Remathilis
Legend
"My character wouldn't do that!"
The five words that make every GM's blood run cold. It could be an unbitten adventure hook, a intriguing story twist, or simply a refusal to except the majority vote on which hall to turn down. What we have here is a power-struggle between player and GM, using the only narrative tool a player has; control of his character, to utterly stop any forward momentum the GM may have.
How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?
The first two questions are the easiest. Communication is the key. Players using this chestnut are throwing up the emergency handbrake because they don't like where things are going. There should be plenty of opportunity to address this problem BEFORE it get to here. Often times, the GM can explain things "Out of character" and if the player is reasonable, there should be some effort to make concession. If you run a Epic Heroic Romantic game with knights in shining armor and princesses to rescue, tell the player BEFORE he roles up a half-orc assassin! Likewise, if you just bought Module X and your real excited to play it, announce to the group BEFORE the module is run you want to play it and why (without spoiling it, of course) so that the players will bite the adventure hook, even if normally they don't go for "that kinda adventure."
But sometimes, the plot writes itself into a corner. The PCs make a unanticipated turn, and now one or more refuse to go along with it? Now what? I've found that sometimes a GM needs to show his cards a bit to get the player's on board. Like the module scenario above, it gives away a bit of future expectation in exchange for player buy in. (Players are more willing to do risky behavior "for the good of moving things along" if they know they have a reasonable chance of survival.) If things get really heated, that's usually a good time call a session "so the GM can think over his next move" and let cooler heads prevail later.
These are all fine and dandy GM tools, but what about the players? Like all compromise, its about give and take. The first rule of character design is "Never go into a game with a character so developed you have no room to maneuver him." This often comes from character who follow a theme: gruff loner, righteous holy man, sneaky bastard, etc. In any story-telling media; a protagonist is expected to grow; Luke goes from a farm-boy to a Jedi Knight, Frodo leaves his comfortable life to find true heroism and friendship, etc. Be willing for your character to grow in the same vein; if your character is a loner who doesn't like people, why does he hang out in an adventuring party? Does he secretly like these people? Similarly a sneaky bastard can have his heart softened to become a bit more heroic, and a righteous holy man can learn to see more than just what his theology dictates. Never paint yourself so thoroughly that you can't go along with the game.
Again, communication is the key. If the GM prefers heroes and you want an anti-hero; tell him and perhaps a compromise can be reached (said character becomes more heroic as the effects of his heroic allies rub off on him.) Risk-adverse PCs become more daring after some successes. Rash PCs learn some caution by stunning failures. Changing like this deepens the PC and can sometimes turn one-dimensional PC into something more.
The log-jam known as "my character wouldn't do that" can be avoided if both sides are willing to compromise. With some open minds, great games will happen. Good gaming.
The five words that make every GM's blood run cold. It could be an unbitten adventure hook, a intriguing story twist, or simply a refusal to except the majority vote on which hall to turn down. What we have here is a power-struggle between player and GM, using the only narrative tool a player has; control of his character, to utterly stop any forward momentum the GM may have.
How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?
The first two questions are the easiest. Communication is the key. Players using this chestnut are throwing up the emergency handbrake because they don't like where things are going. There should be plenty of opportunity to address this problem BEFORE it get to here. Often times, the GM can explain things "Out of character" and if the player is reasonable, there should be some effort to make concession. If you run a Epic Heroic Romantic game with knights in shining armor and princesses to rescue, tell the player BEFORE he roles up a half-orc assassin! Likewise, if you just bought Module X and your real excited to play it, announce to the group BEFORE the module is run you want to play it and why (without spoiling it, of course) so that the players will bite the adventure hook, even if normally they don't go for "that kinda adventure."
But sometimes, the plot writes itself into a corner. The PCs make a unanticipated turn, and now one or more refuse to go along with it? Now what? I've found that sometimes a GM needs to show his cards a bit to get the player's on board. Like the module scenario above, it gives away a bit of future expectation in exchange for player buy in. (Players are more willing to do risky behavior "for the good of moving things along" if they know they have a reasonable chance of survival.) If things get really heated, that's usually a good time call a session "so the GM can think over his next move" and let cooler heads prevail later.
These are all fine and dandy GM tools, but what about the players? Like all compromise, its about give and take. The first rule of character design is "Never go into a game with a character so developed you have no room to maneuver him." This often comes from character who follow a theme: gruff loner, righteous holy man, sneaky bastard, etc. In any story-telling media; a protagonist is expected to grow; Luke goes from a farm-boy to a Jedi Knight, Frodo leaves his comfortable life to find true heroism and friendship, etc. Be willing for your character to grow in the same vein; if your character is a loner who doesn't like people, why does he hang out in an adventuring party? Does he secretly like these people? Similarly a sneaky bastard can have his heart softened to become a bit more heroic, and a righteous holy man can learn to see more than just what his theology dictates. Never paint yourself so thoroughly that you can't go along with the game.
Again, communication is the key. If the GM prefers heroes and you want an anti-hero; tell him and perhaps a compromise can be reached (said character becomes more heroic as the effects of his heroic allies rub off on him.) Risk-adverse PCs become more daring after some successes. Rash PCs learn some caution by stunning failures. Changing like this deepens the PC and can sometimes turn one-dimensional PC into something more.
The log-jam known as "my character wouldn't do that" can be avoided if both sides are willing to compromise. With some open minds, great games will happen. Good gaming.
