D&D General What are your reasons for doing something because "It's what my character would do"?

[Distracted DM]

There's a world of difference between RPing your character's traits to the point of irritating your fellow players and RPing your character to the point that the GM has to create a solo campaign for you on the fly because you refuse to go along with the rest of the party. I did that once, and I regret it still, and I have had several people do that to me in the past. These days, if your PC doesn't want to go on the adventure because it's not what they would do, then that PC can leave the party and you can bring in a new PC who does want to go on the adventure.

Yup. "Because it's what my character would do" generally refers to an excuse for destructive or difficult behavior. And yes, the best answer to "I don't go on the quest" really is "OK so make a character that would." Either that, or come up with some reasons that this character would.

The problem isn't roleplaying your character, the problem is forgetting that you're part of a group and there has to be some consideration for others, your fellow players and the GM.

 

[Retros_x]

I like to make characters with flaws and stick to them, if I'm not doing that it's probably not a game I intend to stick around in for very long.

I think the issue is that a) real humans don't do ALWAYS the same like a robot and the same is true for well written fictional characters. They surprise you. b) its never the character that does something its always you the player deciding on what you think a character might do. You could give the same character sheet with very detailed background and roleplaying information to a different player and they would probably play the character different and make different decisions.

 

[Shiroiken]

I try to design a complete character, not just an avatar. I never create personalities that would be in conflict with the group, but unfortunately, sometimes events in game cause the character to change in unexpected ways. I've had to retire characters that became problematic for the group to avoid creating conflict. I even had to retire one because he was bad for my mental health, since getting into character put me in a dark place.

 

[TiQuinn]

I use it when there’s a choice before me that it’s obvious that my character could positively benefit from it, but the nature of the choice is just antithetical to the way I’ve played him to that point, so I have to make the decision that doesn’t provide me short term gain. I also only do this when the only person who’s going to gain or lose from the choice is myself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We've all heard the phrase. We've all heard the horror stories. Maybe we've used it ourselves.

How do you use it, and why?

I don't.

Instead, I work through things like the following, using "I" to mean "my character" for brevity:

• What am I feeling? (Rage? Pain? Joy? Fear? Hate? Love? Apathy? etc.)
• How do I make decisions? (Logical stepwise thought? "Honor before reason"? Self-interest calculation? etc.)
• What do I know? (Context, environment, opponents, allies, resources, etc.)
• What are my goals?
• How much time do I have to make a decision?

By answering these questions, I can then respond if challenged, in a reasonable and productive way, e.g.:

Player 1: (IC) "Hey, what the hell man?! We agreed to spare this guy's life!"
Me: (IC) "You agreed to spare his life. I didn't agree to that, remember?"
P1: (OOC) "Look, that was kind of naughty word, okay? I thought we were all on board for this."
GM: "Is that a problem?"
P1: (OOC) "Well I'd at least like an explanation."
Me: (OOC) "Look, Dodec is tangled up in knots right now. This guy killed half his siblings. Normally, he's all logic and numbers, but that means he's completely blindsided by all the rage and pain he's feeling right now, driven by grief he's suppressed and ignored since he found out. He didn't even like most of his family very much...but he did love them, deep down, and now he's flailing. He doesn't know about your secret agreement with the Duke...mostly because you kept it secret. So, yeah, when he was the one to land the final blow on the man who murdered half his siblings...he's not inclined to be merciful, particularly because he did not agree to spare the guy's life. Like he went out of his way to ignore that agreement. So, in a moment of rage, he has no problem crisping up the guy's corpse with a scorching ray, which is lethal."
GM: "Well...I know it's not what the rest of the group wanted, but that also sounds pretty reasonable for how a warforged might deal with grief. What do you think, P1?"
P1: (OOC) "I mean, I still don't like it, but I see how it would be very out-of-character for Dodec to do that. By that same token though, kinda feels like Zeke is just getting what he wants even though the rest of the group disagreed."
Me: (OOC) "You know, fair enough. How about this: I've been saving up money to buy and scribe spells. Take 300 out of my purse, to pay for buying a new revivify diamond, and we'll use one of the ones we keep with us. You still have a 3rd level slot, right?"
P1: (OOC) "Yeah. Would prefer not to spend it...but if you'll foot the bill, alright, that's a reasonable compromise. You still got the satisfaction of the kill, and I can keep my word to the Duke. Guy might not like us very much though."
Me: (OOC) "Well, if anyone can sell a tomato-based fruit salad, that'd be [Party Bard]..."
P2: (OOC) "Oh, now I have to clean up for you again? Alright fiiiiine. Hah!"

Point being, "It's what my character would do!" is a crappy excuse to skip over doing the thinking. Actually doing the thinking, in a way that you can then communicate to someone else, obviates the need to ever use that excuse.

And if I can't commit to doing the thinking in advance? It costs me nothing to simply go with the flow and explain it as my character

 

[AlViking]

There's a world of difference between RPing your character's traits to the point of irritating your fellow players and RPing your character to the point that the GM has to create a solo campaign for you on the fly because you refuse to go along with the rest of the party. I did that once, and I regret it still, and I have had several people do that to me in the past. These days, if your PC doesn't want to go on the adventure because it's not what they would do, then that PC can leave the party and you can bring in a new PC who does want to go on the adventure.

I run a pretty player-driven campaign but there are limits. I once told a player that their bringing in a character that didn't want to engage in the campaign everyone else wanted was like someone joining the swim team and then not wanting to get wet.

 

[payn]

I think the issue is that a) real humans don't do ALWAYS the same like a robot and the same is true for well written fictional characters. They surprise you. b) its never the character that does something its always you the player deciding on what you think a character might do. You could give the same character sheet with very detailed background and roleplaying information to a different player and they would probably play the character different and make different decisions.

Yeap I learned long ago there is no correct way to play a particular character. Everyone had their own interpretations on role play so I give a lot of leeway to folks as what I’ve come to see as common courtesy. Part of the fun is discussing and acting out the differences.

I don't.

Instead, I work through things like the following, using "I" to mean "my character" for brevity:

• What am I feeling? (Rage? Pain? Joy? Fear? Hate? Love? Apathy? etc.)
• How do I make decisions? (Logical stepwise thought? "Honor before reason"? Self-interest calculation? etc.)
• What do I know? (Context, environment, opponents, allies, resources, etc.)
• What are my goals?
• How much time do I have to make a decision?

By answering these questions, I can then respond if challenged, in a reasonable and productive way, e.g.:

Player 1: (IC) "Hey, what the hell man?! We agreed to spare this guy's life!"
Me: (IC) "You agreed to spare his life. I didn't agree to that, remember?"
P1: (OOC) "Look, that was kind of naughty word, okay? I thought we were all on board for this."
GM: "Is that a problem?"
P1: (OOC) "Well I'd at least like an explanation."
Me: (OOC) "Look, Dodec is tangled up in knots right now. This guy killed half his siblings. Normally, he's all logic and numbers, but that means he's completely blindsided by all the rage and pain he's feeling right now, driven by grief he's suppressed and ignored since he found out. He didn't even like most of his family very much...but he did love them, deep down, and now he's flailing. He doesn't know about your secret agreement with the Duke...mostly because you kept it secret. So, yeah, when he was the one to land the final blow on the man who murdered half his siblings...he's not inclined to be merciful, particularly because he did not agree to spare the guy's life. Like he went out of his way to ignore that agreement. So, in a moment of rage, he has no problem crisping up the guy's corpse with a scorching ray, which is lethal."
GM: "Well...I know it's not what the rest of the group wanted, but that also sounds pretty reasonable for how a warforged might deal with grief. What do you think, P1?"
P1: (OOC) "I mean, I still don't like it, but I see how it would be very out-of-character for Dodec to do that. By that same token though, kinda feels like Zeke is just getting what he wants even though the rest of the group disagreed."
Me: (OOC) "You know, fair enough. How about this: I've been saving up money to buy and scribe spells. Take 300 out of my purse, to pay for buying a new revivify diamond, and we'll use one of the ones we keep with us. You still have a 3rd level slot, right?"
P1: (OOC) "Yeah. Would prefer not to spend it...but if you'll foot the bill, alright, that's a reasonable compromise. You still got the satisfaction of the kill, and I can keep my word to the Duke. Guy might not like us very much though."
Me: (OOC) "Well, if anyone can sell a tomato-based fruit salad, that'd be [Party Bard]..."
P2: (OOC) "Oh, now I have to clean up for you again? Alright fiiiiine. Hah!"

Point being, "It's what my character would do!" is a crappy excuse to skip over doing the thinking. Actually doing the thinking, in a way that you can then communicate to someone else, obviates the need to ever use that excuse.

And if I can't commit to doing the thinking in advance? It costs me nothing to simply go with the flow and explain it as my character

Yes, the phrase is usually invoked to shortcut the in character out character discussion at the table. particularly if the person isn’t interested in having the discussion ime.

 

[OB1]

For me, what my character would do is only half of the question. The other half is, what will make the people I'm playing with enjoy the game more.

 

[AlViking]

Typically when I would use the phrase "it's what my character would do" it's because I'm about to do something that as a player I know may be a bad idea but my character would not. A lot of times it's something like I recognize a monster when there's no reason my character would have a clue, but it also depends on the character I'm playing. I play my barbarian as a guy who acts before thinking or declares "Bored now" and proceeds to go kick in the door because the others have gotten going round and round in an endless debate.

As others have said I only do this in situations where it's still going to be fun for the group as a whole, if I ever thought I was making the game less fun for everyone else I'd change my character.

 

[payn]

For me, what my character would do is only half of the question. The other half is, what will make the people I'm playing with enjoy the game more.

This. My best groups do a lot of their "character" thinking out loud. You can explore just about any interesting group dynamic in this fashion. It can annoy folks who want spur of the moment decisions or to carry out secret agendas, though I think those things make a group RP exercise worse. On the other hand, if the players OOC know its afoot it can lead to some pretty interesting game play. Assuming you have the type of players who can work with OOC knowledge and not fall to in game meta decisions.

A GM and another player carrying out a secret agenda, for example, seems like a Trojan horse for a railroad. When that jack pops out of the box its not always particularly exciting or appreciated. Especially, if the group had no chance to detect such shenanigans were in play. It works in film and literature because one person is writing the entire story, but a group dynamic doesnt work that way. Trust me, the only folks that will enjoy the jack in the box are those with agency in it.