What if it IS what my character would do?

[Frogreaver]

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.

Sure but also there are countless other solutions. Distract Fum via some physical or illusory phenomenon (throw a rock at him, use a cantrip to cause some other phenomenon), one could talk to him and trick him into believing that NPC is a friend or any other fact that might reasonably prevent the punch or my person favorite, promise him a pet rock if he doesn’t punch the guy (plays into the dumbness). I think it’s important to point that out.

The only real reason the party fails at stopping Fum is if Fums players says so (pixie trying to hold him back territory) or the party does nothing. Both of which are avoidable.

[KaussH]

Sure but also there are countless other solutions. Distract Fum via some physical or illusory phenomenon (throw a rock at him, use a cantrip to cause some other phenomenon), one could talk to him and trick him into believing that NPC is a friend or any other fact that might reasonably prevent the punch or my person favorite, promise him a pet rock if he doesn’t punch the guy (plays into the dumbness). I think it’s important to point that out.

The only real reason the party fails at stopping Fum is if Fums players says so (pixie trying to hold him back territory) or the party does nothing. Both of which are avoidable.

Or.. or, we can just let Fum hit the guy....
See i am still not sold that doing a bad thing in game is bad for the game. People do stupid things in the real world all the time, and the real world keeps being real and working.

Telegraphing is nice, and if the pc just wants the inter party byplay of being stoped/reasoned with/ect that is fine. But a lot of the "flaws and bad ideas" in this thread seem more like " i want my game to go perfectly smoothly and anyone else disrupting that is bad." Than actual issues. Also keep in mind, the gm has a lot of pull with the npcs and plot to make sure game isnt "ruined".

My point being, mayhap we need to spend more time letting charictered being flawed and less time telling players they cant make " that kinda charicter" as it might change things a bit.

[kyoryu]

The only real reason the party fails at stopping Fum is if Fums players says so (pixie trying to hold him back territory) or the party does nothing. Both of which are avoidable.

Right. in the situation where Fum really really would do the Bad Thing, and there's really no other way to imagine it, but Fum's player really really doesn't want to do that, Fum's player should be actively looking for an excuse not to. And the rest of the party should happily provide it.

Most of the failures I see in this happen due to people assuming things happen at the "speed of declaration", that is, once you've declared an action, you've done it. "I punch the NPC" doesn't mean the NPC is punched unless you're standing right in its face anyway. You've gotta walk over there, probably shout something, etc. Even if you are right there, there's plenty of opportunity for someone to see you pulling your fist back and stop you. If you're looking for an excuse not to do something, you can almost always find it.

[Darth Credence]

Isn't the correct answer to a player saying "I punch NPC in the face", to roll for initiative? Not necessarily in the home brew, but in most published TTRPGs? That would take care of the issue of others attempting to stop them - if they come up higher in the initiative, they can, but if they come up lower, well, sometimes the person surprises everyone and punches someone's face.

[Segev]

Isn't the correct answer to a player saying "I punch NPC in the face", to roll for initiative? Not necessarily in the home brew, but in most published TTRPGs? That would take care of the issue of others attempting to stop them - if they come up higher in the initiative, they can, but if they come up lower, well, sometimes the person surprises everyone and punches someone's face.

The point you're missing is that the players don't WANT to start a combat, and the player of the character who would, IC, punch the NPC in the face is, ideally, not deliberately engaging in scene-ruining behavior. To avoid having to choose between playing against character and playing in a table-unfriendly way, the discussion of how the other PCs can prevent him from wrecking the scene while he still acts in character comes up.

If you're rolling initiative and the other PCs need to mechanically succeed to stop him and the other NPCs might roll higher initiative and start combat on their own side, it can wreck the scene even though none of the players want it to.

[NichG]

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.

The 'it's what my character would do' is an OOC defense of action. It's never necessary to say that as a defense if the group is actually okay with the resolving the action IC. The problem is that the person is putting considerations of 'playing the character' above a higher tier of consideration 'obeying the social contract'.
'You're complaining OOC, so I'll give you a chance to stop this, but you have to figure out how - it'll be better gameplay that way' is making a similar error. It's putting considerations of 'this gameplay seems like it would be interesting' above a higher tier of consideration 'obeying the social contract'.

Or maybe to give a martial arts example, one of the first things you're taught is to respect someone tapping out and not mess around with it. If someone triple-taps the mat you stop immediately regardless of what you think is happening in the situation or what you think you're currently doing. It might be overkill, but having an equivalent kind of tapping out for a tabletop game could make sense in a group where this kind of thing is a frequent issue. If you triple-tap, gameplay hard-stops, all IC considerations hard-stop, and you just have a discussion about what's wrong without players trying to be clever or evasive or trying to win an argument.

[Quertus]

So, this is complicated. Because people keep talking in terms of "violating the social contract", which is quite the red herring - doubly so, in fact.

Talking about the social contract makes it sound like it should be obvious when someone's actions would be problematic. But, in practice, that isn't always the case. Going with the current example, how likely is it that "don't punch this NPC in the face" is in the social contract? It isn't. "Don't ruin the fun of others" may be in there - but how is a player to know whether the other players will find things more fun with or without their fist in this NPCs face? Or with or without the threat of their first in this NPCs face? Plenty of groups *like* having PCs *cause* problems, they find that *fun* (I, personally, am strongly *not* in that camp, btw). And, sometimes, certain actions (like "kill the bad guys"), which would *normally* be OK - and even expected - are, in *this* case, under these circumstances, problematic.

This is why a culture of interrupts, of "wait! I know that that's not fun for me!" is superior to a culture of hubris "I know what's best for everyone". And, yes, that culture requires the GM to read the room, to not be quick on the draw in adjudicating actions (especially if they involve big reveals, or are otherwise not trivial to retcon).

The other reason talk of the social contract is a red herring is that things can come up that aren't covered by the social contract - nobody knew that Bob was afraid of spiders until the giant spider mini hit the board (not even Bob). If you're stuck thinking inside the box of the social contract, you can justify horrors that more agile minds would avoid.

Thus, I say unto you, be excellent to one another, and party on dudes!

When the Ogre wants to throw a punch, and the *players* want the pixie to stop him, it's a good time for "wait!", and to have an OOC conversation about it, to see what everyone will accept as a fun solution to the potential problem.

First of all thanks.

You're welcome. Glad I can help

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.

Glad I can help you, too.

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.

This does bring up a weakness of both "social contract" and "interrupt" tech: the player can propose a legal action, and the GM can misinterpret it as an illegal action. (Or the acting player can misinterpret the scene such that they don't realize that their intended action is illegal, or the affected player can misinterpret an illegal action as legal until after the GM adjudicates it, or…).

I think that "retcon" is the only tech that can actually successfully handle this class of error.

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".

This is basic human psychology - proposing one specific solution taints the well. Much like having OOC information, or presenting a false dichotomy, or shopping channel "price markdowns", or numerous other things do.

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

Eh, you'll get used to not following me

"This section" is pointing out how "interrupt" tech can also be used to deal with a separate but related problem - when the *player* doesn't care, but stopping (or attempting to stop) the other character is "what my character would do". When a chest bursts open, and the McGuffin bursts out, is it just "whoever speaks first grabs it", or does everyone get a chance to declare actions?

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.

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.

Yes, that is a specialized tool. If I had a brand new player, I would rather first teach them one generalized tool than dozens of specialized tools.

Your specialized tool has the drawback of "tainting the (idea) well", and thus wouldn't be appropriate for many of my tables. In fact, IME, at least one of my players would be intimidated by you setting a specific response, and wouldn't volunteer their own solution (they were the one I was imitating when I suggested "kisses" as a solution).

And, as you admitted, your tool requires you to read the room, *and* know that what you're doing is potentially problematic. Fail either of those rolls, and it's not pretty.

I'm sure I sound pretty negative. That's because you *already know* exactly how well your tool works. And I agree with you. But I'm trying to make sure you also understand the ways in which it is not a perfect tool.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Something to consider: it's never actually "this is what my character would do," it's always "this is what my character could do".

Characters aren't mouse traps, they aren't robots with very simple programming. They're acting like people. People are complicated. People have lots of motivations and variations in behavior, and people have priorities.

You always have more than one way to respond to a situation, and you can have a lot of fun with characters wrestling with an impulse that's at odds with keeping the heroes out of deep danger, then finding safer ways to indulge that impulse that won't be so disruptive. A character who's literally so one note that they immediately take their one character trait to an extreme whenever there's an opportunity isn't a character, it's a caricature. And it's not cool to sacrifice the fun of the table just for the sake of being dedicated to a caricature.

It's important to consider that caricatures come from the comedy genre, a genre where consequences are light. In a comedy world, the barbarian punching the shop keeper is slapstick, it carries no significant consequences. In a game that doesn't have those assumptions, it's problematic.

But, in a game that isn't running on comedy logic and one dimensional characters, you always have options when you're reacting to a situation.

[Quertus]

Isn't the correct answer to a player saying "I punch NPC in the face", to roll for initiative? Not necessarily in the home brew, but in most published TTRPGs? That would take care of the issue of others attempting to stop them - if they come up higher in the initiative, they can, but if they come up lower, well, sometimes the person surprises everyone and punches someone's face.

The point you're missing is that the players don't WANT to start a combat, and the player of the character who would, IC, punch the NPC in the face is, ideally, not deliberately engaging in scene-ruining behavior. To avoid having to choose between playing against character and playing in a table-unfriendly way, the discussion of how the other PCs can prevent him from wrecking the scene while he still acts in character comes up.

If you're rolling initiative and the other PCs need to mechanically succeed to stop him and the other NPCs might roll higher initiative and start combat on their own side, it can wreck the scene even though none of the players want it to.

If I want my character to (attempt to) stop them, because "it's what my character would do", then, yes, "roll for initiative" is a fine answer.

If everyone knows that this course of action will make the game unfun for everyone? No, we probably don't want to leave the fun of the game to fickle Arangee. OOC discussion, with the possibility of retcon, is the order of the day here.

The 'it's what my character would do' is an OOC defense of action. It's never necessary to say that as a defense if the group is actually okay with the resolving the action IC. The problem is that the person is putting considerations of 'playing the character' above a higher tier of consideration 'obeying the social contract'.
'You're complaining OOC, so I'll give you a chance to stop this, but you have to figure out how - it'll be better gameplay that way' is making a similar error. It's putting considerations of 'this gameplay seems like it would be interesting' above a higher tier of consideration 'obeying the social contract'.

Or maybe to give a martial arts example, one of the first things you're taught is to respect someone tapping out and not mess around with it. If someone triple-taps the mat you stop immediately regardless of what you think is happening in the situation or what you think you're currently doing. It might be overkill, but having an equivalent kind of tapping out for a tabletop game could make sense in a group where this kind of thing is a frequent issue. If you triple-tap, gameplay hard-stops, all IC considerations hard-stop, and you just have a discussion about what's wrong without players trying to be clever or evasive or trying to win an argument.

I agree with the second half of what you said, but not the first.

And I think I see why.

I think you are treating "it's what my character would do" solely as reserved words, as defined game mechanics, whereas I am treating them as ambiguous Elfish¹.

So, no, I don't consider "it's what my character would do" to indicate or necessitate that "the person is putting considerations of 'playing the character' above a higher tier of consideration 'obeying the social contract'."

Makes me wonder how much this disconnect had affected other people in this thread, too.

¹ that was obviously supposed to be "English", darn autocorrect, but it's funny, so I'm leaving it.

[Segev]

If I want my character to (attempt to) stop them, because "it's what my character would do", then, yes, "roll for initiative" is a fine answer.

If everyone knows that this course of action will make the game unfun for everyone? No, we probably don't want to leave the fun of the game to fickle Arangee. OOC discussion, with the possibility of retcon, is the order of the day here.

The bolded part is what I've been advocating, and in exactly the situation you're advocating it. The precondition of knowing the course of action will be unfun, but it really is the only thing the player can think of his character doing in that situation, is assumed by the premise. Hence, I believe we're in agreement.

[Satinavian]

The 'it's what my character would do' is an OOC defense of action. It's never necessary to say that as a defense if the group is actually okay with the resolving the action IC. The problem is that the person is putting considerations of 'playing the character' above a higher tier of consideration 'obeying the social contract'.
'You're complaining OOC, so I'll give you a chance to stop this, but you have to figure out how - it'll be better gameplay that way' is making a similar error. It's putting considerations of 'this gameplay seems like it would be interesting' above a higher tier of consideration 'obeying the social contract'.

Your presuming that the action would violate the social contract. That is not a good assumption. Most of the games i played, worked by "the player alone gets to decide what their characters does (attempt to do) and feels" as significant part of the social contract.

Insofar "It is what my character would do" (without bothering to actually explain why) often really means "That is my decision and not yours to question as per the social contract of this table. I don't need to explain or justify it. You are out of line", but is a nicer way to say so.

[kyoryu]

The fundamental social contract, above all others, is this (for most games, but not all)

1) The party will stick together, because that's the game
2) The members of the party will do things that enable the first part to happen

Really, that's it. The issue becomes when people ignore point #2, presuming that they're protected by point #1. It doesn't need to be some long, drawn out contract, and probably shouldn't be.

But if you're about to do something that would, minus point #1, likely get you booted from the party? Don't. And err on the side of not doing it, if you're not sure. And if you're still not sure, think about asking.

And, yeah, if you still end up crossing a boundary? OOC discussion and retcon are the final fix for those issues. it's better if you can avoid them up front, of course, but that will never be 100%.

[NichG]

I think you are treating "it's what my character would do" solely as reserved words, as defined game mechanics, whereas I am treating them as ambiguous Elfish¹.

So, no, I don't consider "it's what my character would do" to indicate or necessitate that "the person is putting considerations of 'playing the character' above a higher tier of consideration 'obeying the social contract'."

Your presuming that the action would violate the social contract. That is not a good assumption. Most of the games i played, worked by "the player alone gets to decide what their characters does (attempt to do) and feels" as significant part of the social contract.

Insofar "It is what my character would do" (without bothering to actually explain why) often really means "That is my decision and not yours to question as per the social contract of this table. I don't need to explain or justify it. You are out of line", but is a nicer way to say so.

I am assuming that the phrase comes up in a context where it makes sense that it comes up. That is to say, someone is saying it purposefully, and I'm restricting my thinking to situations in which someone would be prompted to say it.Then I'm getting at why someone would say it, or more importantly why they would think that saying it would resolve a particular disagreement or situation at the table.

The phrase is a response to a challenge. If you just say it in a void, it'd be a non-sequitur. So the issue is, what kind of challenge prompts that phrase, and what does the phrase say about how the person speaking it is thinking about that challenge?

Lets say Bob is playing Fyolor the Dwarf and Jane is playing Heldo the Halfling; Fyolor punches an NPC in character.

- If Jane doesn't do anything, nor does she have Heldo do something in response, then Bob saying 'it's what my character would do' is a non-sequitur, because no explanation was warranted and there's no IC or OOC objection taking place.

- If Jane has Heldo ask 'hey, why did you do that?'. If Bob says 'it's what my character would do' then Bob is misunderstanding the level of the objection. There's no need for it, because the question was IC. And because the question was IC, it doesn't answer that question.

- If Heldo says 'Hey, I wanted to talk with that guy and make friends, and now I can't!', then its a non-sequitur again because it's an IC objection, and the response is OOC.

- If Jane says 'Hey, why did you do that?', then 'its what my character would do' is an unhelpful response. It's like responding to 'why did you do that?' with 'I did it because of the reason why I did it'. It indicates a lack of understanding of what Jane is asking for.

- If Jane says 'Hey, I wanted to talk with that guy and make friends, and now I can't!', then it's an excuse which implies a values position that 'me having Fyolor do what I think he would do is more important than or at the same level as you getting to try to make friends with that NPC'. However, it's disingenuous because it doesn't outright state that that's what the player believes the proper hierarchy of values at the table is, it tries to goad the other person into accepting that hierarchy of values implicitly.

The implicit thing is what is problematic, because it exploits the fact that most people are not going to think this deeply on things or spend weeks debating it, and are just going to give a knee-jerk reaction.

What is better would be for Bob to say 'That is the action that I wanted Fyodor to take' or even better 'I understood that action to be my decision to make'. Saying 'I don't believe I need to justify that' is much better than trying to hide the real reason. That is to say, actually own the decision and don't try to excuse it if that's what you really believe. Then, if there's a mismatch in expectations, there can be a discussion about what exactly the social contract is and whether that overstepped. But saying 'It's what my character would do' is like starting an argument out with 'Well of course any reasonable person would agree ...'

[Kraynic]

Fictionally they aren't baby sitting my character. They are trying to save their own skins.

Ok, I'm not sure that is helping your case any. Again, why should people other than the person that came up with this character think that this is great fun? At no point has this sounded like great fun or engaging play to me.

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.

If you aren't engaging this flaw at critical moments, then it doesn't matter if players bother with it. But that doesn't really line up with the statement "It's enough to give them an opportunity to overcome the challenge. If they fail to do so then it's on them." To me, that statement implies that this flaw is fully intended to come up at crucial moments that will definitely hurt the party or other characters if it is not countered.

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.

Yeah, I don't see why the group would want this character along. Maybe because, so far, none of this sounds at all fun and entertaining.

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.

Ok. Then what do you mean by "It's enough to give them an opportunity to overcome the challenge. If they fail to do so then it's on them."? If that is a balancing act, it is pretty lopsided.

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.

Oh yeah, neither myself or anyone I have ever played a game with has ever actually portrayed a character with any sort of personality that was all their own. Being such a sub par specimen among role players must be why I just don't grasp the magnificent enjoyment I would otherwise experience when playing in a group with a character specifically meant (as far as I can tell) to troll the group. On the other hand, I have never played in a group that would retcon anything other than a GM mistake, and usually only then if correcting the mistake was significant and to the benefit of the players. If you as a player say your character is doing something, then that is what happens. What a character does is on the player of that character, and no one else (assuming no charm type effects are in play at the time).

[Cluedrew]

My point being, mayhap we need to spend more time letting charictered being flawed and less time telling players they cant make " that kinda charicter" as it might change things a bit.

I think most people are talking about something more than that. Its not about characters having faults, or even bad things happening within the confines of the campaign. Its about bad things escaping the campaign (or killing the campaign) that could cause out-of-character issues.

This is basic human psychology - proposing one specific solution taints the well.

Fair enough. Although I think this is why the chance to "interrupt" should be made explicit as well. Playing Magic: The Gathering is one thing because all interrupt chances are laid out ahead of time, but you can't do that in a role-playing game. Well there is a bit of a spectrum between "explicitly calling out the interrupt chance" and "presenting your action as complete" although I can't remember anyone saying "I prepare to [action]" in any of my play experiences.

[KaussH]

I think most people are talking about something more than that. Its not about characters having faults, or even bad things happening within the confines of the campaign. Its about bad things escaping the campaign (or killing the campaign) that could cause out-of-character issues.

The thing is a lot of people are saying little things like being sub optinal on the battle field, derailing a part of the plot, playing a coward, ect are against the campaign so they are bad and should be stopped.

A campaign should not be derailed if you have to protect a charicter sometimes, or if you punch a guard/killer/ group your backround says to punch..


So ages ago, i played a knight, old style cavalier from dragon/ unearthed arcana. And as a rule, i couldnt just kill people from behind dishonorably . So i got hit with more than my share of quick cast spells. Sometimes that was sub optional but... it was how the charicter was made and the rules of the archtype.
No one went " you keep sucking magic missiles, stop playing like your charicter and just kill them.

It was part of the game..

[WindStruck]

Something to consider: it's never actually "this is what my character would do," it's always "this is what my character could do"

Uh.. what? My character could do a lot of things. Pull out a dagger and start harming herself. Attack her teammates. Swear profanities at the top of her lungs.

But she doesn't do that. In fact, she never would. Because she is a fairly shy and quiet monk that values life.

Also, what is this "social contract" people keep talking about? I know I have often skipped through a bunch of legal jargon and just hit "I accept" without reading it, but I don't think any of that applied to tabletop games...

Just have your character do what they will do, and if others feel its problematic, talk it out. If you can't come to a resolution, then maybe the game (or you and your character) will not be going far.

[Cluedrew]

The thing is a lot of people are saying little things like being sub optinal on the battle field, derailing a part of the plot, playing a coward, ect are against the campaign so they are bad and should be stopped.

Where? In this thread? Outside of some of stories from Talakeal's Bazaro Gaming World I can't remember anyone actually supporting that position. Mind you even if someone did... I wouldn't. So you are going to have to find someone that does if you want to discuss it.

Also, what is this "social contract" people keep talking about? I know I have often skipped through a bunch of legal jargon and just hit "I accept" without reading it, but I don't think any of that applied to tabletop games...

That's the annoying thing about the social contract, its not explicate and the only way you can opt out of it is to live in the "woods" without contacting anyone. In other words, its not a contract at all, just a weird short hand to describe things that aren't going to go over with the rest of the table.

[Ettina]

Uh.. what? My character could do a lot of things. Pull out a dagger and start harming herself. Attack her teammates. Swear profanities at the top of her lungs.

But she doesn't do that. In fact, she never would. Because she is a fairly shy and quiet monk that values life.

Also, what is this "social contract" people keep talking about? I know I have often skipped through a bunch of legal jargon and just hit "I accept" without reading it, but I don't think any of that applied to tabletop games...

Just have your character do what they will do, and if others feel its problematic, talk it out. If you can't come to a resolution, then maybe the game (or you and your character) will not be going far.

I think they meant could as in "could be motivated and/or willing to do", not "would be physically capable of doing". Just like people say stuff like "I could never kill my own child" when undoubtedly they're physically capable of doing so, but it goes so strongly against their motivations that they couldn't will themselves to do it.

[Quertus]

The bolded part is what I've been advocating, and in exactly the situation you're advocating it. The precondition of knowing the course of action will be unfun, but it really is the only thing the player can think of his character doing in that situation, is assumed by the premise. Hence, I believe we're in agreement.

We are almost certainly in complete agreement. I'm just trying to paint the broader picture, to show when other tools are best practices.

I am assuming that the phrase comes up in a context where it makes sense that it comes up.

- If Jane says 'Hey, why did you do that?', then 'its what my character would do' is an unhelpful response. It's like responding to 'why did you do that?' with 'I did it because of the reason why I did it'. It indicates a lack of understanding of what Jane is asking for.

- If Jane says 'Hey, I wanted to talk with that guy and make friends, and now I can't!', then it's an excuse which implies a values position that 'me having Fyolor do what I think he would do is more important than or at the same level as you getting to try to make friends with that NPC'. However, it's disingenuous because it doesn't outright state that that's what the player believes the proper hierarchy of values at the table is, it tries to goad the other person into accepting that hierarchy of values implicitly.

The implicit thing is what is problematic, because it exploits the fact that most people are not going to think this deeply on things or spend weeks debating it, and are just going to give a knee-jerk reaction.

What is better would be for Bob to say 'That is the action that I wanted Fyodor to take' or even better 'I understood that action to be my decision to make'. Saying 'I don't believe I need to justify that' is much better than trying to hide the real reason. That is to say, actually own the decision and don't try to excuse it if that's what you really believe. Then, if there's a mismatch in expectations, there can be a discussion about what exactly the social contract is and whether that overstepped. But saying 'It's what my character would do' is like starting an argument out with 'Well of course any reasonable person would agree ...'

Ironically, despite all the virtual ink you've spilled, and your claim that most people don't think this deeply about things, your explanation is missing depth.

Specifically, in the case of Jane asking 'Hey, why did you do that?', 'its what my character would do' is not unhelpful - it distinguishes the motivation from, "it's what I thought would make a good story", "the GM asked me to", "my character was magically compelled", "it's what I thought you wanted", "it's what I thought Joseph wanted", etc etc etc. It's actually very valuable information, to set the tone and scope of the OOC conversation, if one is necessary. After all, Jane could just be asking because she was surprised, or because the GM magically compelled her to break the social contract and kill anyone who took that action, or… etc etc etc.

You are strangely reading into the statement that the phrase must only be used as a conversation ender.

Fair enough. Although I think this is why the chance to "interrupt" should be made explicit as well. Playing Magic: The Gathering is one thing because all interrupt chances are laid out ahead of time, but you can't do that in a role-playing game. Well there is a bit of a spectrum between "explicitly calling out the interrupt chance" and "presenting your action as complete" although I can't remember anyone saying "I prepare to [action]" in any of my play experiences.

This is why I believe (darn senility) that I talked about a culture of interrupts, rather than just using interrupts as a tool, a tech. Important difference, that.

That's the annoying thing about the social contract, its not explicate and the only way you can opt out of it is to live in the "woods" without contacting anyone. In other words, its not a contract at all, just a weird short hand to describe things that aren't going to go over with the rest of the table.

I have been in groups where the social contract for the game was explicit. It should go without saying that explicit is better.

[Talakeal]

Where? In this thread? Outside of some of stories from Talakeal's Bazaro Gaming World I can't remember anyone actually supporting that position. Mind you even if someone did... I wouldn't. So you are going to have to find someone that does if you want to discuss it.

True I have seen it a lot in person here in Bizarro world, but I have also seen it on the forums numerous times.

Off the top of my head, there was a thread a couple of years ago about someone playing a cleric with a fear of crowds, and another one about a druid who spent their entire life polymorphed into a bat.

[Frogreaver]

Ok, I'm not sure that is helping your case any. Again, why should people other than the person that came up with this character think that this is great fun? At no point has this sounded like great fun or engaging play to me.



If you aren't engaging this flaw at critical moments, then it doesn't matter if players bother with it. But that doesn't really line up with the statement "It's enough to give them an opportunity to overcome the challenge. If they fail to do so then it's on them." To me, that statement implies that this flaw is fully intended to come up at crucial moments that will definitely hurt the party or other characters if it is not countered.



Yeah, I don't see why the group would want this character along. Maybe because, so far, none of this sounds at all fun and entertaining.



Ok. Then what do you mean by "It's enough to give them an opportunity to overcome the challenge. If they fail to do so then it's on them."? If that is a balancing act, it is pretty lopsided.



Oh yeah, neither myself or anyone I have ever played a game with has ever actually portrayed a character with any sort of personality that was all their own. Being such a sub par specimen among role players must be why I just don't grasp the magnificent enjoyment I would otherwise experience when playing in a group with a character specifically meant (as far as I can tell) to troll the group. On the other hand, I have never played in a group that would retcon anything other than a GM mistake, and usually only then if correcting the mistake was significant and to the benefit of the players. If you as a player say your character is doing something, then that is what happens. What a character does is on the player of that character, and no one else (assuming no charm type effects are in play at the time).

Instead of arguing and having the rudeness escalate, let's just try running a short scenario as I think that's the best illustration.

I'll play Oaf the dumb barbarian that values protecting his friends. You can be whatever - just give a brief description.

The scenario is simple:
An NPC Merchant is quite rude to you.
You can see Oaf getting visibly angry as he's about to punch the guy in the face.

Tell us what you have your character do and whether there are their any noticeable emotions that you as a player display that I could pick up on?

I'll reply why my next action.

[Kraynic]

Instead of arguing and having the rudeness escalate, let's just try running a short scenario as I think that's the best illustration.

I'll play Oaf the dumb barbarian that values protecting his friends. You can be whatever - just give a brief description.

The scenario is simple:
An NPC Merchant is quite rude to you.
You can see Oaf getting visibly angry as he's about to punch the guy in the face.

Tell us what you have your character do and whether there are their any noticeable emotions that you as a player display that I could pick up on?

I'll reply why my next action.

That is all well and good, but I don't see any value in this sort of scenario, and I will attempt to illustrate why.

1. I am playing a bard that was my character for several years named Kianthys. At this point, Kianthys sees that Oaf is ready to begin physical violence against this merchant. He would probably intervene, perhaps reminding Oaf of a weapon display that held something that may be superior to what Oaf is currently carrying. Maybe Oaf should go check that out rather than wasting energy on this particular merchant. At the same time, while possibly preventing the outbreak of violence, Kianthys realizes that anyone with half a brain who is watching (the merchant for sure) has also noticed that Oaf was ready to mete out physical punishment. At this point, if there was any hope of a positive interaction with this merchant, it is now gone or has been made much, much more difficult.

2. I am playing a caravan guard and general fighting man Snagshul. He has a pretty thick skin for insults, and knows his abilities and value. At this point, he probably has just decided that if there was potential business with this merchant, he will take it elsewhere. If the merchant had a job, he can find another, since there is always a place somewhere for one with his skills. If Oaf has such thin skin that he needs to respond physically, that is his choice. Snagshul sees it as a dumb choice, and one that he won't participate in, but neither will he intervene. I am currently undecided on whether he would stay and watch to see how you would handle any private guards or public peace keepers that may take a hand.

But none of that really matters, does it? The topic at hand really hinges on this: how important was this merchant? Did you burn any bridges simply by showing the willingness for violence to someone that was mouthing off? How serious are the repercussions for the entire group if Oaf is not prevented at all? Has the group had any previous interactions with this merchant that would possibly make the insults justified, or at least expected from past experience? Well, we have no idea, because this little scenario isn't actually happening in a game with any context whatsoever. My stance has been that if the statement you made a ways back (which I keep bringing up) actually pertains to Oaf's actions, then there will probably be serious negative consequences for the party if I was playing Snagshul, and possibly even some negative consequences with Kianthys.

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

The question really is whether or not this was an important encounter to the group and you were intentionally going about sabotaging it, and "playing chicken" with the game to see if someone would stop you from wrecking it. If this isn't something that truly would have consequences for the game, then I couldn't care less if this is how you play Oaf. That statement I keep coming back to tells me (whether this is intentional on your part or not) that you intend for there to be punitive consequences for the party if they don't safeguard against Oaf's actions. This is why I find it pretty repugnant, and would simply not participate in that game if I knew of such a character ahead of time.

[NichG]

Ironically, despite all the virtual ink you've spilled, and your claim that most people don't think this deeply about things, your explanation is missing depth.

Specifically, in the case of Jane asking 'Hey, why did you do that?', 'its what my character would do' is not unhelpful - it distinguishes the motivation from, "it's what I thought would make a good story", "the GM asked me to", "my character was magically compelled", "it's what I thought you wanted", "it's what I thought Joseph wanted", etc etc etc. It's actually very valuable information, to set the tone and scope of the OOC conversation, if one is necessary. After all, Jane could just be asking because she was surprised, or because the GM magically compelled her to break the social contract and kill anyone who took that action, or… etc etc etc.

You are strangely reading into the statement that the phrase must only be used as a conversation ender.

It's been twelve pages, so it's understandable that things have drifted. But this was the way the conversation started:

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

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

I think 9 times out of 10, 'it's what my character would do' is a defense or excuse, not an explanation. And I'd argue that the 1 in 10 times it is an explanation, there are far better ways to explain things that should be encouraged over this.

[Cluedrew]

This is why I believe (darn senility) that I talked about a culture of interrupts, rather than just using interrupts as a tool, a tech. Important difference, that. [...] I have been in groups where the social contract for the game was explicit. It should go without saying that explicit is better.

Rapid fire: 1) I must have missed the distinction between interrupts and interrupt culture. 2) The entire "social contract" was explicit or just a few highlights? 3) It amuses me you decided to say how obvious the fact is by stating explicit communication about it is not required, but I agree with the general point.

Off the top of my head, there was a thread a couple of years ago about someone playing a cleric with a fear of crowds, and another one about a druid who spent their entire life polymorphed into a bat.

I maintain I don't remember those, but point taken there are some people around the forum who go to that extreme, really approaching it as an optimization game. But still that doesn't appear to be the default in this thread.

[Pauly]

Going back to the Fum the Barbarian example.
What is the GM doing in all this?
He knows how Fum is likely to react yet the NPC does her bit while in danger close of Fum.
- Isn’t it more reasonable for the NPC to position herself so that the PC most likely to punch her in the face isn’t in her face? It’s what real people do in real life.
- Wouldn’t she be telling the rest of the party to keep their pet goon on a leash?
- wouldn’t she have been a whole bunch more diplomatic if she knew she was in danger close and no one was there to hold Fum back?
- Where are her bodyguards that Fum is not going to risk messing with?
- If she deliberately provoked Fum, the reasonable assumption is because she can handily deal with him in combat so she isn’t going to get upset if a low level mook like Fum tries it on?

The same way PCs aren’t mousetraps, neither are NPCs. The GM has to play NPCs knowing what he does about the PCs. He can’t fall back on my NPC goaded Fum without protection because it’s what my NPC would do.

[Frogreaver]

That is all well and good, but I don't see any value in this sort of scenario, and I will attempt to illustrate why.

1. I am playing a bard that was my character for several years named Kianthys. At this point, Kianthys sees that Oaf is ready to begin physical violence against this merchant. He would probably intervene, perhaps reminding Oaf of a weapon display that held something that may be superior to what Oaf is currently carrying. Maybe Oaf should go check that out rather than wasting energy on this particular merchant.

Oaf looks at you and then at the merchant and says: "Mr. Merchant I can't punch you in face now, I'm go to see better killing axe with Kianthys".

At the same time, while possibly preventing the outbreak of violence, Kianthys realizes that anyone with half a brain who is watching (the merchant for sure) has also noticed that Oaf was ready to mete out physical punishment. At this point, if there was any hope of a positive interaction with this merchant, it is now gone or has been made much, much more difficult.

Assuming that's your character's thoughts that's fine. Assuming it's a player expectation that the DM will make such an outcome negative, then that's the problem, because that need not be the case.

But none of that really matters, does it?

I think it really matters. The point is to illustrate how it actually tends to play first hand to dispel the myths about it.

The topic at hand really hinges on this: how important was this merchant? Did you burn any bridges simply by showing the willingness for violence to someone that was mouthing off? How serious are the repercussions for the entire group if Oaf is not prevented at all? Has the group had any previous interactions with this merchant that would possibly make the insults justified, or at least expected from past experience?

And yet, everything you list there could be asked from the glass-half-full perspective. What important NPC likes that you punched that merchant in the face? What new bridges and connections did this action create for you? Did the follow through of physical violence make the merchant easier to deal with (the putting a bully in their place effect). I'm not saying good things are guaranteed, just that bad things aren't guaranteed either - even if it's an important merchant.

But more importantly, What's really happened if the Merchant gets punches is there was a causal chain. The DM chose to have the merchant do something that would cause Oaf to react. Oaf's action was ignored by the party. The DM chose to have the merchant fail to do anything about Oaf getting ready to punch him in the face. The DM then chose an extremely negative consequence for having this happen.

In other words, for any extremely negative in game consequence, that didn't just happen because Oaf. A bunch of other crap had to happen and choices be made to get it to that point.

And what's ironic is that the DM would explain the negative consequences as "that's what my NPC's would do or that's how my world works" and no one would bat an eye. But the moment, Oaf's player has Oaf do one thing his character would do for the sake of fun then he's immediately considered a social contract breaking jerk. It's really interesting when put in this light IMO.

And here's the even more important part, I don't think anyone can say that Oaf's and Kianthys interaction above didn't add alot to the game. Kianthys got to exhibit his social adeptness by turning Oaf from his course by a short verbal misdirection and Oaf got to exhibit is protectiveness over his companion Kanthys and his dumbness. For the amount of time that interaction took up in the game that's a memorable moment and some strong characterization and helps build up a known relationship between Kainthys and Oaf that can be called upon in the future. And it's probable that it was very entertaining for at least some of the players at the table.

Well, we have no idea, because this little scenario isn't actually happening in a game with any context whatsoever. My stance has been that if the statement you made a ways back (which I keep bringing up) actually pertains to Oaf's actions, then there will probably be serious negative consequences for the party if I was playing Snagshul, and possibly even some negative consequences with Kianthys.

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

At risk of sounding like a broken record: If there's negative consequences it's because the other players didn't intervene or really botched up doing so. Thus, they bear blame as well. It's a bit hard to get mad at someone else when they gave you sufficient opportunity to stop whatever it was from happening that you didn't want to happen.

The question really is whether or not this was an important encounter to the group and you were intentionally going about sabotaging it, and "playing chicken" with the game to see if someone would stop you from wrecking it.

Using this technique to play chicken and wreck the game would be the degenerate case of play and all playstyles have their degenerate cases. That's not how this play style should be used.

Is it okay that it's used in a high stakes encounter? Yes! Is it okay to refrain from using it in a high stakes encounter? Yes! Can this technique be overused? Yes! This is not a license to annoy the party and play chicken with them/the dm.

I can't even fathom how you've came up with that being what is being suggested.

If this isn't something that truly would have consequences for the game, then I couldn't care less if this is how you play Oaf. That statement I keep coming back to tells me (whether this is intentional on your part or not) that you intend for there to be punitive consequences for the party if they don't safeguard against Oaf's actions. This is why I find it pretty repugnant, and would simply not participate in that game if I knew of such a character ahead of time.

Assuming we somehow get to the point where the really important merchant gets punched in the face (which would be a pretty hard feat to accomplish in intself) then we still have to get past the fact that Punching a merchant in the face, even a really important one doesn't automatically mean 'punitive consequences'. Whatever consequences (good or bad) that action carries is determined by the DM.

The point comes back around to this - the whole table including the DM has to be working together to ruin the game for the game to be ruined by this.

Going back to the Fum the Barbarian example.
What is the GM doing in all this?
He knows how Fum is likely to react yet the NPC does her bit while in danger close of Fum.
- Isn’t it more reasonable for the NPC to position herself so that the PC most likely to punch her in the face isn’t in her face? It’s what real people do in real life.
- Wouldn’t she be telling the rest of the party to keep their pet goon on a leash?
- wouldn’t she have been a whole bunch more diplomatic if she knew she was in danger close and no one was there to hold Fum back?
- Where are her bodyguards that Fum is not going to risk messing with?
- If she deliberately provoked Fum, the reasonable assumption is because she can handily deal with him in combat so she isn’t going to get upset if a low level mook like Fum tries it on?

The same way PCs aren’t mousetraps, neither are NPCs. The GM has to play NPCs knowing what he does about the PCs. He can’t fall back on my NPC goaded Fum without protection because it’s what my NPC would do.

Exactly. I think this also goes for the party. They can't get by using the excuse that we didn't intervene and just let Fum hit the NPC in the face because it's what our PC's would have done. There's got to be some give and take there from all sides.

[Kraynic]

And what's ironic is that the DM would explain the negative consequences as "that's what my NPC's would do or that's how my world works" and no one would bat an eye. But the moment, Oaf's player has Oaf do one thing his character would do for the sake of fun then he's immediately considered a social contract breaking jerk. It's really interesting when put in this light IMO.

I think this may be the point of our disagreement. What I see in that sort of statement is "I am entitled to make any character quirk I feel like, and the DM better make a world in which that quirk has minimal consequences". Would this sort of thing potentially happen in the real world? Sure, it isn't all that far of a stretch to run into a merchant that doesn't like something about you, possibly just the appearance of not being able to afford their wares, or you are dirty enough to soil them just by handling something. Is the normal reaction to go over and punch them in the face? Hmm.... probably not. Is it more likely that there would be negative consequences in that sort of scenario than positive? I don't see how it could be otherwise without really grasping at straws. Yeah, this merchant may be a "bully", but maybe you are mucking up their shop and now you not only didn't wipe your feet when you came in, but physically assaulted the individual. How dare the DM make someone normal?!

[Frogreaver]

I think this may be the point of our disagreement. What I see in that sort of statement is "I am entitled to make any character quirk I feel like, and the DM better make a world in which that quirk has minimal consequences".

IMO, That's because you are reading my words to find something negative in them.

I've actually said things like:

• "There's got to be some give and take there from all sides."
• "Using this technique to play chicken and wreck the game would be the degenerate case of play and all playstyles have their degenerate cases. That's not how this play style should be used."
• "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."
• "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."

So let's go ahead and add one more. No one is entitled to anything. What should be occurring is that we have some mutual trust that you, me and the DM all have the best interests of the game at heart. So when I say I'm about to punch the NPC in the face your reaction should be, what plausible PC action can I have my PC do to add to that to make the game more enjoyable. The DM should be finding a plausible action for the NPC to do that makes the game better. Which is exactly the kind of play we saw in our example above when your character tried to divert mine above and then i had mine go along with your suggestion because it made for a more enjoyable game.

Would this sort of thing potentially happen in the real world? Sure, it isn't all that far of a stretch to run into a merchant that doesn't like something about you, possibly just the appearance of not being able to afford their wares, or you are dirty enough to soil them just by handling something. Is the normal reaction to go over and punch them in the face? Hmm.... probably not.

So we are in agreement that such behavior would represent a deep character flaw. Good!

Is it more likely that there would be negative consequences in that sort of scenario than positive?

IMO, Likelihood doesn't matter. We are modeling a single instance and so all we need is plausible, not likely. I'd say there are just as many plausible good scenarios as plausible negative ones.

I don't see how it could be otherwise without really grasping at straws. Yeah, this merchant may be a "bully", but maybe you are mucking up their shop and now you not only didn't wipe your feet when you came in, but physically assaulted the individual.

Just curious, why do you insist on adding so much negative hypothetical fluff to the scenario?

How dare the DM make someone normal?!

All of those hypothetically plausible reactions are 'normal' because when coming up with fiction we can set up any factors imaginable to explain why any plausible merchant reaction really was 'normal' given that situation.

But I do think we have discovered the biggest issue between us. You want to create/play in a world where everything derived is done so by considering what is 'most likely' by the DM. I'd say most importantly that such a constraint makes for a much less fun and enjoyable game. But also, I'd challenge whether a DM can really 'determine what is most likely' in a fictional world where 99% of NPC and world details aren't actually instantiated.

[Segev]

Let's take the merchant example one step further, so that we remove "the merchant's reaction" from the equation of "bad outcomes."

Let's say that the merchant just attacked Oaf's honor, his father's honor, his mother's virtue, and mocked Oaf's children for being small and weak when Oaf's overriding goal has been revenge for the murder of his entire family by a member of the merchant's race.

Oaf isn't just going to punch the guy; he's going to pull his killing-axe out and lop off his head (or at least make his best effort at it, and with his stats, has a good chance of hitting and killing with a single attack).

If Oaf succeeds, it kills the merchant and any information the party was trying to get from him. If Oaf is stopped, by whatever means the bard uses to distract him from this killing rage, then the merchant still lives and the party can use whatever reaction the merchant has to the near-death threat to try to get that information. Perhaps that still made things worse than if Oaf had taken the insults and not played "in character" by being uncharacteristically controlled about such insults to his dead family, but it's better than if Oaf had just killed him. And Oaf's player wasn't trying to ruin the chance at getting information, but he is dedicated enough to playing his character that he couldn't see any way Oaf, without external help, could NOT try to kill this merchant at that time. Not and still be Oaf.