What if it IS what my character would do?

[icefractal]

This brings to mind - what about the case where the problem character is actually the one who remained the same, while the rest of the party changed? Campaigns don't always follow their original premise, after all.

For example, the PCs initially start out as special forces for Kingdom A, but over time most of them become disillusioned and start thinking about deserting to make a life somewhere else, or even defecting to another nation. Because of this, they start holding back certain important information because they don't trust Kingdom A with it and/or want to utilize it themselves. This isn't because of a twist - Kingdom A was always overall-neutral with some dark parts, people just focused on the latter more over time.

However, one PC is still loyal to Kingdom A, possibly for reasons which are fairly integral to the character. The right solution is for that PC to leave the party, one way or another, but the player isn't being a jerk by having that conflict of interest exist, IMO.

[kyoryu]

This brings to mind - what about the case where the problem character is actually the one who remained the same, while the rest of the party changed? Campaigns don't always follow their original premise, after all.

For example, the PCs initially start out as special forces for Kingdom A, but over time most of them become disillusioned and start thinking about deserting to make a life somewhere else, or even defecting to another nation. Because of this, they start holding back certain important information because they don't trust Kingdom A with it and/or want to utilize it themselves. This isn't because of a twist - Kingdom A was always overall-neutral with some dark parts, people just focused on the latter more over time.

However, one PC is still loyal to Kingdom A, possibly for reasons which are fairly integral to the character. The right solution is for that PC to leave the party, one way or another, but the player isn't being a jerk by having that conflict of interest exist, IMO.

They're still choosing to act in a way that isn't conducive to group play. As I said, characters are rarely so one dimensional they can't do other things.. if you're loyal to Kingdom A, find a way to work in the best interests of Kingdom A, against the dark parts, and go from there. So long as it's reasonable, the rest of the party should go along with this as well. I mean, that's their part of that social contract, right?

If there's really no solution, then, as you say, make another character or stop playing.

The key isn't "you have to play your character a certain way", though in many ways there's a way you can play that's not disruptive. The key is "my character would do that" isn't an excuse to be disruptive to play - figure out other things your character could do, or play a different character. You own your character and their decisions - not just the "I get to decide" bits, but the responsibility for them. A big part is also going to be "don't make them so inflexible around nearly anything that you write yourself into a corner".

[Satinavian]

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.

This has gone for seven pages now.

Has anyone ever argued that was not the case ?

[kyoryu]

This has gone for seven pages now.

Has anyone ever argued that was not the case ?

Not explicitly. But it's the unspoken assumption behind "it's what my character would do". It's the core broken assumption that enables disruptive play.

If somebody wasn't using that logic at some level, "it's what my character would do" and "my guy syndrome" wouldn't be known, talked about things.

[Satinavian]

I think that this particular "unspoken assumption" is the cause of most disagreements here because it seems as if many people don't actually assume it at all.

[Quertus]

Not explicitly. But it's the unspoken assumption behind "it's what my character would do". It's the core broken assumption that enables disruptive play.

If somebody wasn't using that logic at some level, "it's what my character would do" and "my guy syndrome" wouldn't be known, talked about things.

I would say that it's the assumption that that's the assumption behind the statement that's the most problematic.

In order to have a good conversation, you've got to move past "assumptions" to "facts", have to actually ask questions, like, "why did you say, 'it's what my character world do'?"

If the answer is, "because it'll let me break the social contract", yeah, you've got a problem.

But that's different from… huh. I feel like I've said all this before. Hold on (darn senility)… huh. I guess it wasn't in this thread?

Anyway, the statement, *if given by itself*, pretty well indicates that the speaker had unpacked assumptions, or is otherwise not doing a good job communicating. They *could* be attempting to communicate numerous things, including, "I don't see another course of action for this character (possibly with an implied, 'any suggestions?')", or "I don't see any *good* answers that would be in character", or "putting me in this position is the equivalent of starting PvP", or "there's nothing disruptive about my character's actions unless you *choose* to consider them disruptive (with an implied, 'so choose differently')", or "so now's a good time to have an OOC conversation (likely with an implied, 'since I don't think we'll get anywhere IC')", or numerous other things, yes, including the not so great, "it's what my character would do, so deal with it".

Communication is hard. People can mean different things by the same words. If your friend has demonstrated rolling poorly on their "communicate" skill, don't just assume the worst possible meaning for their words.

[Cluedrew]

Spoiler: To Quertus: Did you mean this post?

Show

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.

My opinion on both matters is pretty much the same: Err on the side of more information, that will clear up the confusion.

[Duff]

@ 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.

Can you give an example of how you see those differences playing out? I'm not sure what you mean by them.

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.

I agree with some of what you say, but differ on the important point of "if the player refuses, that should be the end of that"
If the player refuses, the end of that is the one thing it can't be.
The next step might be as direct as "Then it's time to leave" but it doesn't have to be. There's still so many other options:
"Your character isn't working in this adventure, if he keeps this up she's going to get herself killed. How about she gets called away on personal business and you can play a different character for a bit"
"My character would never abandon this adventure for personal reasons"
"OK, do you like the rest of the plan? If so, how do we get her out of the adventure"
"How about if we have her get arrested for that thing in Paris? She wants to argue that out in court so she won't try to escape. Make the arrest public so the rest of the party know not to break her out"

Or "Nat and Drew, the conflict between your characters is taking up too much game time, how do you want to deal with that?"

The bit I agree with is that a player always chooses how they play their character. the other option would be the GM saying "No, your character doesn't do that, they do this instead" which, mind control effects aside, is never ok.

What would not be fine were if the player gets just ordered to play the character differently without the option to switch characters because e.g. the problematic character has still plot the GM wants to use.

Even this example has more options to it.
"Drew, your dwarf's grumpyness and hatred of thieves is not working out as well as I thought. It's not adding the fun kind of conflict, it's just annoying the other players. Sorry about that. I need him for the plot, so if you want to switch to a different character, I'm still going to need him around as an NPC. How do you want to do this?"*
"I'm not willing to change the character now, that would be inconsistent, and I'm not going to be happy with you puppetting my character"*
"I don't have time to change the plot now. It'd be a month with no gaming to rewrite the plot or a month to play it out. I guess we'll see you in a month" *

* I don't think any of these are "best practice" but still better than "Do it this way" "No" "Then leave"

[icefractal]

I'd say that basing your plot around a particular character's presence and having defined ideas of how that character would act (to the extent that the player deciding otherwise breaks things) is setting up a recipe for failure. So in that case I'd call it primarily a GM screwup, and if it takes a month to fix, that's a lesson for the future.

[Duff]

I'd say that basing your plot around a particular character's presence and having defined ideas of how that character would act (to the extent that the player deciding otherwise breaks things) is setting up a recipe for failure. So in that case I'd call it primarily a GM screwup, and if it takes a month to fix, that's a lesson for the future.

Agreed. In this case, the GM might simply run the game without that player for the month or fix it.
But GMs do screw things up, and everybody's enjoyment of the game is better if players make it easy to set things right
And perhaps more importantly, knowing who's screw up it is (especially if it's the GM) doesn't improve the game as much as fixing it does.

[kyoryu]

In order to have a good conversation, you've got to move past "assumptions" to "facts", have to actually ask questions, like, "why did you say, 'it's what my character world do'?"

It doesn't actually matter why. It really doesn't.

What matters is if the rest of the table finds it disruptive. That's really the only thing that matters.

Because the player engaging in the disruptive behavior doesn't get the benefit of "we're gonna be a party and play D&D as a party!" if they don't follow the other part of it "and therefore I'll make a character that can get along with the party at a functional level!"

It's what your character would do, fine. And the rest of the party would boot your ass. Or it would turn the game into PvP and the rest of the group doesn't want that, so the group boots your ass.

"It's what my character would do" may explain what you're doing, but it doesn't excuse it.

[Quertus]

My opinion on both matters is pretty much the same: Err on the side of more information, that will clear up the confusion.

I… don't *think* that's what I was remembering, but thanks for checking. I agree that both do have very similar "best practices" responses, though.

It doesn't actually matter why. It really doesn't.

What matters is if the rest of the table finds it disruptive. That's really the only thing that matters.

Because the player engaging in the disruptive behavior doesn't get the benefit of "we're gonna be a party and play D&D as a party!" if they don't follow the other part of it "and therefore I'll make a character that can get along with the party at a functional level!"

It's what your character would do, fine. And the rest of the party would boot your ass. Or it would turn the game into PvP and the rest of the group doesn't want that, so the group boots your ass.

"It's what my character would do" may explain what you're doing, but it doesn't excuse it.

Sigh. Let's try again.

Never said that it excuses it.

Only that it (poorly) indicates where the player thinks one might look for solutions. Or possibly even that the player might not even know that their choice is (or is viewed as) disruptive.

See, communication is hard, and people are *really* bad at it.

I've seen plenty of people foolish enough to *think* that they've communicated that something is disruptive, when they really *really* haven't. My current goto example is the pirate player telling rapier jokes. The GM asks them to stop, they do. Then they go on to do some similarly disruptive behavior, because the GM didn't explain *what made that behavior disruptive*, and both sides just *assumed* that the player understood.

This is why I try to be very explicit with my language when discussing disruptive behavior, get the player to agree to do X. Then, if they fail, I explain how they agreed to do X, then did Y, explain how X is not Y, and ask to make sure that they understand, and see if they can *actually* do X.

And it's the same reason that I advocate one-shots as a way to test out language. Declare a "political sandbox"? Get a matchmaker, a noble, a Bard with social skills, and someone spec'd for PvP, because the players all heard something different.

Because communication is hard.

When you get a clearly incomplete response like, "it's what my character would do", *why* they said that, *what* they were expecting you to take away from their response, absolutely matters.

When the GM had a sketchy quest-giver ask the party to assassinate the rightful and just king, 6/12 PCs said "OK", while 6/12 said "let's kill this guy". IMO, the only one being definitively disruptive in this scenario was the GM. Should we have booted him for saying, "it's what the quest-giver would do"? Or should we have worked towards finding a solution?

[OldTrees1]

It doesn't actually matter why. It really doesn't.

It does matter why. Imagine this from the DM's point of view across all possible cases (not just a disruptive jerk player). As Quertus said. In order to have a good conversation resolving the conflict you have to examine the root causes rather that stopping at the surface.

What matters is if the rest of the table finds it disruptive. That's really the only thing that matters.

Not quite. Why do they find it disruptive? Why does the player want their character to act that way? Is there a resolution you are missing with the surface level analysis?

Think across all the possible cases, not just the jerk disruptive player.

Say I am playing an evil character. A dog walks by. One of the other players complains that my character did not kick the puppy. I know my character would not do that. To resolve that situation the group could seek to understand why the player objected to my character not kicking the puppy and they could seek to understand why I did not want my character to kick the puppy. Digging down into those reasons will reveal more potential solutions and better understand the conflict in question. And sometimes the player controlling the character is not the one that needs to be more flexible. (In this case I don't know yet. I would need to understand the root of the objection.)

Although maybe you will call that example unfair since I have been arguing about looking at the root player interests in conflict and thus am unlikely to leave it at "It is what my character would do". On the other hand, maybe that reinforces the point. It does matter why.

Because the player engaging in the disruptive behavior doesn't get the benefit of "we're gonna be a party and play D&D as a party!" if they don't follow the other part of it "and therefore I'll make a character that can get along with the party at a functional level!"

It's what your character would do, fine. And the rest of the party would boot your ass. Or it would turn the game into PvP and the rest of the group doesn't want that, so the group boots your ass.

"It's what my character would do" may explain what you're doing, but it doesn't excuse it.

It may explain "what they are doing" but it does not answer "why they are doing it", nor does it explain "why someone else objected". That is why Quertus and I have been saying, "It is what my character would do" is not an answer. It is not an excuse, nor is it a forfeit. The ideal resolution to the conflict would be to ask about the root player interests in conflict.

[Satinavian]

Can you give an example of how you see those differences playing out? I'm not sure what you mean by them.

Ok. Some conflict arises in play. Maybe you have your bog standard hero group fighting the BIG evil and they stumble over a source of power that could really help them ... but with strings attached and clearly evil. Now you can have a fight "fire with fire" story and a sidestory about the horrible price or you can have a story about resisting temptation. Both classics. Maybe the GM has only one of them prepared maybe he could run with both results. But the group has now to decide. But ... one character chooses differently. Maybe he objects to using corrupted tool or making pacts with demon like entities in principle and would sooner fail than lose his soul. Or maybe the other way and he is willing to pay any price to succeed in the end and saving the land from big evil is totally worth it.
Whatever the case, the character does not want to folloe the majority decision. What happens now ?

a) "No, your character can't decide this way. You instead do agree with the rest of the party and move on" -> bad. And will probably ruin the fun of game a lot. Especially if consequences of the parties decision ever play a role.

b) GM does nothing. There is some PC shouting or the character tries to make the pact secretly or tries to destroy the tool. More shouting. Character leaves party/is kicked out. Next session new character comes in. -> good.

I agree with some of what you say, but differ on the important point of "if the player refuses, that should be the end of that"
If the player refuses, the end of that is the one thing it can't be.
The next step might be as direct as "Then it's time to leave" but it doesn't have to be. There's still so many other options:
"Your character isn't working in this adventure, if he keeps this up she's going to get herself killed. How about she gets called away on personal business and you can play a different character for a bit"
"My character would never abandon this adventure for personal reasons"
"OK, do you like the rest of the plan? If so, how do we get her out of the adventure"
"How about if we have her get arrested for that thing in Paris? She wants to argue that out in court so she won't try to escape. Make the arrest public so the rest of the party know not to break her out"

"That should be the end of that" means it should be the end of the discussion about what the character would do. Of course you still have to find a way to move forward in spite of this and look for solutions that work with that characters unchanged behavior. Which is what your examples are mostly about.

Even this example has more options to it.
"Drew, your dwarf's grumpyness and hatred of thieves is not working out as well as I thought. It's not adding the fun kind of conflict, it's just annoying the other players. Sorry about that. I need him for the plot, so if you want to switch to a different character, I'm still going to need him around as an NPC. How do you want to do this?"*
"I'm not willing to change the character now, that would be inconsistent, and I'm not going to be happy with you puppetting my character"*
"I don't have time to change the plot now. It'd be a month with no gaming to rewrite the plot or a month to play it out. I guess we'll see you in a month" *

* I don't think any of these are "best practice" but still better than "Do it this way" "No" "Then leave"

That solution doesn't feel quite right to me. But i can see it being tolerated as the least bad thing people at the table could come up with to solve the problem Though if i remember similar cases in the past, it is more often "Problematic character leaves the party and player gets a replacement character. But instead of turning full NPC the character gets still portrayed by the player in scenes that demands their presence." Full NPC conversions only happened when a player leaves for good.

[Rynjin]

"I need [Character] for the plot" absolutely reeks of an inexperienced or unskilled (and very naive) GM in any case. What if the character had died? It would take you a month with no gaming to fix it? Get outta here.

[NichG]

Ok. Some conflict arises in play. Maybe you have your bog standard hero group fighting the BIG evil and they stumble over a source of power that could really help them ... but with strings attached and clearly evil. Now you can have a fight "fire with fire" story and a sidestory about the horrible price or you can have a story about resisting temptation. Both classics. Maybe the GM has only one of them prepared maybe he could run with both results. But the group has now to decide. But ... one character chooses differently. Maybe he objects to using corrupted tool or making pacts with demon like entities in principle and would sooner fail than lose his soul. Or maybe the other way and he is willing to pay any price to succeed in the end and saving the land from big evil is totally worth it.
Whatever the case, the character does not want to folloe the majority decision. What happens now ?

a) "No, your character can't decide this way. You instead do agree with the rest of the party and move on" -> bad. And will probably ruin the fun of game a lot. Especially if consequences of the parties decision ever play a role.

b) GM does nothing. There is some PC shouting or the character tries to make the pact secretly or tries to destroy the tool. More shouting. Character leaves party/is kicked out. Next session new character comes in. -> good.

Both bad.

Examples of good would be:

C) GM stops game, players discuss purely OOC what they want, GM moderates. If the group as a whole is okay with playing things out, the GM declares PvP officially on the table and says that all metagame assumptions of civility and cooperation between characters can be suspended, starts taking secret actions from everyone in writing, etc. No metagame surprise round defaulting advantage to the aggressor - everyone gets a chance to secretly detail the precautions they would have taken if not under a metagame pact to get along, the GM runs it neutrally, game proceeds.

If the majority insist they don't want to play out this sequence no matter what (e.g. harmful OOC to enjoyment beyond meta-fairness issues) and the one player insists on playing out the sequence, the GM tries to establish why, and if there are alternatives that would be acceptable even if it means the GM has to have an NPC act differently or deus ex something to enable a compromise. In almost all cases a compromise will be possible - this could be that the character gets the dark power but immediately becomes an NPC, the dark power whisks the character away to be dealt with later, the dark power was a trap and kills the PC on the spot, it was a fake all along, the others get a hint of what's going on in time to stop it, the player of the character agrees to act differently, the other players agree to give this sequence a chance if the GM promises that the negative consequences will primarily befall the character who took the power, the other players agree to give it a chance if the power is temporary, the other players agree to give it a chance if they're guaranteed a chance to undo the consequences will occur later, etc.

If somehow there is literally no possible compromise, the GM decides on the most reasonable resolution they can that, even if it won't leave everyone satisfied, does as much as possible to compromise between the underlying reasons the players had for their positions, and has the GM absorb as much of the unfair negative consequences as possible. And if someone wants to leave the group over that then so be it.

[Batcathat]

Both bad.

Examples of good would be:

C) GM stops game, players discuss purely OOC what they want, GM moderates. If the group as a whole is okay with playing things out, the GM declares PvP officially on the table and says that all metagame assumptions of civility and cooperation between characters can be suspended, starts taking secret actions from everyone in writing, etc. No metagame surprise round defaulting advantage to the aggressor - everyone gets a chance to secretly detail the precautions they would have taken if not under a metagame pact to get along, the GM runs it neutrally, game proceeds.

Good for some groups, maybe. As previously stated, my enjoyment would suffer more from a long OOC discussion (possibly followed by some stiff IC acting out what has already been decided OOC) than a fair amount of IC conflict.

"Don't try to solve OOC problems IC" is a pretty common piece of advice (and a good one) but I think the reverse can be true as well. If the conflict is only in-character (and I see nothing in Satinavian's example that says otherwise), then let the characters work it out.

[OldTrees1]

Good for some groups, maybe. As previously stated, my enjoyment would suffer more from a long OOC discussion (possibly followed by some stiff IC acting out what has already been decided OOC) than a fair amount of IC conflict.

"Don't try to solve OOC problems IC" is a pretty common piece of advice (and a good one) but I think the reverse can be true as well. If the conflict is only in-character (and I see nothing in Satinavian's example that says otherwise), then let the characters work it out.

1) Good for some groups
Yes. Having the discussion can help find out what works for your group. I fully expect Satinavian's example works for their group.

2) Is the "But it is what my character would do" a sign of a minor OOC problem to examine and resolve?
If the players are arguing between each other (for example see the topic of the thread) rather than their characters arguing in character, then that is a sign that some of the problem has OOC elements. Different player expectations for example. (If the players are not arguing, then is it still the main topic?)

In Satinavian's group the OOC discussion* might have reached the conclusion Satinavian is describing to us. However when I generalize to other groups I need to reintroduce the context and thus reintroduce the OOC discussion.



*
We often talk about OOC discussions. However people tend to find ways to shortcut the discussion with techniques like shared expectations, flexibility, respect, etc. So even if Satinavian's group did not have a drawn out talk, I expect they had a comparable communication through shortcuts.

This is especially true for your group Batcathat. I expect your group relies on techniques like these to minimize the about of OOC talking time because that OOC time is disruptive to your enjoyment.

[kyoryu]

Only that it (poorly) indicates where the player thinks one might look for solutions. Or possibly even that the player might not even know that their choice is (or is viewed as) disruptive.

It does matter why. Imagine this from the DM's point of view across all possible cases (not just a disruptive jerk player). As Quertus said. In order to have a good conversation resolving the conflict you have to examine the root causes rather that stopping at the surface.

Nah, it doesn't, because you deal with the behavior rather than trying to psychoanalyze. And either way, the way of dealing with it is the same.

"Okay, whoa, wait a second there. That's not the kind of game we're playing... does this work for everyone? Okay, so this isn't working for the table, so we're going to need you to reconsider what your character would do here, or bring in a different character, because at this point the group wouldn't deal with that person."

This is of course very streamlined... usually this stuff plays out over a longer period of time, you clarify the expectations (making them stated if previously unstated), and set a boundary. If the boundary is crossed, you follow through on the conditions of the boundary. And you do it kindly. Always kindly. And always make it about the action, not the person.

If it's a player trying to disrupt, either they'll fall in line, or they won't. If they don't, then they can be kicked.

If it's a player not trying to disrupt, they'll probably adjust their play accordingly. If they don't, then they've become a jerk player... doing harm unintentionally is an excuse once, after that it's not unintentional.

Short version: Don't guess why they're doing it. State boundaries. Focus on the actions. If the actions persist, re-state boundaries and consequences. Follow through if necessary.

Ok. Some conflict arises in play. Maybe you have your bog standard hero group fighting the BIG evil and they stumble over a source of power that could really help them ... but with strings attached and clearly evil. Now you can have a fight "fire with fire" story and a sidestory about the horrible price or you can have a story about resisting temptation. Both classics. Maybe the GM has only one of them prepared maybe he could run with both results. But the group has now to decide. But ... one character chooses differently. Maybe he objects to using corrupted tool or making pacts with demon like entities in principle and would sooner fail than lose his soul. Or maybe the other way and he is willing to pay any price to succeed in the end and saving the land from big evil is totally worth it.
Whatever the case, the character does not want to folloe the majority decision. What happens now ?

a) "No, your character can't decide this way. You instead do agree with the rest of the party and move on" -> bad. And will probably ruin the fun of game a lot. Especially if consequences of the parties decision ever play a role.

b) GM does nothing. There is some PC shouting or the character tries to make the pact secretly or tries to destroy the tool. More shouting. Character leaves party/is kicked out. Next session new character comes in. -> good.

I think your b case is optimistic, and I've seen it blow up more games than not.

How about c) "Okay, at this point there's no reason for your characters to hang out... so if you don't think your character would go along this, we'll turn them into an NPC, and come up with a character that would fit."

I mean, I've done it.

Good for some groups, maybe. As previously stated, my enjoyment would suffer more from a long OOC discussion (possibly followed by some stiff IC acting out what has already been decided OOC) than a fair amount of IC conflict.

"Don't try to solve OOC problems IC" is a pretty common piece of advice (and a good one) but I think the reverse can be true as well. If the conflict is only in-character (and I see nothing in Satinavian's example that says otherwise), then let the characters work it out.

If the conflict is only IC then it's not disruptive. If this stuff being IC is impacting the enjoyment of the rest of the party, then leaving it IC isn't working, the players have different ideas of what they want out of the game, and it iis an OOC problem.

NOBODY enjoys those conversations. But it's usually better than the alternative.... get the suck done and over with and get back on with the game.

[Satinavian]

@OldTrees1

Ok, yes, there probably is some OOC discussion, otherwise that argument speaking about the characters attention/behavior doesn't make much sense.

But the primary use of that is to affirm that there has been no miscommunication. Because the most likely reason of strange character behavior is some kind of misunderstanding. There can be some planning about how to write the suddenly departing character out/ a new character in or how to treat other unexpected developments as well. But really argueing OOC about IC behavior ? I can't remember an instance of that in the last two decades and dozens of tables. Seems the players authority over their characters is kinda predominant roleplaying culture here and rarely questioned. In contrast "no PvP" tends to be something that needs to explicitely be decided in session 0 or is not assumed. While people are expected to make characters that would reasonably work with the others in most groups conflicts that still arise are acceptable by default.

-------------------------

"Okay, whoa, wait a second there. That's not the kind of game we're playing... does this work for everyone? Okay, so this isn't working for the table, so we're going to need you to reconsider what your character would do here, or bring in a different character, because at this point the group wouldn't deal with that person."

This is of course very streamlined... usually this stuff plays out over a longer period of time, you clarify the expectations (making them stated if previously unstated), and set a boundary. If the boundary is crossed, you follow through on the conditions of the boundary. And you do it kindly. Always kindly. And always make it about the action, not the person.

If it's a player trying to disrupt, either they'll fall in line, or they won't. If they don't, then they can be kicked.

If it's a player not trying to disrupt, they'll probably adjust their play accordingly. If they don't, then they've become a jerk player... doing harm unintentionally is an excuse once, after that it's not unintentional.

Short version: Don't guess why they're doing it. State boundaries.

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

I think your b case is optimistic, and I've seen it blow up more games than not.

How about c) "Okay, at this point there's no reason for your characters to hang out... so if you don't think your character would go along this, we'll turn them into an NPC, and come up with a character that would fit."

I mean, I've done it.

How is that any different ? IC disagreement -> character leaves party -> new character somes in.

If the conflict is only IC then it's not disruptive. If this stuff being IC is impacting the enjoyment of the rest of the party, then leaving it IC isn't working, the players have different ideas of what they want out of the game, and it iis an OOC problem.

True, reason for change could be OOC only. Maybe players find a character obnoxious or broken but the other characters are fine with it. Still : OOC disagreement -> character leaves party -> new character somes in. There is no reason to force a player to portray his character differently againt his wishes.

[Tanarii]

"Don't try to solve OOC problems IC" is a pretty common piece of advice (and a good one) but I think the reverse can be true as well. If the conflict is only in-character (and I see nothing in Satinavian's example that says otherwise), then let the characters work it out.

The problem with that is player-character separation is a myth. Everything "in character" (or first person) involves the player's mind, and that means personal investment. So anything that's an "in character" conflict also involves the player.

That's why you step back to "out of character" (or third person) discussions, in a fourth wall breaking manner. To try and put some distance between the player and the character that does not, and can not, exist when you're thinking first person.

Now, I don't like breaking the third-person/fourth wall to discuss what's going on inside the game either. It breaks immersion to discuss character personalities and interactions and it often breaks verisimilitude if you start pre-discussing how events should go ("story" or "plot" thinking). But if the price must be paid to diffuse disruptive player behavior, of which disruptive character behavior is a subset because see above myth, then so be it.

[Batcathat]

The problem with that is player-character separation is a myth. Everything "in character" (or first person) involves the player's mind, and that means personal investment. So anything that's an "in character" conflict also involves the player.

Well... it does and it doesn't. I mean, yes, obviously every in-character reaction comes from the player's mind, but not every character reaction is mirrored in the player. My character can hate someone or be upset by something without me as a player being hateful or upset. A party member betraying the party and putting the world at risk would obviously be very upsetting to my character, but I would likely just think "Man, this is some cool drama".

There are exceptions, of course, but I do believe the exceptions are just that.

[OldTrees1]

Nah, it doesn't, because you deal with the behavior rather than trying to psychoanalyze. And either way, the way of dealing with it is the same.

If it's a player not trying to disrupt, they'll probably adjust their play accordingly.

Assuming the players (there are always at least 2 in these cases, even if the GM is the 2nd) is not trying to disrupt, then the disruption is an unintentional side effect of the attempts the players are using to satisfy their interests. Identifying those interests is the easy way to see a resolution.

Take the Kender and Dwarf example.

You would just tell them (which one? both are contributing) to "stop being disruptive". None of the 3 of you understands what the disruption was. If it is resolved it will be with an ax rather than a scalpel.

I would ask them about their reasons. I would discover the Kender player wanted to explore kleptomania with trivial objects and the Dwarf player is concerned about sabotage. As a result of that discussion the disruption stops happening and both characters continue their characterization. The Kender continues to pick up trivial items but the Dwarf Player knows the Kender will not sabotage the Dwarf.



Now contrast that to someone trying to be disruptive. If you find out they are trying to be disruptive, then kick them out. That is the trivial case and trivially resolved by either method.

@OldTrees1

Ok, yes, there probably is some OOC discussion, otherwise that argument speaking about the characters attention/behavior doesn't make much sense.

But the primary use of that is to affirm that there has been no miscommunication. Because the most likely reason of strange character behavior is some kind of misunderstanding. There can be some planning about how to write the suddenly departing character out/ a new character in or how to treat other unexpected developments as well. But really argueing OOC about IC behavior ? I can't remember an instance of that in the last two decades and dozens of tables. Seems the players authority over their characters is kinda predominant roleplaying culture here and rarely questioned. In contrast "no PvP" tends to be something that needs to explicitely be decided in session 0 or is not assumed. While people are expected to make characters that would reasonably work with the others in most groups conflicts that still arise are acceptable by default.

Yup, clarifying things and resolving misunderstanding is very useful. Although, as you point out, there was already communication before any OOC discussion.

These OOC conflicts are very rare in my experience too (I mostly hear about them third hand via forums). I have a theory that the groups with better communication (including via the shortcuts) have these issues less and resolve them faster.

I have seen "no PvP" as a common assumption. Not quite as common as "players control their PCs" but it is still quite common. However your solution of letting it play out IC (assuming the players are okay with that OOC) still works well. If the players are not okay with that OOC, then another solution is better. That is a reason I have not been very concrete on what the right solution is other than to suggest finding the right solution.

[kyoryu]

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

Yes, it's best to do this stuff up front whenever possible. It's often difficult - people hear things and interpret them in various ways. That's why I always like examples. I can say "pulpy" and ten different people think ten different things. I can say "flawed heroes" and ten different people think ten different things.

But yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. I'd argue that's what disruptive behavior is, 99% of the time. Unless you're dealing with things like angry outbursts and dice throwing, which is a whole other level.

Example: I was playing a game where we were told we were basically heroes, but very shades of grey. We were told the metaplot a bit up front, that magic would be coming back and basically we'd be in line to become paragons of something based on our character.

My character was very justice-driven, but... not in a nice way. He tended towards the extremes. I thought this fit nicely in with the themes. We had some other characters that were assassin-like (in retrospect, "assassin" as a character concept in a not explicitly evil game is a red flag, but I digress. Note red flag doesn't mean "automatically bad" but it does mean "pay a little more attention to").

Everything was fine until the assassin was offered some power by a goddess in exchange for killing the priestesses of said goddess. Said priestesses were wrong about the nature of the goddess and needed to be culled.

Killing innocents like that for a scrap of power was something that my character just wasn't about. When I found out, i was going to stop it. Violently, if necessary.

Problem here is that we all had different ideas of what the scope/concept of the game was. I offered to let my character be killed by the rest of the party, and bring in someone that was more compatible with the apparent scope of the party desires. The game imploded anyway (it was headed that direction no matter what). But my character didn't fit, the intent of the game, while communicated, wasn't communicated entirely clearly (clearly one of us was mistaken, assuming good faith), and so a clarification and adjustment was needed.

How is that any different ? IC disagreement -> character leaves party -> new character somes in.

IC disagreement -> IC resolution -> character leaves party for IC reasons
IC disagreement -> OOC resolution -> character leaves party to bring in more compatible character

True, reason for change could be OOC only. Maybe players find a character obnoxious or broken but the other characters are fine with it. Still : OOC disagreement -> character leaves party -> new character somes in. There is no reason to force a player to portray his character differently againt his wishes.

Correct. Don't make a player play their character a given way. However, it is completely reasonable to give them a choice: "Play the character in a way that fits in with the party and game, or play a different character".

The problem with that is player-character separation is a myth. Everything "in character" (or first person) involves the player's mind, and that means personal investment. So anything that's an "in character" conflict also involves the player.

That's why you step back to "out of character" (or third person) discussions, in a fourth wall breaking manner. To try and put some distance between the player and the character that does not, and can not, exist when you're thinking first person.

Now, I don't like breaking the third-person/fourth wall to discuss what's going on inside the game either. It breaks immersion to discuss character personalities and interactions and it often breaks verisimilitude if you start pre-discussing how events should go ("story" or "plot" thinking). But if the price must be paid to diffuse disruptive player behavior, of which disruptive character behavior is a subset because see above myth, then so be it.

All of this. Yes, doing so sucks, but it usually sucks less than the other options.

[Quertus]

Yes, it's best to do this stuff up front whenever possible. It's often difficult - people hear things and interpret them in various ways. That's why I always like examples. I can say "pulpy" and ten different people think ten different things. I can say "flawed heroes" and ten different people think ten different things.

But yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. I'd argue that's what disruptive behavior is, 99% of the time. Unless you're dealing with things like angry outbursts and dice throwing, which is a whole other level.

Example: I was playing a game where we were told we were basically heroes, but very shades of grey. We were told the metaplot a bit up front, that magic would be coming back and basically we'd be in line to become paragons of something based on our character.

My character was very justice-driven, but... not in a nice way. He tended towards the extremes. I thought this fit nicely in with the themes. We had some other characters that were assassin-like (in retrospect, "assassin" as a character concept in a not explicitly evil game is a red flag, but I digress. Note red flag doesn't mean "automatically bad" but it does mean "pay a little more attention to").

Everything was fine until the assassin was offered some power by a goddess in exchange for killing the priestesses of said goddess. Said priestesses were wrong about the nature of the goddess and needed to be culled.

Killing innocents like that for a scrap of power was something that my character just wasn't about. When I found out, i was going to stop it. Violently, if necessary.

Problem here is that we all had different ideas of what the scope/concept of the game was. I offered to let my character be killed by the rest of the party, and bring in someone that was more compatible with the apparent scope of the party desires. The game imploded anyway (it was headed that direction no matter what). But my character didn't fit, the intent of the game, while communicated, wasn't communicated entirely clearly (clearly one of us was mistaken, assuming good faith), and so a clarification and adjustment was needed.

Hmmm… perhaps a different tact would make sense: here, you recognized that *your* character's behavior was / would be disruptive.

But what if your understanding had been correct, and it was actually the Assassin's behavior that was disruptive, and they didn't see that?

Just as it's possible for the GM to fall to communicate, it's possible for the player to fail to comprehend the disruption, and to respond with a mismatched "what? It's what my character would do" to miscommunicated / misunderstood inquiries about their disruption (even before taking into account the possibility of their response just being their version of the other two miscommunication attempts).

Thus the explicit, "yes, but… how do you suggest we resolve this problem", which requires that people involved in the discussion know and agree on what the problem is in the first place.

If the Assassin was the one who was out of line with the GM's intent and the rest of the group / party, would their player responding, "don't tell me 'killing my character is "what your character would do",', choose differently" actually help?

I'm struggling to understand why you're so resistant to having a conversation to get everyone on the same page, when that seems to me such an essential step to solving the problem.

[kyoryu]

Hmmm… perhaps a different tact would make sense: here, you recognized that *your* character's behavior was / would be disruptive.

But what if your understanding had been correct, and it was actually the Assassin's behavior that was disruptive, and they didn't see that?

Just as it's possible for the GM to fall to communicate, it's possible for the player to fail to comprehend the disruption, and to respond with a mismatched "what? It's what my character would do" to miscommunicated / misunderstood inquiries about their disruption (even before taking into account the possibility of their response just being their version of the other two miscommunication attempts).

Thus the explicit, "yes, but… how do you suggest we resolve this problem", which requires that people involved in the discussion know and agree on what the problem is in the first place.

If the Assassin was the one who was out of line with the GM's intent and the rest of the group / party, would their player responding, "don't tell me 'killing my character is "what your character would do",', choose differently" actually help?

I'm struggling to understand why you're so resistant to having a conversation to get everyone on the same page, when that seems to me such an essential step to solving the problem.

Who is "correct" doesn't actually matter. What matters is what the group wants, and if everybody in the group is having "fun".

And, again, the answer is the same. Find the person whose behavior is disruptive, tell them that it's disruptive, and what needs to be changed. Have a discussion, be nice, and offer to solve the problem together... but make it clear that the behavior can't continue.

Where did I say I was resistant to having a same page conversation? Of course you do that. My only resistance is to the idea that why the player is engaging in disruptive behavior matters. It really doesn't. It can help suggest a path forward, but that's a secondary consideration. At a primary level, if you're being disruptive, stop being disruptive. Where that comes from doesn't matter.

And that's why "it's what my character would do" is irrelevant at best, and it's not an excuse. And talking about it doesn't really address the issue. In some cases, after further discussion, it might suggest a solution, but generally not. "It's what my character would do" focuses the conversation on the wrong thing.

[Talakeal]

It doesn't actually matter why. It really doesn't.

What matters is if the rest of the table finds it disruptive. That's really the only thing that matters.

Because the player engaging in the disruptive behavior doesn't get the benefit of "we're gonna be a party and play D&D as a party!" if they don't follow the other part of it "and therefore I'll make a character that can get along with the party at a functional level!"

It's what your character would do, fine. And the rest of the party would boot your ass. Or it would turn the game into PvP and the rest of the group doesn't want that, so the group boots your ass.

"It's what my character would do" may explain what you're doing, but it doesn't excuse it.

Kicking someone out of the party is easier said than done, especially mid adventure. You are in a dangerous situation where you all need to depend on one another, and one passive aggressive guy, or lack thereof, can easily get everyone killed.

Its also harder to remove a player than you might think. I literally had to kick someone from my group two weeks ago, and they simply refused to leave, and now I am the guy who called the cops over a game.

[kyoryu]

Kicking someone out of the party is easier said than done, especially mid adventure. You are in a dangerous situation where you all need to depend on one another, and one passive aggressive guy, or lack thereof, can easily get everyone killed.

No, if necessary, you kick them out. If it's coming to that, it's probably not one incident. When they're gone, run the character as an NPC, or adjust the monsters, or have the party be smart about what they tackle if they ahve that freedom.

If they're being jerks, and sabotaging the game, you kick them out right then. You tell them they're no longer welcome in the game, and to leave your....

Its also harder to remove a player than you might think. I literally had to kick someone from my group two weeks ago, and they simply refused to leave, and now I am the guy who called the cops over a game.

WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE?

You didn't call the cops on someone over a game. YOU CALLED THE COPS ON THEM FOR TRESPASSING.

[Batcathat]

WHERE DO YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE?

Indeed. I do wonder how much of my rather relaxed "Just solve it IC" approach is due to me being lucky (or at least less unlucky than some) enough to play with the right people. I've certainly played with people who have their fair share of issues and annoying habits (and I have no illusions about how annoying I can be myself at times) but I don't think I've seen any disruptions close to some of the stuff I've read about here or over on RPG Horror stories (Disclaimer: Only go there if you have too much faith in humankind. Some stories are hilarious, some of them are just kind of disturbing and depressing).

[KaussH]

Who is "correct" doesn't actually matter. What matters is what the group wants, and if everybody in the group is having "fun".

And, again, the answer is the same. Find the person whose behavior is disruptive, tell them that it's disruptive, and what needs to be changed. Have a discussion, be nice, and offer to solve the problem together... but make it clear that the behavior can't continue.

Where did I say I was resistant to having a same page conversation? Of course you do that. My only resistance is to the idea that why the player is engaging in disruptive behavior matters. It really doesn't. It can help suggest a path forward, but that's a secondary consideration. At a primary level, if you're being disruptive, stop being disruptive. Where that comes from doesn't matter.

And that's why "it's what my character would do" is irrelevant at best, and it's not an excuse. And talking about it doesn't really address the issue. In some cases, after further discussion, it might suggest a solution, but generally not. "It's what my character would do" focuses the conversation on the wrong thing.

See, to me this all looks like " you play a way i dont like, and neither do some of the others . So stop playing your charicter that way or make a different one. Or leave. "

Disruptive also still seems to be "against the will of the group"

This comes across more as peer pressure to me.

More since not all games or game systems are lock stepped for a party. Some games have secrets, charicters with built in flaws that may be disruptive by design ( stormers from sla, horrowed in deadlands, a whole chunk of flaws in hero system and gurps and savage worlds.)

My point being, the why and type of game is super important too, not just the will of the party. Everything in game does not have to go smoothly. And to be honest player autonomy it not just vs the game master.