New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 15 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 445
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default What if it IS what my character would do?

    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?

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.
    Last edited by SirSlicksAlot; 2021-04-10 at 08:03 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Tom View Post
    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?

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by SirSlicksAlot View Post
    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. :)

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Tom View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirSlicksAlot View Post
    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.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    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^^^^
    Last edited by SirSlicksAlot; 2021-04-10 at 08:18 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    "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.
    Last edited by Mastikator; 2021-04-10 at 08:18 AM.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Composer99's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.
    ~ Composer99

    D&D 5e Campaign:
    Adventures in Eaphandra

    D&D 5e Homebrew:
    This can be found in my extended homebrew signature!

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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 providing that 'the table' enjoyed 'the game'.
    Or an alternative example there is nothing wrong with Haley pocketing all the gold here, again providing that the people at 'the table' are fine with it.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2021-04-10 at 10:15 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Earth
    Gender
    Intersex

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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]

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    "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."

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.
    ~ CAUTION: May Contain Weasels ~
    RPG Characters What I Done Played As (Explained Badly)
    17 Things I Learned About 40k By Playing Dark Heresy
    Tales of a Role-Play Gamer - Horrible Optimisation

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2017

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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"?

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    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?
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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'.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    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.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    HeraldOfExius's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    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."

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Montana

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
    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.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by HeraldOfExius View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •