D&D General Character Individuality

[HammerMan]

Not really, no. Playing 5E doesn’t mean anything from the PHB is on the table. Any number of stipulations could be reasonably made by the DM and it’s still a 5E game. 5E defines the general rule set used, not the player options available. An all X race 5E game is still a 5E game if X ≠ a PHB race, for example.

my 1/ month game DM (only chance he can play) wants to play. We are all DMs so one of us will take over when this campagin ends so he can play. He requested to play Curse of Strahd (skipping the tpk...I mean death house). some of us are keen on it and some are okay... now we need to decide on a DM.

I put forward that IF i were to run curse of stahd I would very much limit classes and races, but I wasn't sure how. Becky joked about running one where Strahd was cursed to 'not be taken seriusly' and as such lots of dark moments would morph to light hearted ones, and she could see herself not only letting anything in but encouraging more 'crazy' builds. Kurt said if he ran he would want only Humans and PHB+1 like adventure league. Me and Kurt agreed we would both start in the realms, becky would make a home brew world for us to be from...

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Sometimes the story and/or the PC personalities lead to a conflict. Sometimes that conflict is physical. See; nearly every superhero story at some point. As long as your players are ok with it, I don't see a problem playing that out.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

sometimes we play with "character trees" like this (not since covid).

my 2 best examples were one I ran in 3e where everyone played 5 characters (3 from 1 city, 1 from an enemy city, and a monster race from the dark zone) and we switched (sometimes mid session) keeping all up... it got so crazy that 2 groups of PCs became friends and fought a war against another....) and one I played in 4e where I was a templar (warlock) and a crazy nomad elf in a darksun game. It can be fun but I wouldn't want to do it all the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It never ceases to amaze me how people honestly think the wangrod defense is actually a defense. You are not absolved of responsibility for your actions because you're wearing the rather thin and flimsy "mask" of a character in an RPG. You do not lose agency. Your character doesn't have a mind of their own. You as the player are 100% in charge and 100% responsible for the actions of your character. The character doesn't exist independently of you as the player. It's you pulling the strings. We all see you sitting there, at the table, pulling the strings. "But it's what my character would do" is a deflection of responsibility for terrible behavior. You have the choice to make a character who's not an a-hole. But you chose to make an a-hole. You have the choice to play the character any way you want. But you choose to play the character as an a-hole. That's entirely on you as a player from start to finish.

Define "terrible behavior". Is it just going against what the rest of the party wants? I had a player just decide to be a murderer. The PCs suspected but had no proof. The players were aware of all of it but we all rolled with it. Eventually that PC went rogue, but I would still let him play him when he showed up, because it was fun and we could handle it.

 

[Umbran]

Should a DM disallow either of these as character concepts? I sure hope not!

If PvP was not part of the discussed game expectations, the GM should have a discussion with the players (not just the two, but the group as a whole) and note that they foresee conflict between characters, and determine if that is that something the group wants to play.

If not, then the group has to discuss how to deal with the conflict.

You know, talking through things like mature adults.

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.

Yeah, well, TTRPGs are a social activity. All social activities require occasional compromises.

 

[Blue]

For me, the dividing line is inter-character drama vs. inter-player drama. Characters not agreeing is fine, it add drama and tension. And example could be the paladin not letting the warlock torture their prisoner who surrendered for information the party needs. Or members of two cultures that have been warring not trusting each other.

Players having their fun reduced is another thing. That's not sanguine. Personally, the groups I play with has a no PvP rule that includes most rolls against other characters not just combat, like stealing from each other. Other tables that's part of the fun but other things can annoy the players and reduce the net fun at the table.

Oh, and one thing about the initial question - it implies that anything that gets in the way of party success may be questionable. For me that's not a universal metric. There have been great sessions measured by how much fun everyone at the table has where following plans and getting along were either secondary or outright subverted.

 

[Umbran]

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.

They are seeing folks who either forget, or ignore, the fact that as part of a social activity, they have some responsibilities.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, and one thing about the initial question - it implies that anything that gets in the way of party success may be questionable. For me that's not a universal metric. There have been great sessions measured by how much fun everyone at the table has where following plans and getting along were either secondary or outright subverted.

While a legitimate point, I don't think its a bad assumption to make as a general one that in most groups at least some of the players place enough priority on the game and group actions moving forward that they're not going to have much fun when that isn't happening. That doesn't mean its universal, of course.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They are seeing folks who either forget, or ignore, the fact that as part of a social activity, they have some responsibilities.

I'd go as far as to say I've seen some that outright deny it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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)

Normally we've done it via email, since we don't have a general comm channel otherwise (though I should remember with one of the two groups I have a Discord server now next time it comes up).