffuse disruptive player behavior, of which disruptive character behavior is a subset because see above myth, then so be it.

All of this. Yes, doing so sucks, but it usually sucks less than the other options.

[Quertus]

Yes, it's best to do this stuff up front whenever possible. It's often difficult - people hear things and interpret them in various ways. That's why I always like examples. I can say "pulpy" and ten different people think ten different things. I can say "flawed heroes" and ten different people think ten different things.

But yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. I'd argue that's what disruptive behavior is, 99% of the time. Unless you're dealing with things like angry outbursts and dice throwing, which is a whole other level.

Example: I was playing a game where we were told we were basically heroes, but very shades of grey. We were told the metaplot a bit up front, that magic would be coming back and basically we'd be in line to become paragons of something based on our character.

My character was very justice-driven, but... not in a nice way. He tended towards the extremes. I thought this fit nicely in with the themes. We had some other characters that were assassin-like (in retrospect, "assassin" as a character concept in a not explicitly evil game is a red flag, but I digress. Note red flag doesn't mean "automatically bad" but it does mean "pay a little more attention to").

Everything was fine until the assassin was offered some power by a goddess in exchange for killing the priestesses of said goddess. Said priestesses were wrong about the nature of the goddess and needed to be culled.

Killing innocents like that for a scrap of power was something that my character just wasn't about. When I found out, i was going to stop it. Violently, if necessary.

Problem here is that we all had different ideas of what the scope/concept of the game was. I offered to let my character be killed by the rest of the party, and bring in someone that was more compatible with the apparent scope of the party desires. The game imploded anyway (it was headed that direction no matter what). But my character didn't fit, the intent of the game, while communicated, wasn't communicated entirely clearly (clearly one of us was mistaken, assuming good faith), and so a clarification and adjustment was needed.

Hmmm… perhaps a different tact would make sense: here, you recognized that *your* character's behavior was / would be disruptive.

But what if your understanding had been correct, and it was actually the Assassin's behavior that was disruptive, and they didn't see that?

Just as it's possible for the GM to fall to communicate, it's possible for the player to fail to comprehend the disruption, and to respond with a mismatched "what? It's what my character would do" to miscommunicated / misunderstood inquiries about their disruption (even before taking into account the possibility of their response just being their version of the other two miscommunication attempts).

Thus the explicit, "yes, but… how do you suggest we resolve this problem", which requires that people involved in the discussion know and agree on what the problem is in the first place.

If the Assassin was the one who was out of line with the GM's intent and the rest of the group / party, would their player responding, "don't tell me 'killing my character is "what your character would do",', choose differently" actually help?

I'm struggling to understand why you're so resistant to having a conversation to get everyone on the same page, when that seems to me such an essential step to solving the problem.

[kyoryu]

Hmmm… perhaps a different tact would make sense: here, you recognized that *your* character's behavior was / would be disruptive.

But what if your understanding had been correct, and it was actually the Assassin's behavior that was disruptive, and they didn't see that?

Just as it's possible for the GM to fall to communicate, it's possible for the player to fail to comprehend the disruption, and to respond with a mismatched "what? It's what my character would do" to miscommunicated / misunderstood inquiries about their disruption (even before taking into account the possibility of their response just being their version of the other two miscommunication attempts).

Thus the explicit, "yes, but… how do you suggest we resolve this problem", which requires that people involved in the discussion know and agree on what the problem is in the first place.

If the Assassin was the one who was out of line with the GM's intent and the rest of the group / party, would their player responding, "don't tell me 'killing my character is "what your character would do",', choose differently" actually help?

I'm struggling to understand why you're so resistant to having a conversation to get everyone on the same page, when that seems to me such an essential step to solving the problem.

Who is "correct" doesn't actually matter. What matters is what the group wants, and if everybody in the group is having "fun".

And, again, the answer is the same. Find the person whose behavior is disruptive, tell them that it's disruptive, and what needs to be changed. Have a discussion, be nice, and offer to solve the problem together... but make it clear that the behavior can't continue.

Where did I say I was resistant to having a same page conversation? Of course you do that. My only resistance is to the idea that why the player is engaging in disruptive behavior matters. It really doesn't. It can help suggest a path forward, but that's a secondary consideration. At a primary level, if you're being disruptive, stop being disruptive. Where that comes from doesn't matter.

And that's why "it's what my character would do" is irrelevant at best, and it's not an excuse. And talking about it doesn't really address the issue. In some cases, after further discussion, it might suggest a solution, but generally not. "It's what my character would do" focuses the conversation on the wrong thing.

[Talakeal]

It doesn't actually matter why. It really doesn't.

What matters is if the rest of the table finds it disruptive. That's really the only thing that matters.

Because the player engaging in the disruptive behavior doesn't get the benefit of "we're gonna be a party and play D&D as a party!" if they don't follow the other part of it "and therefore I'll make a character that can get along with the party at a functional level!"

It's what your character would do, fine. And the rest of the party would boot your ass. Or it would turn the game into PvP and the rest of the group doesn't want that, so the group boots your ass.

"It's what my character would do" may explain what you're doing, but it doesn't excuse it.

Kicking someone out of the party is easier said than done, especially mid adventure. You are in a dangerous situation where you all need to depend on one another, and one passive aggressive guy, or lack thereof, can easily get everyone killed.

Its also harder to remove a player than you might think. I literally had to kick someone from my group two weeks ago, and they simply refused to leave, and now I am the guy who called the cops over a game.

[kyoryu]

Kicking someone out of the party is easier said than done, especially mid adventure. You are in a dangerous situation where you all need to depend on one another, and one passive aggressive guy, or lack thereof, can easily get everyone killed.

No, if necessary, you kick them out. If it's coming to that, it's probably not one incident. When they're gone, run the character as an NPC, or adjust the monsters, or have the party be smart about what they tackle if they ahve that freedom.

If they're being jerks, and sabotaging the game, you kick them out right then. You tell them they're no longer welcome in the game, and to leave your....


Its also harder to remove a player than you might think. I literally had to kick someone from my group two weeks ago, and they simply refused to leave, and now I am the guy who called the cops over a game.

WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE?

You didn't call the cops on someone over a game. YOU CALLED THE COPS ON THEM FOR TRESPASSING.

[Batcathat]

WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE?

Indeed. I do wonder how much of my rather relaxed "Just solve it IC" approach is due to me being lucky (or at least less unlucky than some) enough to play with the right people. I've certainly played with people who have their fair share of issues and annoying habits (and I have no illusions about how annoying I can be myself at times) but I don't think I've seen any disruptions close to some of the stuff I've read about here or over on RPG Horror stories (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/) (Disclaimer: Only go there if you have too much faith in humankind. Some stories are hilarious, some of them are just kind of disturbing and depressing).

[KaussH]

Who is "correct" doesn't actually matter. What matters is what the group wants, and if everybody in the group is having "fun".

And, again, the answer is the same. Find the person whose behavior is disruptive, tell them that it's disruptive, and what needs to be changed. Have a discussion, be nice, and offer to solve the problem together... but make it clear that the behavior can't continue.

Where did I say I was resistant to having a same page conversation? Of course you do that. My only resistance is to the idea that why the player is engaging in disruptive behavior matters. It really doesn't. It can help suggest a path forward, but that's a secondary consideration. At a primary level, if you're being disruptive, stop being disruptive. Where that comes from doesn't matter.

And that's why "it's what my character would do" is irrelevant at best, and it's not an excuse. And talking about it doesn't really address the issue. In some cases, after further discussion, it might suggest a solution, but generally not. "It's what my character would do" focuses the conversation on the wrong thing.

See, to me this all looks like " you play a way i dont like, and neither do some of the others . So stop playing your charicter that way or make a different one. Or leave. "

Disruptive also still seems to be "against the will of the group"

This comes across more as peer pressure to me.

More since not all games or game systems are lock stepped for a party. Some games have secrets, charicters with built in flaws that may be disruptive by design ( stormers from sla, horrowed in deadlands, a whole chunk of flaws in hero system and gurps and savage worlds.)

My point being, the why and type of game is super important too, not just the will of the party. Everything in game does not have to go smoothly. And to be honest player autonomy it not just vs the game master.

[OldTrees1]

Indeed. I do wonder how much of my rather relaxed "Just solve it IC" approach is due to me being lucky (or at least less unlucky than some) enough to play with the right people. I've certainly played with people who have their fair share of issues and annoying habits (and I have no illusions about how annoying I can be myself at times) but I don't think I've seen any disruptions close to some of the stuff I've read about here or over on RPG Horror stories (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/) (Disclaimer: Only go there if you have too much faith in humankind. Some stories are hilarious, some of them are just kind of disturbing and depressing).

Some luck some merit.

Well functioning groups often have some reasons why they are well functioning. Sometimes with reasons that would not work for every group but do work for some groups. Things like communication, flexibility, respect, valuing the others' enjoyment, etc.

Sometimes those are the result of luck, but some parts are caused by the group working with each other.

[NichG]

See, to me this all looks like " you play a way i dont like, and neither do some of the others . So stop playing your charicter that way or make a different one. Or leave. "

Disruptive also still seems to be "against the will of the group"

This comes across more as peer pressure to me.

More since not all games or game systems are lock stepped for a party. Some games have secrets, charicters with built in flaws that may be disruptive by design ( stormers from sla, horrowed in deadlands, a whole chunk of flaws in hero system and gurps and savage worlds.)

My point being, the why and type of game is super important too, not just the will of the party. Everything in game does not have to go smoothly. And to be honest player autonomy it not just vs the game master.

Well, ultimately any two or three players or the GM deciding to leave is enough to kill most games. And no one is obligated to play with anyone else. So the will of the group matters. If one player's behavior is going to make two others leave, and ideas of working it out have been summarily rejected, then either someone is leaving or the game isn't going forward. And in that case yes, if you play in a way that bothers everyone else, they can just not invite you back in the future whether you think you're justified or not

Since neither of those outcomes are desirable, when players disagree about something you find a compromise. And that does mean that no player has complete and total freedom to play literally anything they want how they want.

[kyoryu]

See, to me this all looks like " you play a way i dont like, and neither do some of the others . So stop playing your charicter that way or make a different one. Or leave. "

Disruptive also still seems to be "against the will of the group"

Well, yes.

If what one person is doing is making the whole group unhappy, and that person wants to do things with the group, they need to stop making the group unhappy. That's how social things work.

Things are rarely "okay" or "not okay". It's all based on whether or not the group as a whole thinks they're okay. What's okay in one group isn't okay in another, and vice versa. That's why the only real answer to "my GM does xyz" or "my GM doesn't do xyz" or "my player wants xyz" or "my player doesn't want xyz" followed "who's right?" is "well, depends on what the group as a whole thinks."


This comes across more as peer pressure to me.

Not really. It's a statement that the group doesn't want to do that, so if you want to do that, do it elsewhere. If a group is going to a horror movie and you don't like horror movies, you don't go to the horror movie with them. Or you do it anyway because you want to be with the group. Or you go to a comedy with a different group. You don't agree to go to a horror movie and then disrupt the movie.

Nobody should make you do anything. But at the same time, you don't get to make others do or tolerate things. You wanna play killer PvP RPG, but the group doesn't? They don't have the right to make you play carebear, and you don't have the right to make them play killer PvP. So play different games. Of course, there's more intermediate solutions ("okay, we'll do a PvP short campaign and then a carebear one"), but at the end of the day one person doesn't get to dictate what the group does.

Peer pressure would only be in place if there was additional pressure to do something you didn't want to. "Well, if you don't play this we're not friends" or crap like that.


More since not all games or game systems are lock stepped for a party. Some games have secrets, charicters with built in flaws that may be disruptive by design ( stormers from sla, horrowed in deadlands, a whole chunk of flaws in hero system and gurps and savage worlds.)

It's not disruptive if the group is into it.


My point being, the why and type of game is super important too, not just the will of the party. Everything in game does not have to go smoothly. And to be honest player autonomy it not just vs the game master.

The mechanics exist to serve the group. Things can go "not smoothly" if the group is okay with that. If they're not, then the group as a whole decides how things go. And if one person can't deal with it, then they should do something else.

Otherwise, what? Because one person wants to do something and the game has rules for it, the whole group has to go along with it? That makes no sense.

And when I say "the group decides" I don't mean by rule, I mean by definition - because if the group ain't into it, they'll quit, and there's no group.


Indeed. I do wonder how much of my rather relaxed "Just solve it IC" approach is due to me being lucky (or at least less unlucky than some) enough to play with the right people. I've certainly played with people who have their fair share of issues and annoying habits (and I have no illusions about how annoying I can be myself at times) but I don't think I've seen any disruptions close to some of the stuff I've read about here or over on RPG Horror stories (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/) (Disclaimer: Only go there if you have too much faith in humankind. Some stories are hilarious, some of them are just kind of disturbing and depressing).

I think it's less "luck" and more a matter of playing in a circle that's small enough and cohesive enough that the implicit social contract and understanding are strong enough to smooth out any differences. Like a lot of this stuff gets scoffed at by people that have been playing their house game for decades. Because their group knows what "playing an RPG" means, they know where the lines are, and any newcomers either get brought into line or get explicitly or implicitly pushed out.

[Tanarii]

I think it's less "luck" and more a matter of playing in a circle that's small enough and cohesive enough that the implicit social contract and understanding are strong enough to smooth out any differences. Like a lot of this stuff gets scoffed at by people that have been playing their house game for decades. Because their group knows what "playing an RPG" means, they know where the lines are, and any newcomers either get brought into line or get explicitly or implicitly pushed out.
Having run games out of game stores, it's very easy to get problem players, for a variety of reasons. Often they don't realize they're being a problem.

Also SO MANY WALKING STEREOTYPES! 😂

My personal "problem player" trait is I have trouble stopping talking too much, including interjecting constantly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having run games out of game stores, it's very easy to get problem players, for a variety of reasons. Often they don't realize they're being a problem.

Also SO MANY WALKING STEREOTYPES! 😂

My personal "problem player" trait is I have trouble stopping talking too much, including interjecting constantly.

I've gotten incredibly lucky over the last few years as a DM. I've had one problem player, who lasted about 1/3 of a session before people (not just me) went "dude, no, this is not a comedy routine" and he left. I had one group that was going to be a problem as a whole, but I bailed after one session. And that was one where the group was unified, but I just hated the style they wanted.

And I've mainly played with new players, strangers, and/or teenagers. Usually some combination of those.

Although, thinking about it, there was that one guy at a shared-world (multi-DM thing) who tried to charge people (in-character) for healing. And defended it out of character. So I guess there was that one guy.

[Rynjin]

I only play with friends (at least as far as live games, PbP is a different deal), after the gaming group that introduced me to gaming hammered home that playing with even acquaintances is a bad idea.

[Quertus]

Who is "correct" doesn't actually matter. What matters is what the group wants, and if everybody in the group is having "fun".

And, again, the answer is the same. Find the person whose behavior is disruptive, tell them that it's disruptive, and what needs to be changed. Have a discussion, be nice, and offer to solve the problem together... but make it clear that the behavior can't continue.

Where did I say I was resistant to having a same page conversation? Of course you do that. My only resistance is to the idea that why the player is engaging in disruptive behavior matters. It really doesn't. It can help suggest a path forward, but that's a secondary consideration. At a primary level, if you're being disruptive, stop being disruptive. Where that comes from doesn't matter.

And that's why "it's what my character would do" is irrelevant at best, and it's not an excuse. And talking about it doesn't really address the issue. In some cases, after further discussion, it might suggest a solution, but generally not. "It's what my character would do" focuses the conversation on the wrong thing.

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong - what matters is who is hurting, and what we can do to fix it.

I can get behind that as a reasonable paradigm.

However, until your stance takes into account how much pain you're causing the one you're asking to change, until it comes across as a discussion to find solutions rather than an ultimatum, I'm forced to (roughly) agree with @KaussH that this sounds too much like bullying for comfort.

Regardless, it's not the case that "That's how social things work" - at the very least, it's not the *only* paradigm for social interaction.

But, if you only see one paradigm for how social things work, then at least we've unpacked / discovered the hidden assumptions in your statements that were stumping me. So, progress.

So, where do we go from here?

Honestly, I lack the social skills / in depth knowledge of this facet of human psychology to dig deeply into the similarities and differences between a healthy version of what you've described and more toxic bullying behavior, or to detail the different ways that a social group *could* run.

I could try to fumble about, trying to describe the kinds of group dynamics that would find such tactics of discussing "why" useful. I could try to explain alternatives to your "one true way" that produce different results - especially ones I consider to produce better results.

Or we could just shrug, and go with, "it's complicated".

But at least I see the many places where we agree (the many things "it's what my character would do" isn't, and the importance of caring about the fun of others being likely chief among them), the hidden assumption that was causing our incongruous disagreement ("That's how social things work"), and the need for me to apologize for my unintentional mischaracterization of your stance (I mistakenly read you as being "resistant" to having a conversation to get on the same page because you devalued something that was outside your values, that was of no value to your paradigm. Apologies for conflating your reaction to the *tool* as being related to my *intended use* of said tool. It was a foolish mistake on my part.)

[NichG]

In response to never needing OOC and lucky groups...

I've had particular player pairs that could not sit at the same table. I've had players who get silently frustrated with things like level of difficulty or behavior of the party and bottle it up until they just suddenly quit. I've had players who create catastrophes and some times those led to funny stories the group laughs about, and other times led to OOC resentment. I've had a player in response to a campaign pitch 'make a character willing to join this spy agency' make a character that tried hard ball negotiation with the spy agency during their intro scene and almost 'died (failed to join the campaign) during chargen' because they misunderstood the leeway available.

I've been in a group where one of the players was actually socially manipulative and abusive towards the GM (think things like PM-ing other players privately to get them to gang up and spring things on him), players who tried to show dominance on each other or the group (well my AC is X and I could solo the party if you get in my way! types of brags), players who made a sequence of unpopular and disruptive decisions and when it got 'resolved' IC their next character was a revenge character designed to simultaneously want to hunt down and kill certain PCs while building to be indispensable in certain ways to avoid reprisal. I've been in a group where one of the players was using the game as catharsis when stuff was going on in their life and there was a different level of willingness of others at the table to deal with their destructive behaviors in order to try to help their friend, versus feeling that it imposed beyond what they were willing to tolerate.

I've been the guy who made a character whose personality in response to GM prompts about the importance of honor in the setting was such that, when faced with a GM hook of 'work with the villains to betray the party or die' where the GM expected me to go along for some reason I said 'okay, I'll die then'.

There's lots of situations that come up in tabletop gaming. A session zero doesn't make you immune to this stuff. What you think is IC conflict can be OOC conflict for the other person. Discussion and negotiation and updating things like expectations and boundaries are important tools. Always just playing it straight 'what happens happens' might be philosophically more pure, but it's very brittle. And there may exist issues that just haven't boiled over, but it doesn't necessarily mean everything is fine.

[kyoryu]

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong - what matters is who is hurting, and what we can do to fix it.

I can get behind that as a reasonable paradigm.

However, until your stance takes into account how much pain you're causing the one you're asking to change, until it comes across as a discussion to find solutions rather than an ultimatum, I'm forced to (roughly) agree with @KaussH that this sounds too much like bullying for comfort.

Nah, you're overthinking it.

There's two simple rules here.

1) You're not obligated to play with anyone
2) Nobody is obligated to play with you

(Presuming, of course, that people haven't made some kind of promise).

So, if you all agree to play with each other? Jolly cooperation!

But, if people then decide they don't want to, they don't have to. And they won't. Even if they don't kick you, people will start skipping, the game will fester and die a slow death.

So if someone says "this is disrupting the game", you have a few choices:

1) Stop doing the thing
2) Try to talk to them and find a compromise (there may not be one)
3) Agree not to play with them

That's it.

And frankly it's not a matter of one side being right, or wrong. It's just a matter of not being compatible, at least as far as gaming. And that's okay.

If the group is one that prizes "that's what my character would do" over everything else, this situation is unlikely to show up for IC things, and so won't be an issue. But a lot of groups don't value that over everything else. So if you do, you will work in that group to the extent that what your character would do fits within the expected boundaries of the group. And if you repeatedly cross those, you'll be asked to leave.

"But," you say, "what if someone weaponizes this, and makes unreasonable demands?"

Then they are A Jerk, and you shouldn't play with them.

"But," you ask, "what if this person has out-of game leverage?"

Then they are Definitely A Jerk, and probably abusive, and you should figure out how to extricate yourself, because that relationship will not create good things.


Regardless, it's not the case that "That's how social things work" - at the very least, it's not the *only* paradigm for social interaction.

It... kind of is. But it's true at a meta level, and has many different expressions depending on the values of the group. Some of the more toxic ones show up as Geek Social Fallacies.

But, say that a group really does value What Your Character Would Do above everything else? Okay, cool. Now the person doing things for other reasons is disruptive, is taking away from the group, and may be asked to leave. And that is exactly the same thing, just for different values.

As an example, let's say a group is into hyper optimization, and somebody isn't into that, and makes suboptimal choices on a regular basis for "flavor". They're taking away from what the group wants, and will be asked to either shape up or leave.

OTOH, if a group is against optimization, and a hyper optimizer goes to it, they'll outshine everyone, and be asked to tone it down or leave.

Which group or player is right? Neither. They both just want different things, and the players aren't good fits for those groups (they should find the other group). That's still an expression of what I was talking about, and goes back to "nobody is obligated to play with you, and you're not obligated to play with anybody."


Honestly, I lack the social skills / in depth knowledge of this facet of human psychology to dig deeply into the similarities and differences between a healthy version of what you've described and more toxic bullying behavior, or to detail the different ways that a social group *could* run.

Mostly it boils down to "are they applying outside pressure to get you to stay involved in the game? Are they forcing you to do out of game things to be involved? Is not playing the game held against you for other reasons?"

[Quertus]

Nah, you're overthinking it.

That's… also possible.

Is it wrong to stop to think about *how* to think about whether one is overthinking something? :smallbiggrin::smallamused:

[kyoryu]

I know it’s tongue in cheek but it’s really as simple as “nobody is obligated to play with you, and you’re not obligated to play with anyone.”

[OldTrees1]

I know it’s tongue in cheek but it’s really as simple as “nobody is obligated to play with you, and you’re not obligated to play with anyone.”

Just like it really is as simple as "find out what the conflict actually is rather than make rash judgements". For groups that want to work together, resolving conflict requires actually asking about the underlying reasons to find the best solution.

Player A says Player B's character is being disruptive.
Player B says that their character is just doing what they would do.
Finding out why Player A thinks that there is a disruption and why Player B characterizes their character that way is crucial to finding out what resolution works best for the group going forward. That might be player A or player B leaving, or it might be a solution that works for both of them. However you can't know until you ask "why?".

That is why the reason behind Player A and Player B's conflict is relevant.

Part of the reason you got so much push back is your posts felt like "Player A is always right. The actual problem doesn't matter. Player B can change or leave." however that is an oversimplification that prompts corrective comments from other GMs.

[Duff]

Boundaries are things for session 0. Putting them in retroactively and unilaterally is just asking for trouble. If it really needs to be done, it should be done properly as you are in effect negotiating about the game you all want to play.

No doubt about it, it's great to get this right at the start. But new GMs and new groups can get this wrong easily and even veterans get it wrong sometimes.
And when that happens, it's better to fix things later than say "You should have said that at the start" and not fix a problem.
Though I will agree to "It needs to be done with a lighter touch when it's being added in afterward"

As to the IC/OOC conversation, I'm with those who think a player saying "It's what my character would do" is a sure sign that IC is failing. OOC conversation might be able "reset" enough that it can be resolved IC, but there definitely needs to be some clarification of what everyone expects of the game

[Jason]

I know it’s tongue in cheek but it’s really as simple as “nobody is obligated to play with you, and you’re not obligated to play with anyone.”
I will accept that basic philosophy with some caveats.

There are some groups where members are friends for other reasons than RPGs, and then they might very well be obligated to occasionally play RPGs where they aren't exactly compatible in their play styles with their friends in order to keep the friendship, even though they would prefer other activities. In such cases hopefully they will work out the incompatible play styles.

I can also imagine a group where you might enjoy playing with everyone except that one player, but the group supports his behavior. In that case you might be obligated to put up with the one player you're not compatible with in order to play with the rest of the group that you love playing with.

Social interaction almost always involves compromise of some sort, and RPGs are a social activity. You shouldn't let searching for the perfect idealized group that probably doesn't exist get in the way of playing with the groups that are actually available to you in real life.

[Tanarii]

Social interaction almost always involves compromise of some sort, and RPGs are a social activity.
Geeks are notorious for either being perfectly fine without social interaction, taking a my way or screw your guys I'm going home attitude to social interaction, or being oblivious to social interaction niceties.

But the important part is there are so many social interactions options in most parts of the modern world, you're always able to walk away from one, and choose another to interact with. (Or if you prefer, run away from one rather than fix it, and find others.)

[Batcathat]

Geeks are notorious for either being perfectly fine without social interaction, taking a my way or screw your guys I'm going home attitude to social interaction, or being oblivious to social interaction niceties.

The opposite problem (https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/) is also fairly common and can probably contribute to playing with people despite having very different ideas of what the game should be.

(The fact that I'm a pretty textbook example of the counter-fallacy listed above might be another reason I haven't had to deal with that much OOC drama during my roleplaying, now that I think of it).

[Tanarii]

The opposite problem (https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/) is also fairly common and can probably contribute to playing with people despite having very different ideas of what the game should be.
All of those except #1 can be summed up as a "me first attitude". Or if you prefer, "my wants are the only wants I consider". Not narcissism, but certainly very inwardly directed.
(To be clear, I mean the folks causing problems and staying in a community that displays the "fallacies")

That attitude is definitely not restricted to geeks, and geek culture isn't the only one to display these so-called fallacies. I operate within at two others that suffer from them, as well as having plenty of "me first" thinkers within the communities causing problems.

[Batcathat]

That attitude is definitely not restricted to geeks, and geek culture isn't the only one to display these so-called fallacies. I operate within at two others that suffer from them, as well as having plenty of "me first" thinkers within the communities causing problems.

Yes, obviously they show up in all sorts of social groups (so do the attitudes you mentioned in the post I replied to).

Personally, I feel like both "everybody need to adapt to me" and "I need to adapt to everyone" can both be problematic when taken too far. "Everybody before me" might sound nicer than "Me first", but I find them about equally annoying.

[Rater202]

Yes, obviously they show up in all sorts of social groups (so do the attitudes you mentioned in the post I replied to).

Personally, I feel like both "everybody need to adapt to me" and "I need to adapt to everyone" can both be problematic when taken too far. "Everybody before me" might sound nicer than "Me first", but I find them about equally annoying.

At the end of the day, they're both a refusal to compromise.

You're either giving up what you want at the first sign of stress or you're refusing to budge at all.

No effort is being made to find a solution that everyone can be happy, or at least equally unhappy, about. The only difference is who the jackass is.

"My way or the highway" makes you the jackass but if the rest of the table just expects ou to bend to their hims without giving anything themselves and builds their happiness and satisfaction off of your lack thereof, taking advantage of your tendency to cave, then they're the jackass.

[Jason]

Geeks are notorious for either being perfectly fine without social interaction, taking a my way or screw your guys I'm going home attitude to social interaction, or being oblivious to social interaction niceties.
Geeks may claim what ever they want, but nobody is really fine without social interaction. Different people have different tolerances and needs, but no human can do completely without it and remain mentally healthy.


But the important part is there are so many social interactions options in most parts of the modern world, you're always able to walk away from one, and choose another to interact with. (Or if you prefer, run away from one rather than fix it, and find others.)
Commitment to a relationship is necessary for growth. Refuse to make any commitments or accept any obligations or responsibilities and you stunt your relationships.

In gaming, if I agree to be a participant of a particular game and campaign at a scheduled weekly time then I have made a commitment and accepted an obligation to show up and participate. Part of that commitment is the unspoken agreement to be a team player, as nearly all RPGs involve a team seeking to accomplish a goal together*. If I violate or abuse that unspoken "team player" agreement I can be justly penalized for it by the group, including by being excluded from future games, just as if I had never shown up to a session or was always late.

*Paranoia being a notable exception, but Paranoia games never last very long as a result.

[Frogreaver]

I find the key to playing such characters with flaws is to frame your actions such that your intent is clear but don’t immediately jump to doing the thing, instead give your friends a chance to talk you out of your intended course of action or otherwise interfere with it. They won’t always succeed but giving them the opportunity makes for a much more fun and dynamic game.

Also don’t fool around when someone else’s pc life is on the line.

I find the problem with most players playing such characters is that they do neither of these things.

[NichG]

I will accept that basic philosophy with some caveats.

There are some groups where members are friends for other reasons than RPGs, and then they might very well be obligated to occasionally play RPGs where they aren't exactly compatible in their play styles with their friends in order to keep the friendship, even though they would prefer other activities. In such cases hopefully they will work out the incompatible play styles.

I can also imagine a group where you might enjoy playing with everyone except that one player, but the group supports his behavior. In that case you might be obligated to put up with the one player you're not compatible with in order to play with the rest of the group that you love playing with.

Social interaction almost always involves compromise of some sort, and RPGs are a social activity. You shouldn't let searching for the perfect idealized group that probably doesn't exist get in the way of playing with the groups that are actually available to you in real life.

I think framing the second example as an obligation is a mistake. If there are positives and negatives for being involved with something and the positives still outweigh the negatives for you and there's no better options, that just means that it still makes sense to suffer those negatives for the sake of the positives because that's the best choice you have available.

But framing as obligation would mean that even if the negatives outweigh the positives you do it anyhow because you ethically have to/are supposed to/previously promised to/are being forced to. So the friends case could be an obligation (though even there, if a friendship is consistently dragging you down rather than raising both you and your friends up...), but not so much the 'this group has plusses and minuses' thing.

If you frame something like gaming as an obligation, it can prevent you from evaluating 'would I actually be happier not gaming in this case?' e.g. are the positives really still outweighing the negatives?

My way or the highway isn't the way to resolve most conflicts, but having everyone understand that they aren't entitled to the existence of the game or membership in it can curb a lot of kinds of misbehavior even if no one actually has to use that ultimatum.

[icefractal]

I find the key to playing such characters with flaws is to frame your actions such that your intent is clear but don’t immediately jump to doing the thing, instead give your friends a chance to talk you out of your intended course of action or otherwise interfere with it. They won’t always succeed but giving them the opportunity makes for a much more fun and dynamic game.That's true - in a lot of cases, it's really just "my character has to attempt to do this thing to remain at all consistent", but they don't have to succeed at it.

Preemptive warning is also better than acting after the fact - "If you kill that guy, I don't see our characters remaining allies - is that your intent?"
Then they can change the action, accept the results, or discuss a compromise. It's easier to do that before committing to the action and having things happen which are awkward to roll back.

[Talakeal]

No, if necessary, you kick them out. If it's coming to that, it's probably not one incident. When they're gone, run the character as an NPC, or adjust the monsters, or have the party be smart about what they tackle if they ahve that freedom.

If they're being jerks, and sabotaging the game, you kick them out right then. You tell them they're no longer welcome in the game, and to leave your....



WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE?

You didn't call the cops on someone over a game. YOU CALLED THE COPS ON THEM FOR TRESPASSING.


Ultimately though, these all boil down to taking control ofmthe character away from the player, and are out of character solutions that require DM collusion.

In character though, kicking someone out of the party rarely makes sense, especially mid adventure when it can easily get everyone killed. The world is under no obligations to adjust danger to party size or to provide an appropriate replacement character.


Actually, it was one of my old players who most of my friends wont associate with anymore, he has a long history of run ins with the law. The part that really pissed me off was when the cops got there he put on his salesmen face and pretended like I was the one who has emotional problems and escalates to violence over games. MaybeI should make a new horror story thread about it, but its still kimd of raw.

[The Glyphstone]

No, if necessary, you kick them out. If it's coming to that, it's probably not one incident. When they're gone, run the character as an NPC, or adjust the monsters, or have the party be smart about what they tackle if they ahve that freedom.

If they're being jerks, and sabotaging the game, you kick them out right then. You tell them they're no longer welcome in the game, and to leave your....



WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE?

You didn't call the cops on someone over a game. YOU CALLED THE COPS ON THEM FOR TRESPASSING.

There's a reason we have a sorta running not quite joke that Talakeal posts through a portal to Bizarro Gaming World, where the most outrageous behavior is normal and our normal is outrageous. They have like a dozen of these stories going back years.

[NichG]

Ultimately though, these all boil down to taking control ofmthe character away from the player, and are out of character solutions that require DM collusion.

In character though, kicking someone out of the party rarely makes sense, especially mid adventure when it can easily get everyone killed. The world is under no obligations to adjust danger to party size or to provide an appropriate replacement character.

This is a particular subset of games, not the way games have to be. I don't think I've run or played in a game in two decades where this would be the case.

[Talakeal]

This is a particular subset of games, not the way games have to be. I don't think I've run or played in a game in two decades where this would be the case.

What games are you playing? I am having trouble imagining one where this isn’t the case. Maybe something like Star Trek where you are part of a large well equipped organization with a rigid command structure comes close, but even then...

[Quertus]

That's true - in a lot of cases, it's really just "my character has to attempt to do this thing to remain at all consistent", but they don't have to succeed at it.

Preemptive warning is also better than acting after the fact - "If you kill that guy, I don't see our characters remaining allies - is that your intent?"
Then they can change the action, accept the results, or discuss a compromise. It's easier to do that before committing to the action and having things happen which are awkward to roll back.

I'm… generally not a fan of retcon, greatly preferring to spend hours in the middle of the session rules lawyering rather than moving forward, just to prevent having to retcon. But, even so, I find that using a retcon is better than disrupting the group.

Absolutely agree, though, that if anyone is perceptive and wise enough to catch it ahead of time, that that's a better scenario to be in.

[NichG]

What games are you playing? I am having trouble imagining one where this isn’t the case. Maybe something like Star Trek where you are part of a large well equipped organization with a rigid command structure comes close, but even then...

I tend to have a combat once per 3 or 4 sessions. Challenges have a lot more to do with figuring out what's going on and what decisions to make rather than finely tuned numbers checks. When combats occur, they're not pre-statted so there's flexibility in tuning to the party. Often if not always, combat can be avoided through compromise or negotiation or trickery or persuasion. Generally pacing is driven by what the party wants to take on, and often that means that difficulty is more about what the players feel up to (or incorrect evaluation of the challenge level) than pushing through some fixed gauntlet. Often consequences are more about what happens to objectives PCs care about than their own life of death, even to the extent of one campaign having literally immortal PCs whose 'deaths' would cause others to suffer in their stead, one afterlife campaign where the PCs were dead to begin with, and one campaign where PCs were spirits who could possess somewhat disposable hosts.

Even in the 'by the book, death is death, world is what it is' 1ed D&D campaign I was in, the obvious thing was not to take any risks or commit to any adventure where half the party dying would prevent you from getting out alive because you should expect that to happen anyhow. And in that game there were several cases of PvP of sorts actually saving the group rather than dooming it. We had a 'you don't have to outrun the bear' moment and a 'diseased hirelings are slowing us down in a place where random encounters will kill us, murder is the answer' moment.

[kyoryu]

Gonna respond to a bunch of things, since a bunch of people have said stuff and it all kinda interrelates.

FIRST OFF:

If someone is being a jerk, and weaponizing these basic things to get their way, then they are a jerk and you should consider not dealing with them. If you have to deal with them for whatever social reason, understand that you have to use different rules with them, and that they are creating dysfunctional dynamics in your peer groups.

I will put an asterisk wherever this is appropriate. I'll be doing it a lot, so if you think it should be somewhere and it's not, assume it's there, too.

This all assumes people are acting in good faith*. That's the basis of any healthy social interaction*.

So, yeah. There are costs to kicking people, and costs outside of the game, and social costs and impacts. This doesn't mean there's an obligation, as has been pointed out. And, usually*, people are loathe to kick people out of social groups* as there is almost always a social cost, even if it's just an activity of a social group. Frankly, geek culture is even more so in most cases.

So I do have a bias in that I assume that by the time a group has some variation of The Talk with a player, that it really is causing an issue*.

That said, by the time a group has the "hey, this is disruptive" conversation? Yeah, it's probably actually disrupting*. And it's really just a specialized form of the "hey, I don't like it when you do this" conversation*, and the only reasonable answer to that is "okay, I'll stop"*.

Like, in that conversation, why you did it doesn't matter much. It kinda does, because harming without intent is less bad than harming with intent, but then continuing to do the thing is just blatant disregard*.

At that point, the conversation needs to start with "okay, I'll stop"*. It can then continue with "hey, this is what's important to me... is it okay if I do <x> instead? Or is it okay if I do the thing but don't do <y> as part of it? Or now that I explained myself do you understand where I was coming from and are we good?" Those can be great follow-ups*, but really you just start with "okay, I'll stop"*.

Because the person is under no obligation to talk to you and deal with you, and if you annoy them enough they'll stop doing so, and because if somebody doesn't like something, why would you keep doing it with/to them?*

Same with groups.

When I say that it really is "if you do what the group doesn't like, they'll kick you out" I don't mean that as some universal rule of order. I mean it as a natural consequence of actions*. And unless someone is completely egregious, they'll almost always have allies in the group that won't want the offender to go, so for the group to go as far as kicking someone out they have to be pretty disruptive*.

Mostly*, people tolerate a reasonable amount of annoyance from their friends*. Gaming is no different*.

And that's really why you stop doing things the group asks you to*. Not because they'll kick you out*, or they're controlling you*, but because they're your friends and they told you they don't like it.* And good friends make those accommodations.*

And yes, said friends can make accomodations back*. But that's the second part of the conversation. It's a terrible idea to take a good faith request and respond with, effectively, "I don't wanna" or "you can't make me" or "that's not an option."* It does not generate good will.

If someone is stealing from the party in a game I'm in, and it's something the group doesn't want as part of the game? And it's causing a problem? Then I do expect the group to say "hey, knock it off." And I expect the person to knock it off. Not doing so indicates that they really don't care about anyone else in the group, or at least care less about the group than they care about doing whatever thing that it is they want to do. And that thing may not be objectively bad, but it clearly doesn't mesh with the group, so they should do it elsewhere.*

If they come back and say "okay, if you want, I won't steal. But that's really intrinsic to this character, so that'd mean making another character. What's the problem with stealing? If I agree to <x>, would that be okay?" I'd consider that. To be honest, I'd be a little wary, since I've seen that rules-lawyered too many times, but I'm going to respond to that a lot better than any variation of "I don't wanna stop!" including, yes, "it's what my character would do."

[kyoryu]

There's a reason we have a sorta running not quite joke that Talakeal posts through a portal to Bizarro Gaming World, where the most outrageous behavior is normal and our normal is outrageous. They have like a dozen of these stories going back years.

Yes, I was deliberately playing into that :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

So I do have a bias in that I assume that by the time a group has some variation of The Talk with a player, that it really is causing an issue*.

First let me say we agree on a lot of this topic. Our disagreements might be merely the result of framing or intended audience. If they are not it seems like they are nuances like the purpose of the "why".

It also looks like you assume it starts with the group objecting rather than a single player objecting.

Also you might be assuming you are only giving advice to the accused player.

On the other hand I assume the conversation starts the first time one player objects to another player's character's characterization. I am also assuming my advice goes to everyone in the group. So earlier, broader, and less one sided.



That said, by the time a group has the "hey, this is disruptive" conversation? Yeah, it's probably actually disrupting*. And it's really just a specialized form of the "hey, I don't like it when you do this" conversation*, and the only reasonable answer to that is "okay, I'll stop"*.

Like, in that conversation, why you did it doesn't matter much. It kinda does, because harming without intent is less bad than harming with intent, but then continuing to do the thing is just blatant disregard*.

At that point, the conversation needs to start with "okay, I'll stop"*. It can then continue with "hey, this is what's important to me... is it okay if I do <x> instead? Or is it okay if I do the thing but don't do <y> as part of it? Or now that I explained myself do you understand where I was coming from and are we good?" Those can be great follow-ups*, but really you just start with "okay, I'll stop"*.

I notice this advice is only for the accused player and you go out of your way to disregard their interests. If we don't ask "Why did you want your character to have this characterization? and Why do you find this characterization disruptive?" then you will always have 2 players accusing each other of "I don't like it when you do this". Except your language around this aims its accusations at only 1 of the 2 players that are in conflict.

That is why I prefer the advice that applies regardless of if you are player A, player B, or a 3rd party. Ask the "Why"s to reveal the actual conflict. Especially if there is no underlying conflict and everything was a misunderstanding. You are still approaching it with "okay, let's find a solution" which included unilateral solutions like "okay, I'll stop, which might involve leaving" but you avoid dismissing your efforts.

The vast majority of cases can be resolved by examining the underlying interests. Of the minority with mutually conflicting underlying interests that can't find a compromise, some are disruptive demands (your character is evil, so I will find them disruptive if the don't kick puppies), others are unreasonable characterizations (default assumption when we hear the phrase), and some are merely incompatible positions.

[Quertus]

:smallfurious:

My sister was in a class where the class was broken up into the groups. Each group was given a different set of, "in this scenario, what would you do" questions, that were answered by the group.

As the other groups began reading the questions and giving their answers, my sister was filled with a sense of horror. Because, wouldn't you know, her class had recreated the horrors of Nazi Germany.

:smallfurious:

@kyoryu, I've seen the thought process you describe used before, I know the bullying and horror stories it can create. Because humans just aren't capable of comprehending when they're being unreasonable, when the group think has turned to toxic mob mentality.

Yes, it's my turn to reject your tool, rather than your intended usage :smallamused:

So, replace every reasoned example you have with something silly, or toxic. But have the speaker *believe* every word of it, and be acting in good faith, unable to see anything wrong with their PoV. And see if you can see why I reject your tool in favor of a conversation, in favor of asking "why".

I've seen that happen at too many gaming tables, and read horror stories of the same ilk. Every time I see that behavior, I will, in WoD parlance, spend the willpower point, if I have one, to intervene. Occasionally, I've misread the scene, and jumped the gun, but far too many times, I've been right.

And that's not even counting the times when the bullies were wrong, and the bullied party hadn't even done / wasn't trying to do what they thought. (Which, in several cases, the bullied party *had* done such things before, but was receiving the same feedback for good behavior.)

So I reject your tool as thoroughly as you rejected mine. I'll take my "wasted time" asking "why" over the horrors I've witnessed any day. (I've seen a lot of really bad groups)

And I'll take the players who don't just roll over to the mob, who don't just say "OK" when bullied, over the bullies. But I'd rather redeem them all.

And I'd like to think that I have. I'd like to think that I've shown numerous tables a better way.

So, no. Having thought about whether or not I'm overthinking it, I've pushed past my unikitty "happy thoughts, happy thoughts" to enough horror stories to steel my spine to the righteousness of my beliefs that "the will of the group" should be questioned at least as much as, and heeded no more than, the preferences of an individual.

Which is not to say "ignored". But I continue to hold that seeking understanding to seek compromise is a healthier response than capitulation.

[NichG]

I think the tricky thing with focusing on 'why' is that it can be in the incorrect order of things for resolution, though I suspect that only really matters for very dysfunctional cases in which you really need someone to be a proper mediator rather than most normally occurring disagreements. If people are seriously annoyed, one of the ways to make things worse and escalate into actual anger is to not acknowledge what the person is saying. That's part of why immediately going defensive on hearing some kind of accusation or complaint might feel natural (I was attacked, I should defend) but it can really be a mistake.

So the best first step if someone says 'this thing you did (are going to do) upsets me' is to acknowledge that, even just some simple form of 'okay, I hear you'. Better even to engage with that. If the first pass of conversation is instead is to ask the person who the complaint is against 'why is this important to you?', well, in most cases it probably wouldn't make things notably worse. But there would be some cases where the person complaining would feel that automatically people are taking the side of someone who, from their point of view, is the aggressor. Or to put it another way, the sense in which 'why?' doesn't matter is that regardless of the 'why?' it doesn't change the reality that someone was bothered by it. The resolution in the end might mean that the person originally bothered by it just has to figure out a way to deal with it themselves, but a discussion that tries to deny or hide the fact that they were actually bothered isn't going to feel fair or satisfying.

However, the 'why' can be absolutely essential to finding the actual path to a good compromise. So even though 'why?' doesn't modify the situation itself (no 'why' can lead to 'actually, the players who complained weren't actually bothered' or 'oh, well with that reason we don't need to bother to discuss this'), it does determine the process by which resolution can be reached.

[Satinavian]

ImE a group outright kicking a player is incredibly rare and usually not the result of IG behavior but of OG transgressions.

What happens more often is that some behavior is seen as disruptive and a player is asked to stop it or leave. Could be cheating or sporlight-hogging or blatantly ignoring the common power level or agreed upon genre/theme. Or many other things really. And often the player then decides to leave instead of adjust because that game is not fun anymore under the additional constraint. And this is fine.

What happens even more often is that instead of one player vs. the group you have one person finding the behavior of a certain other person disruptive who is not willing to change and goes for the "one of us leaves"-ultimatum which then ends up with one of them actually leaving.

[Cluedrew]

I can say the worst session I ever played it definitely happened because no one said anything out of character. I can't exactly tell you why (I don't even remember why I didn't) no one did but people started bailing part way through the session. Oddly the problem player was the first one to say anything, they apologised as although they realised they were being a problem they weren't sure how. So this problem was as "in-character" as a game destroying incident can get. And the attempt to fix it in-character failed totally.

[OldTrees1]

I think the tricky thing with focusing on 'why' is that it can be in the incorrect order of things for resolution, though I suspect that only really matters for very dysfunctional cases in which you really need someone to be a proper mediator rather than most normally occurring disagreements. If people are seriously annoyed, one of the ways to make things worse and escalate into actual anger is to not acknowledge what the person is saying. That's part of why immediately going defensive on hearing some kind of accusation or complaint might feel natural (I was attacked, I should defend) but it can really be a mistake.

So the best first step if someone says 'this thing you did (are going to do) upsets me' is to acknowledge that, even just some simple form of 'okay, I hear you'. Better even to engage with that. If the first pass of conversation is instead is to ask the person who the complaint is against 'why is this important to you?', well, in most cases it probably wouldn't make things notably worse. But there would be some cases where the person complaining would feel that automatically people are taking the side of someone who, from their point of view, is the aggressor. Or to put it another way, the sense in which 'why?' doesn't matter is that regardless of the 'why?' it doesn't change the reality that someone was bothered by it. The resolution in the end might mean that the person originally bothered by it just has to figure out a way to deal with it themselves, but a discussion that tries to deny or hide the fact that they were actually bothered isn't going to feel fair or satisfying.

Good point that addresses one of my blind spots*. What is the best way for someone to communicate to both sides that they hear what that side is saying, without the other communication undermining their attempt? Let's especially focus on the worse case scenarios because better case scenarios are more likely to be flexible to the signaling.

Obviously this is easier for either involved party. They can tell the other person they hear them, and acknowledge their own concerns mentally. They still should be sincere to both sides and that might be hard for them to do if the surface conflict is stubborn.

How can 3rd parties (the GM or other players) best signal "I hear you" to both sides to lay the foundation needed to then ask "why?"s?

*my groups are rather reasonable, so the "I hear you" signals I give work, but might not work in worse cases


However, the 'why' can be absolutely essential to finding the actual path to a good compromise. So even though 'why?' doesn't modify the situation itself (no 'why' can lead to 'actually, the players who complained weren't actually bothered' or 'oh, well with that reason we don't need to bother to discuss this'), it does determine the process by which resolution can be reached.

Agreed. This is why I value the "why".

Exception that proves the rule?:
There are times when "why" asked to both sides does resolve the situation by itself, but they are a rare example of miscommunication or extrapolation. Please forgive the simplified hypothetical example:

A Kender steals a soup spoon from a Dwarf.
The Dwarf player objects to the Kender's actions.
We check why.
The Kender player wants to explore kleptomania with trivial objects.
The Dwarf player does not mind the soup spoon but is worried about non trivial objects like the Dwarf's axe.
After asking why, the players realize clarifying the player interests revealed that a satisfactory boundary already existed.
The Dwarf player was actually bothered, but not by the action they objected to, and the clarification removed their concerns.

I don't know how common miscommunication causes situations that are already solved and just need clarification. I hope they are a rare case.

[kyoryu]

First let me say we agree on a lot of this topic. Our disagreements might be merely the result of framing or intended audience.

I suspect this is mostly true.



If they are not it seems like they are nuances like the purpose of the "why".



It also looks like you assume it starts with the group objecting rather than a single player objecting.

Yes. Mostly because if it's a single player objecting, and people can't figure it out, that's when the group gets involved and says "no, deal with it Bill" or "Yeah, Andy, stop being a jerk" if they can't find a reasonable compromise



Also you might be assuming you are only giving advice to the accused player.

Yes. I don't even like the word "accused", frankly. It's just basic relationship skills - if someone brings a complaint to your attention, and you can presume good faith and non-abusive/bullying behavior, address the complaint. Every time. Sometimes that's changing the behavior, sometimes it's changing how you present things. Sometimes it's increasing communication. But the onus is on you to address the complaint, in some fashion. Or decide you really don't want to, but that's a great way to damage relationships.



On the other hand I assume the conversation starts the first time one player objects to another player's character's characterization. I am also assuming my advice goes to everyone in the group. So earlier, broader, and less one sided.

Actually, I think it's reasonable advice all the time.

Person A: "Dude, what the heck? Why did you do that? That's awful! Stop!"

- OPTIONS -

1) Person B: "Bugger off". (Note that "it's why my charcter would do" is just a variation of this)

2) Person B: "Well, here's what I was thinking. You cool with that? Otherwise, how about this instead?"

3) Person B: "Yeah, sorry, that was out of line. My bad."

Options 2 and 3 can be reasonable. Option 1 isn't. In both options 2 and 3 you're addressing the complaint. Option 2 includes "why", which is useful once you've acknowledged the need to address the complaint.

Or, as a flowchart:

Person A has a complaint:

Choice 1: Do you address?

If NO, then "why" is kind of irrelevant. If somebody is doing something objectionable, and continues to do it once they've been told it's objectionable, then why is kind of irrelevant - they've just told the other person they don't care. I mean, if course you had a reason to do what you did. Everybody does.

If YES, then we go to Choice 2: Simply comply, or negotiate for middle ground.

If you just comply because it's not a big deal, then "why" is, again, irrelevant. If you negotiate, why is super relevant as understanding the desired goals and needs of each party is critical to a successful negotiation.

I do suspect that, in practice, we agree more than not, if for no other reason then you've always struck me as a super reasonable, emotionally intelligent kind of guy. I actually wonder if you're approaching it from a perspective of "the answer to choice 1 is obvious, so let's focus on choice 2". And "why" is pretty supremely relevant there.

But it's not relevant at all for choice one.

And choice one is where, generally "it's what my guy would do" comes up, and most of the time, if you can get past choice one, you can figure out how to work things out. Usually people feeling heard creates a good space for negotiation and understanding, and finding an agreeable solution.

I do think that, when viable, "okay, I'll stop" is the easiest answer to choice 2.



I notice this advice is only for the accused player and you go out of your way to disregard their interests. If we don't ask "Why did you want your character to have this characterization? and Why do you find this characterization disruptive?" then you will always have 2 players accusing each other of "I don't like it when you do this". Except your language around this aims its accusations at only 1 of the 2 players that are in conflict.

That is why I prefer the advice that applies regardless of if you are player A, player B, or a 3rd party. Ask the "Why"s to reveal the actual conflict. Especially if there is no underlying conflict and everything was a misunderstanding. You are still approaching it with "okay, let's find a solution" which included unilateral solutions like "okay, I'll stop, which might involve leaving" but you avoid dismissing your efforts.

Choice 1 vs Choice 2.



The vast majority of cases can be resolved by examining the underlying interests. Of the minority with mutually conflicting underlying interests that can't find a compromise, some are disruptive demands (your character is evil, so I will find them disruptive if the don't kick puppies), others are unreasonable characterizations (default assumption when we hear the phrase), and some are merely incompatible positions.

Only if Choice 1 is "okay, let's change in some way".

[kyoryu]

My sister was in a class where the class was broken up into the groups. Each group was given a different set of, "in this scenario, what would you do" questions, that were answered by the group.

As the other groups began reading the questions and giving their answers, my sister was filled with a sense of horror. Because, wouldn't you know, her class had recreated the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Which is actually a really, really good lesson. It answers, very neatly, "how could this happen?" And the answer is usually more banal than people realize.

Which is why you need super strong safeguards to prevent such "reasonable" solutions. Like, in that scenario, a strong emphasis on inviolable human rights prevents that kind of slide... if you take off those "reasonable" solutions that ignore rights, you don't end up with Nazi Germany.

For our discussion? Those are strong personal boundaries and areas you won't go, and a willingness to leave the table.


@kyoryu, I've seen the thought process you describe used before, I know the bullying and horror stories it can create. Because humans just aren't capable of comprehending when they're being unreasonable, when the group think has turned to toxic mob mentality.

Oh, hey, you ignored that entire first part where I said "use this only in cases of good faith."


Yes, it's my turn to reject your tool, rather than your intended usage :smallamused:

So, replace every reasoned example you have with something silly, or toxic. But have the speaker *believe* every word of it, and be acting in good faith, unable to see anything wrong with their PoV. And see if you can see why I reject your tool in favor of a conversation, in favor of asking "why".

Again, you're also missing the other part - you're not obligated to play with them. If a group is making asks that are that toxic and silly, why would you play with them?. At the very least, if you're playing with them for other reasons, recognize that normally healthy behavioral strategies are ineffective or counter-productive.

IOW, your baseline for interacting with people should be "assume they're healthy", and make exceptions for toxic people. Your baseline for interacting with people shouldn't be "assume they're toxic".

So if you want, there's a Step 1A, which is really "are they asking for something that is toxic or crosses boundaries?" If so, then you approach it entirely differently.


So, no. Having thought about whether or not I'm overthinking it, I've pushed past my unikitty "happy thoughts, happy thoughts" to enough horror stories to steel my spine to the righteousness of my beliefs that "the will of the group" should be questioned at least as much as, and heeded no more than, the preferences of an individual.

You're. Missing. The. Point.

The point here is that if you go against the will of the group, you'll be asked to leave. Or the group will disband. That's just naturally how things work. It's not a "tool".

And if the group is unhealthy enough to behave in the manners you've described? You should leave. Or, if you do stay for whatever reason, you should change how you deal with them accordingly. I mean, why would you want to play with people that you've described as bullies?


Which is not to say "ignored". But I continue to hold that seeking understanding to seek compromise is a healthier response than capitulation.

You start with "yes, I accept that you see this as a problem, and some change is in order." It doesn't have to be blanket capitulation. But it does have to start with accepting that the group sees a problem, and some change needs to happen.

"No, it's what my character would do" doesn't meet that.

And, honestly? It's rare that a group is that toxic front to back. So it's worth examining your own part in that case. And if the group is really that toxic? Leave. I can't emphasize that enough. Life is too short to waste it on toxic people.

[kyoryu]

ImE a group outright kicking a player is incredibly rare and usually not the result of IG behavior but of OG transgressions.

What happens more often is that some behavior is seen as disruptive and a player is asked to stop it or leave. Could be cheating or sporlight-hogging or blatantly ignoring the common power level or agreed upon genre/theme. Or many other things really. And often the player then decides to leave instead of adjust because that game is not fun anymore under the additional constraint. And this is fine.

What happens even more often is that instead of one player vs. the group you have one person finding the behavior of a certain other person disruptive who is not willing to change and goes for the "one of us leaves"-ultimatum which then ends up with one of them actually leaving.

Honestly, those are fine resolutions if they can be done without drama. "Oh, okay, this isn't the kind of game I find fun. Y'all enjoy yourselves."

The drama usually happens when the player refuses to compromise after being told "this bugs me."

Once the pattern of "This bugs me" "Okay, cool, I'll change" is in place, then the next step can be "let's talk about what that change is", which can lead to the best resolutions.

The pattern of "this bugs me, please stop!" "No! I won't!" leads to bad places.

* again, outside of bad faith/weaponized empathy type situations, in which case either leave or understand you're in a dysfunctional situation and make exceptions to deal with the dysfunctional situation.