What if it IS what my character would do?

[kyoryu]

There's a reason we have a sorta running not quite joke that Talakeal posts through a portal to Bizarro Gaming World, where the most outrageous behavior is normal and our normal is outrageous. They have like a dozen of these stories going back years.

Yes, I was deliberately playing into that

[OldTrees1]

So I do have a bias in that I assume that by the time a group has some variation of The Talk with a player, that it really is causing an issue*.

First let me say we agree on a lot of this topic. Our disagreements might be merely the result of framing or intended audience. If they are not it seems like they are nuances like the purpose of the "why".

It also looks like you assume it starts with the group objecting rather than a single player objecting.

Also you might be assuming you are only giving advice to the accused player.

On the other hand I assume the conversation starts the first time one player objects to another player's character's characterization. I am also assuming my advice goes to everyone in the group. So earlier, broader, and less one sided.

That said, by the time a group has the "hey, this is disruptive" conversation? Yeah, it's probably actually disrupting*. And it's really just a specialized form of the "hey, I don't like it when you do this" conversation*, and the only reasonable answer to that is "okay, I'll stop"*.

Like, in that conversation, why you did it doesn't matter much. It kinda does, because harming without intent is less bad than harming with intent, but then continuing to do the thing is just blatant disregard*.

At that point, the conversation needs to start with "okay, I'll stop"*. It can then continue with "hey, this is what's important to me... is it okay if I do <x> instead? Or is it okay if I do the thing but don't do <y> as part of it? Or now that I explained myself do you understand where I was coming from and are we good?" Those can be great follow-ups*, but really you just start with "okay, I'll stop"*.

I notice this advice is only for the accused player and you go out of your way to disregard their interests. If we don't ask "Why did you want your character to have this characterization? and Why do you find this characterization disruptive?" then you will always have 2 players accusing each other of "I don't like it when you do this". Except your language around this aims its accusations at only 1 of the 2 players that are in conflict.

That is why I prefer the advice that applies regardless of if you are player A, player B, or a 3rd party. Ask the "Why"s to reveal the actual conflict. Especially if there is no underlying conflict and everything was a misunderstanding. You are still approaching it with "okay, let's find a solution" which included unilateral solutions like "okay, I'll stop, which might involve leaving" but you avoid dismissing your efforts.

The vast majority of cases can be resolved by examining the underlying interests. Of the minority with mutually conflicting underlying interests that can't find a compromise, some are disruptive demands (your character is evil, so I will find them disruptive if the don't kick puppies), others are unreasonable characterizations (default assumption when we hear the phrase), and some are merely incompatible positions.

[Quertus]

My sister was in a class where the class was broken up into the groups. Each group was given a different set of, "in this scenario, what would you do" questions, that were answered by the group.

As the other groups began reading the questions and giving their answers, my sister was filled with a sense of horror. Because, wouldn't you know, her class had recreated the horrors of Nazi Germany.



@kyoryu, I've seen the thought process you describe used before, I know the bullying and horror stories it can create. Because humans just aren't capable of comprehending when they're being unreasonable, when the group think has turned to toxic mob mentality.

Yes, it's my turn to reject your tool, rather than your intended usage

So, replace every reasoned example you have with something silly, or toxic. But have the speaker *believe* every word of it, and be acting in good faith, unable to see anything wrong with their PoV. And see if you can see why I reject your tool in favor of a conversation, in favor of asking "why".

I've seen that happen at too many gaming tables, and read horror stories of the same ilk. Every time I see that behavior, I will, in WoD parlance, spend the willpower point, if I have one, to intervene. Occasionally, I've misread the scene, and jumped the gun, but far too many times, I've been right.

And that's not even counting the times when the bullies were wrong, and the bullied party hadn't even done / wasn't trying to do what they thought. (Which, in several cases, the bullied party *had* done such things before, but was receiving the same feedback for good behavior.)

So I reject your tool as thoroughly as you rejected mine. I'll take my "wasted time" asking "why" over the horrors I've witnessed any day. (I've seen a lot of really bad groups)

And I'll take the players who don't just roll over to the mob, who don't just say "OK" when bullied, over the bullies. But I'd rather redeem them all.

And I'd like to think that I have. I'd like to think that I've shown numerous tables a better way.

So, no. Having thought about whether or not I'm overthinking it, I've pushed past my unikitty "happy thoughts, happy thoughts" to enough horror stories to steel my spine to the righteousness of my beliefs that "the will of the group" should be questioned at least as much as, and heeded no more than, the preferences of an individual.

Which is not to say "ignored". But I continue to hold that seeking understanding to seek compromise is a healthier response than capitulation.

[NichG]

I think the tricky thing with focusing on 'why' is that it can be in the incorrect order of things for resolution, though I suspect that only really matters for very dysfunctional cases in which you really need someone to be a proper mediator rather than most normally occurring disagreements. If people are seriously annoyed, one of the ways to make things worse and escalate into actual anger is to not acknowledge what the person is saying. That's part of why immediately going defensive on hearing some kind of accusation or complaint might feel natural (I was attacked, I should defend) but it can really be a mistake.

So the best first step if someone says 'this thing you did (are going to do) upsets me' is to acknowledge that, even just some simple form of 'okay, I hear you'. Better even to engage with that. If the first pass of conversation is instead is to ask the person who the complaint is against 'why is this important to you?', well, in most cases it probably wouldn't make things notably worse. But there would be some cases where the person complaining would feel that automatically people are taking the side of someone who, from their point of view, is the aggressor. Or to put it another way, the sense in which 'why?' doesn't matter is that regardless of the 'why?' it doesn't change the reality that someone was bothered by it. The resolution in the end might mean that the person originally bothered by it just has to figure out a way to deal with it themselves, but a discussion that tries to deny or hide the fact that they were actually bothered isn't going to feel fair or satisfying.

However, the 'why' can be absolutely essential to finding the actual path to a good compromise. So even though 'why?' doesn't modify the situation itself (no 'why' can lead to 'actually, the players who complained weren't actually bothered' or 'oh, well with that reason we don't need to bother to discuss this'), it does determine the process by which resolution can be reached.

[Satinavian]

ImE a group outright kicking a player is incredibly rare and usually not the result of IG behavior but of OG transgressions.

What happens more often is that some behavior is seen as disruptive and a player is asked to stop it or leave. Could be cheating or sporlight-hogging or blatantly ignoring the common power level or agreed upon genre/theme. Or many other things really. And often the player then decides to leave instead of adjust because that game is not fun anymore under the additional constraint. And this is fine.

What happens even more often is that instead of one player vs. the group you have one person finding the behavior of a certain other person disruptive who is not willing to change and goes for the "one of us leaves"-ultimatum which then ends up with one of them actually leaving.

[Cluedrew]

I can say the worst session I ever played it definitely happened because no one said anything out of character. I can't exactly tell you why (I don't even remember why I didn't) no one did but people started bailing part way through the session. Oddly the problem player was the first one to say anything, they apologised as although they realised they were being a problem they weren't sure how. So this problem was as "in-character" as a game destroying incident can get. And the attempt to fix it in-character failed totally.

[OldTrees1]

I think the tricky thing with focusing on 'why' is that it can be in the incorrect order of things for resolution, though I suspect that only really matters for very dysfunctional cases in which you really need someone to be a proper mediator rather than most normally occurring disagreements. If people are seriously annoyed, one of the ways to make things worse and escalate into actual anger is to not acknowledge what the person is saying. That's part of why immediately going defensive on hearing some kind of accusation or complaint might feel natural (I was attacked, I should defend) but it can really be a mistake.

So the best first step if someone says 'this thing you did (are going to do) upsets me' is to acknowledge that, even just some simple form of 'okay, I hear you'. Better even to engage with that. If the first pass of conversation is instead is to ask the person who the complaint is against 'why is this important to you?', well, in most cases it probably wouldn't make things notably worse. But there would be some cases where the person complaining would feel that automatically people are taking the side of someone who, from their point of view, is the aggressor. Or to put it another way, the sense in which 'why?' doesn't matter is that regardless of the 'why?' it doesn't change the reality that someone was bothered by it. The resolution in the end might mean that the person originally bothered by it just has to figure out a way to deal with it themselves, but a discussion that tries to deny or hide the fact that they were actually bothered isn't going to feel fair or satisfying.

Good point that addresses one of my blind spots*. What is the best way for someone to communicate to both sides that they hear what that side is saying, without the other communication undermining their attempt? Let's especially focus on the worse case scenarios because better case scenarios are more likely to be flexible to the signaling.

Obviously this is easier for either involved party. They can tell the other person they hear them, and acknowledge their own concerns mentally. They still should be sincere to both sides and that might be hard for them to do if the surface conflict is stubborn.

How can 3rd parties (the GM or other players) best signal "I hear you" to both sides to lay the foundation needed to then ask "why?"s?

*my groups are rather reasonable, so the "I hear you" signals I give work, but might not work in worse cases

However, the 'why' can be absolutely essential to finding the actual path to a good compromise. So even though 'why?' doesn't modify the situation itself (no 'why' can lead to 'actually, the players who complained weren't actually bothered' or 'oh, well with that reason we don't need to bother to discuss this'), it does determine the process by which resolution can be reached.

Agreed. This is why I value the "why".

Exception that proves the rule?:
There are times when "why" asked to both sides does resolve the situation by itself, but they are a rare example of miscommunication or extrapolation. Please forgive the simplified hypothetical example:

A Kender steals a soup spoon from a Dwarf.
The Dwarf player objects to the Kender's actions.
We check why.
The Kender player wants to explore kleptomania with trivial objects.
The Dwarf player does not mind the soup spoon but is worried about non trivial objects like the Dwarf's axe.
After asking why, the players realize clarifying the player interests revealed that a satisfactory boundary already existed.
The Dwarf player was actually bothered, but not by the action they objected to, and the clarification removed their concerns.

I don't know how common miscommunication causes situations that are already solved and just need clarification. I hope they are a rare case.

[kyoryu]

First let me say we agree on a lot of this topic. Our disagreements might be merely the result of framing or intended audience.

I suspect this is mostly true.

If they are not it seems like they are nuances like the purpose of the "why".

It also looks like you assume it starts with the group objecting rather than a single player objecting.

Yes. Mostly because if it's a single player objecting, and people can't figure it out, that's when the group gets involved and says "no, deal with it Bill" or "Yeah, Andy, stop being a jerk" if they can't find a reasonable compromise

Also you might be assuming you are only giving advice to the accused player.

Yes. I don't even like the word "accused", frankly. It's just basic relationship skills - if someone brings a complaint to your attention, and you can presume good faith and non-abusive/bullying behavior, address the complaint. Every time. Sometimes that's changing the behavior, sometimes it's changing how you present things. Sometimes it's increasing communication. But the onus is on you to address the complaint, in some fashion. Or decide you really don't want to, but that's a great way to damage relationships.

On the other hand I assume the conversation starts the first time one player objects to another player's character's characterization. I am also assuming my advice goes to everyone in the group. So earlier, broader, and less one sided.

Actually, I think it's reasonable advice all the time.

Person A: "Dude, what the heck? Why did you do that? That's awful! Stop!"

- OPTIONS -

1) Person B: "Bugger off". (Note that "it's why my charcter would do" is just a variation of this)

2) Person B: "Well, here's what I was thinking. You cool with that? Otherwise, how about this instead?"

3) Person B: "Yeah, sorry, that was out of line. My bad."

Options 2 and 3 can be reasonable. Option 1 isn't. In both options 2 and 3 you're addressing the complaint. Option 2 includes "why", which is useful once you've acknowledged the need to address the complaint.

Or, as a flowchart:

Person A has a complaint:

Choice 1: Do you address?

If NO, then "why" is kind of irrelevant. If somebody is doing something objectionable, and continues to do it once they've been told it's objectionable, then why is kind of irrelevant - they've just told the other person they don't care. I mean, if course you had a reason to do what you did. Everybody does.

If YES, then we go to Choice 2: Simply comply, or negotiate for middle ground.

If you just comply because it's not a big deal, then "why" is, again, irrelevant. If you negotiate, why is super relevant as understanding the desired goals and needs of each party is critical to a successful negotiation.

I do suspect that, in practice, we agree more than not, if for no other reason then you've always struck me as a super reasonable, emotionally intelligent kind of guy. I actually wonder if you're approaching it from a perspective of "the answer to choice 1 is obvious, so let's focus on choice 2". And "why" is pretty supremely relevant there.

But it's not relevant at all for choice one.

And choice one is where, generally "it's what my guy would do" comes up, and most of the time, if you can get past choice one, you can figure out how to work things out. Usually people feeling heard creates a good space for negotiation and understanding, and finding an agreeable solution.

I do think that, when viable, "okay, I'll stop" is the easiest answer to choice 2.

I notice this advice is only for the accused player and you go out of your way to disregard their interests. If we don't ask "Why did you want your character to have this characterization? and Why do you find this characterization disruptive?" then you will always have 2 players accusing each other of "I don't like it when you do this". Except your language around this aims its accusations at only 1 of the 2 players that are in conflict.

That is why I prefer the advice that applies regardless of if you are player A, player B, or a 3rd party. Ask the "Why"s to reveal the actual conflict. Especially if there is no underlying conflict and everything was a misunderstanding. You are still approaching it with "okay, let's find a solution" which included unilateral solutions like "okay, I'll stop, which might involve leaving" but you avoid dismissing your efforts.

Choice 1 vs Choice 2.

The vast majority of cases can be resolved by examining the underlying interests. Of the minority with mutually conflicting underlying interests that can't find a compromise, some are disruptive demands (your character is evil, so I will find them disruptive if the don't kick puppies), others are unreasonable characterizations (default assumption when we hear the phrase), and some are merely incompatible positions.

Only if Choice 1 is "okay, let's change in some way".

[kyoryu]

My sister was in a class where the class was broken up into the groups. Each group was given a different set of, "in this scenario, what would you do" questions, that were answered by the group.

As the other groups began reading the questions and giving their answers, my sister was filled with a sense of horror. Because, wouldn't you know, her class had recreated the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Which is actually a really, really good lesson. It answers, very neatly, "how could this happen?" And the answer is usually more banal than people realize.

Which is why you need super strong safeguards to prevent such "reasonable" solutions. Like, in that scenario, a strong emphasis on inviolable human rights prevents that kind of slide... if you take off those "reasonable" solutions that ignore rights, you don't end up with Nazi Germany.

For our discussion? Those are strong personal boundaries and areas you won't go, and a willingness to leave the table.

@kyoryu, I've seen the thought process you describe used before, I know the bullying and horror stories it can create. Because humans just aren't capable of comprehending when they're being unreasonable, when the group think has turned to toxic mob mentality.

Oh, hey, you ignored that entire first part where I said "use this only in cases of good faith."

Yes, it's my turn to reject your tool, rather than your intended usage

So, replace every reasoned example you have with something silly, or toxic. But have the speaker *believe* every word of it, and be acting in good faith, unable to see anything wrong with their PoV. And see if you can see why I reject your tool in favor of a conversation, in favor of asking "why".

Again, you're also missing the other part - you're not obligated to play with them. If a group is making asks that are that toxic and silly, why would you play with them?. At the very least, if you're playing with them for other reasons, recognize that normally healthy behavioral strategies are ineffective or counter-productive.

IOW, your baseline for interacting with people should be "assume they're healthy", and make exceptions for toxic people. Your baseline for interacting with people shouldn't be "assume they're toxic".

So if you want, there's a Step 1A, which is really "are they asking for something that is toxic or crosses boundaries?" If so, then you approach it entirely differently.

So, no. Having thought about whether or not I'm overthinking it, I've pushed past my unikitty "happy thoughts, happy thoughts" to enough horror stories to steel my spine to the righteousness of my beliefs that "the will of the group" should be questioned at least as much as, and heeded no more than, the preferences of an individual.

You're. Missing. The. Point.

The point here is that if you go against the will of the group, you'll be asked to leave. Or the group will disband. That's just naturally how things work. It's not a "tool".

And if the group is unhealthy enough to behave in the manners you've described? You should leave. Or, if you do stay for whatever reason, you should change how you deal with them accordingly. I mean, why would you want to play with people that you've described as bullies?

Which is not to say "ignored". But I continue to hold that seeking understanding to seek compromise is a healthier response than capitulation.

You start with "yes, I accept that you see this as a problem, and some change is in order." It doesn't have to be blanket capitulation. But it does have to start with accepting that the group sees a problem, and some change needs to happen.

"No, it's what my character would do" doesn't meet that.

And, honestly? It's rare that a group is that toxic front to back. So it's worth examining your own part in that case. And if the group is really that toxic? Leave. I can't emphasize that enough. Life is too short to waste it on toxic people.

[kyoryu]

ImE a group outright kicking a player is incredibly rare and usually not the result of IG behavior but of OG transgressions.

What happens more often is that some behavior is seen as disruptive and a player is asked to stop it or leave. Could be cheating or sporlight-hogging or blatantly ignoring the common power level or agreed upon genre/theme. Or many other things really. And often the player then decides to leave instead of adjust because that game is not fun anymore under the additional constraint. And this is fine.

What happens even more often is that instead of one player vs. the group you have one person finding the behavior of a certain other person disruptive who is not willing to change and goes for the "one of us leaves"-ultimatum which then ends up with one of them actually leaving.

Honestly, those are fine resolutions if they can be done without drama. "Oh, okay, this isn't the kind of game I find fun. Y'all enjoy yourselves."

The drama usually happens when the player refuses to compromise after being told "this bugs me."

Once the pattern of "This bugs me" "Okay, cool, I'll change" is in place, then the next step can be "let's talk about what that change is", which can lead to the best resolutions.

The pattern of "this bugs me, please stop!" "No! I won't!" leads to bad places.

* again, outside of bad faith/weaponized empathy type situations, in which case either leave or understand you're in a dysfunctional situation and make exceptions to deal with the dysfunctional situation.

[kyoryu]

Also note that I keep talking about what the group wants because there are no universal standards. What is acceptable by one group of people isn't acceptable to another group. So you either behave within the norms of a group, or you don't hang with that group.

Like, in this context, let's take my situation. People are gonna kill some innocent hippie child priestesses for a small magic boon. I have a character that's all into justice, so that's just one step too far.

If I step in the way, some groups will find that disruptive as it's arguably engaging in PvP. Other groups will find that fine, as that's a game play they're totally willing to get into, and "what your character would do" is the law of the land.

If I find an excuse why I wouldn't, some groups will think that's great as I'm making sure I work with the group. Other groups will go "wait a second, it seems really weird that your character would do that! You shouldn't change what your character would do to go along with the group!"

Knowing who you're dealing with, how they work, and what they find tolerable and not is a key social skill. That doesn't mean don't be yourself, but it does mean that sometimes you choose which facet of yourself to show.

[OldTrees1]

I do suspect that, in practice, we agree more than not, if for no other reason then you've always struck me as a super reasonable, emotionally intelligent kind of guy. I actually wonder if you're approaching it from a perspective of "the answer to choice 1 is obvious, so let's focus on choice 2". And "why" is pretty supremely relevant there.

But it's not relevant at all for choice one.

I think our flowcharts have 2 major differences:
1) My flowchart is for an arbitrary person in the group at the time the conflict first is vocalized. This can be the "accused", the person who is voicing the complaint, or a 3rd party. Actually it can even work as advice for someone outside the group. This is the big difference between my advice and your advice. Since you are specifying a specific person to target with your advice, you can recommend how they can guarantee a resolution by doing some self sacrifice. The 3rd party does not have that option so my advice needs to focus on communication more than self sacrifice.
2) I think the obvious answer to choice 1 is "Of course we should intend to address the issue and immediately proceed to look for a resolution, BUT we cannot fully decide that choice until we see what the possible resolutions are.". I also think the obvious answer to choice 2 is "Let's find out what the underlying interests are and if there is a resolution.".


My flowchart:
Initial condition:
I am one of Player A, Player B, or Player C. Obviously any player might also be the GM.
Starting event:
Player A voices a complaint about Player B.

Choice 1:
Do I judge the situation from the surface information or do I gather more information. So far I have heard Player A claim Player B's character's characterization is "disruptive" and Player B has responded with indirection via "That is what my character would do".
Option 1: Move to judgement with this information
Option 2: Better understand Player A's concern and better understand what Player B is trying to do. Then move to judgement.

Choice 2:
Now that I have all the information I wanted to discuss / investigate the circumstance, can the conflict be resolved? This is why I strongly suggestion Choice 1 Option 2.
Option 1: Yes, with unanimous agreement
Option 2: Yes, but without unanimous agreement. Is the disagreement a deal breaker?
Option 3: No.

Choice 3:
Given the outcome of Choice 2, do we address the conflict or not? The answer is usually "Yes" but leaving this decision to last is a sanity check. Basically it is a question of "Did we really only find resolutions that are WORSE than the status quo? How is that possible? Yikes, well better not adopt any of those worse situations". This has happened once (but on a much milder topic).


-----------

Also to clarify some communication,
Quertus is not ignoring your *s disclaimers about only use the flow in good faith. Due to how heavily you are focusing your advice at the accused player, it creates a tone that appears like you are ignoring the following case:
Someone makes an unreasonable demand but does it in good faith.

For this I have been giving an example of someone complaining that your evil character is disruptive because that are not kicking puppies.

You advice aimed at the accused player is so self sacrificing that it is less than ideal when facing an unreasonable demand made in good faith.

That seems to be the root of the discussion you two are having.

[Talakeal]

I tend to have a combat once per 3 or 4 sessions. Challenges have a lot more to do with figuring out what's going on and what decisions to make rather than finely tuned numbers checks. When combats occur, they're not pre-statted so there's flexibility in tuning to the party. Often if not always, combat can be avoided through compromise or negotiation or trickery or persuasion. Generally pacing is driven by what the party wants to take on, and often that means that difficulty is more about what the players feel up to (or incorrect evaluation of the challenge level) than pushing through some fixed gauntlet. Often consequences are more about what happens to objectives PCs care about than their own life of death, even to the extent of one campaign having literally immortal PCs whose 'deaths' would cause others to suffer in their stead, one afterlife campaign where the PCs were dead to begin with, and one campaign where PCs were spirits who could possess somewhat disposable hosts.

Even in the 'by the book, death is death, world is what it is' 1ed D&D campaign I was in, the obvious thing was not to take any risks or commit to any adventure where half the party dying would prevent you from getting out alive because you should expect that to happen anyhow. And in that game there were several cases of PvP of sorts actually saving the group rather than dooming it. We had a 'you don't have to outrun the bear' moment and a 'diseased hirelings are slowing us down in a place where random encounters will kill us, murder is the answer' moment.

That’s a very specific level of DM intervention.

They are willing to adjust the difficulty for the number of players, but not to adjust for how the players are RPing.

Or, if they are, then you have players who are hyper focused on optimal IC behavior even though they know it doesn't matter OOC.

[kyoryu]

I think our flowcharts have 2 major differences:
1) My flowchart is for an arbitrary person in the group at the time the conflict first is vocalized.

Actually, you're presuming my choice 1. Choice 1 is basically "someone has said there's a problem, do we accept that there's a problem and move to some kind of resolution?"

If you presume that the answer is "yes" then your stuff all goes into play (and is pretty much on target)

I do have a bias towards just accepting the ask full out, provided that it's reasonable and not onerous.

And, frankly, I do think that this is pretty much universal, regardless of the number of people involved. "Hey, this bugs me." "Okay, let's fix it." and then everything you said comes into play.

Again, caveat is that if someone weaponizes this process, then you have to deal with it differently.

[HumanFighter]

This reminds me of a time I was playing d20 modern and I was a player in a group of 5 people or so. We were in some kind of shop when we got ambushed by a huge carnivorous plant. My character was unarmed at the time, had no magical abilities or means to hurt this monster, so I skipped my turn since I could literally do nothing. Anyways, there was this other player who was an edgelord tiefling with a scythe who was trying to fight the monster. He noticed that my character was doing nothing so he decided to stop what he was doing, move over to my character, and attack me with his scythe, probably taking Attacks of Opportunity from the monster's plant tentacles on the way. This was a tough fight, mind you, and his actions just made things harder for us a group. The fact that he went out of his way to slice me in the stomach with a scythe "because it is what my character would do" was more than a little irritating and detrimental to the group.
This player's "my fun at the expense of yours" behavior has not stopped over the years. Does he get banned from the group? No, for some reason, no. And so I left that group.

[kyoryu]

This reminds me of a time I was playing d20 modern and I was a player in a group of 5 people or so. We were in some kind of shop when we got ambushed by a huge carnivorous plant. My character was unarmed at the time, had no magical abilities or means to hurt this monster, so I skipped my turn since I could literally do nothing. Anyways, there was this other player who was an edgelord tiefling with a scythe who was trying to fight the monster. He noticed that my character was doing nothing so he decided to stop what he was doing, move over to my character, and attack me with his scythe, probably taking Attacks of Opportunity from the monster's plant tentacles on the way. This was a tough fight, mind you, and his actions just made things harder for us a group. The fact that he went out of his way to slice me in the stomach with a scythe "because it is what my character would do" was more than a little irritating and detrimental to the group.
This player's "my fun at the expense of yours" behavior has not stopped over the years. Does he get banned from the group? No, for some reason, no. And so I left that group.

This is great because it hits a lot of points as an example.

So, let's look at how I'd imagine this goes.

SCENARIO ONE
After the game, HF says "hey, man, you attacked me. What the heck?"
Other character: "You didn't do anything! It's what I'd do!"
HF: "Nothing I could do, man, here's the options I had. Here's my choices, what do you want me to do?"
OC: "Huh, guess there's nothing you could have done. Could you let us know when that's the case?"
HF: "Sure. How about you don't attack me without asking what's going on?"
OC: "Sure."

SCENARIO TWO
After the game, OC says "hey, man, why didn't you do anything? You need to conbribute!"
HF: "Nothing I could do, man, here's the options I had. Here's my choices, what do you want me to do?"
OC: "Huh, guess there's nothing you could have done. Could you let us know when that's the case?"
HF: "Sure. How about you don't attack me without asking what's going on?"
OC: "Sure."

SCENARIO THREE
After the game, OC says "hey, man, why didn't you do anything? You need to conbribute!"
HF: "Nothing I could do, man, here's the options I had. Here's my choices, what do you want me to do?"
OC: "I don't care. If I don't see you doing things, I'm going to attack you."
HF: "Uh, guys?"
Group: "Yeah, he's within his rights."
HF: "Yeah, no. I'm out."

[Talakeal]

This reminds me of a time I was playing d20 modern and I was a player in a group of 5 people or so. We were in some kind of shop when we got ambushed by a huge carnivorous plant. My character was unarmed at the time, had no magical abilities or means to hurt this monster, so I skipped my turn since I could literally do nothing. Anyways, there was this other player who was an edgelord tiefling with a scythe who was trying to fight the monster. He noticed that my character was doing nothing so he decided to stop what he was doing, move over to my character, and attack me with his scythe, probably taking Attacks of Opportunity from the monster's plant tentacles on the way. This was a tough fight, mind you, and his actions just made things harder for us a group. The fact that he went out of his way to slice me in the stomach with a scythe "because it is what my character would do" was more than a little irritating and detrimental to the group.
This player's "my fun at the expense of yours" behavior has not stopped over the years. Does he get banned from the group? No, for some reason, no. And so I left that group.

What is the logic here? Did he think you were in league with the monster? Even so, its a bad tactical decision.

I had a similar case, I was playing a character who only had mind affecting spells, and we fought a swarm, against which I could do nothing so I just defended every turn. One of the other players decided to “make me useful” by moving in such a way that the swarms could only attack me. Of course, that pissed me of so I used one of my spells on him to move him between me and the swarm, which in turn pissed the GM off because it violated the “no pvp” rule.

[NichG]

How can 3rd parties (the GM or other players) best signal "I hear you" to both sides to lay the foundation needed to then ask "why?"s?

Yes, this is the difficult and entirely situational bit. If you have a lot of trust and respect with the people involved you might be able to say 'Alright, hold on. Player A, could you state your issue? Ok, player B, do you understand player A's issue?' and basically ask the people involved to do some variation of restating each other's positions. You can also restate the positions yourself, or if you really know the people and understand their blind spots or things they react strongly to you could ask clarifying questions designed to move the discussion into the framing that they'll understand better.

But if people are already getting angry, I'm not sure any of that would work. So I guess I'd ask for a break in that kind of case.

And in a situation where you have no power to set the agenda or moderate (like a fight happening at a table next to yours in a restaurant, or a really rancorous Q&A between speaker and audience member at a talk where you're not an organizer), I don't have a good idea of how to break it up.

That’s a very specific level of DM intervention.

They are willing to adjust the difficulty for the number of players, but not to adjust for how the players are RPing.

Or, if they are, then you have players who are hyper focused on optimal IC behavior even though they know it doesn't matter OOC.

How does adjusting for how the players are RPing or optimal play factor into the games I described? I don't see it.

Like, in some of those cases, there is literally no way to lose your character as a result of danger, so there's not even any adjustment of difficulty necessarily needed.

It sounds like maybe you're assuming something about the stakes such that failing would always be worse than succeeding in a wrong way? Generally things aren't so immediate or binary.

E.g. one campaign we were retrieving McGuffins and it came out that our boss was a lich who was going to use them for some kind of ascension and basically was using threat of death against us. But the best outcome would have been via thoroughly destroying one of the McGuffins, regardless of whether we were successful or not at one particular retrieval or dungeon crawl. In another campaign there were several 'do nothing is okay, but choose to do something is either great benefit or great harm depending on the choice' moments. In another instance, we all could draw power from a well, but if we collectively drew more than a certain amount then it would backlash, and each party member could choose privately how much they actually drew.

So these things aren't about difficulty in the sense of 'more characters is easier'. They're the difficulty of choosing well what to do.

[Talakeal]

Yes, this is the difficult and entirely situational bit. If you have a lot of trust and respect with the people involved you might be able to say 'Alright, hold on. Player A, could you state your issue? Ok, player B, do you understand player A's issue?' and basically ask the people involved to do some variation of restating each other's positions. You can also restate the positions yourself, or if you really know the people and understand their blind spots or things they react strongly to you could ask clarifying questions designed to move the discussion into the framing that they'll understand better.

But if people are already getting angry, I'm not sure any of that would work. So I guess I'd ask for a break in that kind of case.

And in a situation where you have no power to set the agenda or moderate (like a fight happening at a table next to yours in a restaurant, or a really rancorous Q&A between speaker and audience member at a talk where you're not an organizer), I don't have a good idea of how to break it up.



How does adjusting for how the players are RPing or optimal play factor into the games I described? I don't see it.

Like, in some of those cases, there is literally no way to lose your character as a result of danger, so there's not even any adjustment of difficulty necessarily needed.

It sounds like maybe you're assuming something about the stakes such that failing would always be worse than succeeding in a wrong way? Generally things aren't so immediate or binary.

E.g. one campaign we were retrieving McGuffins and it came out that our boss was a lich who was going to use them for some kind of ascension and basically was using threat of death against us. But the best outcome would have been via thoroughly destroying one of the McGuffins, regardless of whether we were successful or not at one particular retrieval or dungeon crawl. In another campaign there were several 'do nothing is okay, but choose to do something is either great benefit or great harm depending on the choice' moments. In another instance, we all could draw power from a well, but if we collectively drew more than a certain amount then it would backlash, and each party member could choose privately how much they actually drew.

So these things aren't about difficulty in the sense of 'more characters is easier'. They're the difficulty of choosing well what to do.

I am even more confused.

It seems to me like the optimal situation here is to go it alone as other people will only cause conflict.

But clearly, we don't want conflict, otherwise we wouldn’t be kicking people out of the group for it.

[Segev]

Paranoia games never last very long as a result.

That's just what they WANT you to think!

[NichG]

I am even more confused.

It seems to me like the optimal situation here is to go it alone as other people will only cause conflict.

But clearly, we don't want conflict, otherwise we wouldn’t be kicking people out of the group for it.

Generally you're doing things with (IC) allies and friends who are invested in each-others interests so that it's that you want to go with other people rather than that you have to go with other people. And its not that other people are useless - every person brings particular opportunities for gathering certain kinds of information, for broadening the space of possible actions that could be taken, even just for having different views on a situation which may help people catch mistakes or notice things they would have missed alone.

[OldTrees1]

Actually, you're presuming my choice 1. Choice 1 is basically "someone has said there's a problem, do we accept that there's a problem and move to some kind of resolution?"

If you presume that the answer is "yes" then your stuff all goes into play (and is pretty much on target)

I do have a bias towards just accepting the ask full out, provided that it's reasonable and not onerous.

And, frankly, I do think that this is pretty much universal, regardless of the number of people involved. "Hey, this bugs me." "Okay, let's fix it." and then everything you said comes into play.

Again, caveat is that if someone weaponizes this process, then you have to deal with it differently.

Oh, well, yes. Choice 1, if that broad rather than biased against one player, is something I presume. When a complaint is voiced, there is a complaint. So let's learn about the problem (ask the whys) to see if the situation can be improved. You are right that I feel the answer to that question is clear.

I think your bias towards immediately accepting the full ask might have created a tone that I misread. In the harder cases being too self sacrificing to early can avoid finding the ideal solution and might lead to a "solution" that is worse than the original situation.

Yes, this is the difficult and entirely situational bit. If you have a lot of trust and respect with the people involved you might be able to say 'Alright, hold on. Player A, could you state your issue? Ok, player B, do you understand player A's issue?' and basically ask the people involved to do some variation of restating each other's positions. You can also restate the positions yourself, or if you really know the people and understand their blind spots or things they react strongly to you could ask clarifying questions designed to move the discussion into the framing that they'll understand better.

But if people are already getting angry, I'm not sure any of that would work. So I guess I'd ask for a break in that kind of case.

And in a situation where you have no power to set the agenda or moderate (like a fight happening at a table next to yours in a restaurant, or a really rancorous Q&A between speaker and audience member at a talk where you're not an organizer), I don't have a good idea of how to break it up.

Well put. Trust can do a lot.

Some sentences might take less trust than others. Those were 3 good examples.

If people are already getting angry, taking a break sounds like a good idea. However maybe have it be a working break for you. Don't let them fight strawmen in their heads. Instead do a bit of one on one time with them asking them to explain to a friendly ear. Then when the break ends they might have a harder time being as combative immediately?

For the third case, I have heard being a visible witness can help. Decorum has little deserved weight, but people still seem to be unnerved about going too far in front of witnesses.

[Quertus]

flowcharts

Also to clarify some communication,
Quertus is not ignoring your *s disclaimers about only use the flow in good faith. Due to how heavily you are focusing your advice at the accused player, it creates a tone that appears like you are ignoring the following case:
Someone makes an unreasonable demand but does it in good faith.

For this I have been giving an example of someone complaining that your evil character is disruptive because that are not kicking puppies.

You advice aimed at the accused player is so self sacrificing that it is less than ideal when facing an unreasonable demand made in good faith.

That seems to be the root of the discussion you two are having.

My flowchart would be… very complicated. I may attempt to post it at a later date.

I agree with you that my stance takes into consideration, "Someone makes an unreasonable demand but does it in good faith.". And it is also "for an arbitrary person in the group at the time the conflict first is vocalized." - or even for someone not in the group.

Also note that I keep talking about what the group wants because there are no universal standards. What is acceptable by one group of people isn't acceptable to another group. So you either behave within the norms of a group, or you don't hang with that group.

Like, in this context, let's take my situation. People are gonna kill some innocent hippie child priestesses for a small magic boon. I have a character that's all into justice, so that's just one step too far.

If I step in the way, some groups will find that disruptive as it's arguably engaging in PvP. Other groups will find that fine, as that's a game play they're totally willing to get into, and "what your character would do" is the law of the land.

If I find an excuse why I wouldn't, some groups will think that's great as I'm making sure I work with the group. Other groups will go "wait a second, it seems really weird that your character would do that! You shouldn't change what your character would do to go along with the group!"

Knowing who you're dealing with, how they work, and what they find tolerable and not is a key social skill. That doesn't mean don't be yourself, but it does mean that sometimes you choose which facet of yourself to show.

You left out the possibility that, knowing your character, that was the plan, and your character *not* acting IC would be disruptive.

Which is actually a really, really good lesson. It answers, very neatly, "how could this happen?" And the answer is usually more banal than people realize.

Which is why you need super strong safeguards to prevent such "reasonable" solutions. Like, in that scenario, a strong emphasis on inviolable human rights prevents that kind of slide... if you take off those "reasonable" solutions that ignore rights, you don't end up with Nazi Germany.

So glad you understood the direction i was taking this.

For our discussion? Those are strong personal boundaries and areas you won't go, and a willingness to leave the table.

Here, though, I don't follow. Which are what now?

Oh, hey, you ignored that entire first part where I said "use this only in cases of good faith."



Again, you're also missing the other part - you're not obligated to play with them. If a group is making asks that are that toxic and silly, why would you play with them?. At the very least, if you're playing with them for other reasons, recognize that normally healthy behavioral strategies are ineffective or counter-productive.

IOW, your baseline for interacting with people should be "assume they're healthy", and make exceptions for toxic people. Your baseline for interacting with people shouldn't be "assume they're toxic".

So if you want, there's a Step 1A, which is really "are they asking for something that is toxic or crosses boundaries?" If so, then you approach it entirely differently.



You're. Missing. The. Point.

The point here is that if you go against the will of the group, you'll be asked to leave. Or the group will disband. That's just naturally how things work. It's not a "tool".

And if the group is unhealthy enough to behave in the manners you've described? You should leave. Or, if you do stay for whatever reason, you should change how you deal with them accordingly. I mean, why would you want to play with people that you've described as bullies?



You start with "yes, I accept that you see this as a problem, and some change is in order." It doesn't have to be blanket capitulation. But it does have to start with accepting that the group sees a problem, and some change needs to happen.

"No, it's what my character would do" doesn't meet that.

And, honestly? It's rare that a group is that toxic front to back. So it's worth examining your own part in that case. And if the group is really that toxic? Leave. I can't emphasize that enough. Life is too short to waste it on toxic people.

I've seen *many* groups engage in toxic behavior. And my stubborn tactic is to try to *fix* things, not to just walk away, or to accept the toxic. Almost everyone is toxic at some point, or under some circumstances (case in point: my sister's entire class). If I chose to judge, I would judge almost every human on Earth as unacceptably evil. I choose instead to do what I can to guide those with whom I interact towards a better path, whenever I can - and hope that they will do the same when I stray.

I was part of a group that all (or all except player X?) agreed that player X needed to stop behavior Y. We talked to player X, and convinced him of this. Later, most of the group "attacked" player X; I stepped in, and asked "why". They responded with, "because behavior Y (like we agreed)". I rebutted with, "(yes, I agree player X should not engage in behavior Y, but) player X did *not* just do behavior Y, they did behavior Z".

So no, I will *not* open with "yes, I accept that you see this as a problem, and some change is in order." Unless it can be followed by, "and the change that is in order is for you to see that this is *not* a problem".

Which I (probably) cannot say without understanding "why". And, in many groups, even if I know enough that I could, I probably still *should* not say without first *asking* why.

Because would *you* accept "and the change that is in order is for you to see that this is *not* a problem" when you *thought* (incorrectly?) that you were being reasonable, and acting in good faith? Some people won't. I imagine I myself would give someone quite the funny look were I the "accuser" in that exchange.

I've gone against the will of the group more times than I can count. It's actually the way I *joined* several groups - my introduction to the group was made by me, as an outsider, opposing the will of the group. Almost every time, the result was that the group was made better, and I was more strongly cemented in the group. So, no, going against the will of the group does not guarantee that they will ask you to leave - and may, in fact, not only encourage them to want you to stay, but may actually *prevent* the group from being toxic and dissolving in its own toxicity.

[Tanarii]

This reminds me of a time I was playing d20 modern and I was a player in a group of 5 people or so. We were in some kind of shop when we got ambushed by a huge carnivorous plant. My character was unarmed at the time, had no magical abilities or means to hurt this monster, so I skipped my turn since I could literally do nothing. Anyways, there was this other player who was an edgelord tiefling with a scythe who was trying to fight the monster. He noticed that my character was doing nothing so he decided to stop what he was doing, move over to my character, and attack me with his scythe, probably taking Attacks of Opportunity from the monster's plant tentacles on the way. This was a tough fight, mind you, and his actions just made things harder for us a group. The fact that he went out of his way to slice me in the stomach with a scythe "because it is what my character would do" was more than a little irritating and detrimental to the group.
This player's "my fun at the expense of yours" behavior has not stopped over the years. Does he get banned from the group? No, for some reason, no. And so I left that group.

This is great because it hits a lot of points as an example.

So, let's look at how I'd imagine this goes.

SCENARIO FOuR
GM: *stops game* "Edgelord, wth do you mean 'I move over and attack HF's character'? Cut that attitude out or leave right now."

Unless it's a very specific kind of game, that's how it should go in the vast majority of cases. That's a PROBLEM player. Don't push it off to after the session. Stop everything and address it immediately.

And even if attacking another PC is going to be acceptable in the game for some reason, if you didn't address it in session one, stop the game and make sure everyone is okay with it, and has a chance to leave the session immediately if they're not. Don't waste their time.

[DwarfFighter]

This player's "my fun at the expense of yours" behavior has not stopped over the years. Does he get banned from the group? No, for some reason, no. And so I left that group.

Sounds like you made the right choice in leaving that group.

-DF

[DwarfFighter]

SCENARIO FOuR
GM: *stops game* "Edgelord, wth do you mean 'I move over and attack HF's character'? Cut that attitude out or leave right now."

Running the simple rule of no PvP, or allow the target of a PvP action to decide the outcome without regards to dice or abilities, goes a long way to solve that sort of problem. It still leaves the issue of That Guy acting out with NPCs and f-ing the party over indirectly.

How come nobody calls out "It's what my character would do!" when they are acting to the benefit of the party or the story? Every time that excuse comes up it's because of some disruptive BS behavior, and the player knows it!

-DF

[Tanarii]

How come nobody calls out "It's what my character would do!" when they are acting to the benefit of the party or the story? Every time that excuse comes up it's because of some disruptive BS behavior, and the player knows it!

-DF

"I shatter the Mcguffin, killing the BBEG, saving the world, and ending the year long campaign. Its what my character would do!"

Other players: "Wait, I only need 5k xp to level up, dont end the campaign!"

😂

[Satinavian]

How come nobody calls out "It's what my character would do!" when they are acting to the benefit of the party or the story?

Oh, that totally does happen. But it doesn't lead to arguments and people complaining on the forums.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh, that totally does happen. But it doesn't lead to arguments and people complaining on the forums.

As with so many other things. Sadly. Good experience doesn't get recorded nearly as much as bad experience.

[KaussH]

Part of the issue is, what does disruptive mean?
Attacking another charicter with no reason... pretty clear.
Running a small scam so all the other charicters pay for your beer... not so much.
Your charicter tends to seduce x.. ???