D&D General Character Individuality

[aco175]

And now back to the thread... please...

 

[Maxperson]

And yet the third definition on Mirriam Webster says "highly abstract or abstruse see:Theoretical" which seems to fit the idea @HammerMan was trying to get across.

It isn't though. There's nothing "highly" abstract or "abstruse" about it. It's just a simple imaginary red flag.

 

[HammerMan]

When players just hand you story material on a silver platter like this, why on earth would you turn it down?!

if it is story that would be fun for all I wouldn't. However the table has to balance everyone's fun so I can't make the story dove tail to 2/5ths the party at the expense of 3/5ths

But I wouldn't let it go to waste!

it wont if the players can be civil adult and mature... however it also can't be the take over plot. I would of course bring the idea to the table... but I wouldn't let two players stumble into "I used to be Black staff's apprentice and he is like a father to me" and "I hate blackstaff and want him thrown out of the masked lords and maybe even dead" because they bothmade characters not knowing.

If 2 players come up with story ideas and the other 3 don't then why not run with what the 2 have going?

wait what do you mean by 3 don't. I would assume if 2 have fleshed out back stories most likely (and almost for sure in my group) all 5 will Now I have 5 story ideas, 3 working togather and 2 'rpoud nails' standing out. why focus on the conflicting players especially if they didn't work on it togather?

The DM doesn't really figure in here; she just runs with what the players give her to work with and, ideally, puts her own story ideas to the side if-when player-driven story can take over. And it's not like the other 3 players, via their characters, can't get involved; even if it's just to laugh at these two fighting over a silly little local Baron when there's an evil King needs dealing with in the big city out west.

but do they WANT to has to come into it... 6 people sitting around the table, each MUST be given equal weight. I wouldn't let 1 player write themselves as the star I am not going to let 2 write themselves as the main conflict.... this is totally we need all 6 to buy in not 2 of 6 (the 6th being the DM)

If I'm the DM and I've made a world with - among other things - a town and a Baron who rules that town, how can I possibly complain if two players produce characters who come with built-in means of and reasons for interacting with one of those elements, and with each other? I build the setting, but I don't dictate how the players, via their characters, interact with it. Further, I-as-DM have no place dictating how PCs interact with each other.

not only do I think the DM has a place, I think every person at the table has a place. If 2 players going against each other sounds fun... cool role with it. if it doesn't then you tell them to knock it off and make characters that will fit at the table.

 

[HammerMan]

Truth be told, at least a basic grounding in physics can be really handy when it comes to designing settings, adventures, and the like.

well anything helps... if you are really into physics that could help, but so could history or even archtecture... in general we all bring something to the table... even the teens with little education

 

[Lanefan]

if it is story that would be fun for all I wouldn't. However the table has to balance everyone's fun so I can't make the story dove tail to 2/5ths the party at the expense of 3/5ths

I think you're assuming that this conflict would somehow force the Baron into being the centerpiece of the story for at least a while. This doesn't have to be the case.

Sure he'll be a part of the story no matter what, as even if you leave him in the background odds are the PCs are going to argue about him anyway; and that's fine. But other players/PCs can (and I hope will) have their own stories to tell, and if you-as-DM are keen on using all this then it's on you to interweave it all somehow.

it wont if the players can be civil adult and mature...

This is my baseline assumption.

however it also can't be the take over plot. I would of course bring the idea to the table... but I wouldn't let two players stumble into "I used to be Black staff's apprentice and he is like a father to me" and "I hate blackstaff and want him thrown out of the masked lords and maybe even dead" because they bothmade characters not knowing.

Their stumbling into this conflict, rather than it being something pre-planned, is what makes it great!

It's also very realistic, just like two people who end up thrown together by external forces find they fundamentally disagree over something or other (usually politics, these days) and have to either learn to deal with it* or find a way - by their own choice, rather than enforced by some higher authority - to move on.

* - and in a typical violence-centric D&D setting, "deal with it" can mean all sorts of things.

wait what do you mean by 3 don't. I would assume if 2 have fleshed out back stories most likely (and almost for sure in my group) all 5 will Now I have 5 story ideas, 3 working togather and 2 'rpoud nails' standing out. why focus on the conflicting players especially if they didn't work on it togather?

Long experience tells me I'll be lucky to have one PC whose player has fleshed out its motivations to that extent before (or as) play begins. Having two - and better yet, having those two sets of motivations be related even if opposed - would be super cool, either as player or DM.

but do they WANT to has to come into it... 6 people sitting around the table, each MUST be given equal weight. I wouldn't let 1 player write themselves as the star I am not going to let 2 write themselves as the main conflict.... this is totally we need all 6 to buy in not 2 of 6 (the 6th being the DM)

not only do I think the DM has a place, I think every person at the table has a place. If 2 players going against each other sounds fun... cool role with it. if it doesn't then you tell them to knock it off and make characters that will fit at the table.

Just like the DM has to roll with what the players give her, and oftentimes the players have to roll with what the DM gives them, it's somewhat also on the players to roll with what they give each other.

Also, keep in mind that nothing lasts forever. Sure these two characters might be at each other's throats right now, but at some point it'll resolve or one of the arguing PCs will die in action or leave the party or whatever; and by then maybe someone else's in-character drama has taken center stage.

 

[Stormonu]

In an unrelated thread @ECMO3 and I got into it a little over character individuality vs party unity; and to avoid derailing that thread any further I'll start this one instead, with a series of questions to get things going:

The question is this: to what extent are PCs allowed to be individuals both in thought and deed, with their own agendae, goals, etc. that may or may not confilct with those of other PCs?

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?

From another angle: is it a built-in table expectation that your PC can always trust someone else's PC? (and if so, why?)

To flip that last one around: are PCs allowed to be untrustworthy with regards to other PCs but not to the extent of outright PvP? Can a PC be a spy for the party's enemy, for instance?

I'll leave these for others to answer, then chime in with my own thoughts later.

As long as the rest of the party isn't sitting twiddling their thumbs for 30+ minutes, individuality is okay. Side quests, stories, secrets and the like are fine, so long as no one is hogging the spotlight or causing someone else's player actual misery.

I do not, however, allow anything where the party might come to blows among itself - so, actively working for the bad guy is generally out - but perhaps they did work for the bad guys in the past (but there's no chance of them really going back).

It's hard enough to get folks together for a biweekly game; having them walk out mad at each other over an internecine combat is unacceptable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As long as the rest of the party isn't sitting twiddling their thumbs for 30+ minutes, individuality is okay. Side quests, stories, secrets and the like are fine, so long as no one is hogging the spotlight or causing someone else's player actual misery.

I do not, however, allow anything where the party might come to blows among itself - so, actively working for the bad guy is generally out - but perhaps they did work for the bad guys in the past (but there's no chance of them really going back).

It's hard enough to get folks together for a biweekly game; having them walk out mad at each other over an internecine combat is unacceptable.

Well, if the players can't handle in-game intra-PC conflict, that's a different matter and I agree, it should be avoided in that case. But it doesn't have to be that way for all groups of players.

 

[Stormonu]

Well, if the players can't handle in-game intra-PC conflict, that's a different matter and I agree, it should be avoided in that case. But it doesn't have to be that way for all groups of players.

I agree, I've seen tables that have made games work with evil players and/or groups.

I don't want to deal with it in my D&D though. I'm fine with it if we've agreed to play something like V:tM or Fiasco or other games, but I just don't like to play that way with D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree, I've seen tables that have made games work with evil players and/or groups.

I don't want to deal with it in my D&D though. I'm fine with it if we've agreed to play something like V:tM or Fiasco or other games, but I just don't like to play that way with D&D.

You do you, of course. I will say that conflict, even physical conflict, between PCs shouldn't require either or both PCs to be evil. See: the first act of every super hero team-up.

 

[Stormonu]

You do you, of course. I will say that conflict, even physical conflict, between PCs shouldn't require either or both PCs to be evil. See: the first act of every super hero team-up.

I understand characters don't have to be evil to be at each other's throats. I just use "no evil PC's" (and PCs who become evil into NPCs) to make it clear I don't want those shennanigins in my game. Too many past instances of players using the "because I'm evil (or Chaotic Crazy)" to dick over others at the table, and I don't want to give anyone opportunity to start in my games. As an aside, I don't allow Lawful Stupid either.