What if it IS what my character would do?

[Batcathat]

DMs killing off a PCs friends and families is the reason why so many PC will start off as orphans with no siblings who came from nowhere.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that "Can't be bothered to come up with any" is just as common a reason for that particular tendency in PC backgrounds, if not more.

Regarding the larger question, I'm somewhere in the middle, I think. Whether as a player or GM, I would be okay with the GM involving PC relatives or similar in the plot as long as it's limited to "external" factors (villains attacking, a war happening, stuff like that). I would be a lot more wary about messing with the personality of those characters ("Gasp! Mommy was a villain all along!") since that's basically retconning the PC's background. It could be okay, but I'd be a lot more careful with stuff like that.

[Segev]

In real life it is often the case you dont know people as well as you think you do.

In a lot of games this is easy. If you spents points on an npc, contact, location, ect its yours and should be messed with softly. Its part of the pc. Everyone else is fair game.

Games with freeform backrounds are a touch trickier. And while they should be handled in a thoughtfull matter, they are npcs and npc locations and once let out into the worlds are subject to play.
While pc backrounds and npcs are nice to have, they should never come with plot armor.

While you're right, not acting with care when threatening or otherwise using NPCs of value to the PC trains players to make orphans with nothing they care abomin the world.

[Cluedrew]

To KaussH and MoiMagnus: I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that it shouldn't be done freely. Its not "well its not a PC so I can make whatever changes I want without consulting people". As an extreme example I once heard of a story about how a GM modified a major religion part way through a campaign*. One of the PCs was a dedicated follower of this religion and had been for decades and realised their character would never follow this religion. That was not an appropriate "messing with the background" to make, even if the only thing known about the religion was that this character followed it. And appropriate or not you should probably run it by the player.

* Or equivalently, only revealed they had modified the religion at that time. Nothing is true until people around the table know it.

The reason the divide between PC and "background NPC belonging to the PC" gets blurry is because you can judge people by their friends and enemies.

Also people are shaped by the people and culture around them. I don't have a particular point to make there but I do have characters that where they came from is pretty important to who they are and if that was changed it would change a lot about the character.

[Quertus]

Lol. I'm having a great deal of fun imagining the notion of a thread, "but what if it IS what my world would do?", and the inability of people to grasp that breaking the social contract is breaking the social contract, regardless of whether it's a player or the GM doing so.

That said…

A) I'm all about having the PCs and the world do what they would do, *and* not breaking the social contract. And, not surprisingly, maintaining *both* can take work. And communication. And the occasional "interrupt" / retcon. IMO, it behooves all parties involved to do everything in their power to make this as easy as possible.

B) Often, one does not know that an action is bad until after it is declared; thus, when asked, "why did you do this", "it's what my X would do" distinguishes the underlying reasoning from, say, "I thought it would make a good story" or "it's what I thought you wanted", or some other OOC PoV.

The way I look at it is if you have to say ‘It’s what my character would do” then you have failed at roleplaying.

If the other players at the table understand who your character is and what their basic personality traits are then they will understand that’s what your character would do and won’t complain about it being out of character.

If you have to say it then the other players don’t know what sort of person your character is. That isn’t an other player problem, it’s a you problem.

I feel like this sounds more like a trait of a 2-dimensional caricature than of a character. I mean, people IRL and on the Playground surprise me all the time - why should I expect fewer (or no!) surprises from characters that I've known for less time than their players?

[kyoryu]

Lol. I'm having a great deal of fun imagining the notion of a thread, "but what if it IS what my world would do?", and the inability of people to grasp that breaking the social contract is breaking the social contract, regardless of whether it's a player or the GM doing so.

Usually that's just called "bad GMing". Lol.

That said…

A) I'm all about having the PCs and the world do what they would do, *and* not breaking the social contract. And, not surprisingly, maintaining *both* can take work. And communication. And the occasional "interrupt" / retcon. IMO, it behooves all parties involved to do everything in their power to make this as easy as possible.

Also, in most cases there's well more than one thing the character (or world!) would do. Pick one that's not disruptive.

B) Often, one does not know that an action is bad until after it is declared; thus, when asked, "why did you do this", "it's what my X would do" distinguishes the underlying reasoning from, say, "I thought it would make a good story" or "it's what I thought you wanted", or some other OOC PoV.

And most of the time, disruptive characters (and character traits) are reasonably easy to suss out early. Catch the issues before they become issues.

I feel like this sounds more like a trait of a 2-dimensional caricature than of a character. I mean, people IRL and on the Playground surprise me all the time - why should I expect fewer (or no!) surprises from characters that I've known for less time than their players?

It's a matter of degree. Like I said before, there's usually lots of reasonable things a person might do, with greater or lower probabilities. It's the difference between "of course they'd do that" and "yeah, I can see that" and "unexpected, but in this context it makes sense" and "where did that come from???".

It's the latter you generally want to avoid.

[icefractal]

Personally I'm more a fan of retcon when needed rather than sticking with actions that don't fit the characters. The former is at least over quickly, while the latter will potentially be an irritation the entire game (whenever it comes up).

Like if you're going to walk several miles and notice a pebble in your shoe. It's better to spend the time removing it, even if you need to balance awkwardly on one foot to do so, than to have it annoying you the entire trip.

[Ettina]

The one situation where I ended up saying "it's what my character would do", the IC behavior turned out not to be an issue. The issue was that the other player was worried that we were having an IRL conflict over which PC got the wyvern egg, when from my perspective, my PC wanted the egg but I didn't really want him to get it. The other PC was clearly the better option, since he was built around mounted combat and characterized as a guy who was good at caring for pets, whereas my guy basically just saw a shiny and wanted it despite no real plan for what to do with it. So OOC, I wanted my guy to ultimately lose that conflict, but I wanted him to lose it in a way that let him do some character growth of learning to be less selfish. Once I explained that to the other player OOC, he was relieved and the next sessions went well. My PC got some character growth, his PC got to raise a wyvern who is now acting as that character's mount.

[Witty Username]

In my experience, this is often a problem of hidden information, I prefer my character motivations known by the table, especially if I have a character that could lead to disruptive actions. If I ever play a character that steals from the party or may betray the party, I will ask the table if that is fine before I play the character at all. This is what my character would do is unnecessary if you and the table are kept on the same page.

Also, it is possible to be flawed and not be disruptive, or rather doing the action doesn't imply successful. If you want the character to do something problematic, you can intentionally play it to reduce their chances of success. Attacking an NPC randomly is way easier to play fair when the party has a chance to stop them, or the aggressor uses fists instead of weapons. Steal from the party only in plain view broad daylight, and don't keep anything, and you are much more likely to accomplish funny instead of hurt while still playing your kleptomaniac.

[Frogreaver]

I find the solution to this dillema is telegraphing your 'negative' actions such that your party can intervene in them for better outcomes. If you are doing that and being fair about their chances of success then playing a character that will take non-optimal actions can be quite fun for the group.

As an example: Instead of saying my hot temptered PC just punches the jerk NPC in the face. You might instead describe, my character tenses up and looks agitated like he is getting ready to punch the NPC in the face. You've added a complication that the party can interact with and overcome. They can talk you out of it, physically restrain you so you cannot, magically teleport you away, intelligently divert your attention to something else, acrobatically slide their PC so that they are between the you and the NPC. Etc.

That's typically much more interesting and appealing gameplay than just punching the jerk NPC in the face and in neither case was your PC unable to act how you wanted him to act. #Telegraphing is for PC's too

[Segev]

I find the solution to this dillema is telegraphing your 'negative' actions such that your party can intervene in them for better outcomes. If you are doing that and being fair about their chances of success then playing a character that will take non-optimal actions can be quite fun for the group.

As an example: Instead of saying my hot temptered PC just punches the jerk NPC in the face. You might instead describe, my character tenses up and looks agitated like he is getting ready to punch the NPC in the face. You've added a complication that the party can interact with and overcome. They can talk you out of it, physically restrain you so you cannot, magically teleport you away, intelligently divert your attention to something else, acrobatically slide their PC so that they are between the you and the NPC. Etc.

That's typically much more interesting and appealing gameplay than just punching the jerk NPC in the face and in neither case was your PC unable to act how you wanted him to act. #Telegraphing is for PC's too

A way to simplify this if you, the player, don't mind your character being thwarted in the "it's what he would (want to) do" actions that you know the other players would prefer not to happen, is to simply say, "Unless somebody holds him back, my character punches so-and-so in the face."

The other players can simply say, "Yeah, we hold him back," and you can allow that to simply work.

[Frogreaver]

A way to simplify this if you, the player, don't mind your character being thwarted in the "it's what he would (want to) do" actions that you know the other players would prefer not to happen, is to simply say, "Unless somebody holds him back, my character punches so-and-so in the face."

The other players can simply say, "Yeah, we hold him back," and you can allow that to simply work.

I'm afraid that solution doesn't offer nearly the same level of 'interesting gameplay' around character flaws as using the telegraphing technique.

[sktarq]

I would the single biggest thing it to have a clear idea of a social contract and what that does or doesn't entail ahead of time.

This is something to discuss in session zero.
and I mean that from all sides. What is okay for the GM/ST/DM to threaten in character's backstories, actions that are clearly linked to a PC's flaws that negatively effect the group, how to handle hidden information, the limits of PvP in THAT campaign. I'd really say this needs somewhere of 5-10 min discussion even if everyone things they are all on the same page. I recommend the DM writes a list of questions about it to run through during session zero just to make sure that players can think about what these norms you are setting up mean before they come up in game. and they should take notes if something does come up. I use a legal pad and put those pages in the front of my campaign binder so I can always reference them to make sure I stay in the ideas established for that particular game.

because it very much depends on the type of story being told. A WoD Vampire game about the loss or humanity, morality vs power, and political manipulation is going to be different than a heroic fantasy opera set in Ferun....both can be fun but both have different needs. And frankly in the first doing things that employ the character's flaws but hurt the party...is kinda part of the point and part of the fun. In the second they are much more often a limelight draw and disruptive.

As for the DM making all the players make orphans and outcasts...well that's just not rewarding the Players for the risks of connections. Such things should both boon and bane for them. But is a common thing trained into players and also...happy well adjusted people don't become adventurers is a good point.


but the weird thing is there are no rules that will always work to handle this sort of behavior. Sometimes the clearly telegraphing and allowing intervention is really helpful, sometimes it makes the threat seems hollow and turns the action into grandstanding and time wasting. It is unfortunately a matter of reading the room to a large extent.


it is mostly a matter of not using gameplay and the distance between the PC and player to allow for poor behavior between people (including the ST/GM/DM) at the table.

[Segev]

I'm afraid that solution doesn't offer nearly the same level of 'interesting gameplay' around character flaws as using the telegraphing technique.

How does it not?

[Cluedrew]

I'm afraid that solution doesn't offer nearly the same level of 'interesting gameplay' around character flaws as using the telegraphing technique.

Why would it need to? It's a strategy to avoid inter-player (not to be confused with inter-PC) conflict. Doesn't "interesting gameplay" just mean it has a chance of failure?

[Frogreaver]

Why would it need to? It's a strategy to avoid inter-player (not to be confused with inter-PC) conflict. Doesn't "interesting gameplay" just mean it has a chance of failure?

The party can come up with 100% successful solutions to dealing with the telegraphed flaw whether or not I as the player spell out the '100% successful' solution to it in my telegraphing. So the answer to your question is no.

[Cluedrew]

To Frogreaver: Sure, I can accept with practice and the right group you can get it to effectively 100%. There is the other question "Why would [the strategy] need to [present the as much interesting gameplay about character flaws]?" I mean if that is where you want to spend your flavour text you can but you made it seem like a much more universal problem than that. I would also like to repeat Segev's of "How is it not?" because it seems like all the same decisions (and challenges at 100% telegraph rate) are there. Yes there is more flavour text that you could probably make interesting but I wouldn't describe that as gameplay.

And then I launched into a whole thing about "well could you?" and I suppose if you considered just describing things to be a core part of the game - going really far into "storytelling game" territory here - it could. I don't know your role-playing style. Its that it or is it something else?

[Frogreaver]

To Frogreaver: Sure, I can accept with practice and the right group you can get it to effectively 100%. There is the other question

I kind of feel like your talking about 100% in relation to something different than I'm talking about. I only said there would be at least one solution that could grant 100% success - not that the party would always pick such a solution.

"Why would [the strategy] need to [present the as much interesting gameplay about character flaws]?" I mean if that is where you want to spend your flavour text you can but you made it seem like a much more universal problem than that.

The gameplay is having the other PC's geniunely interact with my PC. Telling them to 'mash button x to get what they want' short cuts out all the actual gameplay that happens there.

I would also like to repeat Segev's of "How is it not?" because it seems like all the same decisions (and challenges at 100% telegraph rate) are there. Yes there is more flavour text that you could probably make interesting but I wouldn't describe that as gameplay.

His question didn't make any sense to me. Your version didn't help any. I'm open to answering something I can actually understand but not something I can't make sense of.

And then I launched into a whole thing about "well could you?" and I suppose if you considered just describing things to be a core part of the game - going really far into "storytelling game" territory here - it could. I don't know your role-playing style. Its that it or is it something else?

It's not just describing. There's actions, reactions, abjucations and possibly even invoking of game mechanics when there's to much uncertainty to resolve the question of whether they succeed at preventing me from doing whatever.

I suppose an illustration probably will help the most. I had a Character named Needs-a-Hug, a trollkin Barbarian Rogue and the only front line fighter our party had. He had a few 'goofy' quirks but was a very serious character despite those quirks. One being that he was incredibly dumb and another being that he understood the word Hug to mean grab and stab. He also greatly valued protecting the party.

When there was a good opportunity to highlight his dumbness I would have him telegraph he was about to do something dumb like use all our money for a months supply of rations or 'hug' an NPC at a very inopportune time. The party could then try to intervene, most commonly by talking my PC out of it. A common theme was that I would give a very dumb justification for my actions and argue that I was right with my 'dumb' reasoning even when they tried to use logic to convince Needs-a-Hug. There were plenty of ways to solve the problem. Misdirect me. Come down to my level and give me a dumb argument supporting their position - which our Goblin Wizard eventually started being fairly adept at (often 100% no roll success). The point being I was open to any number of solutions to get me to change course of action, but I also was firmly committed to following through when they failed to stop me or didn't appear to care that I did so. You've also got to learn to really space out such incidents so that the campaign doesn't become all about you.

Everyone in our group very fondly remembers Needs-A-Hug as one of the least annoying and most party friendly and fun portrayals of a dumb PC they have seen and a good chunk of that can be attributed to proper foreshadowing such that the party had opportunities to intervene before I just did something that would cost them.

[Segev]

His question didn't make any sense to me. Your version didn't help any. I'm open to answering something I can actually understand but not something I can't make sense of.

I shall attempt to rephrase it, then, though I am unsure what was unclear about it:

How does what I proposed allow less "interesting gameplay" than what you termed "the telegraphed method?"

You stated one thing offers less interesting gameplay than the other. I asked for how it does so.

If that still doesn't make sense to you, could you please explain to me how I can make it make more sense?

[Cluedrew]

I kind of feel like your talking about 100% in relation to something different than I'm talking about. I only said there would be at least one solution that could grant 100% success - not that the party would always pick such a solution.

The chance of failure I was talking about is the chance that "the strategy to keep the character who would do something disruptive from doing that" fails. That should be at 100%, you can pile on cool stuff on top of that but that cannot make up for causing lasting problems in the campaign (or otherwise doing stuff the group, maybe including the player of this character, is not OK with them doing).

The descriptive solution does introduce a chance of failure/uncertainty in the outcome: "There's actions, reactions, abjucations and possibly even invoking of game mechanics when there's to much uncertainty to resolve the question of whether they succeed at preventing me from doing whatever." In situations where this isn't super-disruptive, say just an inconvenience, that's fine. But in other cases its not worth the risk.

Everything else I would say is follow-up to Segev's question. So yes, how does the more descriptive approach have more interesting game play than the other. Could you say more about what "interesting gameplay" is, what makes an interaction genuine and how do this strategies lead to differing amounts of interesting gameplay. If its confusing, just ask, its really hard to tell why someone hasn't replied to something if they don't say anything about it.

[Frogreaver]

I shall attempt to rephrase it, then, though I am unsure what was unclear about it:

How does what I proposed allow less "interesting gameplay" than what you termed "the telegraphed method?"

You stated one thing offers less interesting gameplay than the other. I asked for how it does so.

If that still doesn't make sense to you, could you please explain to me how I can make it make more sense?

Your version boils down to: you can do X to stop this negative event from occurring, who does X? That’s just not very interesting gameplay. If a DM ran a game this way we would call it railroading.

Contrast this with the more open ended. I’m about to do X negative thing. What do you do? This allows for skilled play to resolve the obstacle which is much more interesting from a gameplay perspective and the solutions it produces are also much more memorable.

The reason the question was confusing was because it’s quite difficult to answer questions that feel as if they are asking about the blindingly obvious.

[Segev]

Your version boils down to: you can do X to stop this negative event from occurring, who does X? That’s just not very interesting gameplay. If a DM ran a game this way we would call it railroading.

Contrast this with the more open ended. I’m about to do X negative thing. What do you do? This allows for skilled play to resolve the obstacle which is much more interesting from a gameplay perspective and the solutions it produces are also much more memorable.

The reason the question was confusing was because it’s quite difficult to answer questions that feel as if they are asking about the blindingly obvious.

THen you're reading something I didn't write. Well, fair enough, I did say "holds him back." My point was more, "Unless somebody stops him, my PC does X." This is little different than your "telegraph" method, other than it makes it clear what my PC is about to do so that there's no recrimination from other players for not giving them a clear enough warning. "I never expected you to actually hit him! I thought you were just threatening!"

I was advocating clear communication of intent and action. I also read into your "telegraphing" version that you might force mechanical confrontation over it, such that if the other players try "the wrong thing" to stop your PC, they may fail ensuing die rolls or what-have-you and you may do the thing anyway. Which brings us back to IC party conflict that we were actually trying to avoid.

What I recommend is permitting whatever the others deign to do to work to thwart your PC, unless you really can't see how it possibly could. I would further expand on this to recommend that, if they say, "Okay, my 3 inch tall pixie tries to hold back your eight foot tall barbarian's fist," and you think that's ridiculous, you work with the pixie's player to come up with something the pixie COULD do to stop him that is narratively satisfying.

[Frogreaver]

The chance of failure I was talking about is the chance that "the strategy to keep the character who would do something disruptive from doing that" fails. That should be at 100%, you can pile on cool stuff on top of that but that cannot make up for causing lasting problems in the campaign (or otherwise doing stuff the group, maybe including the player of this character, is not OK with them doing).

I disagree. It's enough to give them an opportunity to overcome the challenge. If they fail to do so then it's on them. I also want to add that the player shouldn't just make the odds nearly certain failure either. There should be many potential solutions. Some that outright succeed. Some that might require a roll. There should also be multiple attempts at a solution allowed. If the first party member fails and the 2nd jumps in then give him his shot as well. Overall the chance the party skillfully succeeds should be fairly high.

The descriptive solution does introduce a chance of failure/uncertainty in the outcome: "There's actions, reactions, abjucations and possibly even invoking of game mechanics when there's to much uncertainty to resolve the question of whether they succeed at preventing me from doing whatever." In situations where this isn't super-disruptive, say just an inconvenience, that's fine. But in other cases its not worth the risk.

If that's the kind of probability you are talking about then I don't disagree. I was saying that part of the key is to ensure you have many solutions that don't require any die rolling or chance - such that if the player figures out one of those good solutions then they have solved the challenged being presented.

Everything else I would say is follow-up to Segev's question. So yes, how does the more descriptive approach have more interesting game play than the other. Could you say more about what "interesting gameplay" is, what makes an interaction genuine and how do this strategies lead to differing amounts of interesting gameplay. If its confusing, just ask, its really hard to tell why someone hasn't replied to something if they don't say anything about it.

I think I just answered that. I'd love to hear why you think it isn't more interesting. If we are going to play 50 questions I want to ask some too ;)

THen you're reading something I didn't write. Well, fair enough, I did say "holds him back." My point was more, "Unless somebody stops him, my PC does X." This is little different than your "telegraph" method, other than it makes it clear what my PC is about to do so that there's no recrimination from other players for not giving them a clear enough warning. "I never expected you to actually hit him! I thought you were just threatening!"

That's fair. My bad for misunderstanding you. If that's all you mean then I would call that telegraphing. The key point is the other players understand you intend to actually hit the NPC if they don't intervene. I have no real horse in the game over whether you make that clear explicitly or a bit slightly less explicitly (depending on your table). I prefer a little less explicit as it feels more natural - but it's also always been clear to the other players what I mean even when not explicitly stating that. In this case you are likely right that being explicit is probably the better route.

I was advocating clear communication of intent and action. I also read into your "telegraphing" version that you might force mechanical confrontation over it, such that if the other players try "the wrong thing" to stop your PC, they may fail ensuing die rolls or what-have-you and you may do the thing anyway. Which brings us back to IC party conflict that we were actually trying to avoid.

I understand now and I would agree. I was arguing against something that wasn't actually your position. Again, my bad.

What I recommend is permitting whatever the others deign to do to work to thwart your PC, unless you really can't see how it possibly could. I would further expand on this to recommend that, if they say, "Okay, my 3 inch tall pixie tries to hold back your eight foot tall barbarian's fist," and you think that's ridiculous, you work with the pixie's player to come up with something the pixie COULD do to stop him that is narratively satisfying.

I think over time there's a good back and forth that can develop from this - such that you don't necessarily accept the first response but don't necessarily outright hit the guy because you don't and so open yourself up to a second response etc. But overall I agree that yes, to some degree you should be very open to plausible solutions - especially ones that play into your other traits.

It's much more pleasant for the group to play with the barbarian that wants to but can be deterred from punching NPCs in the face than one that just punches them in the face with no warning. And if they ever fail to stop you from punching the NPC in the face and can name off a few different ways they could have successfully stopped you, then many players will accept it as their bad play that contributed to the NPC getting punched and be less mad at you. It also is necessary that the DM doesn't treat it as an outright death sentence for the few times it may happen.

[Quertus]

I find the solution to this dillema is telegraphing your 'negative' actions such that your party can intervene in them for better outcomes. If you are doing that and being fair about their chances of success then playing a character that will take non-optimal actions can be quite fun for the group.

As an example: Instead of saying my hot temptered PC just punches the jerk NPC in the face. You might instead describe, my character tenses up and looks agitated like he is getting ready to punch the NPC in the face. You've added a complication that the party can interact with and overcome. They can talk you out of it, physically restrain you so you cannot, magically teleport you away, intelligently divert your attention to something else, acrobatically slide their PC so that they are between the you and the NPC. Etc.

That's typically much more interesting and appealing gameplay than just punching the jerk NPC in the face and in neither case was your PC unable to act how you wanted him to act. #Telegraphing is for PC's too

The party can come up with 100% successful solutions to dealing with the telegraphed flaw whether or not I as the player spell out the '100% successful' solution to it in my telegraphing. So the answer to your question is no.

Your version boils down to: you can do X to stop this negative event from occurring, who does X? That’s just not very interesting gameplay. If a DM ran a game this way we would call it railroading.

Contrast this with the more open ended. I’m about to do X negative thing. What do you do? This allows for skilled play to resolve the obstacle which is much more interesting from a gameplay perspective and the solutions it produces are also much more memorable.

The reason the question was confusing was because it’s quite difficult to answer questions that feel as if they are asking about the blindingly obvious.

Just wanted to say that I agree with most / all of this.

I play MtG; I believe in interrupts. So I go one step further: to me, "I punch the NPC in the face" is *equally* engaging gameplay, because another player can interrupt with "wait!"

Then, as a player, I could it OOC, I could say, "I don't want that <because reason>". Or I could address it IC, with something like, "Sense Motive to see it coming? What to intercept? Initiative? Opposed attack roll? (Or even Diplomacy?)". (This is more a "it's what my character would do" response, where I don't personally find either result verboten)

If we're going OOC, I could ask, "what if my character tried to stop you?" But I could also ask, "what if my character screamed 'Orcs!' or 'fire!'?, "What if my character suddenly punched themselves in the face or set themselves on fire", "what if my character suddenly kissed the NPC?" Or even, "what if my character suddenly kissed your character?"

There's much more interesting options than just, "do you do X, yes/no?". Which I think is what you are saying. And I agree. Leading questions, "do you do X, yes/no?" is boring, saps creativity, and borders on feeling like a railroading mindset.

But I find that telegraphing negative actions only works when you *know* that the action is "negative", whereas instilling the "interrupt" mindset works even when you don't know that someone might object.

[NichG]

It seems like there's two separate things here, and hiding one behind the other could cause problems.

Yes, telling other players how to stop you may not be interesting gameplay, but it may be that the action you're initiating is one which is unacceptable for OOC reasons rather than IC reasons. So you end up requiring IC gameplay in order for the other players to get what they, OOC, want. If the behavior breaks the OOC social contract at the table, adding an IC mechanism that requires other players to solve a puzzle to stop it isn't appropriate, even if it could be successful.

E.g. if a GM had a player who said 'I hate spiders, I don't want to play in a game that features spiders' and agreed to that, but then put a powerful treasure in the middle of a clearly web-strewn forest, then the player could 100% of the time avoid the spiders by choosing not to go into the forest, but the GM isn't really respecting their request in that case. Especially if other pressures in the game suggest that going without that particular treasure is going to make things very difficult elsewhere.

I guess there are various levels to consider, which get more and more problematic.

Level 0, 'My PC doesn't initiate the taboo action' - no fault.

Level 1, 'My PC attempts the taboo action, but can be stopped by the other PCs by doing X' - only fault for actions where the whiff of the action violates the social contract or when the stopping action is presumptive. E.g. fault if the taboo action is something like a trigger for a player at the table. Also fault if X is unreasonable for the other PCs' characterization or is exploitative. For example 'My PC will try to punch the NPC, but you can bribe him 1000gp to stop the behavior' or 'My PC will try to punch the NPC, but if another PC bows down and calls him PC-sama, he'll get distracted and let it pass'.

Level 2, 'My PC attempts the taboo action, I'm giving you a heads up to try to stop it' - fault whenever the reason the action is taboo is for OOC considerations. If you've promised something, others shouldn't have to play a game in order to win from you what you've already promised them. Reduces fault or workable compromise if the reason it's taboo is grounded in IC stuff but has second-order OOC consequences with respect to agency. E.g. this might be fine as a compromise if player X wants to be able to do stuff without worrying about discussing it in committee, but player Y doesn't want to lose the chance to be thoughtful about a situation. So player X could say 'If no one comes up with anything better, I'm declaring that my character is pushing the big red button at the end of this round, and I'm going to withdraw from the debate now', which means that player Y still gets to have the chance to do something else, but player X is making it clear that they're not interested in having their own character's actions decided by committee. It's an OOC consideration, but it's not that pushing big red buttons is taboo, it's e.g. an OOC consideration that being the fastest to speak (real life initiative) shouldn't determine who has more agency at the table.

Level 3, 'My PC does the taboo action'. Baseline fault case.

Tl;dr - 'whether or not it makes for more interesting gameplay' isn't an argument on the same level as considerations of the social contract.

[Kraynic]

It's enough to give them an opportunity to overcome the challenge. If they fail to do so then it's on them.

If no one made a character that is interested in being a babysitter for your character, is that also "on them"? Why is is ok for you to decide that everyone must interact with your character in certain ways to keep from having multiple situations in the game be wrecked, but not ok for others to not be interested in playing their characters to cater to the way you have built your character?

I have at times played characters that would probably fit well in that role, but others definitely would not. Why would it be "on me" for not creating a character that would keep yours from wrecking the game? This just boggles my mind. Maybe it is because I deal with enough stuff like that in daily life that I have no interest in carrying it over into my gaming. If I (or any player) needs to create a character to play chaperone to yours, that should come up in character creation, or at least early enough for one to decide if this even a group dynamic that is worth participating in... and be able to opt out of by not participating to begin with.

[OldTrees1]

Level 0, 'My PC doesn't initiate the taboo action'
Level 1, 'My PC attempts the taboo action, but can be stopped by the other PCs by doing X'
Level 2, 'My PC attempts the taboo action, I'm giving you a heads up to try to stop it'
Level 3, 'My PC does the taboo action'.

That gives levels for the amount of forewarning given. Some other considerations are:

How well known / understood is the taboo?
Did they know that was taboo? Did anyone know it was taboo?

Is the taboo disputed? Is it a meaningful dispute?
1 person with a reasonable/unreasonable objection? The majority with a reasonable/unreasonable objection?

How negotiable is the action OOC?
Once the players realize there is a conflict, are they open to discussion, or are they just fighting?

And of course miscommunication about what is being chosen. "Player A:Wants my PC to do action X" "Player B: Thinks action Y is taboo" "DM: Hears the PC doing action Z". For example "I light the tavern on fire". The DM hears setting fire to the support beams. Player B objects to slaughtering innocent people. Player A wanted to scare away a hostile NPC.

[Cluedrew]

I think I just answered that. I'd love to hear why you think it isn't more interesting. If we are going to play 50 questions I want to ask some too ;)

Of course, all you have to do is ask. Admittedly the answer is kind of boring: I don't. I had never actually thought to compare the two strategies in this way before and even after you brought it up I was focusing on a different issue. I will be getting it to later don't let the fact it isn't first distract you from it. But to avoid a complete non-answer to your question I will first answer: "Why isn't it obvious that this is more interesting?"

I think the underlying question/situation is the same in both situations. The only difference is how explicitly it is presented, all the same options are available. In-character there could very well be no difference. I haven't actually run through this in enough detail to be sure but it seems reasonable and it would mean the actual gameplay here is identical.

Just wanted to say that I agree with most / all of this.

An odd benefit of all the long discussions I have had with you: Everything Frogreaver said made more sense when you said this. Not that you two are identical, but I'll have to have more discussions with Frogreaver to know enough about them.

Still I don't think a suggested solution removes the possibility of another solution being proposed. If there is an implicate interrupt there is an implicate "none of the above".

It seems like there's two separate things here, and hiding one behind the other could cause problems. [...] 'whether or not it makes for more interesting gameplay' isn't an argument on the same level as considerations of the social contract.

Yes, that is what I'm trying to get at. Actually maybe I should have completely stopped talking about the second issue while I cleared that up.

The other issue with level 2 is "What if no one can stop you but they still don't want you to do it?"

[Frogreaver]

Just wanted to say that I agree with most / all of this.

I play MtG; I believe in interrupts. So I go one step further: to me, "I punch the NPC in the face" is *equally* engaging gameplay, because another player can interrupt with "wait!"

First of all thanks.

If your group finds interrupts to work better for this then great. I personally don't find they do. Keep in mind interrupts are always going to be a thing in D&D play because there isn't a pause before every fictional change to check and see what all the players are doing. So sometimes the only way to get your action in the fictional frame it needs to be in is to say 'wait'. But in this scenario of a player created obstacle that we know the other players will want to intervene in then a preplanned pause to serve the same function as that 'wait' does everything the 'wait' does with none of the downsides of interrupting via 'wait'. It also adds Drama. And perhaps more importantly, because yelling 'wait' has a much greater chance of failure if the player is a bit slow in their declaration and the DM is a bit fast in action resolution it's another saftey net at our disposal to avoid screwing over the other players due to our characters flaws. And that's why I personally find having the foreshadowing followed by a pause for action attempts to work better for my group.

Then, as a player, I could it OOC, I could say, "I don't want that <because reason>". Or I could address it IC, with something like, "Sense Motive to see it coming? What to intercept? Initiative? Opposed attack roll? (Or even Diplomacy?)". (This is more a "it's what my character would do" response, where I don't personally find either result verboten)

I'm not quite following this section but the rest makes sense so maybe it's fairly minor.

If we're going OOC, I could ask, "what if my character tried to stop you?" But I could also ask, "what if my character screamed 'Orcs!' or 'fire!'?, "What if my character suddenly punched themselves in the face or set themselves on fire", "what if my character suddenly kissed the NPC?" Or even, "what if my character suddenly kissed your character?"

There's much more interesting options than just, "do you do X, yes/no?". Which I think is what you are saying. And I agree. Leading questions, "do you do X, yes/no?" is boring, saps creativity, and borders on feeling like a railroading mindset.

Exactly.

But I find that telegraphing negative actions only works when you *know* that the action is "negative", whereas instilling the "interrupt" mindset works even when you don't know that someone might object.

I think all D&D play requires interrupts to some degree. So I don't really see it as being a different mindset. The only difference is insisting on using a rudimentary tool when we are in a circumstance that a more specialized tool will work better.

It seems like there's two separate things here, and hiding one behind the other could cause problems.

Yes, telling other players how to stop you may not be interesting gameplay, but it may be that the action you're initiating is one which is unacceptable for OOC reasons rather than IC reasons. So you end up requiring IC gameplay in order for the other players to get what they, OOC, want. If the behavior breaks the OOC social contract at the table, adding an IC mechanism that requires other players to solve a puzzle to stop it isn't appropriate, even if it could be successful.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. No one is suggesting to make a character with a flaw that playing out will violate the groups social contract. If that's happening then make a character with a flaw that won't violate the social contract.

Instead what is being suggested is that many groups don't actually view playing out flaws as violating the social contract - they just view doing so in aggravating, annoying ways that the other PC's have no ability to interact with and stop to be a violation of the social contract.

E.g. if a GM had a player who said 'I hate spiders, I don't want to play in a game that features spiders' and agreed to that, but then put a powerful treasure in the middle of a clearly web-strewn forest, then the player could 100% of the time avoid the spiders by choosing not to go into the forest, but the GM isn't really respecting their request in that case. Especially if other pressures in the game suggest that going without that particular treasure is going to make things very difficult elsewhere.

Sure. I'd just add that suggesting a proposed solution won't work because it will violate their social contract when there's no evidence that is actually the case comes off just a tad prickly.

I guess there are various levels to consider, which get more and more problematic.

Level 0, 'My PC doesn't initiate the taboo action' - no fault.

Level 1, 'My PC attempts the taboo action, but can be stopped by the other PCs by doing X' - only fault for actions where the whiff of the action violates the social contract or when the stopping action is presumptive. E.g. fault if the taboo action is something like a trigger for a player at the table. Also fault if X is unreasonable for the other PCs' characterization or is exploitative. For example 'My PC will try to punch the NPC, but you can bribe him 1000gp to stop the behavior' or 'My PC will try to punch the NPC, but if another PC bows down and calls him PC-sama, he'll get distracted and let it pass'.

Level 2, 'My PC attempts the taboo action, I'm giving you a heads up to try to stop it' - fault whenever the reason the action is taboo is for OOC considerations. If you've promised something, others shouldn't have to play a game in order to win from you what you've already promised them. Reduces fault or workable compromise if the reason it's taboo is grounded in IC stuff but has second-order OOC consequences with respect to agency. E.g. this might be fine as a compromise if player X wants to be able to do stuff without worrying about discussing it in committee, but player Y doesn't want to lose the chance to be thoughtful about a situation. So player X could say 'If no one comes up with anything better, I'm declaring that my character is pushing the big red button at the end of this round, and I'm going to withdraw from the debate now', which means that player Y still gets to have the chance to do something else, but player X is making it clear that they're not interested in having their own character's actions decided by committee. It's an OOC consideration, but it's not that pushing big red buttons is taboo, it's e.g. an OOC consideration that being the fastest to speak (real life initiative) shouldn't determine who has more agency at the table.

Level 3, 'My PC does the taboo action'. Baseline fault case.

Tl;dr - 'whether or not it makes for more interesting gameplay' isn't an argument on the same level as considerations of the social contract.

I don't buy into that hierarchy. Most social contracts are compromise heavy as any group agreed to contract normally is. As such the most common social contracts are ones where the group desires not to be screwed over by your PC with no recourse and ones where players are free to roleplay their PC's more or less as they see fit. The least problematic option for that kind of a social contract is what you've termed Level 2. Followed by level 1. The worst are level 3 or level 0 and depending on the group level 3 or 0 would be the worstest.

If no one made a character that is interested in being a babysitter for your character, is that also "on them"?

Fictionally they aren't baby sitting my character. They are trying to save their own skins. A better question might be why their characters would adventure with mine. Presumably the answer is that I'm not actually engaging this flaw that often at critical moments and that overall this character adds alot more value to the party than his flaws devalue it. Though really the question isn't so much one about fiction as any justification can be imagined. The other PC's feel indebted to him, or sorry for him or they promised to stick together when they escaped prison together, etc etc etc.

The real question though is why would the players want this character along. It's because he's fun and entertaining to have around and isn't being played in such a way to overly drag down the party. And believe me, those characteristics matter far more than anything else.

I think part of the problem here is that you are imagining this style being done annoying and badly when it doesn't have to be done that way. It's a balancing act. You back off when getting too much spotlight. You back off when the moment is too critical to risk a screw up. You don't do the behavior all the time 24/7. You bring it out when it's fun and entertaining for the group to do so and you do have read the group on whether they are enjoying it or if it's too much at the moment.

Why is is ok for you to decide that everyone must interact with your character in certain ways to keep from having multiple situations in the game be wrecked, but not ok for others to not be interested in playing their characters to cater to the way you have built your character?

Again, you are imagining bad forced behavior when that's not what I'm advocating for at all. No one is being forced into anything.

If your group hasn't mastered the art of letting players design their characters personality and compromising enough that you all will actually play with each others characters I'm really not sure what to say. Them's pretty much the basics.

I have at times played characters that would probably fit well in that role, but others definitely would not. Why would it be "on me" for not creating a character that would keep yours from wrecking the game? This just boggles my mind. Maybe it is because I deal with enough stuff like that in daily life that I have no interest in carrying it over into my gaming. If I (or any player) needs to create a character to play chaperone to yours, that should come up in character creation, or at least early enough for one to decide if this even a group dynamic that is worth participating in... and be able to opt out of by not participating to begin with.

Here again, you assume things that simply aren't true. Nothing you are saying or assuming here is how this actually works. Maybe you were jaded by players that were clueless about how to actually make it work and failed badly at it.

But getting back to the basics. You make whatever character and play him however you want. Everyone at the table does. We work out a reason we are together as a group. It's not a hard concept. So if you don't wish to intervene then don't. Someone else will. Or they won't. Whatever is okay.

The other issue with level 2 is "What if no one can stop you but they still don't want you to do it?"

I think it would be a failure on your part long before you get to that position. You choose what stops you and you should be able to read your group well enough to know if they are okay with failure at this point. It's nearly impossible that something they did wouldn't plausibly stop you and so you really never should be getting to this kind of a point as you could have simply let that be the thing that stopped you.

Of course if the group is okay with failure then I'd say you can be a bit more particular about what stops you and if they fail then they fail. Which is more how I'd describe my group.

[Cluedrew]

It's nearly impossible that something they did wouldn't plausibly stop you and so you really never should be getting to this kind of a point as you could have simply let that be the thing that stopped you.

Well nearly impossible is still entirely possible so I is something I would still keep tucked away just in case.

[Segev]

To carry things out to the "nearly impossible" state, let's say Fum the Ogre Barbarian is, in character, absolutely going to punch the NPC in the face, and that this is something the party knows is a terrible idea and that would disrupt everyone else's fun. The only PC anywhere near able to get physically involved before the action would believably resolve is Flit the Pixie, who is less than a foot tall and has no strength score to speak of.

Obviously, Flit isn't going to "hold back" Fum. But a possibly valid approach would be for Flit to fly in front of Fum's cocked fist or the NPC's face, interposing himself and holding out his little arms and legs as a shield. No, this wouldn't have a chance of physically halting Fum's punch, but Flit being Fum's friend and not somebody Fum wants to hurt could motivate Fum to pull his punch, stopping before he hits Flit (and thus not hitting the NPC).

This is an example of coming up with a way that the other PCs can, in character, stop the OOC social contract violation that it would be hard for Fum, alone, to honor without breaking character.