D&D General Character Individuality

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed.

One of the problems I've found with one person deciding to refuse 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.

Why not just be true to your character and let the party fracture if that's the way things are going? To me that's far and away preferable to, using your terminology, stripping away pieces of your character.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't think I've ever been in a game where one or more players are acting against the group or are otherwise not a good fit. We've never had any edgy loners with tragic backstories that don't want to adventure (I'm not even sure if this is a real thing or just an internet meme).

Typically, I run games where the player characters are heroes and I let the players know that the party should work together, no one sitting on the edge playing their own game and ignoring the party.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

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 favor forward agency.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Why not just be true to your character and let the party fracture if that's the way things are going? To me that's far and away preferable to, using your terminology, stripping away pieces of your character.

I just tell people from jump street there are certain kinds of characters they simply aren't allowed to make. You can't strip away something that never existed to begin with.

 

[Bluebell]

Agreed.

Why not just be true to your character and let the party fracture if that's the way things are going? To me that's far and away preferable to, using your terminology, stripping away pieces of your character.

Because I don't think it's fair to the other players and DM to derail the entire campaign with a conflict building between just two characters. That said, I can't say I'm not tempted to do just that in the future.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I don't run games that are actually about the PCs themselves at all to begin with. The games are about what the PCs do to solve a problem. Someone who wants to make a campaign about themselves is an immediate red flag.

 

[cbwjm]

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.)

Almost as bad as the destiny is the "was once a great leader who helped defeat an X invasion, slaying the enemy leader in single combat" type character to which the DM responds with "okay, so, you're level 1..."

 

[Lanefan]

I favor forward agency.

Agency is agency, whichever way it goes. Fvaouring one over another violates DM neutrality.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Agency is agency, whichever way it goes. Fvaouring one over another violates DM neutrality.

Agreed - I am not a neutral DM. I have explicitly stated such.

 

[Lanefan]

Because I don't think it's fair to the other players and DM to derail the entire campaign with a conflict building between just two characters. That said, I can't say I'm not tempted to do just that in the future.

Derailing the campaign implies it was on rails to begin with.

Sometimes the story is the in-party rivalries and conflict (and romances, and so on), other times they're a side-story to whatever else is going on, and other time sthey don't exist. Also, oftentimes conflict between two characters can quickly draw everyone in - it's not like anyone has to sit out.