D&D General Character Individuality

[overgeeked]

That's...

Okay, firstly, I did not mean "literally if it's in the book you can demand to play it." I literally only meant, if the DM tells you, "Hey, we'll be using 5e," you have a reasonable first assumption that really really basic things, like the list of classes and races, is on the table unless the DM says otherwise.

Best practice is to not make those assumptions and wait until the DM actually tells you the parameters of the campaign. Players getting their hearts set on a character they have no guarantee of actually playing is not fun to deal with. Shoe-horning things that don’t fit is always a PITA.

Because all this "you have to wait with bated breath to know whether characters can be human or fighters" nonsense is not productive and looks absolutely nothing like how people actually run games.

Except for the “bated breath” dig it’s exactly how I run games. I’ve had more problems than I care to admit with people bringing in, or trying to bring in, their stock, pre-built characters. So yes, I am explicit about not making characters until we have a Session 0. “No really, it’s an all goblin rogue game.” ”But I made a human fighter.” “Good for you. Maybe next campaign.”

If the DM wants to limit a race or a class, they totally can. They can even do so late in the process. But the later they make such statements, the more they should expect at least one player to be a bit miffed that the concept they've worked on isn't welcome.

Players seem miffed if any official option is not always available at every table for every campaign. Hence me reasonably reading your post as “it’s not 5E unless everything in the PHB is on the table.” I’ve had players say that. I’ve seen that argument made online. Though my favorite is still “it’s not really D&D if you use even one house rule or home brew.”

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I think many if not most traditional RPG tables are the same group of people meeting to play the same campaign on a schedule. Your description of running 5+ simultaneous parties with various players moving in and out isn't (I don't believe) a good baseline to expect others follow.

My table has one GM per campaign and they run one storyline with one party.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think many if not most traditional RPG tables are the same group of people meeting to play the same campaign on a schedule. Your description of running 5+ simultaneous parties with various players moving in and out isn't (I don't believe) a good baseline to expect others follow.

Even back in the days I was playing two days a week, and part of a fairly large group of GMs with a shared player pool, I don't think I remember someone running multiple groups in the same campaign in any meaningful way (you could argue some of the early D&D ones weren't campaigns in any particularly meaningful way).

 

[Lanefan]

I think many if not most traditional RPG tables are the same group of people meeting to play the same campaign on a schedule. Your description of running 5+ simultaneous parties with various players moving in and out isn't (I don't believe) a good baseline to expect others follow.

The players are (usually) the same; just the characters are different.

For example, this adventure might feature a party consisting of characters A,B,C,D,E and F. After this adventure that lot gets put on hold and we jump to another party with characters G,H,I,J,K,L and M. After that those parties might meet and interweave (let's assume for these purposes all the characters survived), with the next adventure featuring characters A,H,I,C,D,L and M and maybe following up on things done/discovered in one of both of the first two adventures. Meanwhile B,E,F,G,K and L either stay in town or find themselves something else to do, which would get played through later.

Player 1 runs characters A and G.
Player 2 runs characters B, H and I.
Player 3 runs characters C, D and J.
Player 4 runs characters E and K
Player 5 runs characters F and L.
Character M is an adventuring NPC.

Lather rinse repeat for a decade or more, with players occasionally joining or dropping based on real-life situations and characters coming and going all over the place; and now you've got a deep, wide campaign.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'm re-quoting to bring the context back in so what's being replied to is visible.

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.

And yet, if you bring up something exactly equivalent to this--like "I wanted to play a dragonborn, that was part of the concept I came up with before the game began"--Maxperson won't be anywhere near so keen on that. At least, that's what I recall from the various threads on the subject. It's "destroying the character" to tell the player "could you...like...not betray the party?" but it's not "destroying the character" to say they can't be a dragonborn even if the player had their heart set on doing so.

I don't know, man. I'm not importing any prior discussions. I think the point here is that prior communication and establishing expectations and boundaries beforehand is helpful. If the DM or the player comes up with a plot or character concept first, and the other is aware of it, than yeah, it's not ideal to then create something which will combine with what's already been created to create intra-party conflict, or make a scenario unresolvable. If the DM says beforehand "Hey, I'm not including Dragonborn, or Clerics, or (whatever) in this world as a character option", that's generally understood as their right to do, although of course the players have the right not to play or to attempt to negotiate the boundary.

I think you were at best being uncharitable to describe the hypothetical character of Max's as a deliberately-chosen wangrod character. I don't think it's a wangrod character at all. It's a concept that's broadly compatible with most games. It just happened to conflict with the specific scenario, and we don't know which came first. In the situation Max described, he was unaware of the scenario when he designed and started playing the character. We don't know whether the DM was unaware of Max's character's principles on this issue and overlooked the potential conflict, or whether he WAS aware and looked forward to it creating dramatic tension, or some other possibility.

I'm aware that there's a greater burden of work on the DM, and personally would hope that players would be somewhat flexible in respect of the fact that we don't want the DM to have to ditch a bunch of writing and design work in deference to one player's character concept, but on the other hand, I think more interesting and fun games tend to result when character concepts complicate "optimal" problem solving.

And Max DID say that if there were three possible appropriate responses he could envision for the character, he'd go with the least disruptive option.

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

...as you both detail and admit to here.

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".

I'm confused--is Max running the game, or playing in the game? Above, you spoke of players and their characters and a player wanting to run a concept within a game. Now you're explicitly referring to him as DM. Is he a player or a DM? If he's a DM, he's not the one pushing a treacherous/etc. character into a game, so the point is moot; and if he's not a DM, then this whole paragraph goes out the window.

Yes, you're confused. The latter half of my post was a response to the quoted remarks by Lanefan, critical of Umbran.

 

[HammerMan]

I have experienced this type of thing in 40+ years of gaming and it has never been a good experience for DM or players.

I know few people with more experence then me... the fact that you have more and still see the same thing makes me wonder what everyone else is seeing.

 

[HammerMan]

A thing that worked well in two separate campaigns was to make characters members of the same extended family. Sometimes, you can't stand a brother or a cousin, but you usually won't leave them to be eaten by a grue.

the other good go to is HUGE WORLD ENDING STAKES!!!!

Lex Luther can work with Superman to stop Darksaid or Antimonitor... but most likely not to stop toyman or parasites'.

When the entire pantheon of gods was threatened LG paladins and CE clerics all found common cause.

when the choice is "or everyone dies" you find an enlightened self interest.

 

[HammerMan]

For example, the complex motivations you create for your character might just by random chance end up directly conflicting with the complex motivations created by another player for their PC.

A very simple example: due to backstory and family history etc. your PC might be fiercely loyal to the local Baron, even to the point of laying down your life for him. Meanwhile another player has set their PC up as a sworn enemy of the Baron and all he stands for, to the point of killing him if the chance arises; again due to backstory, family history, etc.

Should a DM disallow either of these as character concepts?

yes, maybe both.

this is where session 0 (We call it character gen night) comes up and why people who show up with characters already detailed is a yellow (if not red) flag.
Now if two buddies come to the table and make this concept together thats cool they have a built in rivalry, but as the DM I then have to rejig my campagin to make sure that it balances both... I can't make the Baron an enemy or a major ally... he has to fade into the background more.

I sure hope not! Yet any party with these two in it is inevitably going to become a powderkeg at some point; and I say let it happen.

nope... not unless the entire table agrees that powderkeg going off sounds like fun. SOme of us (I play in 1 game almost every week and run a game almost every week and play in 1 a month) don't play as often as others and don't want whole campagins blown up like this,

The opportunities for roleplay are outstanding, and the other players/PCs will soon enough have to decide what their own thoughts are regarding the Baron and maybe take a side.

Neither player should be asked to rethink their PC in a case like this and if one is, IMO that player has a right to feel somewhat annoyed.

should other players be forced into this situation... you name the 2 players. Lets say the DM made a world and 5 players will sit around the table to play. that is 6 people, should the 2 get to dictate that the other 4 have to put up with this powderkeg?

 

[HammerMan]

Some people are really bad at creating characters in realtime (if I try and get people to do it all in one session in most systems it still won't be done by the end of the night), but there's no reason to do it until there's already been some establishment of the parameters of the campaign. That's just asking for trouble.

we have found group text and a secrete facebook group is a great way to spread out "session 0/ character creation night" over the course of up to amonth (but normally more of a week)

 

[MGibster]

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?

To the extent that everyone can have a good time. A few years back I was playing in a campaign with some people I didn't know very well. We ran into a situation where the residents had all abandoned a town, and I'm talking the hearths are still warm abandoned not that they left forever, and one of the PCs found a suit of chain they wanted to keep for themselves. My character spoke up saying something about the chain belonging to someone else with him claiming it was fair game because it was abandoned and then saying he was just keeping it safe. I was faced with a choice. I could either push the issue, possibly creating hard feelings and derailing the game, or I could just shrug my shoulders and go on with the game. I shrugged my shoulders and went on with the game. And then next week that player decided he had better things to do than play in our campaign.