What if it IS what my character would do?

[Rater202]

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.

"It's what my character would do" is exclusively used as a defense when your in-character actions are questioned or criticized.

If the phrase is uttered, blame is already being assigned.

[Rynjin]

"former slave who will not be recaptured" is a perfectly reasonable character trait. It's consistent with real life and to an even greater extent media, and usually results in great tragedy. Because "die trying" is the usual result of fighting monolithic organizations alone.

I don't see any issue with playing that out unless you're so great a control freak you can't abide your players eating up whatever slop you put out and gratefully asking for more. Not every piece of content is right for every character, or every player for that matter. Personally I can't stand "captured and forced to work" plots. They're ****ing boring, tedious slogs, and significantly more so when it's in the MIDDLE of a campaign, where it makes less sense and the tedious parts can't be made as interesting (because if you start the campaign at level 1 in captivity, there's a chance of failure for your checks).

[KineticDiplomat]

As noted above, the issue isn’t with a character who “will hold to X or die trying!”, it’s when a player is surprised that the part where the character dies trying or when he insists the group go down with hin. A GM can usually find a way for that one PC to go out in a heroic blaze without burning the rest of the party.

The problem comes when the player insists that he’s being punished when in fact he chose suicide. Take our slaver hating PC - the fact that he hates slavers and the idea of being re-enslaved even to the point of dying, is certainly a reasonable character feature. But you know what you’re doing - constant attacks with no planning or discretion, on a large income producing trade that is supported by the government and society, well those are going to end in a grave. You might be Spartacus on the way, but you sealed your fate. Racing out against the Bolivian army confirms it. It may be in character, but that doesn’t give the character a right to live.

The player chose a character who was going to commit suicide by authority. There may have been ways around that - slowly brewing an insurgency, getting foreign government sponsorship, at a minimum not just attacking every slaver he ever saw - but the player decided his character wouldn’t take those routes or anything other than racing in swords-a-blazing. He doesn’t get to say “well, when my character put the gun to his head and kept pulling the trigger, the GM punished me because they weren’t all blanks”.

[kyoryu]

A lot of that is what I call "featureism" roleplaying. Players pick one feature, amplify it to eleven, and play it as extreme as possible.

It's.... not really great roleplaying, and tends to be disruptive. People are better at pursuing their goals than that.

[Duff]

People typically only say "it's what my character would do" when they are being disruptive.

I feel like that's close but wrong in an important way.
People say it (or similar things - lots of people avoid that phrase now) when someone has accused them of being disruptive. That does not in fact mean they have been.
It does mean someone at the table thinks the player needs to reconsider their action or rethink their character, But again, it may be the complaint was misplaced.

Different players have different ideas about where the line should be on how much you compromise your play for the benefit of the game and of the party. And the two are not the same.
For example, the quest reaches a decision point. The city will be attacked soon. The thieves guild and the assassins guild of the city are at war. The party can try and recruit one (by helping them win the war), both (by brokering peace) or neither.
The party's best interest is to discuss all the info they have and come up with the best possible plan. The best interest of the game is to do what is fun; which is either discuss a plan in broad strokes and move forward or make the conversation fun by including some acting*. And the game can be more fun if the characters have their own preferences rather than just "what will be most successful".

* I know not every player or table will consider this fun. If you're the odd player out at your table, you suck it up. If it's not your table's thing, move it along

[icefractal]

The player chose a character who was going to commit suicide by authority. There may have been ways around that - slowly brewing an insurgency, getting foreign government sponsorship, at a minimum not just attacking every slaver he ever saw - but the player decided his character wouldn’t take those routes or anything other than racing in swords-a-blazing. He doesn’t get to say “well, when my character put the gun to his head and kept pulling the trigger, the GM punished me because they weren’t all blanks”.

Well ... maybe. It depends a lot on how that situation came to pass.

I mean, the PCs in any "vs the evil empire" campaign could be considered to be "committing suicide by authority" when they take any action significant enough to get that empire's attention. It would be plausible for one session to start with:
"So as you're sitting in the tavern planning your next move, several dozen elite soldiers teleport in and jump you."
* fight ensues, the PCs lose*
"And you're executed for your treasonous activities. Everyone roll up new PCs, I guess."

But you'll seldom see that in practice, because it wouldn't be fun.

So if the PCs were captured (and the one PC ended up dead) via events that made sense IC, that they had some chance to see coming and prevent, but they didn't - well, so it goes. If the capture was a railroad that the GM justified as "but it's ok because you won't be killed" then I'd say the player(s) have good reason to be annoyed.

[Tanarii]

I mean, the PCs in any "vs the evil empire" campaign could be considered to be "committing suicide by authority" when they take any action significant enough to get that empire's attention. It would be plausible for one session to start with:
"So as you're sitting in the tavern planning your next move, several dozen elite soldiers teleport in and jump you."
* fight ensues, the PCs lose*
"And you're executed for your treasonous activities. Everyone roll up new PCs, I guess."

Reminds me of the All Guardsman Party.

Of course the purported players in the story knew their DM was a killer DM, and rolled up a handful of characters each before they even began. It wasn't enough, but still that's a difference.

[TheMango55]

If you want to go down this road you have to realize your character isn't the only one with agency.

If your character is consistently disruptive or harmful to the groups, the other players might decide that what their characters would do is kick his ass to the curb and you can roll a new character that's less of an *******.

[Batcathat]

The problem comes when the player insists that he’s being punished when in fact he chose suicide. Take our slaver hating PC - the fact that he hates slavers and the idea of being re-enslaved even to the point of dying, is certainly a reasonable character feature. But you know what you’re doing - constant attacks with no planning or discretion, on a large income producing trade that is supported by the government and society, well those are going to end in a grave. You might be Spartacus on the way, but you sealed your fate. Racing out against the Bolivian army confirms it. It may be in character, but that doesn’t give the character a right to live.

This is my take on it as well. I'm fine with a character doing (almost) whatever they want, but they'll have to live (or die) with the consequences of it.

A lot of that is what I call "featureism" roleplaying. Players pick one feature, amplify it to eleven, and play it as extreme as possible.

It's.... not really great roleplaying, and tends to be disruptive. People are better at pursuing their goals than that.

While I agree that such behavior can be annoying, I suspect we've all met people like that in real life – who've picked a personality trait or hobby or issue and pretty much turned it into their entire personality – so it's not exactly unrealistic.

[Zombimode]

While I agree that such behavior can be annoying, I suspect we've all met people like that in real life – who've picked a personality trait or hobby or issue and pretty much turned it into their entire personality – so it's not exactly unrealistic.

Sure, but there are many personallity traits that are realistic but nevertheless undesireable for player characters.

[Willie the Duck]

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 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]

DMs, like players, are capable of being ‘the problem individual,’ no argument. If a DM decides to turn over the whole apple cart that is the lovely time everyone has been having, they are certainly not immune to critique, and have additional levers (compared to an individual player) to pull in the effort to accomplish this antisocial endeavor.

What that does not do, however, is excuse anyone else’s potential apple cart flipping. ‘He bit me, so I bit him’ is the thing we have to try to get out of our children’s behavior arsenal at a young age and it doesn’t change later.

That’s basically my response to the OP as well – what your character would really do is an important consideration for the roleplay experience, but it doesn’t excuse behavior that is clearly disruptive. If your character’s actions would be disruptive (were you to do what they really would do), and you want to act in some manner towards a believable character, but you have to deal with basic consideration to the rest of your group, you discuss the issue. That’s it. Talk it out OOC, discuss how you see things and ask for input, negotiate, compromise (while hopefully retaining those things most important to your enjoyment), and come to a consensus (and your character might get to do their what-otherwise-would-be-disruptive actions, provided that there was a consensus that it was appropriate given the situation).

Same thing with the DM putting your no-jail character in chains – you ask, ‘hey, um GM, what’s the plan here? I’ve been playing this guy as fanatically anti-bars&chains this whole time, with (I believe) everyone’s buy-in and encouragement. If he gets imprisoned, I’d think his immediate response would be suicidal charge on the first guard he sees. Is that not what you foresaw, when setting this up?’ and then the commencement with the sharing of perspectives and goals and negotiations, etc. etc. Perhaps the DM didn’t see things the same way. Maybe they did and they really are trying to blow things up (in which case this shifts to a discussion about DM meltdowns, group breakdowns, whether to stick with bad gaming situations and so forth; but even then the list of excused reactions does not include blowing things up in response).

[Quertus]

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

+1 this.

A lot of posters (not just in replying to you) don't seem to grok the idea (or seem to overlook the fact) that one can do something "disruptive" without knowing that it is disruptive. Or can choose a trait that is "disruptive" without having any knowledge of that fact.

The GM is the only one who knows the "needs" of the campaign. They're the only one who is in the position to notice that "kill all slavers" might not be a workable character trait. It is 100% the GM's responsibility to catch this, *or* to not care, to have a flexible campaign that isn't dependent on accepting slavers.

(Of course, I'm not a fan of needy railroad games to begin with… but… "wants to work with quest-giver" "kill all slavers" "quest-giver is a slaver" is an easy logic puzzle to spot the issues)

This does absolutely nothing to change the fact that it's still the player's reasonability to be as flexible with their character as their character's personality allows them to be, and to be on the lookout for and point out any potential problems as early as possible.

But some problems, the GM is uniquely positioned to notice *long* before the players. And, if the players have telegraphed the appropriate information, the GM has no-one to blame but themselves for not catching it earlier. And, even if the players haven't telegraphed those personality traits, the GM *still* often has no-one to blame but themselves for not telegraphing any campaign requirements.

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.

I really do need to stop being surprised by just how wise and sane you are.

Thank you for being you.

I think (and hope) that you have accurately described my "modern adaptation" of the ancient and noble house of Roleplay. I am not 100% that the ancient house is as wise as you credit them with being… but it *is* a logical outcome if you start with their core values, and build outwards wisely.

I feel like that's close but wrong in an important way.
People say it (or similar things - lots of people avoid that phrase now) when someone has accused them of being disruptive. That does not in fact mean they have been.
It does mean someone at the table thinks the player needs to reconsider their action or rethink their character, But again, it may be the complaint was misplaced.

Different players have different ideas about where the line should be on how much you compromise your play for the benefit of the game and of the party. And the two are not the same.
For example, the quest reaches a decision point. The city will be attacked soon. The thieves guild and the assassins guild of the city are at war. The party can try and recruit one (by helping them win the war), both (by brokering peace) or neither.
The party's best interest is to discuss all the info they have and come up with the best possible plan. The best interest of the game is to do what is fun; which is either discuss a plan in broad strokes and move forward or make the conversation fun by including some acting*. And the game can be more fun if the characters have their own preferences rather than just "what will be most successful".

* I know not every player or table will consider this fun. If you're the odd player out at your table, you suck it up. If it's not your table's thing, move it along

There's a lot I've wanted to say in this thread, but I didn't know how… or didn't until I read your post. This post says a lot of what I've been wanting to say, so I'm so glad that you put it into words!

Well… I do differ *slightly*. I think you can recognize that something needs to change, and emphasize the *something* nature, rather than assigning blame. Like, when sketchy quest-giver wanted us to assassinate the good and rightful king, 6 PCs said, "sure", 6 said "no way!". One can decide *something* needs to change, without assigning either side blame for holding their particular stance.

And… I'm not 100% on the idea that, if only you care about something, tough luck. It's a group game, but that doesn't mean every action (such as the epic challenge of the locked door) must be handled as a group - spotlight sharing is a thing. Talakeal's example of his doctor helping someone was (as I've heard the full explanation in another thread) an example of a character *finally* getting some spotlight time. Which… can be handled well or poorly… but the fact that it *can* be handled well, that you *can* give "wallflower" characters a chance to shine in their own minigame that no one else cares about without it being disruptive, means I'm not 100% on board with "everything is everyone or no-one". Maybe upper 90's on that idea, of balancing the fun of the table by strictly limiting (and, yes, *often* foregoing) things that don't interest the group.

But your example is excellent for explaining the difference between what's best for the party, and what's best for the group, and your post really says things that I feel needed to be said. Kudos!

If you want to go down this road you have to realize your character isn't the only one with agency.

If your character is consistently disruptive or harmful to the groups, the other players might decide that what their characters would do is kick his ass to the curb and you can roll a new character that's less of an *******.

Less… aggressively(?)… and more "taking personal responsibility", if you have an intended course of action that isn't fun for the group, consider whether another, fun course of action is also available and acceptable. If you have a character that isn't fun for the group, consider whether you are capable of creating and enjoying playing a character who *is* fun for the group.

[kyoryu]

While I agree that such behavior can be annoying, I suspect we've all met people like that in real life – who've picked a personality trait or hobby or issue and pretty much turned it into their entire personality – so it's not exactly unrealistic.

I mean, sorta?

But like those things are usually fairly benign (Harry Potter! Sports!) and don't cause disruptions in every day life, and the people still usually have goals and values beyond that (family, friends, etc.)

Living in OC for a while, I knew a lot of people that were like that with Disney. They still had jobs. They had families. They usually had other hobbies too, but if they played golf you can guarantee they'd have Disney golf toppers. It wasn't the "meat" of their life, in general, but it was a seasoning that they sprinkled on everything.

In contrast, in RPGs I'm usually talking about OrcSlayer McOrcHater the Slayer of Orcs, who hates orcs because <tragic backstory> and can't stop himself from killing an orc if he sees one. That's another level.

[Talakeal]

If you want to go down this road you have to realize your character isn't the only one with agency.

If your character is consistently disruptive or harmful to the groups, the other players might decide that what their characters would do is kick his ass to the curb and you can roll a new character that's less of an *******.

This is a lot easier said than done.

First, the players and the characters have to be in agreement.

Then you need the DM to actually put their foot down and tell someone "I am taking your PC away from you."

There is also the term of what constitutes "the group". Is it unanimous? Majority vote? The guy who owns the house? The people who are on the DM's nice list? The guy whose character can is so OP they can take out anyone else in the group or possibly the entire group by himself?


There is also the break of verisimilitude when it comes to consequences. In real life, if you get fired from a job, you find a new one, but in RPGs characters effectively cease to exist, thus there is a lot more incentive to put up with an abusive situation and try and find a way to make it work.

On the other hand, rolling a new character doesn't really have a real life equivalent. For example, if I were to be fired from my job, they would lose out on the two years and hundred thousand dollars they spent training me, and then have to go through all of that over again to get someone who may not be any better than I am, leaving them understaffed the whole time. You would think it would be even harder to replace a PC, especially at high level, as PCs are supposed to be pretty rare, and the idea that you would just quickly find someone willing and able to fill in the kicked guy's role is pretty contrived. Of course, being a game, the GM will just make it happen, which is a break in RP.



To illustrate, let me tell you the tale of Bubble Boy.

It was a three person party. They were in dangerous enemy territory, and a god granted them shelter. The PCs felt that the god "talked down to them", and decided to repay the God's generosity by raiding a cathedral dedicated to said god. One of the PCs backed out at the last moment, which meant that the other two were unprepared for the fight, one of them died and the other was badly injured. The injured PC decided to leave the party as he felt betrayed by the PC who backed out of the raid at the last moment. He felt that this would be a mutual death sentence as they were now alone in hostile territory, but I instead allowed the lone surviving PC to finish the adventure as written while the other two rolled up new characters. I adjusted the difficulty to be balanced for one person, and when the other PCs saw this they lost it and spent the next several years calling the play names like "bubble boy" and "DM's pet," feeling that he should have died for his betrayal.

[OldTrees1]

I really do need to stop being surprised by just how wise and sane you are.

Thank you for being you.

I think (and hope) that you have accurately described my "modern adaptation" of the ancient and noble house of Roleplay. I am not 100% that the ancient house is as wise as you credit them with being… but it *is* a logical outcome if you start with their core values, and build outwards wisely.

Thank you.

I find if you assume but do not require wisdom, people will try to match that expectation.

This is part of why I think "It is what my character would do." does everyone a disservice. If we consider that "never be a slave again" character and the "captured by slavers" arc we can argue about it in character or out of character.

In character the only real discussion is "whether that is in character or not"
Out of character the player can communicate why they value consistent characterization and why they chose that characterization. Likewise the DM (in the current example) can communicate how they understood the character, how they expected things would go, and why the characterization and arc are in conflict. This can lead to a united group seeing the problem and working on how to best resolve it.

There are many solutions of various value once the group unifies against the problem rather than arguing. Maybe the PC dies, the player uses a temporary PC, and the party later revives the PC. Maybe the DM figures out how to accommodate the suicidal escape attempt. Maybe it is a big enough deal to retcon and rollback the capture (less likely for a capture arc, but this is in the DM's power and easier if caught earlier).

[Segev]

Let's try to construct a scenario that might make us sympathetic to the OP's point.

Let's say the OP makes a well-rounded character whose motivation for adventuring is trying to find his children, who were kidnapped by slavers when his town was raided and his wife killed. Most of the time, he backgrounds this and looks in orphanages and in slave pits and asks around after people of their description, as well as hunting for the slavers who took them.

Then, one adventure, the lead they were following happened to be one the DM used his interests to hook them with: he heard about a black market that sold slaves and that one of the people unrelated to the group he's hunting might be involved. The party wants blackmail on this fellow, and in principle the PC in question is okay with just getting that blackmail to later make him pay for his evil. Then, they find him with a line of child-sized humanoids in chains with bags over their heads, and he's about to kill one because it fell and broke its leg. The DM just planned this as a confirmation of "he's so evil," and the party are grimacing but accepting that they NEED him to get back and do things for them vis a vis their now-secure blackmail material.

The PC can't - CAN'T - risk that that broken-legged figure is one of his children. Even if it's low probability, the combination of it being wrong to let him be murdered and the fact that it COULD BE is just too counter to his character to let him say, "Okay, my PC will also just watch, agonized, as the guy kills the kid." It just is not in the character's nature.

Is he really in the wrong for saying, "I'm sorry, guys, I know this ruins the plan, but my character can't sit idly by and let this happen?"

We can say, "It's the DM's fault for creating the conflict," but the truth is that while this one's kind-of obvious, other scenarios may not be obvious to the DM until the player raises his hand and says, "Um...." And then suddenly the DM winces and realizes just how that will impact that character.

The proper and mature thing to do at this point is to discuss, OOC, possible solutions to let the PC stay in-character and the game not be ruined for everyone else. Ideally, to me, the other players would accept that sometimes their plans don't go off optimally. Others, the agreement is for the DM to initiate a deus ex machina (the kid is saved by a third party, or the villain kills the kid before anybody can do anything about it and thus the seething-angry father PC can be restrained from immediate action that will save nothing and noone). Or even the player of the father PC agreeing to allow the other PCs to take immediate action to thwart him as he struggles futilely to try to stop it.

There are ways to preserve characterization that a player may not be able to institute on his own; cooperation from the group to make something happen that preserves the narrative fun is important.

[OldTrees1]

Is he really in the wrong for saying, "I'm sorry, guys, I know this ruins the plan, but my character can't sit idly by and let this happen?"

We can say, "It's the DM's fault for creating the conflict," but the truth is that while this one's kind-of obvious, other scenarios may not be obvious to the DM until the player raises his hand and says, "Um...." And then suddenly the DM winces and realizes just how that will impact that character.

This is the time to have the harder OOC discussion (like you elaborate about below). This is a time for the player to mention the characterization, that consistent characterization would be for the character to act, and why the player wants the character to have that characterization. It is also a good time for the player to ask the DM about what they wanted from the scene. Once you get past arguing about the "facts" and start discussing the player interests you can find some possible solutions even when no perfect solution exist.

The proper and mature thing to do at this point is to discuss, OOC, possible solutions to let the PC stay in-character and the game not be ruined for everyone else. Ideally, to me, the other players would accept that sometimes their plans don't go off optimally. Others, the agreement is for the DM to initiate a deus ex machina (the kid is saved by a third party, or the villain kills the kid before anybody can do anything about it and thus the seething-angry father PC can be restrained from immediate action that will save nothing and noone). Or even the player of the father PC agreeing to allow the other PCs to take immediate action to thwart him as he struggles futilely to try to stop it.

There are ways to preserve characterization that a player may not be able to institute on his own; cooperation from the group to make something happen that preserves the narrative fun is important.

Good example solutions. Talk about the player interests involved (including the DM's) and figure out which is the best solution for everyone. Depending on the interests I can see some of those solutions being terrible while others being great. Talk it out. Have that harder conversation.

[Batcathat]

The proper and mature thing to do at this point is to discuss, OOC, possible solutions to let the PC stay in-character and the game not be ruined for everyone else. Ideally, to me, the other players would accept that sometimes their plans don't go off optimally. Others, the agreement is for the DM to initiate a deus ex machina (the kid is saved by a third party, or the villain kills the kid before anybody can do anything about it and thus the seething-angry father PC can be restrained from immediate action that will save nothing and noone). Or even the player of the father PC agreeing to allow the other PCs to take immediate action to thwart him as he struggles futilely to try to stop it.

Maybe it's just me, but if I was one of the other players in this situation I wouldn't feel the game was ruined because our plan was messed up. People doing objectively stupid but emotionally understandable things is a great source for interesting drama, after all.

Something that might ruin, or at least lessen, my enjoyment though? Pausing the game to have a big OOC discussion instead of just resolving it in character. I might be in the minority here, but still.

[Talakeal]

Maybe it's just me, but if I was one of the other players in this situation I wouldn't feel the game was ruined because our plan was messed up. People doing objectively stupid but emotionally understandable things is a great source for interesting drama, after all.

Something that might ruin, or at least lessen, my enjoyment though? Pausing the game to have a big OOC discussion instead of just resolving it in character. I might be in the minority here, but still.

I fully agree.

I think its a personality type issue though, some people play for drama and immersion, others for tactics and winning, and others for social bonding.

[Willie the Duck]

Maybe it's just me, but if I was one of the other players in this situation I wouldn't feel the game was ruined because our plan was messed up. People doing objectively stupid but emotionally understandable things is a great source for interesting drama, after all.
Something that might ruin, or at least lessen, my enjoyment though? Pausing the game to have a big OOC discussion instead of just resolving it in character. I might be in the minority here, but still.

I mean, it is until it isn't. Is the objectively stupid thing having Segev's anti-slaving father stop the contact they need from killing the might-be-a-kid, another anti-slaver PC ruining days of preparation for infiltrating bad guy base #17B and getting the whole party imprisoned because he couldn't stick to a role/stay quiet, or (an iconic 'what my character would do' character which formed the negative image) the character who is 'in character' stealing from or betraying the party?

Regardless, if everyone is on board with the stupid, then there is no problem. However a given group is comfortable inter-relaying that buy-in is fine, so long as it actually works. Whether that's an in depth OOC discussion, a quick 'hey guys, I want to do something crazy, everyone good?,' or just knowing darn well your group would be okay with it (better be right, though). The problem comes when one player thinks it'd be hilarious if they had their character knee the king in the groin, while one-to-many other players were hoping to see their well-laid plans come to fruition (and, if they not succeed, do so because they actually failed at their attempt).

[Tanarii]

A far more "it's what my character would do" moment would be if a character shot the hostage in order to kill the slaver.

[Beleriphon]

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...
"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.

You were in middle school, I don't think you're going to have an adult conversation. Half the problem is you're a bunch of kids.

[Rater202]

You were in middle school, I don't think you're going to have an adult conversation. Half the problem is you're a bunch of kids.

Actually, that was a multi-age group. Other than the GM, everyone was newish to tabletop roleplaying but we were a variety of ages. There were two kids younger than me, there were also some college kids, for a while we had a middle-aged dad, and the GM had been playing since Gygax was the one writing the modules.

This was arranged via the local gaming shop, which closed down years ago.

But this was still a situation where I essentially got bullied into a situation where my character was supernaturally compelled, did what the GM wanted my character to do, but still got in trouble for PVP that I was pretty clearly set up for and "It's what my character would do" was, in hindsight, the appropriate defense in that situation.

[Quertus]

,' or just knowing darn well your group would be okay with it (better be right, though). The problem comes when one player thinks it'd be hilarious if they had their character knee the king in the groin, while one-to-many other players were hoping to see their well-laid plans come to fruition (and, if they not succeed, do so because they actually failed at their attempt).

The power of retcon is your friend. Trust the retcon.

You were in middle school, I don't think you're going to have an adult conversation. Half the problem is you're a bunch of kids.

Is it strange that the kids I game with are generally better at having adult conversations than most of the adults I've gamed with?

essentially got bullied into a situation where my character was supernaturally compelled, did what the GM wanted my character to do, but still got in trouble for PVP that I was pretty clearly set up for and "It's what my character would do" was, in hindsight, the appropriate defense in that situation.

Actually, I think "that's *not* what my character would do" and "I was mind controlled" are *much* more appropriate responses to that scenario.

[quinron]

Maybe it's just me, but if I was one of the other players in this situation I wouldn't feel the game was ruined because our plan was messed up. People doing objectively stupid but emotionally understandable things is a great source for interesting drama, after all.

I do often see the accusations of disruptive play being thrown at people for making only very minor suboptimal choices - we're talking stuff on the level of "you could've made an extra attack there, but you moved instead - why are you so disruptive!" So this is a very good point.

However, I've also personally seen a few just-past-newbie-grade players decide to fixate on one annoying habit for their character that always hampers both them and the group and refuse to be talked out of it because "I'm roleplaying." And again, I'm talking minor stuff, usually spur-of-the-moment quirks that end up being a real pain for the group - like a character having his speed reduced to 1/4 and becoming totally useless in combat just because the player wanted him to carry a full barrel of beer on his back. It's kyoryu's "featurism" complaint dialed up to max.

[Telok]

The PC can't - CAN'T - risk that that broken-legged figure is one of his children. Even if it's low probability, the combination of it being wrong to let him be murdered and the fact that it COULD BE is just too counter to his character to let him say, "Okay, my PC will also just watch, agonized, as the guy kills the kid." It just is not in the character's nature.

Is he really in the wrong for saying, "I'm sorry, guys, I know this ruins the plan, but my character can't sit idly by and let this happen?"

On my shelf are Greek plays from more than 2200 years ago that have people making emotional decisions based on family relationship (mis)identification. I've had season tickets to the local opera company for two decades or more and have seen nearly that precise thing on a live theater stage. People make a living writing and acting that stuff.

Behaving in character when it creates conflict isn't a problem. It's classic high drama that drives the plot.

The two problems that I have seen are people intentionally being screwball to mess stuff up (includes general immaturity and jerkiness), and railroads that can't flex (not always totally the DM - adventure writing influences it). The first usually takes the form of the character PeeCee McMurderHobo who has no personality or backstory until it messes with stuff, this is a purely ooc issue. The second... highly skilled DMs and sandbox games as the way out? I mean, Juliet, Hamlet, Prospero, and Titus Andronicus may be a great dramatic adventuring party, but I don't see them engaging with something like the plots of Out of the Abyss or Lost Mine of Phandelver without a really good DM very heavily modding the adventures.

[kyoryu]

For railroads/linear games, the solution is to, if you want to run a railroad game, get the players to agree to it OOC and go along with it.

Some people really like that style of gameplay - sandbox isn't the answer for them. The answer is, if you ask for that, to actually do it and not push against it. And, of course, being honest with the players about what type of game you're running.

[Pex]

For railroads/linear games, the solution is to, if you want to run a railroad game, get the players to agree to it OOC and go along with it.

Some people really like that style of gameplay - sandbox isn't the answer for them. The answer is, if you ask for that, to actually do it and not push against it. And, of course, being honest with the players about what type of game you're running.

The Trolley Tracks as I once brought up. Players agree to play whatever Plot the DM sets up for the Campaign and the adventure arcs therein. Players have freedom to Solve the Plot/Adventure Arcs as they see fit.

[NichG]

I do often see the accusations of disruptive play being thrown at people for making only very minor suboptimal choices - we're talking stuff on the level of "you could've made an extra attack there, but you moved instead - why are you so disruptive!" So this is a very good point.

Wouldn't "My enjoyment of this game comes from me getting to make choices about what to do, even if they're suboptimal." be a better response to this kind of accusation? Then the accuser has to defend the position "Your fun does not matter" which is untenable.

"It's what my character would do." sounds like "Well if it were me, I'd rather let you tell me the optimal action and just do what you say, but it can't be helped, gotta roleplay right?"

[Batcathat]

Wouldn't "My enjoyment of this game comes from me getting to make choices about what to do, even if they're suboptimal." be a better response to this kind of accusation? Then the accuser has to defend the position "Your fun does not matter" which is untenable.

"It's what my character would do." sounds like "Well if it were me, I'd rather let you tell me the optimal action and just do what you say, but it can't be helped, gotta roleplay right?"

I don't really see the difference. When someone defends a course of action with "It's what my character would do", I already assume that they're enjoying roleplaying their character. Your interpretation of it sounds rather odd to me. Then again, lots of people use the phrase so I suppose they could have lots of different meanings.