D&D General Character Individuality

[HammerMan]

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.

wait a game with 4 batman loners doen't work... what a shock

 

[jmartkdr2]

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"

I usually phrase it as "choosing to play a wangrod character is a wangrod thing to do as a player." Well, except I don't hold to the site's language standards.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

man... what a hill to die on.

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.

cool... just don't come to other tables with the excuse "I know I just messed up our weekly game, but it's what my fictional sheet of paper would do."

Nothing I said suggests that the DM run two separate games.

right, I understand that but below you show a great example of "If your character is going to do his own thing...make him an NPC and make a character more in line with the table"

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.

me too (although spliting the party is part of it). IF in real life you were with a group of people doing things that you could not bring yourself to do I am sure you would leave... your character will sooner or later (I ask for sooner at my table) do the same (again see your example below)

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.

Okay, so in your example the rest of the party is doing something your character doesn't like (kill the stag). I assume you have discussed this like adults (god don't make me regreat that assumtion) but the group is going against what your character will do. At this point the choice is A) change your character in some compromise (Example: as long as we use all the parts of the stag it is okay and part of the cirle of life)
B) cause a disruption in the game where you wish to continue to play the character "as is" and go agains tthe party at least in the short term
c) change your character by having this character say "I wont be apart of this" leave (maybe even become an NPC antagonist for this arc and be an enemy to fight) and bring in a character that can work with the group
D) convince the others to side with you
E) I doubt there is an E but maybe some gadual change form one of the above...

in our games we do not allow the choice of B. At all. When it happens we end the session and talk out of game about options A, C and D... and the dreaded F JUST S/O with a new campaign.

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.

well in this case it isn't a 'DM' it is a group of DMs that play togather that all are roughly on the same page... I don't know why "this isn't a good fit" seems okay to walk away from all campaigns but not "this isn't a good fit" means walk away from 1 character to make a new one?

 

[Oofta]

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.

 

[Musing Mage]

Personally, for my games I'm pretty hands-off when it comes to how players elect to play their characters. I adjudicate their actions within the game world but I don't dictate how they should play.

I love it when players are able to immerse in their characters and role-play to the hilt - conflict created in the game as a result IS part the game and story that emerges, not whatever scenario I've cooked up. The scenario is merely the framework.

As far I'm concerned, the real meat of an RPG comes from each player bringing their distinct point of view and characterization into the scenario. From their choices the story emerges in ways I can't predict, even in the railroadiest of railroads (another thing I try to avoid, but that's nother topic). The game then doesn't become about pushing the canned narrative forward and hitting proconceived beats, but the interaction between the living, breathing people.

Character conflict will happen, it's not to be avoided, it's to be embraced when it's organic from the situations. PvP isn't sought out specifically, but if a situation builds to it, then that's the situation... see it through and it becomes a part of the narrative. In order for it to work, however, players must be willing to let go of their desired outcomes, play the moment, and be ready with new characters in the extreme case.

We had a great scene a few months back where during an ogre attack on the group, the Dwarven assassin tried to sneak away with a treasure-laden mule while the others were occupied by the ogres. Two other PCs died during that assault, the the remainder caught up with the Dwarf who mumbled some excuse about protecting the treasure from the ogres just in case. A standoff ensued, as the Kensai had her sword out demanding that he disarm and allow himself to be bound... the Assassin weighed his odds of beating the Kensai in a straight fight (not good), but another PC, a thief was behind the Kensai and friendly to him... so he was giving her the signals and for a moment it looked like she was going to help, but ultimately shook her head that she wasn't going to do it. The assassin surrendered and maintained his story all the way back to town, even trying to convince his thief buddy to untie him so they could get away.

It was a good, memorable moment that had everyone laughing once that tension was cut.

Now, that said - I fully recognize that not every player can let go and run with such a scenario, especially if they are on the losing end of it. So, to echo points made above, it's largely dependent on the table agreement.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

So...you choose, as others said above, to play a "wangrod" character before session 0 even happens?

That seems like rather a counter-productive thing to do.

 

[Maxperson]

So...you choose, as others said above, to play a "wangrod" character before session 0 even happens?

This is an invalid reading of my post. I will repeat...

"Instead, I chose to find people that enjoy the same kind of game that I like, which is what everyone should be doing."

 

[overgeeked]

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.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

yup this is again why I would just say "Okay now that character is an NPC, would you like to make a character to play with the rest of us?"

 

[GuyBoy]

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.

Absolutely agree with this post. Gaming does involve a level of social contract, with certain things like honesty and playing characters that work to make the game enjoyable for all. Playing "lone wolves" or other non-cooperative characters is simply harmful to the group. Why do it?