What if it IS what my character would do?

[Kardwill]

And how does that disrupt anything?

The kender makes a pickpocket roll, one player marks something off there sheet and the kender pencils it in. It takes 30 seconds tops.

It would be less disruptive than the kender player politely asking the other player if he could sharpen his pencil because he can't reach the sharpener.

Now, it can absolutely create hurt feelings, but its not because its disruptive. Its because its perceived as a violation of the trust that is expected between party members.

But those hurt feelings will be the source of a reduced enjoyment of the game. That's the distruption : That PVP act disrupted the primary goal of the game (i.e. "having fun with other players").
I've seen players slamming the door of a campaign over stuff like this. Campaigns actually stopping because of it, because nobody found it fun anymore or because a disgruntled player did out of spite something that resulted in a TPK. 10 years long comradships bruttaly ending. How would the actual death of the game (and maybe of any future game with this group) be less disruptive than just saying "Woah, hold on a minute! Do we want to play in a game where we're doing bad stuff to the other players? I'm actually cool with it, within reason, like an ingame rivalry, but is it okay with everyone? If not, I propose we stop right there."

And I'm not even going into the fact that if one of the players resents this PVP and decides to act out on it in the game rather than simply saying "Stop. I don't want this!", then the whole game, both IC and OOC, will probably end up being about that feud. So, even if the fateful blowup never happens, the flow of the story beats (which is apparently your standard for "disruption") will be highjacked.

If a players gets enjoyment of something he knows will destroy the enjoyment of another player (that's my definition for "disruptive behaviour"), then they must find a consensus they both find enjoyable. Willingly ignoring the enjoyment of the other people at the table is not cool.

You can do many things at a gaming table. But only if the other people sharing this activityu with you are okay with it.

[FrogInATopHat]

You can do many things at a gaming table. But only if the other people sharing this activity with you are okay with it.

Succinct, eloquent, to-the-point.

I think that about covers the whole deal.

[Talakeal]

Disruption is not a time thing. Disruption is about causing problems or difficulties so that something cannot continue as normal. See here and here.

The "hurt feelings" and the "violation of the trust" you dismiss are exactly what disruption is.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Ok, I am gonna try one more time...

In the definitions you linked, the examples are about noisy students disrupting class. Because that's what disruptive behavior is; making noise, cracking jokes, goofing around, and otherwise distracting people and wasting their time. It is not a catch all term for negative behaviors.

Now sure, you can torture the definition and say that any behavior can be disruptive because it causes issues down the line and makes people spend time and energy thinking about it or its ramifications, but that makes the term more or less meaningless as it can be applied to any behavior.

BUT, semantics aren't really the point. The point is that, while any negative behavior can cause a disruption, it is not the disruption that is the core of the issue, it is the hurt feelings, lack of trust, and genuinely stressful environment that are the real issues, not the disruptions.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Yep, you figured it out. All of my issues were over semantic arguments about toxic behavior, not about the negative behavior itself.

[FrogInATopHat]

Ok, I am gonna try one more time...

In the definitions you linked, the examples are about noisy students disrupting class.

{Scrubbed}

Yep, you figured it out. All of my issues were over semantic arguments about toxic behavior, not about the negative behavior itself.

Honestly, I think it's more about an inability to recognise and respond appropriately to toxic behaviour, rather than semantic arguments. {Scrubbed}

[Kardwill]

although I can't remember anyone saying "I prepare to [action]" in any of my play experiences.

I've done it when I knew that "it's what m'y character would do" would be disruptive.

"You hear a low growling noise as Grolor walks toward the merchant, his huge hands rolling into fists. You know that it means violence, unless something is done"

I might even add an ooc "but feel free to stop me, cause it's really a stupid thing to do", although my friends already know that using the 3rd person is my way to distance myself from my character's actions, and signal that it's okay to oppose me.

[Talakeal]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}



Honestly, I think it's more about an inability to recognise and respond appropriately to toxic behaviour, rather than semantic arguments. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Ok, look, I read the entire thread, and I legitimately thought people were saying that disrupting the game was the worst thing a player can do, and I was truly puzzled by it. Now I see that they were using disruptive as a catch-all term for toxic behaviors where you have your fun at other people’s expense (I think).

Like many neurodivergent people, I tend to be overly literal and take people’s statements at face value. And yes, it probably is the source of a lot of problems in my life, but it is still really hurtful for you to throw is in my face like that.

[OldTrees1]

Ok, look, I read the entire thread, and I legitimately thought people were saying that disrupting the game was the worst thing a player can do, and I was truly puzzled by it. Now I see that they were using disruptive as a catch-all term for toxic behaviors where you have your fun at other people’s expense (I think).

People are not saying "disrupting the game is the worst thing a player can do". This thread is not about cataloging or ranking the worst things a player can do. This thread is about a phrase.

Consider the situation

Player A: "Character A does 'the thing' "
Player B: "What?! Why are you having Character A do 'the thing'?!"
Player A: "That is what Character A would do"
Player A and Player B still have a conflict

Is that conflict large enough to disrupt the game? If so then the conflict is disruptive. The word disruptive is being used as a magnitude. When someone is contributing to events or conflicts that would cause the game to be disrupted then they are "being disruptive".

Players like to play the game. All else equal they prefer to prevent or resolve disruptions rather than sustain or escalate disruptions.

This thread is focusing on the phrase "That is what my character would do". Which is almost exclusively used when there is a conflict comparable to the situation I mentioned.

Given this context "being disruptive" is a catch all term for whatever behavior is currently contributing to the disruptive conflict. *NOTICE 1* *NOTICE 2* *NOTICE 3*

Notice 1: The catch all term does not presume "toxic" or "fun at other people’s expense"
Notice 2: What is disruptive in one case might not be disruptive in another case. Remember that other people are different people. If Player A says their kender pickpockets from Player B's character, that can be disruptive. Or it could be perfectly fine. Or somewhere inbetween. It depends on those Players.
Notice 3: Player A can want their character to do 'the thing' for a different reason than what Player B is objecting to.

*NOTICE 4*

Notice 4: This thread is not about "disruptive". Please consider focusing on the topic rather than "disruptive".

[FrogInATopHat]

Like many neurodivergent people, I tend to be overly literal and take people’s statements at face value. And yes, it probably is the source of a lot of problems in my life, but it is still really hurtful for you to throw is in my face like that.

You're right. It was neither fair nor kind of me to say the things I did about your games or about you as a person.

I got wrapped up in things and behaved completely inappropriately.

I apologise sincerely.

Think I'm just gonna sit the rest of this thread out.

[Talakeal]

Thank you.

I am also sorry for being overly argumentative and will likely bow out of the thread as well.

[Psyren]

Sidestepping the perennial Kender discussion to address the topic more broadly.

This was probably already linked by someone else somewhere in this thread's many pages, but my personal take on this very closely mirror's The Giant's from one of his old gaming articles, archived here - particularly the part under "Decide To React Differently." The core of it, minus the examples, is quoted below:

Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least, an agreement to disagree.
...
The division between your personality and that of your character only goes so far as it helps the game; once it begins becoming a disruption, a player has a responsibility to alter his or her character's decisions in the interest of the group. In the end, your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living room with are more important than your character's internal consistency.

Now in an ideal world and with enough creativity, you can easily maintain both - the out of game relationships, and the in-game character consistency. But I always approach any potential conflict between the two knowing that the first one is more important and will win unless I can work out a tie. And even if I can't, my job then is first and foremost to preserve the former, while minimizing impact to the latter as a secondary concern.

I didn't quote the Giant's examples from that link but they're well worth a read for those not already familiar.

[quinron]

*snipped for length*

I actually think the Giant quote you've linked in your sig is actually just as good an argument as the one you quoted in your post:

But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

Your character always has multiple ways to respond to a situation. Instead of choosing the response that can or will cause conflict at the table, why not just choose a different action that WON'T cause conflict?

[Psyren]

I actually think the Giant quote you've linked in your sig is actually just as good an argument as the one you quoted in your post:



Your character always has multiple ways to respond to a situation. Instead of choosing the response that can or will cause conflict at the table, why not just choose a different action that WON'T cause conflict?

Indeed, that quote works on many levels for me

I do want to highlight though that he wasn't arguing against conflict per se - intraparty conflict can in many cases be a great source of fun and memorable roleplay. Rather, what he was arguing against are threats and ultimatums - lines in the sand such as "If you do/don't do X, I'm leaving" or "I will be forced to attack you" or "I have no choice but to turn you in," etc. Those are the conflicts that quickly disrupt the game as a whole, because there's no organic way to move past them and still maintain the team dynamic.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can have flaws without being disruptive to the game. There's a reason in Dragonlance games why Kender and Gullydwarves are vehemently disliked.

Yes. Structural grief play. It's a structural problem.

PVP is a spectrum.

Great post, keeping this as a reference.

I like the idea of saying "This is what my character would do. I know this will be disruptive. Let's stop and talk about how we got where we are, and how we can move forward." Maybe the other players will say "You're right. Let's come up with a way to play this differently." Maybe they'll say "That will be hilarious! Do it! The party will deal with it."

I am in a group that does this. It works. The reactions vary and sometimes the other players are able to point out an issue that the declaring player had not seen but for their feedback/input.

This. Blame is not conserved, multiple people can be 100% at fault.

Soo stealing this.

"former slave who will not be recaptured" is a perfectly reasonable character trait.

I have a current character who fits this to a T, however, she's not a two dimensional, deterministic fool. For example, if she gets charmed/held/dominated by a saving throw failure, and ends up captured, she's not going to be wilfully stupid as a result. She will, however, (1) try her best to escape and (2) act out her vengeance at a time and place of her choosing, and hopefully her party mates will aid and abet her in that bloody day.

i am an "immersion first" player.

At a table full of 'immersion first' players your position works pretty well, since you all bought into it by adapting that play style. Getting five or six different people with the same tastes in how much immersion I want in and from this game is a bit tricky.

Turns out the answer was no, this particular characters belief didn't outweigh sanity. They just didn't understand the situation, and thought there was only one way they could act in that situation. Returning and killing / driving off the denizens of the caves met their requirement better than dying on the spot, they just hadn't understood they could choose to act differently.

Very good post. I've played in games where we let inept characters die while the rest fled when they chose poorly. And they would then roll up another character ...

If what your character would do is betray my character and his friends, then what my character would do is kill your character. [Or at best, permanently banish your character from the party.]

Yeah, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Two examples (large parties, OD&D and AD&D ish)
1. The Thief, despite warnings from cleric and magic user not to touch that door yet, says he's going to try and pick the lock. My cleric cast hold person on the thief. Thief failed his save. Dwarf Fighting Man pulled him away from the door and sat on him. He was told in no uncertain terms that he'd get pounded if he pulled that kind of stupid stunt again (by the dwarf's player).

2. We had just entered the large cavern complex, and one of the players (I think there were 8 or 9 of us) got a bit bored by the exploration bit as we moved from chamber to chamber, trying to find our way to where the decrepit treasure map had indicated a deep well with a long rumored treasure horde. {Spoiler: nearly a TPK, and we got a fraction of rumored treasure}.
He says words to the effect of "Those troglodytes we bypassed? I think I'll go and kill some of them." Magic User told him "Don't" but he started to move that way.
(The Magic User had rolled hot so the DM had let him try out the new psionics rules). Psionic Blast. It put him to sleep. My thief had to carry him (actually had to drag the character as Thief wasn't strong enough to carry him). Why did I have to do that? Because I, the player, had been the one to bring this friend to our group a few sessions before. They all blamed me for him, in terms of teaching group norms to the newbie.

"What would my character do" may open up a can of worms which can quickly escalate to PvP.
Some folks are fine with that, and some are not.

Because the humans at the table are ultimately where the buck stops.

I won't get on a soap box about the myth of character/player separation, but I think your point is pretty strong.

Boundaries are things for session 0. Putting them in retroactively and unilaterally is just asking for trouble. If it really needs to be done, it should be done properly as you are in effect negotiating about the game you all want to play.

1. You can have more than one session 0.
2. Sometimes, the need for boundaries is not recognized until a few sessions in, which takes us to the next Session 0 and the possible use of safety tools.

[quinron]

Indeed, that quote works on many levels for me

I do want to highlight though that he wasn't arguing against conflict per se - intraparty conflict can in many cases be a great source of fun and memorable roleplay. Rather, what he was arguing against are threats and ultimatums - lines in the sand such as "If you do/don't do X, I'm leaving" or "I will be forced to attack you" or "I have no choice but to turn you in," etc. Those are the conflicts that quickly disrupt the game as a whole, because there's no organic way to move past them and still maintain the team dynamic.

Yeah, maybe unclear on my part - I meant that as in conflict between players rather than characters.

1. You can have more than one session 0.
2. Sometimes, the need for boundaries is not recognized until a few sessions in, which takes us to the next Session 0 and the possible use of safety tools.

I'd add, as a sort of corollary, that not everyone knows what their boundaries are until they've been crossed. If something comes up that you didn't realize was going to upset you, you deserve to be listened to when you ask that it not come up again.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd add, as a sort of corollary, that not everyone knows what their boundaries are until they've been crossed. If something comes up that you didn't realize was going to upset you, you deserve to be listened to when you ask that it not come up again.

Very nice follow up, thanks. Said it better than I did.

[vasilidor]

I once made a character whos entire point of being an adventurer was to hunt down and kill one guy.
Everyone knew my characters motivation. I tried to communicate this as best I could.
We found the one guy.
They left my character alone with him.
They then had the gall to be surprised when my character killed the guy when they knew that this was the guy and why he was hunting him.
Vengeance was his.
I was totally OK with the rest of the party turning him in to the authorities. I expected that to happen as a player. not that the authorities held him, did a solo game that was him escaping that was fun.
never played him again after that.

I also once killed the character of a fellow player for having killed my character on three separate occasions due to gross incompetence.
Guy was a problem player who like to do things like start avalanches or melt that entire glacier that we are down hill on.
cast fire ball in a room he had been told was filled with gun powder while everyone in the party was still in it.
Announced our location while we were on a stealth operation.
cast magic missile at the dragon we are trying to talk to after telling his character we were trying to talk to the thing.
My character refused to believe that the guy was doing this unintentionally anymore. And I was done with that player behaving that way. At one point I tried to talk to him out of game that I was done with him getting my character killed like that. It was not fun.
Don't play with him anymore. Not since the bumbling mage character of his was killed by my character.

Most of this was almost twenty years ago or more. I can understand how hard it can be for a character to go against there motivations when the player has been focused on playing them a certain way. A lot of the time the player saying "But it is what my character would do." is stating it in surprise at the objection. sometimes it comes as a genuine surprise to the group, others not so much. sometimes the players may know the character is seeking vengeance but may not believe that the player of that character will go though with it. Other times it is being said by a player who has been talked to by multiple persons that they are being disruptive and unfun and "why are you here if you are going to behave like this."
These days if something like this comes up I take it as a moment to step away from the game and ask "why is this something your character would do?" and "why are you opposed to this persons character doing this thing, is this a problem you yourself have or just your character?"

Context matters. Communication is key in these scenarios. I feel that players should communicate their characters motives and intentions with the other players if the story has gone in a direction in which their character would become disruptive.

[Segev]

I once made a character whos entire point of being an adventurer was to hunt down and kill one guy.
Everyone knew my characters motivation. I tried to communicate this as best I could.
We found the one guy.
They left my character alone with him.
They then had the gall to be surprised when my character killed the guy when they knew that this was the guy and why he was hunting him.

I'd suggest that you probably should have told them, OOC, what would happen if they left your PC alone with the guy, but for all I know, you did.

[Batcathat]

I'd suggest that you probably should have told them, OOC, what would happen if they left your PC alone with the guy, but for all I know, you did.

Even if vasilidor didn't, I'd say the consequences of leaving someone alone with a person they are explicitly wanting to kill should be fairly obvious. This seems along the line of "What? You mean your Lawful Good paladin won't help assassinate the rightful king and take over the kingdom?".

[Segev]

Even if vasilidor didn't, I'd say the consequences of leaving someone alone with a person they are explicitly wanting to kill should be fairly obvious. This seems along the line of "What? You mean your Lawful Good paladin won't help assassinate the rightful king and take over the kingdom?".

Perhaps, but it's easy to forget, OOC, something the PCs should be acutely aware of, IC, and it also is no more cool to rely on player memory failure for this than any other potential anti-party behavior.

If something is going to happen the other players might want to stop your PC from doing, giving them an OOC chance to avoid OOC mistakes with IC consequences is reasonable.

[Quertus]

Perhaps, but it's easy to forget, OOC, something the PCs should be acutely aware of, IC, and it also is no more cool to rely on player memory failure for this than any other potential anti-party behavior.

If something is going to happen the other players might want to stop your PC from doing, giving them an OOC chance to avoid OOC mistakes with IC consequences is reasonable.

"What? You mean, after all these years of adventuring together, killing our way through his minions, you're going to *kill* the BBEG?!"

Sorry, if you're not invested enough in the game to pay attention, even my senile self has no sympathy.

Of course, my lack of sympathy is exacerbated by the similarly epimethian lack of developing a "wait!" culture, combined with the blame culture of accusing the player who's doing the obviously right thing (killing the guy whom it had always been his mission to kill) rather than the one(s) who made a mistake (leaving him alone with the soon to be corpse if they didn't want him dead).

[Satinavian]

1. You can have more than one session 0.
2. Sometimes, the need for boundaries is not recognized until a few sessions in, which takes us to the next Session 0 and the possible use of safety tools.

Well, yes. That is what i suggested. If people feel that what was agreed upon does not work or does not suffice, they should discuss how to modify or extend it.

But until that has happened, those boundaries are not actually boundaries the group has agreed on and are thus not actually valid as such. And any incident in play that would start such a discussion is a proof that the group is divided on whether such a boundary should be in place or not which the eventual decision possibly going either way.

[Quertus]

Well, yes. That is what i suggested. If people feel that what was agreed upon does not work or does not suffice, they should discuss how to modify or extend it.

But until that has happened, those boundaries are not actually boundaries the group has agreed on and are thus not actually valid as such. And any incident in play that would start such a discussion is a proof that the group is divided on whether such a boundary should be in place or not which the eventual decision possibly going either way.

Really wanted to highlight this bit. So often, people write just assuming that there is only one possible right answer. Kudos!

[Psyren]

I once made a character whos entire point of being an adventurer was to hunt down and kill one guy.
Everyone knew my characters motivation. I tried to communicate this as best I could.
We found the one guy.
They left my character alone with him.
They then had the gall to be surprised when my character killed the guy when they knew that this was the guy and why he was hunting him.
Vengeance was his.
I was totally OK with the rest of the party turning him in to the authorities. I expected that to happen as a player. not that the authorities held him, did a solo game that was him escaping that was fun.
never played him again after that.

I don't see a problem with this. The party wanting to turn your character in to the authorities could easily be a source of conflict, but given that you considered his story fulfilled and were fine retiring him at that moment to play someone/something else, the conflict is constructive rather than destructive to the game.

Perhaps, but it's easy to forget, OOC, something the PCs should be acutely aware of, IC, and it also is no more cool to rely on player memory failure for this than any other potential anti-party behavior.

If something is going to happen the other players might want to stop your PC from doing, giving them an OOC chance to avoid OOC mistakes with IC consequences is reasonable.

This too. Just state clearly OOC what your character intends to do and let the GM referee any no-backsies, that's their job.

[vasilidor]

It may be that I should have tried to be more clear and told them out of character. The party wanted him alive for some reason, that I no longer remember, and were upset about what I had done in the game. not so upset that we could no go past it though. it was a learning point for me.

[Psyren]

It may be that I should have tried to be more clear and told them out of character. The party wanted him alive for some reason, that I no longer remember, and were upset about what I had done in the game. not so upset that we could no go past it though. it was a learning point for me.

In our group it would have gone like this.

Me: "So I'm alone with him right? Because this is definitely what my character wants."
Group: "Oh right crap, Psyren wanted to kill him right? So much for {plan}!"
GM: "Would your characters have done that though? You might not have remembered, but they probably did."

One of three outcomes would ensue:

Outcome 1:
Group: "Yeah we wouldn't have, *I* definitely wouldn't have - is that okay Psyren? Say, as we're starting to leave my character goes "hold on everybody!""

Outcome 2:
Group: "Nah we already left the room... We'll yell at him once we find out but we'll figure something else out for the plan."

Outcome 3:
Group: "Can we roll a Wis check to see if any of us remember? If not or if we fail, he can do whatever, we'll yell at him and then figure something else out."