What if it IS what my character would do?

[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'?"

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.

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?

Spoiler: Off topic explanation

Show

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.

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.