What if it IS what my character would do?

[Quertus]

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



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.

Perhaps. But it still reeks of "<member of group> did <bad thing>" "yeah, <group> tends to be bad" "<group> isn't always bad - look at <example>” "oh, we're only talking about subsets of <group> that are bad, not all <group>”.

So I'll continue to oppose any such mischaracterizations of <group>, that does not properly acknowledge its rather questionable bounds.

That said, I think that Jane's question is the real problem in your example. If she didn't want her question taken seriously and actually answered, she shouldn't have asked.

Rapid fire: 1) I must have missed the distinction between interrupts and interrupt culture.

It's the difference between handing people guns, and teaching them both marksmanship and gun safety.

In an interrupt culture, you teach them the importance of "wait", of their responsibility to safeguard their own fun, of their responsibility to respond to the needs of others that they may not have anticipated when they first determined and declared their action, and of the GM's responsibility to read the room & give adequate time for "wait" especially before difficult to retcon reveals.

2) The entire "social contract" was explicit or just a few highlights?

Trick question. The *intent* was that it all be explicit; often, implicit assumptions would still be hiding that needed to be added into the next updated version.

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.

I'm glad you noticed that, and found it amusing. I try.

[kyoryu]

Perhaps. But it still reeks of "<member of group> did <bad thing>" "yeah, <group> tends to be bad" "<group> isn't always bad - look at <example>” "oh, we're only talking about subsets of <group> that are bad, not all <group>”.

Some phrases have been so tainted that the only reasonable policy is to not use them.

[NichG]

Perhaps. But it still reeks of "<member of group> did <bad thing>" "yeah, <group> tends to be bad" "<group> isn't always bad - look at <example>” "oh, we're only talking about subsets of <group> that are bad, not all <group>”.

So I'll continue to oppose any such mischaracterizations of <group>, that does not properly acknowledge its rather questionable bounds.

Some phrases have been so tainted that the only reasonable policy is to not use them.

Not just that it's tainted, but I think it's important in general to be able to read subtext (even subconscious subtext) rather than insisting on approaching everything everyone says as if it was literal. Or theory-crafting an edge case and then interpreting it according to that edge case because it 'could be that'. That creates a lot of problems when someone is actually being manipulative, acting in bad faith, or just being passive aggressive.

If you hear a mafia boss say "Give Alfonso a new pair of shoes down by the pier" and you're Alfonso, you shouldn't stick around to find out whether he means leather or cement.

And anyhow, telling people 'don't use that phrase, explain more thoroughly and take ownership of what you as a player want and expect' is hardly a punishment. If you react to someone assuming bad faith that would be a problem, but not accepting a non-answer and forcing them to not leave any ambiguity to hide behind is fair game.

[OldTrees1]

Perhaps. But it still reeks of "<member of group> did <bad thing>" "yeah, <group> tends to be bad" "<group> isn't always bad - look at <example>” "oh, we're only talking about subsets of <group> that are bad, not all <group>”.

So I'll continue to oppose any such mischaracterizations of <group>, that does not properly acknowledge its rather questionable bounds.

I believe it is fair to say that I could communicate with phrases whose general usage matches my meaning, or communicate with phrases whose general usage deviates from my specific usage.

I believe it is fair to say that if I use a phrase but don't mean the general usage, then I will risk more miscommunication unless I elaborate.

I believe it is fair to say it is extra work to use preemptive elaboration to avoid miscommunication, or seek elaboration when there might have been miscommunication. However it could be worth the effort.

In the case of "It is what my character would do.", these concerns suggest it is better to ignore the infamous general usage and provide or seek elaboration.

That is why "It is what my character would do." with no elaboration is an unhelpful response. The general meaning is infamous and I neither mean that usage nor want to presume that usage. So whether I am speaking or listening, I would want elaboration rather that stopping there.

I believe you and Segev both agree. It just has been a very long thread and language is becoming lax.

[Kraynic]

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.

I find a world run otherwise to be less fun and enjoyable, because the the npcs are a great part of the world. They are the main part of the world that characters actually interact with... If they don't behave in a fairly believable way, then that impacts the believability of the entire world for me.

When I am running a game, I generally start with a small setting. I do have all the prominent npcs detailed with personality quirks, ties to each other, likes & dislikes, etc. I play the npcs based on all that and modified by events that come along in the game afterwards. As the game progresses and the world the pcs interact with expands, I do the same thing for prominent npcs (or npcs that become that way, because sometimes players become interested in someone I wasn't expecting). The starting community for a game that has been running for a couple years had about 50% of the npcs fleshed out. Obviously that percentage drops over time.

So I do my best to actually have a good idea what way an npc will jump when a situation comes up like being punched in the face, as well as a pretty good idea what other npcs will think of it afterwards.

[Frogreaver]

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.

Exactly. I do sympathize somewhat though, because alot of times elements of this playstyle are being performed by problem players that do end up derailing the whole campaign.

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..

Nice. I do think there is such a thing as lawful stupid - not that your character was. But, I think lawful stupid is often more the DM's fault than the players though. The DM had to set up everything in such a way that doing the lawful thing is always a negative and never ends up as a positive.

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.

Exactly. The tool begins as a compromise that allows Oaf to be Oaf while giving the party a method to avoid the worst complications caused by the in character play.

But it goes beyond that as well. Having that kind of a PC to PC dialogue on a backdrop that actually matters in game is really where memorable moments are most likely. It set up both Oaf and Kianthys to shine brightly and to come to life. It gives the players a dynamic they can build on in the future and it gives the DM something he can create future challenges with.

I find a world run otherwise to be less fun and enjoyable, because the the npcs are a great part of the world. They are the main part of the world that characters actually interact with... If they don't behave in a fairly believable way, then that impacts the believability of the entire world for me.

Under all this there is another accusation: 'you don't want NPC's to be believable'. Of course I do. Let me spell it out. NPC's should be believable. What I'm actually claiming is that the NPC's will be just as believable even when their actions are no longer based on 'what would be their most likely reaction'. There's a few reasons for this. 1) Believability doesn't rely on 'most likely'. 2) No matter how fleshed out you think your world and NPC's are, in reality they aren't actually very fleshed out at all. 3) Even if your world was perfectly fleshed out in your mind, there's no way that you have been able to convey that to the players - which puts them at a severe disadvantage when interacting with NPCs or really anything in your setting - as you've essentially created a complex puzzle with to few clues for them to figure it out.

When I am running a game, I generally start with a small setting. I do have all the prominent npcs detailed with personality quirks, ties to each other, likes & dislikes, etc. I play the npcs based on all that and modified by events that come along in the game afterwards. As the game progresses and the world the pcs interact with expands, I do the same thing for prominent npcs (or npcs that become that way, because sometimes players become interested in someone I wasn't expecting). The starting community for a game that has been running for a couple years had about 50% of the npcs fleshed out. Obviously that percentage drops over time.

What actually happens is you figure out a few personality details, a few quirks and a few ties with everyone else and attempt to figure the rest out on the fly. Most often your on the fly decisions are not based on any of the few characteristics about this particular NPC, but instead how you feel a stereotypical NPC's fitting those few descriptive points would be most likely to react.

So I do my best to actually have a good idea what way an npc will jump when a situation comes up like being punched in the face, as well as a pretty good idea what other npcs will think of it afterwards.

IMO. You are so used to making ad hoc decisions about what your NPC's will do and relying on the 'how would a stereotypical person like this react' heuristic that you can't even see that your notes don't actually provide any justification that a particular NPC would act a particular way toward most minutia. High level campaign related stuff sure. But what in your actual DM notes tells reaction to being punched in face when insulting adventurers?

[Kraynic]

But it goes beyond that as well. Having that kind of a PC to PC dialogue on a backdrop that actually matters in game is really where memorable moments are most likely. It set up both Oaf and Kianthys to shine brightly and to come to life. It gives the players a dynamic they can build on in the future and it gives the DM something he can create future challenges with.

Does Kianthys need a socially incompetent group member for him to shine? Does having that among the group actually add anything meaningful to the character of Kianthys or the game in general? Color me extremely skeptical.

Under all this there is another accusation: 'you don't want NPC's to be believable'. Of course I do. Let me spell it out. NPC's should be believable. What I'm actually claiming is that the NPC's will be just as believable even when their actions are no longer based on 'what would be their most likely reaction'. There's a few reasons for this. 1) Believability doesn't rely on 'most likely'. 2) No matter how fleshed out you think your world and NPC's are, in reality they aren't actually very fleshed out at all. 3) Even if your world was perfectly fleshed out in your mind, there's no way that you have been able to convey that to the players - which puts them at a severe disadvantage when interacting with NPCs or really anything in your setting - as you've essentially created a complex puzzle with to few clues for them to figure it out.

What actually happens is you figure out a few personality details, a few quirks and a few ties with everyone else and attempt to figure the rest out on the fly. Most often your on the fly decisions are not based on any of the few characteristics about this particular NPC, but instead how you feel a stereotypical NPC's fitting those few descriptive points would be most likely to react.

IMO. You are so used to making ad hoc decisions about what your NPC's will do and relying on the 'how would a stereotypical person like this react' heuristic that you can't even see that your notes don't actually provide any justification that a particular NPC would act a particular way toward most minutia. High level campaign related stuff sure. But what in your actual DM notes tells reaction to being punched in face when insulting adventurers?

Are you a living, breathing being? I'm fairly certain I am a living, breathing being... Before learning to talk, we start learning how to manipulate others. From a very early age, we start learning to gauge what other people will do in response to our actions, words, and body language. It is simply part of being alive. Saying that someone running a game is incapable of creating believable actions on the part of npcs is (in my mind at least) akin to saying they don't know how to interact with people in daily life.

I would like to follow you around on whatever planet you live on to see all the positive outcomes that result from punching people in the face that look at you funny, or say something you don't approve of... Somehow, I expect there really aren't very many of them compared to negative outcomes.

[Frogreaver]

Does Kianthys need a socially incompetent group member for him to shine?

Need is such a weird word to use here.

Does having that among the group actually add anything meaningful to the character of Kianthys or the game in general? Color me extremely skeptical.

I've explained how it does about 5 times now.

Are you a living, breathing being? I'm fairly certain I am a living, breathing being... Before learning to talk, we start learning how to manipulate others. From a very early age, we start learning to gauge what other people will do in response to our actions, words, and body language. It is simply part of being alive. Saying that someone running a game is incapable of creating believable actions on the part of npcs is (in my mind at least) akin to saying they don't know how to interact with people in daily life.

1. I actually said creating believable actions are possible.
2. The criticism I laid was that believable isn't the same thing as most stereotypical - which is your basis for any reaction not relating to the limited number of details you wrote about the NPC.

I would like to follow you around on whatever planet you live on to see all the positive outcomes that result from punching people in the face that look at you funny, or say something you don't approve of... Somehow, I expect there really aren't very many of them compared to negative outcomes.

Believable doesn't equate to most likely (aka most stereotypical).

Also, could you please refrain from arguing against positions I'm not taking?

[Kraynic]

Need is such a weird word to use here.
I've explained how it does about 5 times now.

I have seen no argument that was in any way compelling that the sort of game play you lay out is something that I would view as a positive experience. I don't want to be punished if I don't want to engage in your character quirk as a player or if my character as envisioned wouldn't care, but your statements indicate that I (or at least my character) should experience negative consequences if I don't. I don't force my style of roleplay on those I play games with. I expect that courtesy to be returned.

The criticism I laid was that believable isn't the same thing as most stereotypical - which is your basis for any reaction not relating to the limited number of details you wrote about the NPC.
Believable doesn't equate to most likely (most stereotypical).

You keep saying that stereotypical is my basis for determining actions. I don't believe that is true, that I have said that is true at any point, or that you have an actual basis for that assumption.

[Frogreaver]

You keep saying that stereotypical is my basis for determining actions. I don't believe that is true, that I have said that is true at any point, or that you have an actual basis for that assumption.

Then tell me what prewritten details about a typical NPC you create that ends up getting punched in the face for being a jerk determines how you have him react?

[Kraynic]

Then tell me what prewritten details about a typical NPC you create that ends up getting punched in the face for being a jerk determines how you have him react?

And how does that change the fact that you want your character to be the center of the universe for the other players and GM?

[Frogreaver]

And how does that change the fact that you want your character to be the center of the universe for the other players and GM?

You said: "You keep saying that stereotypical is my basis for determining actions. I don't believe that is true, that I have said that is true at any point, or that you have an actual basis for that assumption."

I replied: "Then tell me what prewritten details about a typical NPC you create that ends up getting punched in the face for being a jerk determines how you have him react?"

I'd like an answer.

[Kraynic]

You said: "You keep saying that stereotypical is my basis for determining actions. I don't believe that is true, that I have said that is true at any point, or that you have an actual basis for that assumption."

I replied: "Then tell me what prewritten details about a typical NPC you create that ends up getting punched in the face for being a jerk determines how you have him react?"

I'd like an answer.

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

I have wanted to have an answer on why this is somehow accepted behavior to force your character concept on the rest of the players in a game and punish them if they don't comply. It moved on from there to how if things don't play out exactly how you envision them, then the GM has created an unreasonable world. The only reason you are pressing this point is to see if you can find some way to divert from your view that everyone in a game with you needs to cater to your style of play "or else". So far, I have seen nothing that indicates otherwise. Nit picking my style of GMing doesn't suddenly make that go away.

[Frogreaver]

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

I have wanted to have an answer on why this is somehow accepted behavior to force your character concept on the rest of the players in a game and punish them if they don't comply. It moved on from there to how if things don't play out exactly how you envision them, then the GM has created an unreasonable world. The only reason you are pressing this point is to see if you can find some way to divert from your view that everyone in a game with you needs to cater to your style of play "or else". So far, I have seen nothing that indicates otherwise. Nit picking my style of GMing doesn't suddenly make that go away.

Our discussion on this is over. You can't stop putting words in my mouth. You won't accept my answers. You are refusing to engage in my questions. This isn't productive anymore. It's trending closer and closer to flame war territory. So I'm out. Feel free to have the last word, as I won't be replying to you about it again.

[Cluedrew]

I don't even know what either of you (Kraynic & Frogreaver) are arguing for at this point.
We got another one of these.
I will say that things can end up in a situation where, if you simply let things continue in-character no fun will be had by anyone involved. Things are going to have to move out of character or you are going to have to sit there and not have fun. I never want to end up in the second situation ever again. Further more I don't think there is a one size fits all solution to these situations so the first step should always be to step out of character and figure out what the problem is and make sure everyone at the table understands. Only then should you look to actually solving it but what that solution looks like will vary with group, type of campaign and of course what the problem actually is.

And, except for details, that is all I have to say about the topic.

[Frogreaver]

I don't even know what either of you (Kraynic & Frogreaver) are arguing for at this point.
We got another one of these.
I will say that things can end up in a situation where, if you simply let things continue in-character no fun will be had by anyone involved. Things are going to have to move out of character or you are going to have to sit there and not have fun. I never want to end up in the second situation ever again. Further more I don't think there is a one size fits all solution to these situations so the first step should always be to step out of character and figure out what the problem is and make sure everyone at the table understands. Only then should you look to actually solving it but what that solution looks like will vary with group, type of campaign and of course what the problem actually is.

And, except for details, that is all I have to say about the topic.

I think I agree with these. I'd just add that compromise is essential. If I am saying, "My PC does this because it's what he would do" and you are saying, "My PC does this because it's what he would do" and the DM is saying, "My NPC does this because it's what he would do" and that's leading to an unfun outcome then it's all of our faults for not reaching a compromise.

[Kraynic]

Compromise is fine. I have no problem with compromise, especially if it makes sense to do so. I do have a problem with that compromise being a "compromise or else you will be sorry" proposition.

[Pex]

For me it depends on how compromising I must be. There are particular behaviors I will not tolerate. No "what abouts". No "but in this cases". I will not accept those behaviors. I'm done with them. I've played with them before, and they always lead to a ruined game. Sometimes the guilty player quits, because the DM and other players back me up. Sometimes I quit because the other players back up the guilty player or say nothing while the DM says nothing or chews me out. Players do things I wouldn't do or like all the time, but it's not the same thing nor any equivalence. I do not accept disruptive behavior.

I absolutely will not compromise on: Stealing from the party. Keeping party treasure you find to yourself. Not sharing campaign plot point relevant information or danger you learn. Refusing to help party members in combat with or without looking for treasure which you will keep for yourself that is not the McGuffin we're looking for while we keep the bad guys busy to enable you to do the searching during the combat. Cause injury to party members in combat on purpose with area effect powers without getting permission first or direct attacks "because you don't know them yet". Keeping yourself secret such as refusing to tell the party your character's name, race, and class when we get to know each other. Going on lone wolf adventures to have your own minigame with the DM passing notes to each other during adventuring play that is not scouting for the party to report back everything you find nor personal downtime activity.

I need to depend on you and trust you in and out of character. You will have the same from me. If you will not abide by that we will not play together, and I'm perfectly fine if we're mutually happy of that outcome.

[kyoryu]

Compromise is fine. I have no problem with compromise, especially if it makes sense to do so. I do have a problem with that compromise being a "compromise or else you will be sorry" proposition.

That's kind of the way it is, though. If you make the group upset enough, you'll be asked to leave. I mean, usually that's not a threat you have to want to make explicit, but it's always there.

In an RPG context, I think it's even more so. As I've said in this thread, the fundamental implicit social contract in most games is:

1) The party will find an excuse to work together
2) But the individuals will make sure they take actions that are reasonably compatible with the party

The issue is when people violate #2, but expect #1 to still be in play. Hiding what you're doing (so the players know what's happening but the characters don't) is arguably even worse.

[Tanarii]

Refusing to help party members in combat with or without looking for treasure which you will keep for yourself that is not the McGuffin we're looking for while we keep the bad guys busy to enable you to do the searching during the combat.

I got lost in this sentence. Can you elaborate on what you are saying following the "or"?

[The Glyphstone]

I got lost in this sentence. Can you elaborate on what you are saying following the "or"?

"Refusing to help party members in combat, with or without looking for treasure, which you will keep for yourself that is not the McGuffin we're looking for, while we keep the bad guys busy to enable you to do the searching during the combat."

I think I added commas in the right place to make it clearer, if I read this right? It's looting mid-fight and keeping what you collect without helping win the fight in the first place.

[Pex]

I got lost in this sentence. Can you elaborate on what you are saying following the "or"?

There have been players who did not help the party in a combat. Some of them don't do anything, sitting at the gaming table occasionally making a pompous comment when someone gets hurt. They retreat from the combat. If their character is not there at all it's because they went on a lone wolf minigame and smugly smile while the rest of the party have to deal with mess they got themselves into.

Players who like to steal from the party or play Finders Keepers with treasure will spend their rounds in combat looking for the loot. If the treasure chest or locked room was already found when the combat starts, they'll spend their rounds dealing with the chest or locked room. They'll look for traps, disarm any traps, spend a round taking what's in the chest or a couple of rounds searching the room grabbing what they fancy.

It is perfectly acceptable when a PC needs to deal with the Puzzle or otherwise take time to focus on getting the McGuffin, even if it's just the Exit out of the room, because that character is most qualified to do it while the rest of party handle the bad guys to give that player the freedom to do what needs to be done for all of us.

[Quertus]

Spoiler: good stuff by Pex, for reference

Show

For me it depends on how compromising I must be. There are particular behaviors I will not tolerate. No "what abouts". No "but in this cases". I will not accept those behaviors. I'm done with them. I've played with them before, and they always lead to a ruined game. Sometimes the guilty player quits, because the DM and other players back me up. Sometimes I quit because the other players back up the guilty player or say nothing while the DM says nothing or chews me out. Players do things I wouldn't do or like all the time, but it's not the same thing nor any equivalence. I do not accept disruptive behavior.

I absolutely will not compromise on: Stealing from the party. Keeping party treasure you find to yourself. Not sharing campaign plot point relevant information or danger you learn. Refusing to help party members in combat with or without looking for treasure which you will keep for yourself that is not the McGuffin we're looking for while we keep the bad guys busy to enable you to do the searching during the combat. Cause injury to party members in combat on purpose with area effect powers without getting permission first or direct attacks "because you don't know them yet". Keeping yourself secret such as refusing to tell the party your character's name, race, and class when we get to know each other. Going on lone wolf adventures to have your own minigame with the DM passing notes to each other during adventuring play that is not scouting for the party to report back everything you find nor personal downtime activity.

I need to depend on you and trust you in and out of character. You will have the same from me. If you will not abide by that we will not play together, and I'm perfectly fine if we're mutually happy of that outcome.

So, Pex, I want to start by replying to you, because you made a really good post, and I think that the ways that I simultaneously agree and disagree with you may be instructive in understanding other conversations.

So, you describe a lot of specific things that you won't tolerate. Taken individually, a few would have had me scratching my head, but taken together they paint a cohesive picture.

If you suddenly sprung one of these on me in the middle of a game? I wouldn't have chewed you out, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have sided with you, and likely would have sided against you.

However, if you explained them all in session zero, and listed them as different forms of one central idea of, "I want the PCs to be working together" (not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's my takeaway of the general theme)? I would have considered that a noble / worthy / respectable goal… but would have asked to work to build trust with you to renegotiate some of the details at a later date.

For example, if Bob is also playing, and his PC is secretly a Jedi (or, based on one, in, say, D&D)? That is great fun for me, getting to hear someone expound a mindset without me realizing that that's what they're doing. Or trying to make tactical use of this tool blind / through observations, rather than *knowing* what it is. And it's also fun if I get what they are, but get to watch someone else in the dark, evaluating them honest. So I would want to negotiate, if we could convince you that we get the idea of working together, to relax a few of your restrictions, to work together to optimize everyone's fun, once you were familiar with the group, and could see that they get it (which, I'll grant, not all of my groups would).

I really like your list, and the motivations behind it. But some of the tools that you have banned can be used for Good. And I would hope that, if you found the right group, who understood and respected your desires, that you would be willing to increase their fun by seeing those tools used right, rather than blaming the tool for its misuse.

EDIT: and sorry for your bad luck, that you have seemingly run into some of those behaviors multiple times, *and* encountered people trying to defend some of those behaviors. May your luck improve going forwards.

And, if you told me all that up front, I'd know not to have you adventure with Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, as dropping fireballs on the party to kill swarms is definitely in his toolkit.

Spoiler: for reference, it's what my players would respond to Jane

Show

Some phrases have been so tainted that the only reasonable policy is to not use them.

Not just that it's tainted, but I think it's important in general to be able to read subtext (even subconscious subtext) rather than insisting on approaching everything everyone says as if it was literal. Or theory-crafting an edge case and then interpreting it according to that edge case because it 'could be that'. That creates a lot of problems when someone is actually being manipulative, acting in bad faith, or just being passive aggressive.

If you hear a mafia boss say "Give Alfonso a new pair of shoes down by the pier" and you're Alfonso, you shouldn't stick around to find out whether he means leather or cement.

And anyhow, telling people 'don't use that phrase, explain more thoroughly and take ownership of what you as a player want and expect' is hardly a punishment. If you react to someone assuming bad faith that would be a problem, but not accepting a non-answer and forcing them to not leave any ambiguity to hide behind is fair game.

I believe it is fair to say that I could communicate with phrases whose general usage matches my meaning, or communicate with phrases whose general usage deviates from my specific usage.

I believe it is fair to say that if I use a phrase but don't mean the general usage, then I will risk more miscommunication unless I elaborate.

I believe it is fair to say it is extra work to use preemptive elaboration to avoid miscommunication, or seek elaboration when there might have been miscommunication. However it could be worth the effort.

In the case of "It is what my character would do.", these concerns suggest it is better to ignore the infamous general usage and provide or seek elaboration.

That is why "It is what my character would do." with no elaboration is an unhelpful response. The general meaning is infamous and I neither mean that usage nor want to presume that usage. So whether I am speaking or listening, I would want elaboration rather that stopping there.

I know that this may sound odd, but not only has the internet not always existed, but I still find players who are "new", who are unsullied by all these preconceptions, and *they* will use the phrase "it's what my character would do", ignorant of its long and ignominious history, as the literal words.

If Jane is asking, "why would you do that?", and expecting the room to read in an implied, "I don't find that fun"? That's on Jane.

If Jane wants to elevate this to an OOC conversation, where they explain that they don't find this fun? Then it's up to the table's values to weigh that vs "it's what my character would do" / "it's what my world would do". Although I'm generally in agreement that optimizing the group's fun is more important, understand that not all groups agree with this value judgement.

Spoiler: for reference, Kraynic vs Frogreaver

Show

I find a world run otherwise to be less fun and enjoyable, because the the npcs are a great part of the world. They are the main part of the world that characters actually interact with... If they don't behave in a fairly believable way, then that impacts the believability of the entire world for me.

When I am running a game, I generally start with a small setting. I do have all the prominent npcs detailed with personality quirks, ties to each other, likes & dislikes, etc. I play the npcs based on all that and modified by events that come along in the game afterwards. As the game progresses and the world the pcs interact with expands, I do the same thing for prominent npcs (or npcs that become that way, because sometimes players become interested in someone I wasn't expecting). The starting community for a game that has been running for a couple years had about 50% of the npcs fleshed out. Obviously that percentage drops over time.

So I do my best to actually have a good idea what way an npc will jump when a situation comes up like being punched in the face, as well as a pretty good idea what other npcs will think of it afterwards.

Exactly. I do sympathize somewhat though, because alot of times elements of this playstyle are being performed by problem players that do end up derailing the whole campaign.



Nice. I do think there is such a thing as lawful stupid - not that your character was. But, I think lawful stupid is often more the DM's fault than the players though. The DM had to set up everything in such a way that doing the lawful thing is always a negative and never ends up as a positive.



Exactly. The tool begins as a compromise that allows Oaf to be Oaf while giving the party a method to avoid the worst complications caused by the in character play.

But it goes beyond that as well. Having that kind of a PC to PC dialogue on a backdrop that actually matters in game is really where memorable moments are most likely. It set up both Oaf and Kianthys to shine brightly and to come to life. It gives the players a dynamic they can build on in the future and it gives the DM something he can create future challenges with.



Under all this there is another accusation: 'you don't want NPC's to be believable'. Of course I do. Let me spell it out. NPC's should be believable. What I'm actually claiming is that the NPC's will be just as believable even when their actions are no longer based on 'what would be their most likely reaction'. There's a few reasons for this. 1) Believability doesn't rely on 'most likely'. 2) No matter how fleshed out you think your world and NPC's are, in reality they aren't actually very fleshed out at all. 3) Even if your world was perfectly fleshed out in your mind, there's no way that you have been able to convey that to the players - which puts them at a severe disadvantage when interacting with NPCs or really anything in your setting - as you've essentially created a complex puzzle with to few clues for them to figure it out.



What actually happens is you figure out a few personality details, a few quirks and a few ties with everyone else and attempt to figure the rest out on the fly. Most often your on the fly decisions are not based on any of the few characteristics about this particular NPC, but instead how you feel a stereotypical NPC's fitting those few descriptive points would be most likely to react.



IMO. You are so used to making ad hoc decisions about what your NPC's will do and relying on the 'how would a stereotypical person like this react' heuristic that you can't even see that your notes don't actually provide any justification that a particular NPC would act a particular way toward most minutia. High level campaign related stuff sure. But what in your actual DM notes tells reaction to being punched in face when insulting adventurers?

Does Kianthys need a socially incompetent group member for him to shine? Does having that among the group actually add anything meaningful to the character of Kianthys or the game in general? Color me extremely skeptical.



Are you a living, breathing being? I'm fairly certain I am a living, breathing being... Before learning to talk, we start learning how to manipulate others. From a very early age, we start learning to gauge what other people will do in response to our actions, words, and body language. It is simply part of being alive. Saying that someone running a game is incapable of creating believable actions on the part of npcs is (in my mind at least) akin to saying they don't know how to interact with people in daily life.

I would like to follow you around on whatever planet you live on to see all the positive outcomes that result from punching people in the face that look at you funny, or say something you don't approve of... Somehow, I expect there really aren't very many of them compared to negative outcomes.

Well, I'm biased, so there's some things I can't say. But maybe I can use those biases to help y'all understand each other's positions a little better.

For me, role-playing is its own reward. And I want to complete my RP scorecard, to see how my character handles as many scenarios as possible. So, yes, having an obnoxious idiot in the group (if you characterize them as such) *does* add something meaningful to my character - it lets me characterize how they handle such a situation.

I find a world run otherwise than filled with PCs who follow "it's what my character would do" to be less fun and enjoyable, because "If they don't behave in a fairly believable way, then that impacts the believability of the entire world for me.".

However, if *I* personally hate the interaction between two PCs - not if the PCs hate it, but if I as the player hate it - then, yes, that's a problem, and I'm not going to want them to adventure together long term.

So I can absolutely see Mr face punch coming off as a fun addition to the party, or as an obnoxious / incompatible burden. It depends on the group (and the other PCs).

Just like how some groups can not only tolerate but actually enjoy characters whose contribution of negative. *Really* not my thing.

Just like how some groups can only tolerate Determinator-level perfection. *Really* not my thing.

I want to play soccer with people who enjoy playing soccer, not with people who will cuss you out for passing to the wrong person when someone else was 2 millimeters more open, nor with people who are tripping their own teammates. But both of those exist.

The two of you would definitely need to hash things out in session 0, were you to sit down at the same table. But, from what I've read, I suspect that your differences are not irreconcilable, and that the three of us could enjoy a game together.

[OldTrees1]

I know that this may sound odd, but not only has the internet not always existed, but I still find players who are "new", who are unsullied by all these preconceptions, and *they* will use the phrase "it's what my character would do", ignorant of its long and ignominious history, as the literal words.

If Jane is asking, "why would you do that?", and expecting the room to read in an implied, "I don't find that fun"? That's on Jane.

If Jane wants to elevate this to an OOC conversation, where they explain that they don't find this fun? Then it's up to the table's values to weigh that vs "it's what my character would do" / "it's what my world would do". Although I'm generally in agreement that optimizing the group's fun is more important, understand that not all groups agree with this value judgement.

Who is the audience of my advice? My advice in this thread reaches those that read this thread (and anyone they pass the advice on to). There is some common context I can assume the recipient of the advice will have.

It does not sound odd that someone new to the game might not know all the associations words / phrases have gained. The recipient of my advice might encounter one of these players. They could also encounter a troll. Or a well meaning person that has trouble expressing themselves. Or a Dragon. ... Wait, maybe not a Dragon.

So my advice needs to account for
1) My audience as at least a vague knowledge that the phrase has negative associations.
2) My audience controls what they say
3) My audience does not control what others say and they can meet a variety of people.

So my advice was to avoid causing miscommunication (by not using the infamous phrase without additional elaboration) and to seek elaboration (rather assume the infamous meaning).

So if Alex (being someone that read this thread) knows that <variable> is generally assumed to mean the infamous meaning. Since they do not intend the infamous meaning, and wish to communicate, it is wise for them to use something else OR to use <variable> but with elaboration that communicates / signals that they are not intending the infamous meaning. That will help them communicate what they mean instead of what they explicitly don't mean.

Likewise if Alex (being someone that read this thread) hears <variable>, the know it is generally assumed to mean the infamous meaning. However they also know the assumption is a presumption. So it is wise for them to seek elaboration. Maybe the infamous meaning was intended by <variable>, however it is also possible that the speaker is new, or has trouble communicating on this topic. Since Alex wants to avoid an avoidable miscommunication, they ask for elaboration.

So if Jane objects with "Why would you do that?!" to what John (I forgot the example's name) said their PC would do. Then I am advising both Jane and John to act like Alex. If either acts like Alex then the miscommunication can be resolved. This means either Jane or John can unilaterally avoid the miscommunication and move the conversation to if there is an issue / can it be resolved / how can it be resolved.

[Tanarii]

<elaboration stuff>

Thank you! I'm much clearer now.

[NichG]

I know that this may sound odd, but not only has the internet not always existed, but I still find players who are "new", who are unsullied by all these preconceptions, and *they* will use the phrase "it's what my character would do", ignorant of its long and ignominious history, as the literal words.

If Jane is asking, "why would you do that?", and expecting the room to read in an implied, "I don't find that fun"? That's on Jane.

If Jane wants to elevate this to an OOC conversation, where they explain that they don't find this fun? Then it's up to the table's values to weigh that vs "it's what my character would do" / "it's what my world would do". Although I'm generally in agreement that optimizing the group's fun is more important, understand that not all groups agree with this value judgement.

Line 4 was the one in which Jane objected, and she explained specifically why. No (need for) implications there, she was explicit about the issue.

In Line 3 where Jane asks why, she just actually wants to know why. My point there was that if someone is in honestly asking that for understanding, 'because!' is still a pretty bad answer, or at least it doesn't move the conversation further. "Yes, but why?" would be the infinite loop response.

An example response that would be more helpful would be e.g. "I don't want to explain it OOC, please keep it in character" or "I like playing characters where I can let loose my impulse control since its not something I get to do IRL"

[Frogreaver]

Spoiler: for reference, Kraynic vs Frogreaver

Show

So I can absolutely see Mr face punch coming off as a fun addition to the party, or as an obnoxious / incompatible burden. It depends on the group (and the other PCs).

I agree with most of what you said here but I want to add to one part I quoted.

I would go a step further and say that most players don't know how to play anything but obnoxious / incompatible burdens when they play extremely dumb characters (and other negative traits). They tend to play them as hardheaded and stubborn and take every opportunity to use their flaws to make things worse for the party. I fully agree that is not fun for the group. I think that's the kind of experience most people come at this suggestion from. So I get the initial pushback.

But, my primary point is that such characters don't have to be played that way and that when they aren't many groups will find them not only tolerable but actually enjoyable - but probably not all groups (as you noted there are some groups with some pretty extreme playstyle preferences). I think focusing on how characterizations that are prone to be obnoxious / incompatible can be played in such ways to make them fun and enjoyable for everyone is important. Examples include:

• Telegraphing before something potentially bad gets resolved helps.
• Only having your PC take such actions when the party will find it fun or when it's pretty much the only option you have for 'it's what my character would do' or as an introduction/reminder to your characters dumbness in low stakes situations.
• Being very willing to go along with other players leads when it comes to how they attempt to prevent your PC's potentially negative actions from being a major complication when they arise in an important situation.

These changes tend to turn obnoxious/incompatible burdens into fun and engaging PC's for the whole party.

[Time Troll]

Well, you can never allow the "it's what my character would do" to disrupt or ruin a game. Even if it "is" really what your character "would" do, you simply need to alter reality to make it something else.

Just take the basic group: in at least most groups you will likely have one character that does not fit in. One that "normally" the rest of the group would have nothing to do with.....but they do because that character is a PC. And you don't want to ban a player from playing a reasonable character they want to play, just because another PC might be unhappy or not like it.

Pex's list is good, I agree with everything on it.


I do think some of them can work out in the right sort of game. What sort of game? A game of close friends. And I will even break it down: You must be a member of the gaming group for at least a full colander year and be friends with each player outside the game. And by friends, I'd generally say you must hang out with the person at least 25 times a year (twice of month) OUTSIDE of gaming, you must have been over each others homes at least once and must exchange birthday gifts. It's a lot, but I think it qualifies as friendship.

If you are willing to do that, you may play whatever character you want and do as you wish.

I find few hot headed players want to put forth the effort, but it is very possible. I have known many gamers for years and years...even a couple of groups.

When you know Larry and have been friends with him for 11 years, you know he is not personally attacking you or trying to ruin the game with his greedy dwarf character...he is just being Larry.

When you have known Chet for ten minutes, and he backstabs everyone....he might just jump up, knock over the table and dance around and say "ha, I ruined your game loosers!".

[Tanarii]

And by friends, I'd generally say you must hang out with the person at least 25 times a year (twice of month) OUTSIDE of gaming, you must have been over each others homes at least once and must exchange birthday gifts. It's a lot, but I think it qualifies as friendship.

I count people as close friends that don't meet any of those qualifications. And some that meet those requirements that I don't count as friends.

But I still wouldn't let a close friend get away with something disruptive to the table because "it's what my character would do".

[FrogInATopHat]

And by friends, I'd generally say you must hang out with the person at least 25 times a year (twice of month) OUTSIDE of gaming, you must have been over each others homes at least once and must exchange birthday gifts. It's a lot, but I think it qualifies as friendship.

You seem to be describing incredibly high expectations of friendship, to the point of toxicity.

We *game* twice a month and now you expect me to be able to see these people at least twice more a month in order to count as friends?? How does that leave any time for me to see my other friends? Am I allowed to have other friends? What about doing stuff with my kids? Is that not allowed? I work full-time too, and I'm studying. Do I have to quit my job? What about housework? Can I just hire one of my friends to take care of all of that for me? Would that count as hanging out? Cleaners are expensive. Is there a tax rebate for 'friendship' that I can claim? My geographically closest friend lives a 30min drive away. He can't drive. Do I have to go to him all the time? Do I have to buy him a car? Wait! He doesn't play with us. Do I have to drop him?

I'd better message my group of 5 players and tell them that we're not allowed be friends anymore. Should I insist that they refer to me as "Mr [Surname]" from now on?