D&D General Character Individuality

[HammerMan]

Broadly, this is a table-agreement thing. However, you begin with a false premise. If the characters are created with basically getting along in mind, folks can be cohesive without anyone "repressing" anything.

My players are informed before play begins that I run a largely cooperative table, and characters should be created accordingly. Characters who are apt to be disruptive, antagonizing, or duplicitous to their teammates don't make it to the table in the first place, so those things don't need to be repressed in play.

Yes, this does put a bit of a limit on the players to start with.

yes one of my biggest pet peeves is "it's what my character would do" to witch I argue "You made the character... you control the character"

 

[Maxperson]

yes one of my biggest pet peeves is "it's what my character would do" to witch I argue "You made the character... you control the character"

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.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

Were I see what you are saying, look at the words you choose. can't like it isn't possible. But you CAN, you just don't want to. That is what I am stressing here. You choose. Your preference. Now if your preference is that it is more important that your character be made and stay as is then the game be fun for all, you need to own that.
(hence my "okay go off do your own thing, and draw up a new character that WILL go with the party" option)

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.

but do you realize that YOU maxperson made the character and the choices that lead to this 'isn't possible' scenario? that character isn't real, if it is causing disruption you trying to push it off on a character and not a player is weird to me.

 

[BookTenTiger]

This reminds me of a time I was invited into a Shadowrun game. Everyone created characters... I was a troll preacher with a robotic whose church had been burned down. It came time for our character introductions...

Me: I'm a troll preacher with a robot arm whose church had been burned down.

Player 1: You don't really see my character, they blend into the shadows and stay hidden.

Player 2: My character is very stealthy and stays hidden.

Player 3: My character blends into the crowd, you don't even know they're there.

Player 4: My character is more of a lone wolf, they stay distant and observe from afar.


We only played a few sessions, but it felt like Kabuki theater in which my character was surrounded by shadows that sometimes did things.

 

[ninjayeti]

I think individuality is great up until the point were one PC is doing something to actively undermine or sabotage what the group as a whole decides on because "its what my character would do." I think that crosses a line where it makes the game less fun for the other players.

A classic example is the party decides to take a prisoner alive, and the "edgy" PC goes ahead and murders the prisoner when no one else is looking. In my experience this is going to lead to hard feelings among the players who feel like their choices were overridden. Roleplaying a disagreement over whether to kill a prisoner can be great - but once your character's actions are sabotaging what other PCs want to do it tends to impact the fun of the other players.

 

[Laurefindel]

When it comes to D&D (and most other RPGs that are not intended to be one-shots), I make it clear that players need to play with other players.

If they can figure out a way for their characters to be dicks to each other, good for them. But all players need to be in on it, and by "all players" I include the DM. Otherwise, I encourage any amount of metagaming from the players to make the game works, but I prefer when this metagaming doesn't transcribe into their characters.

You make a edgy loner character? fine. Now find a way to stick with the other PCs. Your character doesn't have to like it, but you (as a player) and the others around the table need to.

 

[HammerMan]

A classic example is the party decides to take a prisoner alive, and the "edgy" PC goes ahead and murders the prisoner when no one else is looking. In my experience this is going to lead to hard feelings among the players who feel like their choices were overridden. Roleplaying a disagreement over whether to kill a prisoner can be great - but once your character's actions are sabotaging what other PCs want to do it tends to impact the fun of the other players.

even with my group trying to do the best we can we hit this snag... we have an OUT OF GAME disagreement on executions.

we would much rather kill in battle... but sometimes we take prison's, and when we do the DM is in a spot where if they play them as cold monsters we are okay killing them but we most likely get nothing from them...if they give us information it pulls up a moral issue that OOG we can not reach a consensus on.

That has lead to 1 player wanting to take a captive and another going for a kill shot to end it before it starts... but that then runs into the "Why can't we"

also as resently as December we had a red card in a game I play over this.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now I want Wangrod the Conqueror to be my next barbarian character.

One of my favorite magic items is the Inwangable Rod.

 

[Maxperson]

Were I see what you are saying, look at the words you choose. can't like it isn't possible. But you CAN, you just don't want to.

Can I utterly destroy the character? Of course I can. At that point, though, it's no longer the character I wanted to play, so there's no point in continuing to play in that game.

That is what I am stressing here. You choose. Your preference. Now if your preference is that it is more important that your character be made and stay as is then the game be fun for all, you need to own that.

That's not a choice I have to make. Instead, I chose to find people that enjoy the same kind of game that I like, which is what everyone should be doing. Trying to play D&D with a group of people who want different things out of the game is a recipe for disaster.

(hence my "okay go off do your own thing, and draw up a new character that WILL go with the party" option)

Nothing I said suggests that the DM run two separate games. One for me and one for everyone else. Some splitting of the party, different goals, different reactions to what is happening is what I'm talking about.

If my character reveres nature and its grand beasts, and the group has to kill the great white stag of the forest for the local lord, he is going to stand with the stag. One way or another he's going to find a way to keep it alive. He's not suddenly going to be okay with hunting down and killing that stag.

If something like that is going to get my PC rendered an NPC, then I'm not going to continue to play with that DM anyway, so by all means, make him an NPC.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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?

They make their own choices, have their own goals, etc. They can conflict with other pc's.

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?

But I do expect pc's to be team players at some level - you should see the value in teamwork at some level and act on that from time to time. You shouldn't normally resort to violence against teammates, you should debate with them.

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

Not always, but if a pc is proven to be untrustworthy they can be kicked out of the group and the player can (usually) roll a new pc who isn't a wangrod.

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?

Unlikeable... to a point. The limit is fun for the other people, and it's tricky to play a lovable wangrod.

I wouldn't allow that specific example, just because it involves too much secret rp. But they could easily work for a third party that isn't necessarily friendly to the pcs.

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