D&D General Character Individuality

[Lanefan]

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.

That depends...am I in their will?

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm cool with all of this except the bit I bolded. Sometimes failure is for real, and they have to realize they lost this time, pick themselves up, and try some other mission (or try tracking down and dealing with the saboteur, if they know who it was).

The point behind it is that it's not a disruption to the game if the DM plans for it. There should definitely be a cost to the party for the betrayal though.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

1) Taking a stand with the stag is not a betrayal of the party. 2) I drew the line at spying for the enemy, because that WOULD be a betrayal and could only have disruption as the purpose for playing that way. You have to go in to that with the desire to conflict with the party and intentional disruption(different from playing your PC in circumstances that arise) is a no no.

 

[overgeeked]

That's also why you don't create a character for a game until Session 0 or you roll it up at the table in the first session. No preconceived ideas that you'll be "oppressed" into changing later if the concept doesn't fit the DM's game.

 

[Maxperson]

I can totally get creating a character with an interesting backstory and complex motivations; edgy, tragic, romantic, familial etc. I like to do so myself, and, as a DM, I like it too; gives some nice hooks to add to the campaign.
But I simply cannot see why anyone would create a character that they know is likely to disrupt the game, and even make the party completely dysfunctional. Why would you do this? What is the point? It may well be “what my character would do”, but why would anyone make such a character in the first place.

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

Right. If the group is a bunch of goody heroes out to save the day, don't make a CE Assassin. Creating intentionally disruptive PCs is where I draw the line.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's also why you don't create a character for a game until Session 0 or you roll it up at the table in the first session. No preconceived ideas that you'll be "oppressed" into changing later if the concept doesn't fit the DM's game.

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.

 

[Greenfield]

I guess it's related to the campaign setting, being rivals vs being enemies.

We had a 3.5 campaign where the over all goal was to re-acquire lost magics and secrets. Each player ran a character who came from or represented a different nation.

The idea was "the gods" who set this quest in motion wanted the secrets to be shared. We, as members of rival nations, weren't working together because we liked or trusted each other, but because we didn't. If our nation wasn't represented then we/they wouldn't get our share of the "great secrets".

In that setting we were rivals. Each individuals, with different backgrounds, family histories, allegiances and interests. Yet we worked together, closely, if only so we could keep a close eye on each other.

In that sort of setting, where the mistrust is clearly understood, it works.

In a different campaign we had a rogue in the party who tried to snag some loot that would have been party treasure, and keep us from knowing about it. When the characters found out that their "friend" somehow had a lot more money than they did, it caused an in-character rift.

Sadly it also caused an out-of-character rift as well. The player ended up getting voted out of the group.

So it can make a good game, if it's played well and stays in game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's also why you don't create a character for a game until Session 0 or you roll it up at the table in the first session. No preconceived ideas that you'll be "oppressed" into changing later if the concept doesn't fit the DM's game.

First legitimate defense of "don't do ANY pre-game planning" I've heard. Though...

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.

...as this shows, not perfect. But whatever concepts you build in advance, you should put in effort to make them fairly congenial for whatever group you might join. E.g., if you know it's gonna be D&D 5e, it should be reasonable to pick a race or class present in the PHB, because that's generally what "yeah it's gonna be a 5e game" means.

As for your response @Maxperson, while your example of the stag stuff is certainly more positive than most versions of this...surely you understand that the vast majority of these are not "my group wants me to be a huge jerk to the NPCs." The vast, VAST majority of the time, it's "and now, because It's What My Character Would Do, I will betray the party to the authorities!" or the like. There's a VERY good reason most DMs reject "It's What My Character Would Do" as a justification, because--as many people in this thread have said--what your character would do is always a choice, made by you.

 

[overgeeked]

First legitimate defense of "don't do ANY pre-game planning" I've heard. Though...


...as this shows, not perfect. But whatever concepts you build in advance, you should put in effort to make them fairly congenial for whatever group you might join. E.g., if you know it's gonna be D&D 5e, it should be reasonable to pick a race or class present in the PHB, because that's generally what "yeah it's gonna be a 5e game" means.

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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

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.

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. 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.