New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 445
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorthindel View Post
    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.
    You're missing the point.

    the point is that in this scenario, "kill slavers whenever we encounter them" has been a permitted behavior for the entire campaign so far.

    It is only when the PCs are enslaved by a corrupt Government after being framed by a crime that killing the slavers—in this case,t eh people actively trying to enslave the PC—becomes disruptive.

    That's not the player's fault. He is playing his character the exact same way he's been playing that character for the entire game. He is being consistent.

    If it disrupts the game now, it's not his fault, it's the fault of the GM for changing the rules without talking to that player first and working with him to find a way to do the plot he wants without requiring to player to play his character in a way that goes against everything established so far in the campaign.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    That's not the player's fault. He is playing his character the exact same way he's been playing that character for the entire game. He is being consistent.
    It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table.

    Better for a character to be a bit inconsistent, and figure out an interesting justificaiton for the inconsistency, so the fun at the table continues.

    Later on, have a talk with the DM about the situation and your concerns with your character.
    Last edited by Democratus; 2021-04-12 at 08:04 AM.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    Characters rarely have enough of a life of their own that they justify overruling the interests of the players.*

    * 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.
    The phrase, "X's depiction of Batman was not true to the original" cannot be parsed as a meaningful statement unless characters do/can have such a life of their own.

    I, of course, was trained in a school of thought that took the exact opposite stance from the one you describe. A school of thought that held that role-playing was the highest good, and the interests of the players had no grounds to justify overruling their characterization.

    My personal opinion? If you sacrifice *either*, you've already lost. If the only way forward that matches the interests of the players is to depict Vader¹ as a snuggly kitten lover, who funds charities and gives stickers to children, then you should stop moving forward.

    ¹ real Vader, not spoof Vader, not a dream, not an alternate reality, not…

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    It is always a player's fault.
    so the GM is completly blameless.

    If the GM changes the rules without telling anyone and then gets made at the players for doing the stuff that wasn't wrong until literally this one time when they had no warning, it's the player's fault, not the GM?

    The GM bares no responsibility for making an adventure that they know will be disrupted if one payer has his character act the way the character has been acting the entire game with no problems until now?

    No, I reject that. In the case I gave, the blame rests entirely on the GM for changing the rules of engagement and deliberately creating an adventure that would be disrupted by the way he knows the PCs are going to act without giving them any warning or reason to suspect that things are different this time.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    I don't think trying to put the blame on a single person is reasonable.

    In this situation, the GM "set up the trap" by crafting a situation that can easily degenerate and ruin the game, and the Player "pulls the lever" by choosing character consistency over preserving the game (or what's remaining of it).

    [Then, depending on how the GM and the Player continue to react, they might be either sending some rope to the poor game at the bottom the pit, or pouring some oil in the pit and starting a big fire]

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    so the GM is completly blameless.
    Well, if you would actually quote all of what I said.

    "It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table."

    Then yes.

    If a player chooses to disrupt a game then it is on them.

    Don't quote half of a sentence and then try to argue against that misleading quote, please.
    Last edited by Democratus; 2021-04-12 at 09:52 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    The phrase, "X's depiction of Batman was not true to the original" cannot be parsed as a meaningful statement unless characters do/can have such a life of their own.
    Thats only true after the original author no longer writes the character tho.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoiMagnus View Post
    In this situation, the GM "set up the trap" by crafting a situation that can easily degenerate and ruin the game, and the Player "pulls the lever" by choosing character consistency over preserving the game (or what's remaining of it).
    Not quite.

    In this situation, there's no choice to be made.

    The player has been killing slavers wherever they find them for the entire campaign and it has not been a problem, and this is maybe the halfway point.

    In this situation, there is no reason to suspect at all that the players aren't expected to kill the people trying to literally enslave them.

    If killing said slayers derails or disrupts the adventure, that's the GM's fault for deliberately planning the adventure that way without giving the players reason to suspect that doing what they've been doing the entire game won't work this time or an in-character reason to act differently.

    that's the flaw in the "it's what my character would do is wrong" argument. The character doesn't know that they're a character. They do not know what the actions of themselves and everyone around around them are. If someone is playing these games to roleplay then staying in character, no matter the consequences, may well be more important than winning or losing a conflict. If there are no in-character reasons to act differently, such a person can't act differantly.

    But, in this case, the player isn't making a choice to be consistent. They're just playing the game the way they were playing it the entire time without even knowing that there's a reason to consider that they should think of other ways to approach the situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    Well, if you would actually quote all of what I said.

    "It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table."

    Then yes.

    If a player chooses to disrupt a game then it is on them.

    Don't quote half of a sentence and then try to argue against that misleading quote, please.
    You're still missing the point.

    The Player isn't choosing to disrupt the game. The player has no reason to think that what they do will disrupt the game.

    The GM however, in this situation, chose to create a scenario that would be disrupted if the character acts the way they've been acting the entire game while giving the player no reason, in character or out f character, to even think of that.

    The player is not making the choice.

    The GM made the choice, and thus bears the responsibility.

    In this case, "it's what my character would do" is a valid defense because this is what their characters have been doing literally the entire game and it as never been a problem until the gM deliberately made it a problem.
    Last edited by Rater202; 2021-04-12 at 10:05 AM.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    Not quite.

    In this situation, there's no choice to be made.

    The player has been killing slavers wherever they find them for the entire campaign and it has not been a problem, and this is maybe the halfway point.
    There's always a choice to be made. Players aren't slaves.

    On many an occasion I have had a character behave inconsistently for the sake of the fun of the other players at the table.

    If you chose to behave as if your character's "holy consistency" is more important than the table at large, that is entirely on you. It's a choice and you have made it.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    There's always a choice to be made. Players aren't slaves.

    On many an occasion I have had a character behave inconsistently for the sake of the fun of the other players at the table.

    If you chose to behave as if your character's "holy consistency" is more important than the table at large, that is entirely on you. It's a choice and you have made it.
    I think you're presenting it as significantly too binary.

    It's possible for blame to be shared-heck, it's possible for there to be no point in assigning blame. Honestly, I'd consider that more probable than not-the goal should be resolving the situation, not figuring out who did wrong.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    There's always a choice to be made. Players aren't slaves.

    On many an occasion I have had a character behave inconsistently for the sake of the fun of the other players at the table.

    If you chose to behave as if your character's "holy consistency" is more important than the table at large, that is entirely on you. It's a choice and you have made it.
    I'm going to explain myself one more time. If I have to explain it again, I am going to assume that the breakdown in communication is not my fault and begin acting accordingly.

    It's not the other players whose fun is being ruined here.

    The GM made a choice that disrupted the game. The other players, including the one who chose to have his player act consistently, made no choices, they just continued playing the game the way they'd been playing it the entire time. This ruined what the GM had planned, and ruined the GM's fun.

    "It's what my character has been doing the entire game" is a valid defense when the GM thus accuses the player of disrupting the game.

    The player did not choose to be disruptive. The player did not choose to put his fun over that of the rest of the table. The player's only decision was to keep playing the way he'd been playing for the entire game to no complaint thus far. It is not his fault that the GM designed an adventure that would be derailed or disrupted by such behavior and elected not to tell him.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    You know, I have been thinking more about what Icefractal said about PvP being a spectrum, and I think that needs to be more common knowledge. And I think being able to DETECT pvp is an incredibly valuable skill for GMs, as I think most of it just flies right over their head.

    To use my example, the DM did absolutely nothing until I crossed a line that existed only in his head, and then decided to ruin both the dynamic of the gaming group and the verisimilitude of the setting with an extremely heavy-handed over reaction.

    On the other hand, the best GM I have ever played under, we had this situation: We came across someone was injured, I was playing a surgeon and went to heal them. Another player, a diviner, cast a spell to find the optimal way to treat them. The GM saw that this was a "pvp microaggression" as he was attempting to steal the spotlight, and so the divination's answer came back "The best way to heal them is to let Talakeal do what she is doing."


    Quote Originally Posted by Glorthindel View Post
    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.
    You know, I just had a long thread about the very same topic. In my case, it is that every group I have ever had (and apparently a majority of GitP posters) really do feel that "kill anyone or die trying" is the correct response to ANY situation where you are going to be captured.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorthindel View Post
    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.



    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.
    My thinking at the time was, one of us will be making a new character, but we both like and want to keep playing our current character, so I am going to force the issue by striking first. The rest of the party would have been fine either way. What I didn't expect was the DM to then intervene (both in and ooc) against me as he had previously been totally hands off in the conflict, and had actually ramped it up by having me attacked by monsters after being thrown in the lake.

    Obviously, it was stupid and immature, but we were teenage gamers.

    We were also a band of murder hobos. We regularly committed murder, we just did it on the battlefield with swords drawn. Saying that killing someone in their sleep is somehow worse is basically doing the same thing the fighter was doing, assuming that anyone who uses stealth is morally inferior and worthy of disdain.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    You're missing the point.

    the point is that in this scenario, "kill slavers whenever we encounter them" has been a permitted behavior for the entire campaign so far.

    It is only when the PCs are enslaved by a corrupt Government after being framed by a crime that killing the slavers—in this case,t eh people actively trying to enslave the PC—becomes disruptive.
    But that's my point - it's only a problem because the PC set the extreme requirement of "they must die or I must die". Sure, it was fine when they were just running into groups that the PC could take out, but there is always a bigger fish, and when the PC ran into that bigger fish, their ethos came apart, because they were stuck with one and only one strategy "I must kill every one, or die trying". His one-dimensional character trait dictated he couldn't attempt to bribe or barter with factions of the slavers to bring down the other slavers, that he couldn't bide his time and wait for an opportunity to break free, all because "slaver: must die immediately" was his only setting. And that's unrealistic. If his life goal was to end slavery, there is much more efficient (and likely more successful) means than just attempting to kill every single slaver on sight, immediatly and regardless of his own safety.

    To blame the DM for presenting a situation that the PC's narrow inflexible 'personality trait' couldn't handle is not a problem of the GM; it's his goddamn job to present situations that the party have got to plan and strategise to overcome. It is absolutely the players fault that he is treating his characters personality like a line of computer code (see slaver - attack immediately). It is not the DM's obligation to go "well, better never put a single slaver in the game who can't be immediately killed with no repercussion", its the player's obligation to portray a reasonable and rational character.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    I'm going to explain myself one more time. If I have to explain it again, I am going to assume that the breakdown in communication is not my fault and begin acting accordingly....

    It's not the other players whose fun is being ruined here.

    The GM made a choice that disrupted the game. The other players, including the one who chose to have his player act consistently, made no choices, they just continued playing the game the way they'd been playing it the entire time. This ruined what the GM had planned, and ruined the GM's fun.
    Looks like we posted simultaneously, so I will edit to address this; its possible we are discussing different ways the game was "disrupted" - if the DM was expecting the party to switch personality and suddenly by ok with slavers (and the player continued to oppose them 'in character'), and that not doing so "disrupted his game", then yes, he's a moron and not reading his own room. Where I am coming from is if the player is expecting every enemy to be instantly killable with no repercussions, and then the DM finally presented someone who couldn't be beaten in that manner, then it is the players fault for presenting a personality trait so one-dimensional that he isn't able to adopt an alternative strategy, and feels "forced" to disrupt the game by enacting the "or die trying" half of his personality.
    Last edited by Glorthindel; 2021-04-12 at 10:56 AM. Reason: answering simultaneous post

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    That's the same situation.

    If the GM has been letting the players just kick in the door and kill the antagonists or die trying the entire game and then throws something more complex their way without any warning or any reason in-game for the characters to approach it differently, the GM is the one to blame if the characters continue to play in a way consistent with the previous narrative.

    Don't change what kind of game your running without warning or you have no one to blame but yourself hen things go wrong.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    On the other hand, the best GM I have ever played under, we had this situation: We came across someone was injured, I was playing a surgeon and went to heal them. Another player, a diviner, cast a spell to find the optimal way to treat them. The GM saw that this was a "pvp microaggression" as he was attempting to steal the spotlight, and so the divination's answer came back "The best way to heal them is to let Talakeal do what she is doing."
    Am I misunderstanding or is this supposed to be a positive example of GM behavior? Because I find interpreting the situation as any sort of PvP or negative behavior at all rather odd.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    Am I misunderstanding or is this supposed to be a positive example of GM behavior? Because I find interpreting the situation as any sort of PvP or negative behavior at all rather odd.
    Yah i agree. To me this looked like an attempt to assist/give an assistance bonus.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    The phrase, "X's depiction of Batman was not true to the original" cannot be parsed as a meaningful statement unless characters do/can have such a life of their own.

    I, of course, was trained in a school of thought that took the exact opposite stance from the one you describe. A school of thought that held that role-playing was the highest good, and the interests of the players had no grounds to justify overruling their characterization.

    My personal opinion? If you sacrifice *either*, you've already lost. If the only way forward that matches the interests of the players is to depict Vader¹ as a snuggly kitten lover, who funds charities and gives stickers to children, then you should stop moving forward.

    ¹ real Vader, not spoof Vader, not a dream, not an alternate reality, not…
    There is a space between when a character has a consistent characterization and when the author loses the power to change the characterization. I used Batman as an imperfect example of a character who exists beyond the control of a single author (partially because the cultural image makes it resilient to changes) but Dun is a character that still remains under the control of a single author. Although this is a continuum.

    In that space something is lost if the players' interests come in conflict with the character acting in character. However I would argue the players' interest come first. And I think your school of thought would agree, although I will need to elaborate.

    The school of thought you were trained in has one of the foundational player interests be consistent characterization. So when a character's characterization comes in conflict with other player interests, it is also coming into conflict with this foundational player interest your school of thought has. I don't conclude the character must change. I conclude you should address the conflict of player interests.

    From there, the rest of your post seems like one of multiple valid outcomes of addressing that conflict of player interests.

    Personally I too highly value character consistency as one of my values, this is why my consistent answer through this thread was "ignore the excuse that hides the player's interests, talk about the harder topic OOC" rather than a concrete always X or always Y.

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    Well, if you would actually quote all of what I said.

    "It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table."

    Then yes.

    If a player chooses to disrupt a game then it is on them.

    Don't quote half of a sentence and then try to argue against that misleading quote, please.
    Sometimes multiple players contribute to the same conflict. The DM and the player controlling the PC can both bear some responsibility.

    As always I suggest dealing with conflicts of player interests OOC.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2021-04-12 at 11:47 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    Am I misunderstanding or is this supposed to be a positive example of GM behavior? Because I find interpreting the situation as any sort of PvP or negative behavior at all rather odd.
    Quote Originally Posted by KaussH View Post
    Yah i agree. To me this looked like an attempt to assist/give an assistance bonus.
    Maybe without context yes, but if you knew the player in question, it really isn’t.

    Said player was an extreme control freak / spotlight hog, and would constantly try and put himself center stage when anyone else was having a moment to shine.

    The GM picked up on this and nipped it in the bud before it could escalate into any sort of PVP or ooc hurt feelings.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    A few thoughts:

    1. Most people aren't two dimensional. Even if someone HaTeS oRcS, that doesn't mean that they're going to fly into a frenzy whenever they see one - that ends up being suicidal. People have multiple goals - hatred can be one, but not dying is another, and effectively getting what they want is another too.
    2. Keep in mind that PCs are usually reasonably competent and useful allies - even a completely self-centered character would see the value in keeping them around.
    3. What someone would do is rarely just one thing. Usually there's a few things they might do. Think about that. Pick something that's plausible that they would do but isn't disruptive.
    4. You made the character. You're responsible for them. And characters change.
    5. If it's really disruptive, have an out of game talk about it, and figure out how to not be disruptive.
    6. If all of that still happens and the character still does what they do, that's fine... but then the party can do what they would do, too. At the minimum, that's probably "no, we're not going to hang with you." The worst case scenario is what I call "social contract abuse" - one player does things that the party wouldn't tolerate, but does, because of the implicit social contract of "we're playing together as a group". That needs to cut both ways - yes, you stick together Because Party, but you also don't be overly disruptive, Because Party. If one side violates that, the other side is free to as well.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Composer99's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    I'm going to explain myself one more time. If I have to explain it again, I am going to assume that the breakdown in communication is not my fault and begin acting accordingly.

    It's not the other players whose fun is being ruined here.

    The GM made a choice that disrupted the game. The other players, including the one who chose to have his player act consistently, made no choices, they just continued playing the game the way they'd been playing it the entire time. This ruined what the GM had planned, and ruined the GM's fun.

    "It's what my character has been doing the entire game" is a valid defense when the GM thus accuses the player of disrupting the game.

    The player did not choose to be disruptive. The player did not choose to put his fun over that of the rest of the table. The player's only decision was to keep playing the way he'd been playing for the entire game to no complaint thus far. It is not his fault that the GM designed an adventure that would be derailed or disrupted by such behavior and elected not to tell him.
    There is no breakdown in communication happening, only straight-up disagreement over gameplay preferences/values. If another person very strongly disagrees with you about gameplay preferences/values, there is nothing to be gained by repeating yourself over and over, compared to working to find common ground, if doing so is important for whatever reason, or acknowledging the disagreement (or remaining points of disagreement) and moving on.


    The presumably hypothetical situation you raised has some issues:
    (1) The character is made to be uncompromisingly inflexible about some in-fiction phenomenon, without indicating whether any effort was made to fit that characteristic in with the norms of the table culture with respect to PC characterisation, or whether any effort was made to discuss and modify those norms in order to ensure there would be no problems down the road with that characteristic.
    (2) Sustaining the character's uncompromising inflexibility requires valuing not merely consistent characterisation, but exactingly consistent characterisation. That might be something you personally value highly in a character, and if so, well and good, but it does not follow that the rest of the table does or must.
    (2) In your claim "nobody's had any problems with me acting consistently with that backstory in situations where it's relevant", it seems you did not account for the possibility that the reason "nobody's had any problems" is because in those situations, your desire to portray your character as being uncompromisingly inflexible did not fall foul of the table culture's norms and/or did not register strongly enough with the other players (including the GM) for them to realise that there could be a problem down the road.

    Contra Democratus, I would not say that these issues are solely the responsibility of the hypothetical you to resolve when they come up in a real game (as compared to a hypothetical). Contra you, I would not say they are solely the responsibility of the other GM, or the other players writ large (including the GM). Instead, it comes across as there being a general lack of communication about:
    (1) What people's gameplay preferences or values are;
    (2) The implications of PC's personal characteristics, if those implications include possible disruption of play;
    (3) How the norms of the table culture can or must be adjusted to accommodate the gameplay preferences and values of everyone at the table.
    ~ Composer99

    D&D 5e Campaign:
    Adventures in Eaphandra

    D&D 5e Homebrew:
    This can be found in my extended homebrew signature!

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Composer99 View Post
    There is no breakdown in communication happening
    From he beginning, I to th best of my ability made it clear that I was describing a scenario where the player's actions up to this point had been accepted, valid, and not been considered disruptive but the GM made a choice that resulted in the game being disrupted: Changing the rules of engagement so that the player's actions were no longer acceptable without telling the player or giving any in-game reason for them to suspect tat things would not work out this time.

    This is, objectively, the GM's fault and works s an example of my point "this is what my character would do" is an acceptable reason to disrupt the game if it is not only actually what your character would do, but had not at all been disruptive util that exact moment.

    To which, no matter how many time I explained it, I was told that no, it doesn't work becuase the player chose to be disruptive. No matter how many times I explained that it was the GM's choices, not the player's, that led to the disruption, even when I explain that in this case there was never a choice presented to th ePC.

    If someone continues to insist the exact opposite of what I have explained is true, that tells me that there is a breakdown in communication.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Act true to your character, apologize when it hurts other people, and you work on it. Like real people.

    Flaws are only annoying when they're ignored and they control you, but real people don't like being controlled by those flaws. Sometimes, people run away from having to address those problems and get others hurt in the crossfire, and that's what starts the path to recovery.

    But if a druggy relative took advantage of you for the second time after promising they were working on changing, that's it. Get rid of them until they have proven that they've changed so much that they don't need you to know about it.

    Same thing applies to an RPG. People can make mistakes that hurt others, but mistakes are not things that generally get repeated. And if people aren't having fun with your character's "path to recovery", then you change the character (as in, change their behavior or change the character sheet).
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2021-04-12 at 02:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Is that scenario even a case where the player sticking to their guns "breaks" things? IMO, it seems like there's not a problem if they fight the slavers. Either:
    * They lose and die - in most campaigns, a thing that can sometimes happen
    * They lose and are KO'd - just pushes the issue down the road, but if any rescue or breakout opportunity is going to happen, down the road might be enough.
    * They win - and the campaign continues down a different path

    I'd say that even having a plot where "fighting back against being enslaved" ruins things speaks to a rather high degree of railroading.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2021-04-12 at 02:30 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Sometimes multiple players contribute to the same conflict. The DM and the player controlling the PC can both bear some responsibility.

    As always I suggest dealing with conflicts of player interests OOC.
    This. Blame is not conserved, multiple people can be 100% at fault.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    This. Blame is not conserved, multiple people can be 100% at fault.
    Yes, sometimes.

    But not in the scenario I described.

    In this scenario, the GM made design to change the rules of engagement for the campaign midway through while giving neither hints in-game or statements in real life that the rules had changed. The player who continued to act the way they acted the entire game with no complaints bears no responsibility for the fallout. It s not like he can read the GM's mind.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Composer99's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    From he beginning, I to th best of my ability made it clear that I was describing a scenario where the player's actions up to this point had been accepted, valid, and not been considered disruptive but the GM made a choice that resulted in the game being disrupted: Changing the rules of engagement so that the player's actions were no longer acceptable without telling the player or giving any in-game reason for them to suspect tat things would not work out this time.

    This is, objectively, the GM's fault and works s an example of my point "this is what my character would do" is an acceptable reason to disrupt the game if it is not only actually what your character would do, but had not at all been disruptive util that exact moment.

    To which, no matter how many time I explained it, I was told that no, it doesn't work becuase the player chose to be disruptive. No matter how many times I explained that it was the GM's choices, not the player's, that led to the disruption, even when I explain that in this case there was never a choice presented to th ePC.

    If someone continues to insist the exact opposite of what I have explained is true, that tells me that there is a breakdown in communication.
    You have not, in fact, stated anything that is objectively true. You have constructed a hypothetical situation for the sake of argument and are insisting that it is a statement of fact.

    There is no breakdown in communication. Democratus has read what you wrote and disagreed with it.

    And now I am going to take my own advice.
    ~ Composer99

    D&D 5e Campaign:
    Adventures in Eaphandra

    D&D 5e Homebrew:
    This can be found in my extended homebrew signature!

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    I created a hypothetical situation where the person saying "it's what my character would do" is a valid defense: IE, a situation where the player saying that is objectively not responsible for the disruption. the GM is.

    If you want objective facts, however, here's another example. This one actually happened.

    I was in middle school, fourth edition just came out, I played my first ever evil character, an "evil" aligned tiefling fiend pact warlock. As an evil PC in a good party, his malicious schemes were mostly limited to background details. I'm pretty sure the worst thing I ever did prior to this incident was aim to put down an animal after we'd killed its master when another pc wanted to take it as a pet.

    In an early session, we found a tomb buried under a stone that had the symbols of three good-aligned god carved in it and an enchantment that I was able to identify with an arcana check to be the kind of Juju that doesn't keep something out but something in. The GM told me that it was something serious enough that fear would be the appraite response.

    Despite sharing this with the rest of the party, they pushed on and went in, taking an puzzle box from the tomb and pressuring my character to try opening it.

    The other PCs tried and failed to figure out the puzzle to no consequence, but the GM pulled me aside and told me that since my PC was evil he'd developed an obsession with the box and trying to open it and, furthermore, told me out of character that one of my character's in-game goals could be achieved if I got what was inside the puzzle box without specifically telling me what it was, and honestly, out of character I started to get curious.

    So, naturally, I roleplayed my character as being obsessed with the box, trying to open it at any opportunity, to the point that the other PCs wouldn't let me handle it without supervision... Note, my PC only tried to open it in the first place becuase I was pressured by other players in and out of character, initially my character wanted nothing to do with it.

    Then, after combat when the other PCs were distracted and attention was drawn to how the box was hanging out of another PC's bag... I succeeded on a sleight hand check and absconded with the box.

    I was caught in a back ally trying to open the box... Overpowered by the other PCs, dragged to a church, had the compulsion to open the box purged, and my character was made physically unable to lie as punishment for stealing the box(this was entirely a call by the GM and IIRC the other players didn't even know about the compulsion) while the other players all got angry at me out of character for stealing the box.

    "It's what my character would do" is a perfectly valid justification for that, though not one I made becuase I knew it was used exclusively by jerkfaces in the olden days. My character was supernaturally compelled to keep trying to open the box and an opportunity was almost literally shoved in my face.
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    Yes, sometimes.

    But not in the scenario I described.

    In this scenario, the GM made design to change the rules of engagement for the campaign midway through while giving neither hints in-game or statements in real life that the rules had changed. The player who continued to act the way they acted the entire game with no complaints bears no responsibility for the fallout. It s not like he can read the GM's mind.
    If you make a character with an extreme button and are told its okay, but then the GM creates a situation where it will absolutely not be okay, you blindly take the action, and no one says anything at the time but complains later, then sure, you're blameless.

    But if the GM or another player says 'wait, in this case that's going to cause real problems, please do something else here' and you say 'no, I refuse to back down, its what my character would do' then you had awareness that it would be a problem, a chance to back down or behave differently, but refused. In which case, yes, you are to blame, even if the GM also is to blame. And in that case I'd say that would be far worse than what the GM did. What the GM did there could be an honest mistake, but actively refusing to work with the rest of the table to find an appropriate resolution is overt and intentional.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    I would also like to echo my earlier point-namely, why assign blame?

    Unless you're looking to scapegoat a victim or something, it's more important to just make the game better.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: What if it IS what my character would do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    Yes, sometimes.

    But not in the scenario I described.

    In this scenario, the GM made design to change the rules of engagement for the campaign midway through while giving neither hints in-game or statements in real life that the rules had changed. The player who continued to act the way they acted the entire game with no complaints bears no responsibility for the fallout. It s not like he can read the GM's mind.
    If I were the player, then despite the lack of forewarning I would accept some of the responsibility because my continued actions contributed to the issue, even if the GM is 100% to blame. I would work with the GM to resolve the fallout.

    In the scenario you describe, I can see some hints with the benefits of 20-20 hindsight. So I would accept even more responsibility and be even more committed to working to resolve the fallout.

    Situations like this take 2 people and since I control myself, I should think of it as always being at least a bit my responsibility , even if it is also 100% the other person's fault. Fault/responsibility is not conserved.

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    I would also like to echo my earlier point-namely, why assign blame?

    Unless you're looking to scapegoat a victim or something, it's more important to just make the game better.
    A very good point. I can think of only 1 reason:
    Who can do something differently next time? Usually multiple people have that opportunity. Usually I have that opportunity.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2021-04-12 at 03:59 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •