D&D General Character Individuality

[Mannahnin]

Yep. I create my character before the game begins. That includes his personality, likes and dislikes, goals, etc. Those can't just be changed at the drop of a hat if something comes up in game that would cause conflict. If they could be changed at the drop of a hat, then my PC wouldn't really be a character and I won't play in a game like that. That said, if there are three possible things my character would do in a given situation, I will go with the least disruptive option. Sometimes, though, that isn't possible.

So...you choose, as others said above, to play a "wangrod" character before session 0 even happens?

That seems like rather a counter-productive thing to do.

I think that's at least partially a misreading of what he wrote.

He's talking about playing consistent to the concept he came up with before the game began. I don't think it's being a wangrod (in the Colevillian or a more generic sense) to want to stick to your character concept. Depending on the situation, if the player comes up with the concept beforehand and the DM then runs a scenario which conflicts with that concept, the DM may be the one at fault. Or no one person may be at fault, and it may just be a communication gap.

I do generally agree that players should be flexible, and have a responsibility to play a character who has reason to adventure with and trust the party. Unless it's specifically agreed otherwise beforehand.

Incorrect. Instead, you're just moving the repression to one stage earlier by up-front telling the players how to play...

That comes off pretty hostile, and I think it's untrue. It's not telling them how to play. It's telling them up front the kind of game he's interested in running. If they agree to that, no one's being told how to play. They're deciding, like adults, that they are happy to play by those rules. It's no more telling his players how to play than it would be to say "I only run 1E AD&D".

 

[Lanefan]

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 agree with this except the bit where the player has to be OK with giving up control of the PC. It's still the player's PC and if said PC wants to take a stand against the party to defend the stag then so be it. Play out the combat, if combat results; and if the PC dies (or if the PC manages to knock off any other PCs) then again, so be it.

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.

I once had a character try to retire only to get hauled back out into the field. Literally. I-as-player didn't realize the DM had built the next adventure around my PC, and the PC in-character had a series of good reasons to pack it in and retire from adventuring, either for a while or permanently. So I parked him in town (I already had another PC in the party). The DM somehow initially missed that I'd done this, and when he realized it he had a divine message sent to the party Cleric leading the party to come back to town and Charm my retired PC into going with them.

 

[Li Shenron]

The question is this: to what extent are PCs allowed to be individuals both in thought and deed, with their own agendae, goals, etc. that may or may not confilct with those of other PCs?

Or to flip it around: to what extent are the PCs expected to repress their individuality in favour of party cohesiveness, following plans, getting along, and so forth?

From another angle: is it a built-in table expectation that your PC can always trust someone else's PC? (and if so, why?)

To flip that last one around: are PCs allowed to be untrustworthy with regards to other PCs but not to the extent of outright PvP? Can a PC be a spy for the party's enemy, for instance?

I'll leave these for others to answer, then chime in with my own thoughts later.

I see the cooperative nature of a traditional RPG as one of the key point of playing.

If I only cared about my own PC's "agenda" then I would play a solo game, or maybe I would just write my PC's story so that it goes exactly the way I wanted.

You are playing a game with other people. If you're not interested in that, don't play.

 

[Umbran]

Incorrect. Instead, you're just moving the repression to one stage earlier by up-front telling the players how to play...

Please review your own opening post (emphasis mine):

"to what extent are PCs allowed to be individuals"
"to what extent are the PCs expected to repress their individuality"
"your PC can always trust someone else's PC?"
"are PCs allowed to be untrustworthy with regards to other PCs"

PC, where I come from, stands for "Player Character", specifically to differentiate it from the player themselves! The player, and the Player Character, are not synonymous. And every reference you make to repression is to the character. Every. Single. One. You do not, ever, in that post, refer to the player themselves. Only to the character.

So, pardon the heck out of me for responding to what you wrote.

To swap now, into discussion the player after repeatedly and only referring to the character, is... not a fair form of rhetoric. Bait-and-switch, really.

Please reconsider this from the postion that I, at least, differentate between the player and the character, and get back to me. Or not. I won't be heartbroken if you decide that you aren't interested if you can't get "gotchas" like this.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

The question is this: to what extent are PCs allowed to be individuals both in thought and deed, with their own agendas, goals, etc. that may or may not conflict with those of other PCs?

To the extent that it doesn't disrupt other people's enjoyment of the game.

Or to flip it around: to what extent are the PCs expected to repress their individuality in favor of party cohesiveness, following plans, getting along, and so forth?

I flatly don't allow non-consensual conflict between characters. At my table, if the rogue wanted to pick the the pocket of another PC I simply wouldn't allow, period. Similarly, PCs cannot effect each other will spells like command/suggestion/etc.

Furthermore, I also do not allow PCs to 'stop' other PCs from doing things. For example, let's say that the Fighter wants to pull a lever/push a button/whatever, I don't allow another PC to attempt to stop them because they think it's a bad idea. There isn't even a "roll to see who gets there first" - people have agency over their characters and get to decide what they do, as long as it doesn't disrupt group cohesion.

If the aforementioned Fighter is pulling the lever just to be disruptive, I'm probably talking to the player away from the table to determine if they're a good fit for my game.

From another angle: is it a built-in table expectation that your PC can always trust someone else's PC? (and if so, why?)

Yes, otherwise you won't be a PC in my game.

To flip that last one around: are PCs allowed to be untrustworthy with regards to other PCs but not to the extent of outright PvP? Can a PC be a spy for the party's enemy, for instance?

'No' and 'No, absolutely not'.

I have found it is very rare to find a group of people who are all interested in, and mature enough for, an impromptu live-action RP that has all the drama, backstabbing, and inter-party secrets of a novel/movie/play. The people I play with come to the table knowing they're a team and they all get a chance to pursue their own special quests/ideas and I expect the other players to support them.

 

[Lanefan]

You just regularly have 2,3,4 different parties on game night?

Not on the same night, but in my current campaign there's (thinks for a minute) something like 5 (or 6?) different parties either on hold due to covid or on hold waiting for other groups to catch up in game time or active in the field, plus numerous individual characters scattered all over the place doing whatever.

I can think of one memorable instance, however, where I found myself running ten (!) different one-character parties at once: a wild magic surge teleported each member of a ten-character party to a different random location within a rather big dungeon complex they'd been exploring (Dark Tower, for those who know it). I had to run each character individually as it a) tried to figure out where it was, b) negotiated any hazards it met, and c) tried to find anyone else familiar. I also had to keep careful track of exactly who was where when, in case two or more characters might meet each other.

Talk about cat-herding!

 

[Lanefan]

Please review your own opening post (emphasis mine):

"to what extent are PCs allowed to be individuals"
"to what extent are the PCs expected to repress their individuality"
"your PC can always trust someone else's PC?"
"are PCs allowed to be untrustworthy with regards to other PCs"

PC, where I come from, stands for "Player Character", specifically to differentiate it from the player themselves! The player, and the Player Character, are not synonymous. And every reference you make to repression is to the character. Every. Single. One. You do not, ever, in that post, refer to the player themselves. Only to the character.

So, pardon the heck out of me for responding to what you wrote.

To swap now, into discussion the player after repeatedly and only referring to the character, is... not a fair form of rhetoric. Bait-and-switch, really.

Perhaps I should have worded the questions more like "to what extent are the players allowed to play their PCs as individuals" (with similar alterations to the other questions), as that's what I was getting at all along.

That said, it seems everyone else understood this pretty clearly if the posts in the thread thus far are anything to go by.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Anything short of that is just a mosh pit!

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins."

I think every group and each player has a tolerance for intercharacter conflict and friction. It's important to know that level of tolerance and act accordingly, to check in with your fellow players. Because, yeah, if a player crosses that line too deeply and/or too often, there will come a time when they aren't going to be invited back to gaming.

There seems to be this subtext to this thread that it's an either/or choice. Taken to an extreme you have a unique and special individual that will stab their fellow party members in the back at the drop of a hat or you have a mindless drone that goes along with whatever the group wants and has no goals or will of their own.

I call BS. You can have people with very strong personalities, with unique goals and attitudes while still working as part of a team. I don't think it's too much to ask that people stop and ask themselves now and then "would the other PCs really continue associate with this person if it actually happened?" I've seen groups where people stuck together because of the people at the table, but if anything even remotely similar happened to a group of people who were voluntarily working together would split up and go their separate ways.

Different strokes for different folks and all. I just don't think it's too much to ask that the PC that is created is not a lone wolf who hates people and goes out of their way to subvert the actions of other members of the team. The group can always vote someone off the island team if I'm the DM.

 

[Lanefan]

I flatly don't allow non-consensual conflict between characters. At my table, if the rogue wanted to pick the the pocket of another PC I simply wouldn't allow, period. Similarly, PCs cannot effect each other will spells like command/suggestion/etc.

Furthermore, I also do not allow PCs to 'stop' other PCs from doing things. For example, let's say that the Fighter wants to pull a lever/push a button/whatever, I don't allow another PC to attempt to stop them because they think it's a bad idea. There isn't even a "roll to see who gets there first" - people have agency over their characters and get to decide what they do, as long as it doesn't disrupt group cohesion.

While I appreciate the agency part, it goes both ways: just as I should have the agency to try to pull the lever you should have the agency to try to stop me.

Favouring one agency over another like this seems like it'd cause more arguments at the table level, not less. It would at mine, that's for sure.

I have found it is very rare to find a group of people who are all interested in, and mature enough for, an impromptu live-action RP that has all the drama, backstabbing, and inter-party secrets of a novel/movie/play. The people I play with come to the table knowing they're a team and they all get a chance to pursue their own special quests/ideas and I expect the other players to support them.

Conversely, I find a surprising number of people can deal with, and dive right into, the drama, backstabbing, secrets etc. once the idea sinks in that what happens in character stays in character.

 

[Bluebell]

I'm definitely in the camp that characters with strong personalities and personal motivations that don't always mesh combined with clear effort on the part of all players to maintain some level of party cohesion and inter-player respect is the most fun way to play. Some tension and conflict within the party isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as everyone involved is still having fun and feels like their own ability to play is still being respected. The antisocial jerk character can totally work, provided the player behind them is giving them sufficient motivation to still engage with other characters and is actually making an effort to keep the play going.

One of the problems I've found with one person refusing to be a team player is that it can force all the people who are actually trying to be team players and maintain party cohesion to change their characters to accommodate them. Players refusing to buy into the most basic teamwork requirements tend to be black holes that drag everyone else down as some players bend over backwards to make it work. I have definitely been in the position as a player where I felt like I had to strip away pieces of my own character to prevent the party from fracturing due to someone else's poor behavior.