D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[JamesonCourage]

Sorry for the long delay, I left the site for about a week to wait out them fixing the social media sidebar issue. They didn't, but at least I can Adblock it.

When I've been a player in those campaigns, I've felt that they are random, unconnected events.

Hopefully we'll get to address this.

Player 1 wants to find his father and he is spending his time talking to contacts and attempting to track down his last known location. Player 2 wants to become the head of the thieves guild and spends his time coming up with plots that will eventually lead him there. Player 3 wants to be a pirate and spends his time at sea robbing ships. Player 4 wants to track down a holy relic of his faith that was stolen by Orcs.

I have no idea why these players made these characters as a party. They could all be great fun individually, but as a group, they should be aiming to make a group. I have five basic rules of character creation that every PC in my campaigns must adhere to. Rule number one is "the character must work in a group." Rule number three is "the character must have a reason to be with the party."

These two rules alone will probably solve a lot of issues we'll see here.

There is no real reason for the PCs to help each other or adventure together other than an arbitrary reason they make up themselves or the DM forces on them. They have no common goals so they aren't really a team. They are instead just a bunch of individuals who happen to be nearby each other.

Exactly! Ask the players "and why are these PCs together? Why would they stay together? What's the motivation for the group? Are they just amazing friends? Is that friendship stronger than all other motivations (like morals, personal wants, etc)?

If they don't have a reason to be together then why did you make them? What can you guys alter to fix this? What sounds fun? What would you guys like to do as a group? What idea appeals to all of you?"

And then you go from there.

Which isn't really a story, it's a bunch of dueling egos attempting to get as much game time for "their" story over everyone else's. Or, for less motivated players, it's a bunch of waiting around wishing someone would take charge and lead the game in an interesting direction.

If we do it the way you laid out, I certainly agree!

I like structure. I like the idea that the DM says "Here's the reason you guys are together. Here is your goal. Now try to accomplish that goal using any means at your disposal."

I don't mind it. My brother often runs those kinds of games, and they're great fun. If people like it, go for it! It's not sandbox-y, but if that's not your preference, I don't mind at all

I'm just saying that sandbox games don't need to be what you've described. They can be what I've described. And in that manner, it can be a lot more like real life (where like-minded individuals team up for goals that they set themselves), which tends to work out okay most of the time. Not that this is what everyone wants (a lot of fantasy follows what your "here's the reason you guys are together" structure), of course.

To me it's the difference between throwing a bunch of actors on stage and saying "ACT!" and saying "This is a play about the Civil War. You are all Union soldiers who are trapped in a cave while a battle goes on around you. You've been ordered to get a message to your commander but there are a bunch of Yankee soldiers between you and your destination. Now...ACT!"

Hopefully you can see where I approach sandbox games from (at character creation, at least). It wouldn't be like that at all in my campaigns.

 

[Lanefan]

I have no idea why these players made these characters as a party. They could all be great fun individually, but as a group, they should be aiming to make a group. I have five basic rules of character creation that every PC in my campaigns must adhere to. Rule number one is "the character must work in a group."

Can I assume, then, that Paladins are banned in your game; as they are the archetype of a class that only works if the group is specifically built around them. Ditto, I suppose, Assassins; though they at least can go through the motions of co-operating.

Personally, as a player if something like this rule was told to me at the start of a campaign* (and-or whenever I tried to bring in a new character) I'd think twice about joining. Sometimes I play characters who co-operate perfectly; other times not so much...but I want the freedom to choose.

* - by which I mean a long-term game usually among friends rather than a one-off, league, or convention game; for these full co-operation is usually essential because of the time limit and the whole playing-with-strangers thing.

Rule number three is "the character must have a reason to be with the party."

This one, however, is easy: my character wants to get rich; I'll get richer running with a party than I will by going solo, so here I am and here's the skills I bring. (unspoken: and I'll get richer yet if some of you die in the process and I don't... )

Exactly! Ask the players "and why are these PCs together? Why would they stay together? What's the motivation for the group? Are they just amazing friends? Is that friendship stronger than all other motivations (like morals, personal wants, etc)?

If they don't have a reason to be together then why did you make them? What can you guys alter to fix this? What sounds fun? What would you guys like to do as a group? What idea appeals to all of you?"

Me, instead of bothering to ask why they're together I'd just let 'em argue, and sooner or later the players will get bored enough their characters will somehow find their way into the field and get on with an adventure. This somewhat reflects real life in a way; you've got half a dozen people who have trained themselves as mercenaries of one form or another who have come together in a recruitment hall or similar - they all know there's adventure to be had out there, they all have their own reasons for being here and their own specific skill set to contribute, and quite possibly the one thing that ties them together is for each one the other 5 are the only likely-looking adventuring companions they have thus far been able to find.

Lan-"in adventuring as in Wall Street: greed, for lack of a better word, is good"-efan

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, as a player if something like this rule was told to me at the start of a campaign* (and-or whenever I tried to bring in a new character) I'd think twice about joining. Sometimes I play characters who co-operate perfectly; other times not so much...but I want the freedom to choose.

There's nothing wrong with wanting the freedom to choose, and there's nothing wrong with questioning if an upcoming game is right for you. But there's equally nothing wrong with the DM setting the terms of play.

I dislike highly non-cooperative players and characters in my games. My parties end up spending more time fighting over if they're going to kill kobolds or zombies than actually going out there and doing one of them.

That said, I have less of a problem with independent characters. Independent characters can usually rationalize their reasons for being together and cooperate with each other to accomplish their various goals. I find this makes for very good games because the players realize they're more successful together rather than apart. Plus, it leads the group in interesting directions when they work together to accomplish each others goals. Also I find the groups tend to "discover" more of the hidden secrets I lay around the game when they split up in non-dangerous situations (such as in town or exploring ruins after clearing them out) and seek out things that will advance their own goals.

Parties where everyone is a "perfect party" can be nice sometimes, but it's almost unrealistically coordinated.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Can I assume, then, that Paladins are banned in your game;

I don't run D&D. But, I'll try to answer within the spirit of the question. No, people with Paladin-like codes aren't banned from my game.

as they are the archetype of a class that only works if the group is specifically built around them.

Then the group needs to be on board for such a concept, or the player needs to change his PC.

Ditto, I suppose, Assassins; though they at least can go through the motions of co-operating.

As long as the PCs have a reason to be working together and can honestly work in a group, I don't mind them being together. There are three other rules, still (like "the character must be fun for everyone"), but yeah.

Personally, as a player if something like this rule was told to me at the start of a campaign* (and-or whenever I tried to bring in a new character) I'd think twice about joining. Sometimes I play characters who co-operate perfectly; other times not so much...but I want the freedom to choose.

If that rule stopped you from joining because you wouldn't be able to work in a group, it's doing it's job.

Also, I want to note that I didn't say "co-operate perfectly." That is your phrase. I said needs to have a reason to be in the group, and needs to be able to work in a group. Let's not misinterpret what I said, please.

* - by which I mean a long-term game usually among friends rather than a one-off, league, or convention game; for these full co-operation is usually essential because of the time limit and the whole playing-with-strangers thing.

I'm actually much more okay with not cooperating with one-shots. That's a lot of fun, from my last one-shot experience.

This one, however, is easy: my character wants to get rich; I'll get richer running with a party than I will by going solo, so here I am and here's the skills I bring. (unspoken: and I'll get richer yet if some of you die in the process and I don't... )

If that's what works for the players (and the GM), awesomesauce.

Me, instead of bothering to ask why they're together I'd just let 'em argue, and sooner or later the players will get bored enough their characters will somehow find their way into the field and get on with an adventure. This somewhat reflects real life in a way; you've got half a dozen people who have trained themselves as mercenaries of one form or another who have come together in a recruitment hall or similar - they all know there's adventure to be had out there, they all have their own reasons for being here and their own specific skill set to contribute, and quite possibly the one thing that ties them together is for each one the other 5 are the only likely-looking adventuring companions they have thus far been able to find.

It sounds like you (and probably Majoru Oakheart) both run very "dungeon"-style games. Yours sounds like "go to dungeons, get money, get power" and his sounds like "go to dungeons, kill monsters, save the world."

Both of those are fun styles, but I think my style is more... broad, I guess. A lot more Games of Thrones (world of grey, driven by character ambitions [NPC or PC], political, changing and developing, etc.). My players haven't been in a "dungeon" (outside of the 4e game I was running) in several years. Just a different style of play, I guess.

 

[Lanefan]

No, people with Paladin-like codes aren't banned from my game.

Then the group needs to be on board for such a concept, or the player needs to change his PC.

Or you can let them roll up whatever they like and let 'em have at it, assuming you know your players to be with-it enough to keep character arguments in character.

As long as the PCs have a reason to be working together and can honestly work in a group, I don't mind them being together. There are three other rules, still (like "the character must be fun for everyone"), but yeah.

That rule's goal is just about impossible to achieve, as everyone has their own idea of what is fun; and for different reasons.

If that rule stopped you from joining because you wouldn't be able to work in a group, it's doing it's job.

Ah, but am I not *able* to work with a group, or not *willing* to? Bi-ig difference. If I'm not able to then right, you don't want me as a player. But if I'm not willing to (but am otherwise able to) because the idea I have for a character this time around trends that way, then I don't see it as the DM's job to block that character but instead that of the party - to either reform it, put up with it, or kill it.

It sounds like you (and probably Majoru Oakheart) both run very "dungeon"-style games. Yours sounds like "go to dungeons, get money, get power" and his sounds like "go to dungeons, kill monsters, save the world."

Mine is probably in fact a combination of those: "go to dungeons, kill monsters, get treasure, maybe get power...and if you happen to save the world along the way, so be it".

Lan-"and if you don't save the world you won't have anywhere to spend your loot"-efan

 

[JamesonCourage]

Or you can let them roll up whatever they like and let 'em have at it, assuming you know your players to be with-it enough to keep character arguments in character.

They can keep in in-character. We used to do this, but it lost its shine a long time ago. Too often it ended with "I made my character" to "I guess my character leaves" after half a session, because he just had no reason to be with the group.

That rule's goal is just about impossible to achieve, as everyone has their own idea of what is fun; and for different reasons.

Impossible in your group, perhaps. I don't know. But if your version of fun isn't fun for everyone, change it or I'll kick you out of the group. Easy for us.

And right now, we have characters that are fun for everyone. So, not impossible for us, either.

Ah, but am I not *able* to work with a group, or not *willing* to? Bi-ig difference.

Yes. And if you make a character that isn't willing to work with the PCs, you make a new character. Simple!

If I'm not able to then right, you don't want me as a player. But if I'm not willing to (but am otherwise able to) because the idea I have for a character this time around trends that way, then I don't see it as the DM's job to block that character but instead that of the party - to either reform it, put up with it, or kill it.

It's not really my "job" to do a lot. But I'm sure as hell going to run a game that I find entertaining to me. And if you -as a player in one of my games- can't follow my rules, you don't get to play. Pretty simple.

Mine is probably in fact a combination of those: "go to dungeons, kill monsters, get treasure, maybe get power...and if you happen to save the world along the way, so be it".

That's cool. Lots of people play with that style. I can't do it anymore, but that's just personal preference.

 

[Sunseeker]

Or you can let them roll up whatever they like and let 'em have at it, assuming you know your players to be with-it enough to keep character arguments in character.

It's fairly easy to spot a character that will be problematic for a party and for a table. And unless your group is very familiar with each other, it can be hard for players to tell if Bob is being a jerk through his character, or if Bob simply made his character a jerk.

That rule's goal is just about impossible to achieve, as everyone has their own idea of what is fun; and for different reasons.

On that I agree. My current table is a great example. Some people's ideas of fun are psychopaths. There's some things that need to be nipped in the bud before they ruin a game.

Ah, but am I not *able* to work with a group, or not *willing* to? Bi-ig difference. If I'm not able to then right, you don't want me as a player. But if I'm not willing to (but am otherwise able to) because the idea I have for a character this time around trends that way, then I don't see it as the DM's job to block that character but instead that of the party - to either reform it, put up with it, or kill it.

I'm not sure I understand your statement, are you suggesting the DM need to reformat the game and everyone else's character to be a better fit for your character? Because that seems...highly backwards. Or are you suggesting that the onus is on the party to say "hey, your character isn't going to work at this table". I've tried that. In fact I did that in my current game early on. Had a couple of younger players playing highly psychotic characters. I warned them in-character and I told them out of character I wasn't joking around. They went ahead and did psychotic things anyway, and my character followed through with killing them (and won in single combat). Twice. Because they had an amulet of resurrection.

It is however somewhat easier for the DM to say "no, you can't play that" than it is to foce the party to constantly fight each other every step of the way. I find the latter a lot less fun than when the DM simply requires players to make characters that are more inclined to get along. It's not hard to make a character that is at least inclined to not stab everyone in sight, I feel that people who play such characters regularly are symptomatic of problems with the player and are people who should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Hussar]

Or you can let them roll up whatever they like and let 'em have at it, assuming you know your players to be with-it enough to keep character arguments in character.

It's not only that though. Sometimes I'd much rather just get to the adventure than wait for Bob and Jane to hash out their Superman vs Batman differences yet again. It doesn't just affect that player. It affects the whole table.

That rule's goal is just about impossible to achieve, as everyone has their own idea of what is fun; and for different reasons.

I'm with JamesonC on this one. If your idea of fun (ie playstyle) is so different from the rest of the group, then perhaps a different group is a better fit. Which is fine. There's a fair degree of latitude, but, at the end of the day, I would much rather play with four people with similar playstyles than 5 people and one odd man out.

Ah, but am I not *able* to work with a group, or not *willing* to? Bi-ig difference. If I'm not able to then right, you don't want me as a player. But if I'm not willing to (but am otherwise able to) because the idea I have for a character this time around trends that way, then I don't see it as the DM's job to block that character but instead that of the party - to either reform it, put up with it, or kill it.

AFAIC, there's no difference. At the end of the day, this character is disruptive to this group. If you can change to a different character and not be disruptive? Great. If you can't, well, again, not all groups fit with all players. And, again, I'm not willing to waste everyone else's time at the table just because you want to play that odd man out. Why should they have to do anything with your character? Shouldn't they get a say in things? If you are taking a character that doesn't fit, shouldn't the other players at the table, before the character is even brought into the group, be able to say, "No, I don't want to waste my time with this"?

Mine is probably in fact a combination of those: "go to dungeons, kill monsters, get treasure, maybe get power...and if you happen to save the world along the way, so be it".

Lan-"and if you don't save the world you won't have anywhere to spend your loot"-efan

This is a big reason why I love the idea of group templates. No one in my games ever makes characters in a vacuum anymore. Your character will be tied to both the setting and the group before it even hits the table. I loathe drama queen characters trying to hog the spotlight because they just want to be the center of attention. My attitude is now, "get with the program". I have very little tolerance for this sort of thing anymore.

Heck, I'll go so far as to quit groups because of players like this. I won't bother trying to "reform" your character. I'd rather just walk and find a group that does fit with my play style better.

 

[iserith]

On the subject of "disruptive" characters, here's something to consider:

We as players have particular overriding goals which exist outside of our characters and a responsibility to the group. Specifically, as the Basic Rules put it, our goal is to ensure that the group has an entertaining time playing and that as a result of playing an exciting, memorable story is created, even when we fail to achieve our characters' goals, even when the characters die. Do this and we "win" at D&D.

If we play our characters in such a way that someone else isn't having an entertaining time or the story that arises as a result of our characters' actions isn't exciting and memorable, we may cause the group to fail to achieve the goals of play. We will effectively "lose" at D&D.

So if we're the upright paladin or the chaotic-neutral psychopath, we are well-advised to figure out a way to play those characters in a way that helps the group achieve the goals of play. And that's very possible when we evolve past "What would my character do?" and start thinking along the lines of "What would my character do that is also entertaining, exciting, and memorable for everyone?" But if we're not equal to the task or think that it's everyone else's problem to deal with a defective adventurer in their midst, then it's probably a good idea for us to bring another character to the table.

 

[Hussar]

On the subject of "disruptive" characters, here's something to consider:

We as players have particular overriding goals which exist outside of our characters and a responsibility to the group. Specifically, as the Basic Rules put it, our goal is to ensure that the group has an entertaining time playing and that as a result of playing an exciting, memorable story is created, even when we fail to achieve our characters' goals, even when the characters die. Do this and we "win" at D&D.

If we play our characters in such a way that someone else isn't having an entertaining time or the story that arises as a result of our characters' actions isn't exciting and memorable, we may cause the group to fail to achieve the goals of play. We will effectively "lose" at D&D.

So if we're the upright paladin or the chaotic-neutral psychopath, we are well-advised to figure out a way to play those characters in a way that helps the group achieve the goals of play. And that's very possible when we evolve past "What would my character do?" and start thinking along the lines of "What would my character do that is also entertaining, exciting, and memorable for everyone?" But if we're not equal to the task or think that it's everyone else's problem to deal with a defective adventurer in their midst, then it's probably a good idea for us to bring another character to the table.

Fantastically well put. Can't posrep from tapatalk, so QFT instead.