What if it IS what my character would do?

[quinron]

Honestly, this scenario just strikes me as a failure to communicate and be flexible in both directions. If a player's actions might be considered disruptive, they should consider backpedaling on those actions and/or changing their behavior going forward; likewise, the other group members should consider whether the actions are genuinely disruptive and allow some leeway for minor disruptions. As others have mentioned, a lot of conflict can be avoided by making sure everyone at the table is on the same page about what kind of game we're playing and what sorts of characters will fit into it.

That said, I've got a kneejerk opposition to the "IWMCWD" defense, for the reasons spelled out by others - by the time you're saying that, you already know you've done something that's going to upset someone, and you're trying to deflect blame. If you're worried that's going to be the case, bring it up as table talk and figure out if everyone wants to deal with the possible ramifications - which, in my experience, is just as likely as them not wanting to.

[KaussH]

This is just an attempt to justify anti-social "troll" behaviour. The point of an RPG is that everyone at the table has fun: by asking this question you are accepting that your proposed course of action is fun for you but not everyone else; you acknowledge that they will not like it. Having fun at the expense of other people is a definition of a troll or bully.

Remember that you get to decide when and how your character will act in different situations: that includes how their flaws will manifest, and it means that you - not your imaginary character - are responsible for how you act in the game. You can also decide to talk to the DM and fellow players beforehand: if everyone is ok with your plan and character then that's ok, but might vary between tables.

I disagree. While dnd may have pointless flaws that have are all fluff, other games have flaws that are worth points, give you stuff, can be enforced by the gm, ect.
Making a pc that is intended to be a troll is one thing, but ignoring your character traits is a no no. And if it gets the party into a little trouble well heck, isnt a little trouble why you are playing.


Not every party has to be lock step during the game.

This is also why we have groups where bob might want to torture an npc and that's ok as it's for the good of the party. But Sam who is a nice guy isnt alowed to stop it as that is "inter party conflict" often the answer is "well Sam didnt have to make a nice guy." Or " sam didnt need to make his charicter stop the torture."

In short I find saying a pc can never say "this is what my charicter would do" can be just as bad .

And to be honest, if you make an empty suit pc who's convictions are all party based and isnt an individual, then in my view that is a poor charicter. Team player is one thing, team minion is another.

[Pex]

I disagree. While dnd may have pointless flaws that have are all fluff, other games have flaws that are worth points, give you stuff, can be enforced by the gm, ect.
Making a pc that is intended to be a troll is one thing, but ignoring your character traits is a no no. And if it gets the party into a little trouble well heck, isnt a little trouble why you are playing.


Not every party has to be lock step during the game.

This is also why we have groups where bob might want to torture an npc and that's ok as it's for the good of the party. But Sam who is a nice guy isnt alowed to stop it as that is "inter party conflict" often the answer is "well Sam didnt have to make a nice guy." Or " sam didnt need to make his charicter stop the torture."

In short I find saying a pc can never say "this is what my charicter would do" can be just as bad .

And to be honest, if you make an empty suit pc who's convictions are all party based and isnt an individual, then in my view that is a poor charicter. Team player is one thing, team minion is another.

You can have flaws without being disruptive to the game. There's a reason in Dragonlance games why Kender and Gullydwarves are vehemently disliked. It doesn't matter the rules themselves give permission and encourage their behavior. It's disruptive play that makes the game unfun for many. Having a flaw of alcoholism is fine. During downtime the PC goes to a tavern, gets drunk, starts or otherwise gets involved in a bar fight, and the party needs to deal with the consequences for a real world hour of light-hearted silliness. The PC may get a reputation that precedes him so when the party first enters a town the local law enforcement confront the PCs to give a warning. A flaw of kleptomania means the PC must steal from party members or the Duke during the middle of negotiations or an enemy of my enemy scenario trying to form a detente with a dragon is not conducive to engaging play.

[Lemmy]

It's also a matter of quantity...

We all annoy other people at some point in our lives, including family and friends. What changes is how often and how much.

If you get on your friends' nerves once or twice a year, that's ok. If you do it once a twice a month, you should at very least reevaluate your behavior.

So it's ok to, once in a blue moon, go with what your character would do, even if it's a bit annoying... But do it a litte more often, and your friends will understandably grow tired of your antics.

[AntiAuthority]

Depends. If the character is just jerk is a thinly veiled excuse to be disruptive (killing plot important NPCs, trying to kill party members, stealing from the party, etc.) that's one thing, as I had a player who justified all this as it being his character's personality... He was just using it as an excuse and was a horrible player. He outright admitted as much once.

If your character is face to face with, say, the person who killed their family, ruined their lives or finds a lost family heirloom and becomes uncooperative/laser focused until that issue is resolved (like killing their family's murderer, even if the party needs said murderer alive) is justified in that case.

As long as the character isn't a constant thorn in the party's side it should be fine from time to time.

[quinron]

It's also a matter of quantity...

We all annoy other people at some point in our lives, including family and friends. What changes is how often and how much.

If you get on your friends' nerves once or twice a year, that's ok. If you do it once a twice a month, you should at very least reevaluate your behavior.

So it's ok to, once in a blue moon, go with what your character would do, even if it's a bit annoying... But do it a litte more often, and your friends will understandably grow tired of your antics.

By that same token, I'd say it's a matter of individual frequency. If everyone's taking turns getting the group into trouble, that's just the game you're all playing; if it's only ever you getting everyone else into trouble, then even if it's rare, it's going to start to grate.

[KaussH]

You can have flaws without being disruptive to the game. There's a reason in Dragonlance games why Kender and Gullydwarves are vehemently disliked. It doesn't matter the rules themselves give permission and encourage their behavior. It's disruptive play that makes the game unfun for many. Having a flaw of alcoholism is fine. During downtime the PC goes to a tavern, gets drunk, starts or otherwise gets involved in a bar fight, and the party needs to deal with the consequences for a real world hour of light-hearted silliness. The PC may get a reputation that precedes him so when the party first enters a town the local law enforcement confront the PCs to give a warning. A flaw of kleptomania means the PC must steal from party members or the Duke during the middle of negotiations or an enemy of my enemy scenario trying to form a detente with a dragon is not conducive to engaging play.

Thats not really a "flaw" if it only happends in down time.

Flaws are meant to both flesh out a pc, as well as make things fun.
If you were playing fate for example, and had a trouble aspect called " sticky fingers" then a gm may well compel (game term) you to lift something. Or you may well self compel. This does not make the game end however. The party is still playing, it just throws a kink in things.

So if the alcoholic takes a 10 gp treasure bottle of wine an guzzles it due to being dry, is that stealing from the party?

[Pex]

Thats not really a "flaw" if it only happends in down time.

Flaws are meant to both flesh out a pc, as well as make things fun.
If you were playing fate for example, and had a trouble aspect called " sticky fingers" then a gm may well compel (game term) you to lift something. Or you may well self compel. This does not make the game end however. The party is still playing, it just throws a kink in things.

So if the alcoholic takes a 10 gp treasure bottle of wine an guzzles it due to being dry, is that stealing from the party?

The stereotypical prisoner dilemma is a flaw. The rogue wants to kill the captured orc after interrogation. The paladin wants to let him go because it's not correct to kill an unarmed helpless foe. Both are right. Both are wrong. The party deals with it. In the treasure hoard are five bottles of expensive wine. The PC drunk claims them all for his share. Not a problem even if total gp worth is more than others' share value. It's out in the open of obviousness. Nevertheless, it really doesn't matter what your flaw is. You don't disrupt the game. You don't make the game unfun for others. Choose to play differently or choose to play somewhere else where your behavior is accepted.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Hmm. It largely depends on the group and what they are willing to tolerate, but also theres a difference between a character like say Bender vs Zapp Brannigan.

Both are known to lie, cheat, steal, casually disregard the wellbeing of others, etc. and generally do even good things for selfish reasons but a key difference is Bender has some redeeming qualities where Zapp really... doesn’t. Bender is driven by a desire to be accepted and respected and is really insecure about that, but if he gets it he actually treats those people rather well (comedy and above flaws aside).

Now some tables wouldn’t like either of these in a party, some would like one but not the other and some would be fine with both. It comes down to how the people in the group respond to flaws, anti-party interplay and so on. ‘What my character would do’ is often shorthand for ‘we now have a problem with this character’ either on an individual or consistent basis.

[Rater202]

Honestly, this scenario just strikes me as a failure to communicate and be flexible in both directions. If a player's actions might be considered disruptive, they should consider backpedaling on those actions and/or changing their behavior going forward; likewise, the other group members should consider whether the actions are genuinely disruptive and allow some leeway for minor disruptions. As others have mentioned, a lot of conflict can be avoided by making sure everyone at the table is on the same page about what kind of game we're playing and what sorts of characters will fit into it.

That said, I've got a kneejerk opposition to the "IWMCWD" defense, for the reasons spelled out by others - by the time you're saying that, you already know you've done something that's going to upset someone, and you're trying to deflect blame. If you're worried that's going to be the case, bring it up as table talk and figure out if everyone wants to deal with the possible ramifications - which, in my experience, is just as likely as them not wanting to.

Question: How do you feel about "it's what my character has been doing the entire campaign so far why is it a problem now?"

Most of the time "IWMCWD" used as a defense for disruptive behavior comes from people who were going to be disruptive anyway: Say, the guy who makes a chaotic neutral rogue and then says "it's what y character would do" when he steals from the party.

But if a normally non-disruptive player's character has reacted a specific way during certain situations several times in the past and it's only disruptive this time then that's hardly the player's fault.

You can't expect someone to have their character change in behavior for no reason, especially if you never told them "that's not gonna be okay this time" out of character.

If if the behavior was disruptive all along but you never talked to them about it or even showed annoyance, then it's still not their fault becuase you never let them know that it was a problem.

A game I was in for a few years stalled for a bit because I got railroaded(arguably Godmodded) into being captured and every suggestion for resolving that conflict given to me required my character to act out of character and every suggestion I made was shot down out of hand, often without explanation. I wasn't trying to be disruptive and, from my perspective, it was other players acting improperly, I was just playing my character the way she was established to act.

[HeraldOfExius]

Eh, "attack the quest-giver for suggesting that we assassinate the rightful and goodly king" is "what my character would do" for the player of the Paladin (and 6/12 of the PCs in the party where that happened), but it can easily be viewed as more a statement of "this *quest* is disruptive" or "the assumption (made by any - GM or other player) that we'd go along with this is disruptive" than an admission by the player that it is their action that is disruptive.

It takes at least two for something to be disruptive. The question is, once a disruption is noticed, who is working to fix it?

"It's what my character would do" is not moral high ground for "and therefore it's not *my* responsibility to help fix this problem". It's a call for, "*is* it disruptive if the quest-giver dies while the opening credits are still rolling", and, if so, "here's a quest the quest-giver could give that *wouldn't* get them murdered" or "here's a character who *wouldn't* murder such a sketchy quest-giver".

In other words, noticing that role-playing will lead to a conflict does *not* imply fault to the one noticing, nor to the one role-playing.

This ties in to the possible larger conversation that I mentioned. Someone who says "it's what my my character would do" can follow it up with "so how do we fix this?" If the player is willing to collaborate with the other people at the table, then there isn't actually anything wrong with saying it. But it seems like this particular phrase is used more than others by people who want to play a disruptive character and won't listen to anything that anybody else has to say. It's the "it was a dark and stormy night" of table arguments. It could be followed up by something good, but everybody groans as soon as they hear it because they're expecting something bad from its past use (at least from what the other players believe about its past use).

[NichG]

In terms of forgiving infrequent annoying behavior and stuff like that, think about it this way:

If you think it would be over the line to explain the behavior with 'I just felt like doing it this way this time' instead of 'its what my character would do', then it's still over the line. If it wouldn't be over the line to say 'I just felt like doing it this way this time', then you don't need to defend it with 'its what my character would do'.

The fallacy is in assuming that the call to the character justifies taking liberties beyond that which the player already has the right to take in that group by virtue of being a player in the group.

[Batcathat]

In terms of forgiving infrequent annoying behavior and stuff like that, think about it this way:

If you think it would be over the line to explain the behavior with 'I just felt like doing it this way this time' instead of 'its what my character would do', then it's still over the line. If it wouldn't be over the line to say 'I just felt like doing it this way this time', then you don't need to defend it with 'its what my character would do'.

The fallacy is in assuming that the call to the character justifies taking liberties beyond that which the player already has the right to take in that group by virtue of being a player in the group.

This is an interesting way of look at it but personally I would be more understanding if some potentially annoying behaviour was in line with how the player has previously portrayed their character. Let's say someone in the party kills a captured enemy who the party was planning to interrogate. It's certainly cause for the party to be upset both in and out of character, but I would be more okay with it if the character was established as bloodthirsty and impulsive than if they had previously been merciful and thoughtful.

[Zhorn]

I'll admit the "it's what my character would do" is often annoying if the player is just using it as an excuse to act like a jerk and be generally antagonistic to the party's general goals and interest. The other players are fully within their right to abandon said character and have the party move on without them.

This is where the key priority need to be set; put more attention and value into why the party would want to keep you around.
Want to have your character be a jerk or have negative behaviours and flaws? Sure thing, BUT the value you bring to the party needs to be worth the trouble.
If the party is more successful WITHOUT you, then you're doing it wrong.
If killing you solves more problems for the party than it causes, you've gone too far.

[King of Nowhere]

there are a lot of situations where "my character would do it" is a suboptimal action that is not disruptive to the game, and it's not just acceptable, but it's good. the difference is between "suboptimal" and "disruptive". killing the prisoner that the rest of the party wanted to take alive because he's your personal nemesis is one thing. killing the quest giver is another entirely.

I believe the problem with the "but this is what my character would do" statement is that it's got a bad reputation. A bit like statements as "some of my best friends are X" or "i'm not racist but ...", there are some situations where they could be legitimately used; unfortunately, they are favourite paper-thin excuses of people trying to get away with bull****, and so people are trained to mistrust/think the worst of anyone using that turn of phrase.

[JNAProductions]

there are a lot of situations where "my character would do it" is a suboptimal action that is not disruptive to the game, and it's not just acceptable, but it's good. the difference is between "suboptimal" and "disruptive". killing the prisoner that the rest of the party wanted to take alive because he's your personal nemesis is one thing. killing the quest giver is another entirely.

I believe the problem with the "but this is what my character would do" statement is that it's got a bad reputation. A bit like statements as "some of my best friends are X" or "i'm not racist but ...", there are some situations where they could be legitimately used; unfortunately, they are favourite paper-thin excuses of people trying to get away with bull****, and so people are trained to mistrust/think the worst of anyone using that turn of phrase.

Yeah.

A hypothetical example of how, to me, to properly use "That's what my character would do," goes something like this:

The party consists of three do-gooders and one more nefarious individual-not really evil or anything, just pretty greedy and uncaring. The greedy one's player realizes that, when an opportunity arises, he'd steal from the party or hide loot from them or whatever bad shenanigans of the same. When the situation arises, he says "So, what my character would do is [BAD THING]. I don't think there's any way around it-that being said, would the DM be alright if I intentionally flub my rolls, get caught by the Paladin, and have that PC put the fear of god into mine? I think that would work as an impetus to keep it on the up-and-up, at least with the party."

Because, ultimately, you made the PC. You are responsible for their actions. If the actions would make the game less fun, you work to make it not the case.

Also, as others have said, it's not about "Mechanically suboptimal" or anything like that. You can have a PC that the other PCs HATE, but if the players are having a grand ol' time, that's good!

I'll also agree with those who say that this is a grey sorta area. It's not something you can blanket say is bad or good (though I'll definitely agree with King of Nowhere that it has bad connotations) but something you have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. At the end of the day, do what will be the most fun for the table-that includes you, but also all the other players. If your playstyle is just plain incompatible with the rest of the players, then it's just not the table for you.

[Quertus]

The player is not the character.

The group is not the party.

The character is not the player.

The party is not the group.

I poke at people who post about "killing the players" that "that's murder", despite it being obvious what they *mean* because, threads like this, the distinction matters.

The player is not the character.

The group is not the party.

The character is not the player.

The party is not the group.

If the actions of the character are disruptive to the party? That's likely outside the scope of this thread.

If the actions of the character are disruptive to the group? That is (or, depending on the extent, I suppose, *can be*) a problem - and one which "it's what my character would do" is relevant to.

If the actions of the player - regardless of what character they are running - are disruptive to the group? Then that's a problem, but one outside the scope of this thread.

… or, at least, that's my take, my understanding of, "that's what my character would do". The OP is welcome to correct me regarding the intended… scope / intent of this thread.

I disagree. While dnd may have pointless flaws that have are all fluff, other games have flaws that are worth points, give you stuff, can be enforced by the gm, ect.
Making a pc that is intended to be a troll is one thing, but ignoring your character traits is a no no. And if it gets the party into a little trouble well heck, isnt a little trouble why you are playing.


Not every party has to be lock step during the game.

This is also why we have groups where bob might want to torture an npc and that's ok as it's for the good of the party. But Sam who is a nice guy isnt alowed to stop it as that is "inter party conflict" often the answer is "well Sam didnt have to make a nice guy." Or " sam didnt need to make his charicter stop the torture."

In short I find saying a pc can never say "this is what my charicter would do" can be just as bad .

And to be honest, if you make an empty suit pc who's convictions are all party based and isnt an individual, then in my view that is a poor charicter. Team player is one thing, team minion is another.

While I don't disagree, what do you do when the flaws / personality / "not a minion" nature of a PC conflicts with the fun of the group?

This is an interesting way of look at it but personally I would be more understanding if some potentially annoying behaviour was in line with how the player has previously portrayed their character. Let's say someone in the party kills a captured enemy who the party was planning to interrogate. It's certainly cause for the party to be upset both in and out of character, but I would be more okay with it if the character was established as bloodthirsty and impulsive than if they had previously been merciful and thoughtful.

Suppose, when that bloodthirsty and impulsive PC attacked the prisoner, they found themselves ensorcelled into immobility. Then the responsible PC carried them over to a volcano, dropped them in, and watched them sink beneath the lava. Would you be more understanding of this behavior if the responsible PC had been depicted as merciless and thoughtful?

Personally, I was trained that "role-playing is [good]". So of course I believe that correctly role-playing the character is the correct answer.

However, if that correct answer breaks the social contract, what then?

I don't fault role-playing for role-playing, but I do fault breaking the social contract for breaking the social contract. The puzzle is, how do you make those line up, or, if you cannot, which do you sacrifice, and why?

[Talakeal]

So, most of the time when I see this argument, its over something like the following:

The villain fumbles and drops his weapon, and the honorable paladin allows him to pick it up before attacking.

The fighter is afraid of spiders, so when the giant spiders attacks he stays back and uses his bow even though he could do more damage in melee.

The wizard specializes in fire spells rather than a diverse array of damage types, which could hinder his effectiveness when fighting fire resistant enemies,

The warrior has an academic background and is a bit of a history buff, so he selects skill focus history feat rather than something more useful like power attack.

Bob like wuxia and wants to play a monk in 3e.

Again, a conflict between RPers and power gamers.

On the other hand, its often just an excuse for different play-styles clashing, for example the stick up her butt paladin and the sociopathic rogue constantly butting heads over moral decisions.

Also, sometimes its about player preferences for tactics, one guy gets bored easily and prefers kick in the door and roll a fist-full of dice, while the other prefers to plan out careful tactics and play every move optimally. Both make characters with personalities to support their play-style.


These are all legitimate conflicts without any right or wrong, and compromise is needed, even if the rest of the players and / or the DM agree with one person or the other.


Let me tell one of my oldest gaming horror stories, which was brought up to the police this weekend as an example of how I am a violent and unstable person.


I am playing a rogue who has a fear of water.
My friend is playing a fighter who is a bully.

Both are fine flawed characters.

I play like a rogue, only fighting when I have the advantage and preferring to hide and go for backstabs rather than frontline. This annoys the fighter.

The fighter constantly bullies my character and mocks me for being weak, cowardly, and useless. This hurts my feelings both in and out of character, but I tolerate it.

We come to a lake that lies directly between use and our goal. Fighter wants to swim, I want to go around. We argue, fighter picks my character up and throws her off the dock. I am attacked by a lake monster (because of course I am) and nearly killed.

At this point I realize something needs to be done, but I cannot stand up to the fighter in a fair fight, I don't want to leave the group as I want to keep playing, and we are both too immature to talk things over and back down.

So, that night while I am on watch, I coup de grace the fighter in his sleep.

The DM, who had until then said or done nothing, decides now I have crossed the line, and has a deus ex machina level 20 npc teleport in, kill my character, and resurrect the fighter. He then kicks me out of the group and forbids our mutual friends from gaming with me.

So, yeah, there is an example of a toxic situation.

In my opinion the point where a line was crossed was when the fighter threw me off the dock and then things escalated out of control from there, but some people put the line at a different point or blame one side or the other.

[jjordan]

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.

But remember when I said well rounded? That means I included FLAWS. If your character has NO flaws? You created a poor character. And sometimes flaws mean you will do something counter to the interest of the group. And the defense “it is what my character would do” is a perfectly adequate defense.

NOW...if I do it all the time? Sure. I made that character and that makes me the jerk. But it is OK to hurt the group for the sake of story. That is part of it being a moral conundrum. It is a question of repetition by the player. Not specifically the “it is what my character would do” that is the problem.

So. How do y’all feel?

Are you going to take offense if the party murders your character and hides the body? Because that's what my character would do.

Long story short, talk to the other participants at the table about this and work out what boundaries everyone is willing to work in. PvP is a tough sell and, arguably, counter to the basis of the game.

[icefractal]

I think one thing that causes the conflicts is groups not having a clear idea of how much PVP they want, or not even a clear idea of what PVP is.

Like: "PVP means attacking another PC to cause damage". That's an overly simplistic definition, and it falls apart very quickly as soon as you have, say, an Enchanter mind-controlling other PCs.

"PVP means any kind of attack that would break invisibility". Still overly simplistic and leads to dumb results. So if another PC is trying to burn all your possessions and you disarm them of the torch, you're the one who's doing PVP?

"PVP means any kind of mechanical disadvantage". Beyond being overly broad (does not assisting in haggling count as PVP, since they now have slightly less gold?), it falls apart as soon as you want to get even slightly invested in the characters. "Grappling another PC because they're on their way to kill your family is wrong" ... is a sentence that sounds stupid as hell.

PVP is a spectrum. If you truly want "no PVP", then you have to start out in Session 0 with characters that are fully compatible in their beliefs and goals. Otherwise, you're going to have some amount of PVP, and the only question is how much. And for reducing how much, being willing to pause the action and discuss things OOC for a minute works a lot better than setting an arbitrary line which people can dance right up to.

[Talakeal]

I think one thing that causes the conflicts is groups not having a clear idea of how much PVP they want, or not even a clear idea of what PVP is.

Like: "PVP means attacking another PC to cause damage". That's an overly simplistic definition, and it falls apart very quickly as soon as you have, say, an Enchanter mind-controlling other PCs.

"PVP means any kind of attack that would break invisibility". Still overly simplistic and leads to dumb results. So if another PC is trying to burn all your possessions and you disarm them of the torch, you're the one who's doing PVP?

"PVP means any kind of mechanical disadvantage". Beyond being overly broad (does not assisting in haggling count as PVP, since they now have slightly less gold?), it falls apart as soon as you want to get even slightly invested in the characters. "Grappling another PC because they're on their way to kill your family is wrong" ... is a sentence that sounds stupid as hell.

PVP is a spectrum. If you truly want "no PVP", then you have to start out in Session 0 with characters that are fully compatible in their beliefs and goals. Otherwise, you're going to have some amount of PVP, and the only question is how much. And for reducing how much, being willing to pause the action and discuss things OOC for a minute works a lot better than setting an arbitrary line which people can dance right up to.

Excellent post.

[OldTrees1]

If the actions of the character are disruptive to the group? That is (or, depending on the extent, I suppose, *can be*) a problem - and one which "it's what my character would do" is relevant to.

If the actions of the player - regardless of what character they are running - are disruptive to the group? Then that's a problem, but one outside the scope of this thread.

… or, at least, that's my take, my understanding of, "that's what my character would do". The OP is welcome to correct me regarding the intended… scope / intent of this thread.

When the actions of the character are disruptive to the group, ask does the controlling player want the character to do those actions?
No: If nobody wants the character to be that way, then don't have them be that way. Characters rarely have enough of a life of their own that they justify overruling the interests of the players.*
Yes: Then forget the character and talk about the conflict of player interests.

* Batman might disagree if you write them incorrectly, but Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide is unlikely to talk back if I try to change their characterization.

While I don't disagree, what do you do when the flaws / personality / "not a minion" nature of a PC conflicts with the fun of the group?

Assuming there is a conflict of player interests (see above), then this generalizes to what do I do when there is a conflict of player interests. We talk. We respectfully try to understand from all perspectives. Then we try to find common ground. At some point the issue gets to complicated to speak about this abstractly, however communication has been a panacea so far.

[KineticDiplomat]

As with all things, trying to create an absolutist ruling/view on this is going to fail because it is a “where on the spectrum” type of issue.

At one end, this has been used as a hackneyed excuse to try to hand wave atrocious behavior and wild stupidity, often as a less than paper thin cover of the fact that the PC is doing it “for the lulz”.

At the other, there is a lot to be gained by playing a character with a real personality who reacts to things in a character appropriate way, and RPGs do not exist to be small scale miniatures war games.

Somewhere in the mix of this is a social contract that one player’s character should not generally speaking completely destroy the game for everyone else. That’s not a slave to the table, just a basic bit of etiquette.

My opinion is that you should feel free to play your character, subject to the following three questions:

1) Am I trying to use this to get away with being a wacky-bad-lulz-manchild?

2) Is this going to cause potentially game or table wrecking consequences?

3) If the answer to either of the above is yes, is there a way to express the same character feature in a way that turns them in to no?

[KaussH]

While I don't disagree, what do you do when the flaws / personality / "not a minion" nature of a PC conflicts with the fun of the group?



Suppose, when that bloodthirsty and impulsive PC attacked the prisoner, they found themselves ensorcelled into immobility. Then the responsible PC carried them over to a volcano, dropped them in, and watched them sink beneath the lava. Would you be more understanding of this behavior if the responsible PC had been depicted as merciless and thoughtful?

Personally, I was trained that "role-playing is [good]". So of course I believe that correctly role-playing the character is the correct answer.

However, if that correct answer breaks the social contract, what then?

I don't fault role-playing for role-playing, but I do fault breaking the social contract for breaking the social contract. The puzzle is, how do you make those line up, or, if you cannot, which do you sacrifice, and why?

I would have to say that depends a lot on the the fun of the group is.
If you have group that only wants to play out the plot and get the treasure/reward where things like side quests, pc events, traps and random encounters at just a delay, then the gm may want to run a game that has no flaws, and allows for the "party is the way and npcs are lesser than pcs. (Aka stealing from party bad, stealing from monsters good, ect)

For most the groups I have run and played with, it's fun as long as everyone still gets to play. So most of the "its what my charicter would do" is fine, as long as the game is still engaging the players.

So I would say communication and keeping an eye on the flaws to make sure no one or set of pcs have game breaking ones. (The classic example. 2 pcs have hates and will always kill x race. And are playing said races.. a session 0 word will fix this up
)

[NichG]

This is an interesting way of look at it but personally I would be more understanding if some potentially annoying behaviour was in line with how the player has previously portrayed their character. Let's say someone in the party kills a captured enemy who the party was planning to interrogate. It's certainly cause for the party to be upset both in and out of character, but I would be more okay with it if the character was established as bloodthirsty and impulsive than if they had previously been merciful and thoughtful.

For me there's just a different set of judgments to use when it comes to acceptable/unacceptable behavior, versus interesting/boring/coherent/incoherent/pleasant/unpleasant/etc sorts of evaluations of another player's choices in roleplay. If someone wants to play a character that basically just reflects their mood, I might not think highly of that or be impressed by that, but its not usually a violation of any sort of social compact or agreement about how things should be done at that table. People are, generally, permitted to be bad RPers. That doesn't make it good that they're bad at it, but its also not really a transgression.

So the real question to me would start: is stealing a scene and preventing others from going forward with something considered to be bad form at that table, or not, and how is that handled? You could have tables where its just not allowed, tables where people can take turns at it, tables where generally you're protected from PvP by social contract but if you do something like that then you lose that protection, tables where anything goes, etc.

If its a table where that's not acceptable, then building an in-character case for it doesn't change that fact. If you have a table where its broadly considered acceptable if its sufficiently cool, then its not an issue of transgression at all and I don't think it requires a defense. By the time someone is saying 'but, its what my character would do!' as a defense of actions they've already taken then someone has already objected to the behavior OOC, and at that point I think thats where the resolution belongs.

[Lord Torath]

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."

Talakael's example, (and this is easy, because I have the benefit of not being invested, and having plenty of time to think about it) could have been avoided.

Bully PC's player: "I throw Talakael's character into the lake."
Talakael: "Wait. Before you do that, you should know that my character, who is deathly afraid of water, will consider this a serious attempt on her life. Are you ready for the consequences of attempting to kill my character? I realize your character doesn't think he's trying to kill her, but my character will think you are, and will react accordingly."
Presumably reasonable-adult discussion follows, and the night takes a very different, less confrontational turn. Maybe one of the other players could have had their PC call out to Bully, and urge him not to toss her. It might require the intervention of other players.

This is sort of off-topic, but if ever you feel you're the victim of PVP, bring it up and talk it out before retaliating. If possible, bring it up before the 'attack' on you (for whatever action you feel is an attack) is resolved. It's easier to ret-con a single unresolved action than a whole string of resolved ones that lead to player PC death (that one's for you, Quertus! ).

In a Dark Sun Discord group I'm on, many of the players have PCs that are clerics, druids, or preservers, and are vehemently against defilers. As in 'kill on sight." As soon as one player started talking about making a Defiler PC, I brought up PVP, asking what would be allowed, and the likely consequences of including the PC in a party with any of the Kill-all-defilers-on-sight PCs. As a result, we had a bit more discussion on what counts as PVP, and how far we as a group want to allow it to go. And what kinds of adventures we want to take part in.

[Pex]

As with all things, trying to create an absolutist ruling/view on this is going to fail because it is a “where on the spectrum” type of issue.

At one end, this has been used as a hackneyed excuse to try to hand wave atrocious behavior and wild stupidity, often as a less than paper thin cover of the fact that the PC is doing it “for the lulz”.

At the other, there is a lot to be gained by playing a character with a real personality who reacts to things in a character appropriate way, and RPGs do not exist to be small scale miniatures war games.

Somewhere in the mix of this is a social contract that one player’s character should not generally speaking completely destroy the game for everyone else. That’s not a slave to the table, just a basic bit of etiquette.

My opinion is that you should feel free to play your character, subject to the following three questions:

1) Am I trying to use this to get away with being a wacky-bad-lulz-manchild?

2) Is this going to cause potentially game or table wrecking consequences?

3) If the answer to either of the above is yes, is there a way to express the same character feature in a way that turns them in to no?

There is a third distinct enough not to be part of wrecking consequences. Some players are not in it for the lulz but their own selfishness. They play the game despite the other players. They don't provoke NPCs to force a combat nor steal directly from party members. Their common behavior traits are to go lone wolf doing their own thing passing notes with the DM, and when they receive plot/adventure relevant information from the DM they never share it and get all smug they Know Something the others don't. If another player gets frustrated by the not sharing all the better. If they do find treasure by themselves that was meant for the party they will keep it, never revealing they have it, and don't give a Hoover if the other players know "out of character". It's more fun to them if they do.

This type of player I think is worse than the disruptor. It's easier to call out the disruptive player. The DM has plausible deniability of guilt to tell the disruptive player to knock it off or get out. It's harder against the selfish player, presuming the DM is not himself supportive and enabling of such behavior. This is where "I'm just roleplaying" is the most difficult to refute. The uncooperative nature will ruin the campaign, either because the other players quit in frustration or it's a TPK because the players are not working together. Rather, it's a TPK minus the offending player because of course his character will escape and the player is smug knowing he won D&D and his fellow players lost. The campaign plot is irrelevant and never the point to him. By not sharing information the lack of knowledge hurts the party, such as a trap location or what monster lies ahead. By keeping found treasure the magic item does not go to the PC it was supposed to, so it doesn't get used when it would have made a difference.

[Bohandas]

Ideally the DM should take steps avoid putting the party in situations where someone has to break character in order for the game to progress correctly.

[Glorthindel]

Where this usually goes wrong, is "what my character would do" is often "not in the slightest what the character would do", because the "what" invariably defaults to an excessive level of violence, because the personality trait has been dialled up to a level that is unreasonable and unrealistic, such that it in their heads demands a violent and immediate response when in reality, almost no-one would react in that manner in real life to the presented situation. Unfortunately we kinda get conditioned when playing these games that the solution to a problem is an attack roll, but that is where things go wrong.

Lets just look at a couple of situations from this thread:

If I made a character whose backstory is that he was a slave and suffered horribly for it and now that he's free he refuses to serve anyone unless it's his choice or let the same happen to innocent people, that he will kill anyone who tries to enslave him or any innocents or die trying, the GM-approved this character backstory, and nobody's had any problems with me acting consistently with that backstory in situations where it's relevant, and then midway through the campaign the GM has the party arrested on trumped-up charges by a corrupt government and sentenced to ten-years-hard labor in a "make-believe trial" to quote a certain country song, it's the GM's fault, not mine, if I then play m character the same way I've been playing him the entire campaign with no issue and that somehow ruins the adventure.

Nope. Why is it always "kill anyone who does x or die trying"? Who in real life does that, for anything? Opposing x wherever you encounter it is a good and flavourful character trait, and there are multiple ways to oppose something that is both non-disruptive, and in fact could even create content for everyone at the table, but just ratcheting it up to "must engage in violence immediately, to the death" is just massively inflexible and unrealistic. Apply some nuance to the trait and everyone benefits, play it flat and uncompromising, and that's when you have a problem.

I am playing a rogue who has a fear of water. My friend is playing a fighter who is a bully. Both are fine flawed characters. I play like a rogue, only fighting when I have the advantage and preferring to hide and go for backstabs rather than frontline. This annoys the fighter. The fighter constantly bullies my character and mocks me for being weak, cowardly, and useless. This hurts my feelings both in and out of character, but I tolerate it. We come to a lake that lies directly between use and our goal. Fighter wants to swim, I want to go around. We argue, fighter picks my character up and throws her off the dock. I am attacked by a lake monster (because of course I am) and nearly killed.

There was potential for a very interesting party dynamic here, but the Fighter blew it to defaulting to violence. A party are supposed to be, at best, a group of friends, at worst, a group of co-workers who tolerate each other. Interpersonal friction is certainly within the bounds of play, but violence is not; what friend group would survive one member outright attacking another? None, it is just utterly unreasonable. There were plenty of ways to play out the situation that didn't involve violence, but the fighters player stepped over the line.

At this point I realize something needs to be done, but I cannot stand up to the fighter in a fair fight, I don't want to leave the group as I want to keep playing, and we are both too immature to talk things over and back down. So, that night while I am on watch, I coup de grace the fighter in his sleep

Sure, the fighter has already broken the fellowship, but again, premeditated murder is not the solution to a disagreement. You could argue that the rogue saw the water incident as an attempt on his life, and a sign of escalation, and knew a more serious attempt on his life was only a matter of time, but still, why murder, and not just abandon the party in the night and make a new character? Either way, your characters membership is over (no-one is keeping someone in the party who will just outright murder a companion in the night, regardless of provocation), so taking the Fighter out first served no useful purpose.

[King of Nowhere]

Where this usually goes wrong, is "what my character would do" is often "not in the slightest what the character would do", because the "what" invariably defaults to an excessive level of violence,

then again, this is a game about solving problems with violence. it's not surprising that some people default to it even when it's not appropriate