D&D General Character Individuality

[Thomas Shey]

I'm pretty much with a couple of other people. There should be a set of expectations set before the game gets going, and characters built to land within that. That may very well (and probably usually will) exclude some concepts and personalities, but it shouldn't require "suppression" of anything, unless the player is ignoring the expectations in the first place. Once in a while you might get problems because someone misunderstood the expectations (in which case the usual thing that's best to do is swap out characters if possible) or where there's a one-off event where how that applies in play is in conflict, but if this happens regularly there's a communication foul-up, or someone not playing in good faith.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It depends on the group and expectations about this kind of stuff before play begins...as many others have pointed out. Usually, you want to have a sense of these things before you start to play so that if anything comes up, everyone has a good idea how it will be handled.

It also depends on the game. This is a thread in the D&D forum, but even with D&D you may have different ways that the DM will run things, different approaches to play, that will dictate this kind of thing.

Because some versions of D&D (I'm using "versions" here as shorthand for both edition and GM/table specific practice) have strong niche protection. And some versions of D&D are about a set scenario (a module or adventure path), so the obstacles are predetermined with no thought to the actual characters that may wind up in play. This results in a broad range of obstacles, which will require a broad range of PCs due to niche protection. So with this kind of approach, it's best to create a team, with well rounded skills spread out across all characters, hoping to address as many specialties as possible.

With a version of D&D that's not about a set scenario, but is instead tailored for a specific group of characters, that team element may not be as prevalent. In this kind of approach, players may be more free to simply choose who they want to play, and not concern themselves with "filling the gaps".

And this all applies to character goals and the like, too. The more team focused the game is, the harder it is for characters to pursue their individuality. It's certainly not impossible, it's just trickier given the nature of the game and the party or team element.

Other games...either highly modified versions of D&D or else other games entirely...the game maybe all about individual goals. Some games actively have the players competing with one another. These games can work totally fine, largely because they largely eschew the team mentality.

There are a lot of possibilities. My personal approach will vary from game to game. When it comes to D&D, I tend to approach it with the tailored approach, so that the characters are free to have a good deal of individuality, but they can still function as a team. The game is just kind of set up that way, so if I'm going to shift far away from the party or team approach, then I'm simply not going to use D&D.

 

[J.Quondam]

As always, depends on the genre and system. Generally, I enjoy characters with personality, though I don't tolerate (as GM or as player) "personality" as an excuse for disruptive PvP or lazy aloofness. My two main conditions are (1) don't hog the spotlight; and (2) play nice with others.

Oh, and please don't bring a "destiny" to my table. Ugh. A short, concise backstory is fine - even helpful - but the future is solely up to the dice and the party's antics actions. (Sorry, but the kobold that stuck a spear in your gut didn't actually care that you were born in the year of the Tortoise under the auspicious Star of Long Life, lol.)

That said, I definitely can also have fun with characters unburdened by any personality at all (aside from maybe an alignment, faction, a bond, or the like). It's fun to see a character develop by whatever happens solely in the course of play. Yeah, it's cardboardy, but that's pretty much the point, especially in more gonzo games.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is an invalid reading of my post. I will repeat...

"Instead, I chose to find people that enjoy the same kind of game that I like, which is what everyone should be doing."

Okay. What do you do if your game group decides not to run that kind of game for one campaign?

 

[Lanefan]

Boy, this thread took off overnight. Lots to catch up on, starting with...

I personally think this is putting the Watsonian cart before the Doylist horse.

Uh...OK?

I asked my players--as I almost surely would for any game I'd offer to run--to play characters that are at least partially on board with the campaign premise. IOW, before the players even get to the point of "do I have to repress this character in order to permit the group to work together," I'm asking them to please choose characters that don't need repression in order to cooperate.

Like....this feels like inventing a problem where there needn't ever be one. Are you, and your players, okay with a game where people may choose to play someone of divided or even outright dubious loyalties? If so, great, people can opt in to those character types if they like. And if you or your players aren't okay with that, then the courteous thing to do is (a) discuss it to attempt to reach a more satisfying solution for everyone, (b) create a concept that meshes with that, or (c) bow out.

I guess it comes down to what people's default assumptions are. For me, it's that I can do what I want until-unless something tells me I can't; and if something tries to tell me I can't I'll listen to the rationale and if I don't agree with it I'll as far as I can ignore what I'm being told. (this is how I view too-low speed limits on many roads)

All this talk of "repress"ing characters and "permission" just strikes me as (effectively) deciding the issue in advance: that players have a "right" to play treacherous or untrustworthy characters and are the beleaguered party.

Players in my view have a right, within the bounds of common decency, to play their characters any way they choose.

You've decided players are entitled to pursue certain lines of roleplay, and thus it is either an unfair imposition on them to tell them not to, a dereliction of duty on the part of those asking them not to, or an ever-so-gracious act of self-denial to choose not to exercise that right.

I'm saying players are entitled to the option of pursuing all sorts of different lines of roleplay. Which of those options they choose to use at any given time and-or with any given character is up to them, as long as the character is somewhat consistent with itself in what it does.

Now, maybe I'm reading this wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. So, if I have misunderstood, I apologize. As it stands though, this looks a lot like priming the reader to see it from the perspective of the player that likes a betrayal or intra-party strife, and not at all from the perspective of the player who is sick to death of drama and people being horrible to one another and would like just this one place where they can leave that at the door.

I'm the other way round - I want to leave life's banality at the door and dive into being someone who isn't banal, someone whose drama is just as larger-than-life as all the other characters, someone who lives in a world where people often ARE horrible to one another (as proven by the greatly heightened level of violence in most typical D&D settings) and who gives back as good as s/he gets.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Okay. What do you do if your game group decides not to run that kind of game for one campaign?

Sit out? No gaming is better than bad gaming. In cases the group consensus is "in this campaign, you'll have to work for the Sharn Watch" and I decided that playing Sharn Watch inquisitives isn't my cup of tea (or because I could be say, fed up with fantasy and clamoring for a superhero game, I'll usually say "Cool! Let me know when it's finished!". I find that much better than taking part in a game I wouldn't enjoy, which leads to potential disruption or the campaign aborting because my obvious lack of fun would make other people in the group suggest we play something fun for all". It is rare that the session 0 group establish a game I wouldn't like to play, though, because, as Maxperson said, I am playing with people that enjoy the same type of games as I do, so they won't suddenly awake one morning with a strong desire to play something I'll not like. An experiment, maybe, and that's when I'd sit out.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

man... what a hill to die on.

cool... just don't come to other tables with the excuse "I know I just messed up our weekly game, but it's what my fictional sheet of paper would do."

right, I understand that but below you show a great example of "If your character is going to do his own thing...make him an NPC and make a character more in line with the table"

me too (although spliting the party is part of it). IF in real life you were with a group of people doing things that you could not bring yourself to do I am sure you would leave... your character will sooner or later (I ask for sooner at my table) do the same (again see your example below)

Okay, so in your example the rest of the party is doing something your character doesn't like (kill the stag). I assume you have discussed this like adults (god don't make me regreat that assumtion) but the group is going against what your character will do. At this point the choice is A) change your character in some compromise (Example: as long as we use all the parts of the stag it is okay and part of the cirle of life)
B) cause a disruption in the game where you wish to continue to play the character "as is" and go agains tthe party at least in the short term
c) change your character by having this character say "I wont be apart of this" leave (maybe even become an NPC antagonist for this arc and be an enemy to fight) and bring in a character that can work with the group
D) convince the others to side with you
E) I doubt there is an E but maybe some gadual change form one of the above...

in our games we do not allow the choice of B. At all. When it happens we end the session and talk out of game about options A, C and D... and the dreaded F JUST S/O with a new campaign.

well in this case it isn't a 'DM' it is a group of DMs that play togather that all are roughly on the same page... I don't know why "this isn't a good fit" seems okay to walk away from all campaigns but not "this isn't a good fit" means walk away from 1 character to make a new one?

I think it's very thematic to "write out" a character from the story in the rare case it's party vs individual. I think the scene where the otherwise solid teammate of a druid draws a line in the sand at saving the White Stag even though the repercussions are presumably terrible (otherwise the part would have compromised at not killing it) is a great one.

But for that to work it means the player has to be OK with giving up control of that character and even accepting that it might be their death.

I don't think it's bad to make a pivotal dramatic scene a characters end, but if a player is having this happen constantly with their characters, or constantly having their characters "need to be convinced to adventure" then it becomes a bad play style.

 

[Lanefan]

Characters can (and should) have their own agendas. Sometimes these agendas will be at cross purposes to the group's current goals. If this might be the case, the player should talk with the DM in advance, allowing them a plan to resolve the situation in a way that minimizes disruption. If this means the group is doomed to fail in a particular scenario because of sabotage, another route to success will appear afterwards that doesn't have the same problem. The saboteur, however, has to accept that their membership in the group may be revoked afterwards, leading to a new PC.

I'm cool with all of this except the bit I bolded. Sometimes failure is for real, and they have to realize they lost this time, pick themselves up, and try some other mission (or try tracking down and dealing with the saboteur, if they know who it was).

 

[Lanefan]

As much as the particular player wants. I've had parties split up because different characters had different goals. We roll with one "group" and then move back to the other one.

My only thing is to keep it at the character level, not the player level.

Absolutely this.

I've had (and been in) parties split up simply because two or more PCs got to the point where couldn't stand the sight of each other.

Rarely, but yes. The player agrees or comes forward with their own idea. In Curse of Strahd, one PC ended up making a deal with Strahd and died when he turned on the party in the final battle as Strahd was defeated.

It is too common IME for DMs to bring in an NPC or DMPC that spy, but if another player does it, the rest of the players aren't as suspicious.

Indeed. Having a fairly regular string of non-spy NPCs cycle in and out of the party helps disguise the spy as well.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

We had it come up a fair bit when we were younger...and weren't the best at addressing the root causes of problems, shall we say. It can also be used as a sort-of in-game bullying. In every campaign now, I always rule that you cannot roll dice against another PC. Even if someone wants to do something like give the other character a wedgie, I always ask the player "do you let them." If they say no, it doesn't happen.

The whole idea of PvP and DnD seems absurd to me.

My general rule is that character individuality stops where it starts impacting the fun of the rest of the table. Characters need to be able to work together, and the players need to be able to trust the other players at the table. As the DM, I need to be able to trust the players at the table. And that includes trusting them to know the group's tolerance for in-character friction. When that starts breaking down, the inevitable result is the player causing the trouble either shapes up or they get the boot.

No amount of "I was just playing my character" can make it okay. Because if it gets to that point, it's the players (and possibly the DM) that are mad about it. D&D is designed as a group activity, and if your character can't play as part of the group, then that's a problem.