What if it IS what my character would do?

[Satinavian]

You are right that when the conflict can be resolved with a minor tweak (or even a no operation) then it is best and common for that to be done during Session 0. When it arises later, addressing the conflict of player interests OOC is the best way to replicate the benefits of Session 0.

I am not opposed to looking for such a solution as finding one is often the best way forward. But I would never require that players accept some tweak they don't agree with at this late stage. The time to not accpet a character that can't be made to fit the party and still keep the players vision was before the game. This late it is often better to let escalation happen and the party to split, then decide which remnant is the interesting to follow and everyone else makes new characters.

Yes and no. The group can have boundaries on what is accepted, but the player ultimately decides how their character acts. If the result of resolving the conflict of player interests alters or clarifies the group's boundaries, then it is expected all the players will keep their characters within those boundaries. So while the player ultimately decides how their character acts, the group does enforce their boundaries.

Well, yes. Every player is to to only create and develop characters whose behavior falls within those boundaries. So "This is what my character would do" should never actually test those boundaries - unless the group never talked about them and people come with different assumptions. But when that happens, you have more problems to solve than just a single PCs action, you have to finally have your proper boundary discussion. And to find out if you all are even looking for the same kind of game.

[OldTrees1]

Maybe I'm just venting about how being considerate and respectful seems to be undervalued now adays. (Or perhaps demonized by people who are terrible at it.) But it is related.

Lots of traditional guidelines for politeness* deal with saving face or avoiding conflict. They do this by using indirection, allusion, and even lies to avoid a direct conflict or to create an out for the other side. There are many times such behavior is not respectful. On the other hand forums like this one have rules requiring a minimum amount of politeness in order to avoid certain forms of disrespect (flaming for example).

So while being too direct is not polite, it can be refreshingly respectful.

That is why I have been advising people state their player interests rather than using "it is what the character would do" as indirection.

* As always there are many mutually conflicting cultures. I am primarily referring to the extreme cases with stricter requirements where more decorum and politeness is presumed and required by convention.

[Calthropstu]

I once had a gm, during a commune spell WITH MY GOD say "they should be destroyed" referring to a pair of artifacts we had. Both of them were INCREDIBLY valuable. One contained knowledge from a prehistoric civilization and one amounted to a super deck of many things that we KNEW were both valuable and ultra dangerous.

So I destroyed them. The process of destroying the latter meanted taking it literally to my god. I suddenly recieve from the gm "and 300 years later you emerge from your god's realm." It was "To dispel party conflict because they didn't agree to destroy it."

I dropped then and there. So yes, "what your character really would do" is a viable response. But I have seen it too many times used to justify flat out dickery. Flat out if you deliberately screw over the party or attack party members, expect both retaliation and removal from table whether you are legitamately playing your character or not.

[OldTrees1]

I am not opposed to looking for such a solution as finding one is often the best way forward. But I would never require that players accept some tweak they don't agree with at this late stage. The time to not accept a character that can't be made to fit the party and still keep the players vision was before the game. This late it is often better to let escalation happen and the party to split, then decide which remnant is the interesting to follow and everyone else makes new characters.

Well, yes. Every player is to to only create and develop characters whose behavior falls within those boundaries. So "This is what my character would do" should never actually test those boundaries - unless the group never talked about them and people come with different assumptions. But when that happens, you have more problems to solve than just a single PCs action, you have to finally have your proper boundary discussion. And to find out if you all are even looking for the same kind of game.

The full boundary discussion is never 100% finished. We all rely on assumptions at some level. So if an unforeseen conflict results in clarifying / redrawing the boundaries then those boundaries get clarified / redrawn. Although I think a good session 0 makes this a very rare occurrence.

If the group decides a player's previous expectation falls outside the new boundaries, then something should be done. What is done depends on context. If the group reaches a consensus but the affected player (reminder, the group might decide the character is fine and the player with the objection is the affected player) does not agree, how does the group handle that. Different groups will have different answers to that question.

I think your answer to that question is a reasonable answer. Personally my answer would be to continue to look for an answer that everyone can agree with. I have been fortunate enough with conflicts of player interest that I still expect to reach unanimous agreement.

[Quertus]

It's also useful to recognize that just because you hold to particular principles, others at the table may not share those or agree on them, so things that sound like strong arguments if they were spoken to you might not be so strong (or could even be anti-arguments) when spoken to someone else. So its better to say for example "I believe that roleplay is more important than fun" than "Roleplay is more important than fun, (surely you must agree!)". In the latter case, someone can just say 'no, it isn't'. In the former case, 'no, you don't' is clearly nonsensical.

Definitely, stating (and being able to state) the underlying principles, and being prepared for the possibility that others do not share those principles? Priceless.

"I believe that roleplay is more important than fun"? That's tricky. That's either valid, suboptimal, or a strawman. How to explain? Hmmm…

Eh, it's complicated, and I'm lazy. I'll avoid doing all that work unless people are confused *and* interested.

Instead… I suppose… my personal stance is more, "roleplay and following the rules and…" is the *source* of *this particular flavor* of fun. If you try to remove the chocolate, and replace it with strawberries, it's no longer a chocolate cake.

It's not that a given set of principles is more important than fun, it's that those principles *are* fun. If they're not, then you have to check the implementation details… or the compatibility with that flavor of fun. Yes, it's possible that someone is allergic to chocolate. It's also possible that they like strawberry better. Or that they've never had anything besides strawberry, and simply cannot comprehend chocolate.

But until you suss out those details, you can't know whether to introduce them to the joy of chocolate cake, try mixing chocolate and strawberries, or grab the epipen.

[Cluedrew]

Lots of traditional guidelines for politeness* deal with saving face or avoiding conflict.
[...]
* As always there are many mutually conflicting cultures. I am primarily referring to the extreme cases with stricter requirements where more decorum and politeness is presumed and required by convention.

I'd say in those extreme cases they have confused decorum and politeness. I mean yes I can't definitely say what everyone should mean by politeness here is what I got: Respect and consideration are the core of politeness and if you are going against that it is not polite.

So its not related to saving face at all and it is only related to avoiding conflict in that people tend not to want to fight you. Politeness is described mostly in terms of actions but really I'd say it is more about the underlying mindset. Are you going to treat the people around you like people? Saying thank-you to a waiter (or whoever) by itself is decorum. Politeness is more about thinking about how they just made your day a little bit better and you can make their day a little bit better by showing you appreciate that.

Part way though I realized: Why am I writing this? It's weirdly grandiose. But I decided to finish it.

[NichG]

I'd say in those extreme cases they have confused decorum and politeness. I mean yes I can't definitely say what everyone should mean by politeness here is what I got: Respect and consideration are the core of politeness and if you are going against that it is not polite.

So its not related to saving face at all and it is only related to avoiding conflict in that people tend not to want to fight you. Politeness is described mostly in terms of actions but really I'd say it is more about the underlying mindset. Are you going to treat the people around you like people? Saying thank-you to a waiter (or whoever) by itself is decorum. Politeness is more about thinking about how they just made your day a little bit better and you can make their day a little bit better by showing you appreciate that.

Part way though I realized: Why am I writing this? It's weirdly grandiose. But I decided to finish it.

In a sense, decorum-style politeness isn't just about avoiding a fight, it's about outwardly being seen by others as respectful, which in particular has a lot to do with not undermining someone else's social position or creating mutual damage. That kind of situation is where the dishonest parts of politeness often emerge: even if it's not respectful to the person themselves, it's more respectful to their public image and relationships with others to avoid directly confronting them with something awkward in public. And a lot of those weightings are cultural and contextual.

For example, there's a Japanese business practice of doing private pre-meetings to decide ahead of an all hands meeting what should be done, so agreement appears unanimous at the more public meeting. But from a point of view outside of that culture it can also feel personally disrespectful: you're not being given a chance to participate equally, it has connotations of people going behind your back, it's presumptive and very hierarchical, etc.

[ebarde]

Make a better character idk like if your character can't justify any other action than being obstrusive in a way that annoys your other players, then I feel that character shouldn't be played in the first place. Like, a character isn't a real person, everything they are is because their player made an active decision for them to be that way.

[Kane0]

Its not always immediate though. Imagine creating a character that works just fine for 38 sessions and 13 levels and only then comes along a point where the dreaded ‘thats what Torg would do’ comes up.
Was it the players fault months or even years ago that he made Torg with the trait of ‘refuses to pay tax to tyrants’ and only now is causing party conflict because they face almost certain death otherwise? Should Torg be replaced because of it? Is this bothering the characters, the players, the DM or a combination of them?

[Pex]

Its not always immediate though. Imagine creating a character that works just fine for 38 sessions and 13 levels and only then comes along a point where the dreaded ‘thats what Torg would do’ comes up.
Was it the players fault months or even years ago that he made Torg with the trait of ‘refuses to pay tax to tyrants’ and only now is causing party conflict because they face almost certain death otherwise? Should Torg be replaced because of it? Is this bothering the characters, the players, the DM or a combination of them?

Barring deliberately betraying the party, while technically it is a "what my character would do" scenario it really isn't. After playing so long together the other players expect the character to behave this way. They may even anticipate it to enjoy dealing with the consequences or in character make it up to the character in question whom they convince not to do what he needs to do or do what he doesn't want to. The player in question may even bring it up in character to the party before the event that he can't or must do something because of reasons and hope they can find a solution. That's called friendship and being in a party. "It's what my character would do" never even comes up verbatim. Everyone already knows. This defense only comes up when the player in question deliberately does a jerk move or not do something the party needs him to do for the sake of he just doesn't want to do it. He's being disruptive on purpose either to cause chaos and mayhem or for his own selfish jollies to Win D&D because he's so superior.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Yeah im pretty sure this was touched on previously in the thread, a lot of the time when ‘what my character would do’ gets discussed it comes down to either a mismatch of definitions (which can be ill defined to begin with due to the nature gentleman’s agreements) or something of a no true scotsman.

Not saying you did that, its just super hard to narrow down ‘what my character would do’ in a way that isnt specific to a particular situation context.

Basically, what i said earlier. It comes down to what the other people at the table reckon and what sort of party interplay is considered OK.

Otherwise, i’d call it ‘player is being a **** and using their character as a scapegoat’

[kyoryu]

And polite direct statements are impossible?

This might be my second least faviourite myth about politeness, that you have to be indirect or never really get to any hard truths while being polite. Is it polite to lie to someone? Not really, I would describe that as inconsiderate and disrespectful more often then not. So why would being polite require lying? It doesn't, if you have something unpleasant to say, well double check that it needs to be said but if it does you had better say it. But that doesn't mean you can't be polite about it.

Also my least faviourite myth about politeness is that if you ever get angry that is somehow the mask slipping and your pervious politeness is now retroactively phony. I have no idea where that idea comes from; do people not understand that emotions change over time. Also you can still be polite and obviously angry.

Maybe I'm just venting about how being considerate and respectful seems to be undervalued now adays. (Or perhaps demonized by people who are terrible at it.) But it is related.

It's very possible to be polite and direct.

For instance, "D&D 3.x is a game that does a lot of things well - they're just not things that I want to do."

vs.

"D&D 3.x is a terrible game and I hate it and I will never play it."

Frankly, both are communicating the same sentiment. The first just frames it as a matter of opinion, acknowledges its qualities, and states the dislike as a mismatch. It states my preference directly, yet politely and in a non-aggressive manner.

The second one is just aggressive and over the top, and will cause people to get defensive.

[Satinavian]

It's very possible to be polite and direct.

Now that is kind of a cultural thing and i am not sure we are really all on the same page in such an international forum.

Frankly, both are communicating the same sentiment.

For me, they simply don't.

Acknowledging that a game does things well but is not to personal taste is a very different assessment from saying a game was bad. If a game does things you don't particularly enjoy really well, you would still recommend it to other players with different taste. If you actually thought the game was bad, you really wouldn't. Instead you would have other games in mind that try to serve that particular taste as well and do a better job.

"I hate it" is a statement about your feeling. In the first statement there is nothing indicating that you have strong feelings about the game. It is additional information in the second part.

"I will never play it" is also additional information that is not included in the other one. You could reasoably guess that the first example comes from someone who would sooner play some other game but could still partcipate in cuch a game if that is what most of the group wants to do next or where one volunteeres to DM. In the second example those options are explicitely negated.

[JNAProductions]

Now that is kind of a cultural thing and i am not sure we are really all on the same page in such an international forum.
For me, they simply don't.

Acknowledging that a game does things well but is not to personal taste is a very different assessment from saying a game was bad. If a game does things you don't particularly enjoy really well, you would still recommend it to other players with different taste. If you actually thought the game was bad, you really wouldn't. Instead you would have other games in mind that try to serve that particular taste as well and do a better job.

"I hate it" is a statement about your feeling. In the first statement there is nothing indicating that you have strong feelings about the game. It is additional information in the second part.

"I will never play it" is also additional information that is not included in the other one. You could reasoably guess that the first example comes from someone who would sooner play some other game but could still partcipate in cuch a game if that is what most of the group wants to do next or where one volunteeres to DM. In the second example those options are explicitely negated.

You can nitpick differences, but the general sentiment is very similar-or at least, can be.

"It's a terrible game," can be the same as "It doesn't do what I want it to do."

People use universals like that even when it's not the most correct thing to do.

[Segev]

You can nitpick differences, but the general sentiment is very similar-or at least, can be.

"It's a terrible game," can be the same as "It doesn't do what I want it to do."

People use universals like that even when it's not the most correct thing to do.

I think "D&D is a terrible game and I hate it" is only rude if you're telling it to people who have investment in it not being objectively terrible. At which point the only requirement for being polite is removing the seeming-objective claim of its terribleness. You can be very direct and still be polite, and I think from the original example, "I don't like D&D; it bores me and isn't fun for me to play," would be even more direct and still perfectly polite. The key is focusing on the subjective statements being matters of personal taste/opinion. You need say nothing nice at all about the game to be polite as long as you don't imply that others are objectively wrong for having different feelings about it than you do.

[JNAProductions]

I think "D&D is a terrible game and I hate it" is only rude if you're telling it to people who have investment in it not being objectively terrible. At which point the only requirement for being polite is removing the seeming-objective claim of its terribleness. You can be very direct and still be polite, and I think from the original example, "I don't like D&D; it bores me and isn't fun for me to play," would be even more direct and still perfectly polite. The key is focusing on the subjective statements being matters of personal taste/opinion. You need say nothing nice at all about the game to be polite as long as you don't imply that others are objectively wrong for having different feelings about it than you do.

Yeah, I agree. But people do use "This is bad," to mean "I don't like this."

Overall, though, excellent point.

[kyoryu]

I think "D&D is a terrible game and I hate it" is only rude if you're telling it to people who have investment in it not being objectively terrible. At which point the only requirement for being polite is removing the seeming-objective claim of its terribleness. You can be very direct and still be polite, and I think from the original example, "I don't like D&D; it bores me and isn't fun for me to play," would be even more direct and still perfectly polite. The key is focusing on the subjective statements being matters of personal taste/opinion. You need say nothing nice at all about the game to be polite as long as you don't imply that others are objectively wrong for having different feelings about it than you do.

For sure, I was going over the top.

The main soft skill thing there is phrasing the opinion in a way that makes it about your subjective opinion ("Yeah, I don't find it particularly fun") as well as not exaggerating the badness, vs. making it objective ("it's a terrible game") while exaggerating your dislike.

There's a reason "I statements" work. "I don't really enjoy D&D 3.x" doesn't cause contention in the same way that "D&D 3.x is the worst game ever" does.

I personally like to go the one step further in scenarios like that and acknowledge the good it does do, but it's not necessary.

[NichG]

"D&D bores me" -> "I'm not that interested in playing D&D" is an increase in politeness by some standards at least, even if by others it would be over the top. This gets into the realm where pretending to be able to be convinced otherwise is more polite than a hard denial, but that can be a very dysfunctional sort of politeness.

It's kind of like how ultimatums raise the level of tension even if they're about things that are in fact your decision.

[Batcathat]

The main soft skill thing there is phrasing the opinion in a way that makes it about your subjective opinion ("Yeah, I don't find it particularly fun") as well as not exaggerating the badness, vs. making it objective ("it's a terrible game") while exaggerating your dislike.

While I do agree that people remembering the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact is nice (people not doing so is probably one of the few things that make me genuinely angry), it's not like one is necessarily more polite than the other. I would argue that "I think that D&D is a pile of **** and consider people who play it utter morons" is less polite than "D&D is a boring game", for example.

[Tanarii]

"D&D bores me" -> "I'm not that interested in playing D&D" is an increase in politeness by some standards at least, even if by others it would be over the top. This gets into the realm where pretending to be able to be convinced otherwise is more polite than a hard denial, but that can be a very dysfunctional sort of politeness.

It's kind of like how ultimatums raise the level of tension even if they're about things that are in fact your decision.

"I'm not interesting in playing D&D", leaving out the word "that", should be a statement not open to being convinced otherwise. Without getting into the details of why you're not interested. We don't owe an explanation nor commentary/opinion, which is what the first statement is.

[NichG]

"I'm not interesting in playing D&D", leaving out the word "that", should be a statement not open to being convinced otherwise. Without getting into the details of why you're not interested. We don't owe an explanation nor commentary/opinion, which is what the first statement is.

Subtle gradations here, but yes, the 'that' does make it more polite than without it. And 'I'm not interested' is softer than 'D&D bores me' due to ambiguities in the former: I'm not (currently? ever?) interested (why?). Those ambiguities leave room for the statement to be interpreted in whatever way would be less offensive to the listener, and it leaves out potential pet peeves or taboos. Someone could interpret 'D&D bores me' as a criticism and want to argue against it, for example, where 'I'm not interested' is much more opaque.

Anyhow, absolutely not suggesting that this level of finicky politeness should be required for basic civility. But if you ever want to RP a noble who can underhandedly insult someone higher up in the hierarchy while being above reproach in their politeness, its useful stuff...

[SunsetWaraxe]

I rarely find something like this comes up if the DM and the players agree to a set of expectations in session 0.

[fof3]

And yet you made the character, so you own that decision.

That assumes that the character has not evolved since you created them. The character will change based on how they interact with the rest of the players, how the game evolves and the way the DM pushes things. You could find that after 4 Acts and 18 months of playing you've been backed into a corner of "it's what my character would do" (and it's because of what other player X did when event Y was checked in by the DM which forced the group outcome Z).

[Cluedrew]

I would argue that "I think that D&D is a pile of **** and consider people who play it utter morons" is less polite than "D&D is a boring game", for example.

I think the reason the objective statement is ruder is because it implies that the people who don't agree with you are wrong*, or are stupid. In this case you have removed the implication in the wrong way here.

* Or at least that you haven't thought about people who don't have your preferences. Fits with consideration as part of politeness.

[Duff]

Sure, you could tweak the characters to mesh better. But this is usually done before they actually see play to avoid a shift in characterization.

Ideally, That is the best way. But people misjudge. Characters sometimes morph a bit once you start playing and find their "voice", as noted by Fof. Different people interpret an explanation of a character differently, and then someone is surprised when play starts.
And then it's best to have a chat. Be willing to compromise on consistency to make the game work or accept that a character (or worse yet player) has to go.

And it should never be forced onto one of the players. Even when it turns out that characters really don't work together it should still be the player alone who decides how his character acts, not a group decision.

Kind of like Oldtrees said above, but I'll be more direct on a specific point. It can be a group decision. Examples of when it might be done as a group or GM-as-leader decision:
- One of the players can't or won't change. "Nat, I know you're having fun with your klepto kendar, but Drew can't handle it and you know he can't change. You're the better player and I know you can change it around and still have fun"
- One of the characters is clearly a better fit for the campaign or party. "Drew, your grumpy dwarf is going to keep clashing with Nat's kendar, but it's also going to make it really hard for the party to get along with the thieves' guild, and you can probably tell by now they're going to be important to the plot. Can you please dial it back a bit?
- One of the characters was there first. "Nat, I'm sorry I killed your mage, and your kendar is a fun character, but it's really not working out with Drew's dwarf. Do you want to tweak it a bit or have him leave the party and we'll work out a new character?

[Satinavian]

@ Duff

You are mixing "the character has to be changed" and "the party composition has to be changed" solutions. For me those are very diferent things with different people in charge of.

I strongly believe that a player should have the last say about their own character. Others can make suggestions, sure and those might be followed but if the player refuses, that should be the end of that.
But which characters are in the party would obviously be a group decision. No one gets to insist that the group accepts/keeps some character when the other players or the GM don't want to.


Even your last example shows that the player can decide between tweak or leave. That is fine. What would not be fine were if the player gets just ordered to play the character differently without the option to switch charaters because e.g. the problematic character has still plot the GM wants to use.

[Mr Beer]

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

So. How do y’all feel?

It depends but sure. It's fine to have a character who causes minor problems for the party because of their behaviour. These should be roleplaying opportunities and allow the group to have some fun. It may require some buy in from the other players, but it's perfectly reasonable for the group to not be a perfectly coordinated war machine that's well, a Party rather than a party. Also the DM should probably ensure that the character who caused the problem is usually the one to suffer the consequences.

I also think this kind of stuff should be more in the roleplaying/socialising type arena rather than the combat minigame or the resource game. Having a problem member of the crew who is completely reliable when chit gets real is a solid trope. Having people lose valuable items over one player's problem behaviour will tend to annoy most players. So that's stuff I'd keep in mind.

[Tanarii]

I strongly believe that a player should have the last say about their own character. Others can make suggestions, sure and those might be followed but if the player refuses, that should be the end of that.

What characters and behavior are allowed and not allowed is ultimately the decision of the GM (if it's their table) or the group consensus (if it's a consensus table). Not the individual player.

So no, a player doesn't have any final say. There is always an unstated "or the character goes" to any request to change the character. Or even "or you, the player, go". One or the other.

[Quertus]

I think the reason the objective statement is ruder is because it implies that the people who don't agree with you are wrong*, or are stupid. In this case you have removed the implication in the wrong way here.

* Or at least that you haven't thought about people who don't have your preferences. Fits with consideration as part of politeness.

Or that the speaker is wrong? Learning is the best, and I can only learn when I'm wrong, or my answer is incomplete, or when I'm… too ignorant to have an answer in the first place, not when I'm right.

Posting in the declarative makes my current stance much more visible, and makes it much easier for others to tell me where I'm wrong / what I'm missing, thereby making it much more likely that I'll get to learn.

@ Duff

You are mixing "the character has to be changed" and "the party composition has to be changed" solutions. For me those are very diferent things with different people in charge of.

I strongly believe that a player should have the last say about their own character. Others can make suggestions, sure and those might be followed but if the player refuses, that should be the end of that.
But which characters are in the party would obviously be a group decision. No one gets to insist that the group accepts/keeps some character when the other players or the GM don't want to.


Even your last example shows that the player can decide between tweak or leave. That is fine. What would not be fine were if the player gets just ordered to play the character differently without the option to switch charaters because e.g. the problematic character has still plot the GM wants to use.

+1 this.

I feel that this is kinda… tangential to the central core of role-playing, that is the player who is in charge of their character.

What characters and behavior are allowed and not allowed is ultimately the decision of the GM (if it's their table) or the group consensus (if it's a consensus table). Not the individual player.

So no, a player doesn't have any final say. There is always an unstated "or the character goes" to any request to change the character. Or even "or you, the player, go". One or the other.

Allowed? No, that's not the focus of that statement. Their statement was that rhyme about… uh… GM is birds and bees and trees, but not the PCs. Or something.

Point is, the *player* is the final arbiter of what is in character for their character.

As nothing in your post has anything to do with that statement, it is a non-sequitur to the part of the post to which you replied.

(They even agreed with your sentiment in another part of their post)

[kyoryu]

That assumes that the character has not evolved since you created them. The character will change based on how they interact with the rest of the players, how the game evolves and the way the DM pushes things. You could find that after 4 Acts and 18 months of playing you've been backed into a corner of "it's what my character would do" (and it's because of what other player X did when event Y was checked in by the DM which forced the group outcome Z).

I think the point is "it's what my character would do" isn't a trump card. It doesn't mean the table has to deal with the behavior.

The player can always pick a different option (there's rarely just one thing that a well-developed character would do, people are complex). Even if there is just one thing, and it's a constant thing, and it's disruptive, then the options are: "change the character, play a different character, or leave the game".

The basic social contract is "we'll make characters that work for the game, however that's defined, and as such we'll continue playing the same game together". If somebody is not following the first part of that (in most games, "play a character that can work with the party"), then the second half ("the party will work with everyone and include everyone") isn't in play either.