D&D General Character Individuality

[HammerMan]

I think it's very thematic to "write out" a character from the story in the rare case it's party vs individual. I think the scene where the otherwise solid teammate of a druid draws a line in the sand at saving the White Stag even though the repercussions are presumably terrible (otherwise the part would have compromised at not killing it) is a great one.

But for that to work it means the player has to be OK with giving up control of that character and even accepting that it might be their death.

I don't think it's bad to make a pivotal dramatic scene a characters end, but if a player is having this happen constantly with their characters, or constantly having their characters "need to be convinced to adventure" then it becomes a bad play style.

If the rest of the table can work together, and one person is constantly the problem I don't think it's the style that is the problem.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Incorrect. Instead, you're just moving the repression to one stage earlier by up-front telling the players how to play...

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.

...as you both detail and admit to here.

And I get it, at least from one angle: a co-operative group is way easier to DM, thus it's in the DM's interest to foster a co-operative party. That said, I've always seen it as being the DM's job to neutrally deal with whatever the players throw at her, and if they wanna fight instead of co-operate then let 'em fight. (personally, as long as things stay in character I sometimes find sessions where they're fighting each other the easiest of all to DM - other than rules adjudications I can just sit back, put my feet up, and leave 'em to it )

Split parties can be a nuisance but there's always ways to handle it. Usually IME either we go to running two nights a week or, if that's impractical, one party gets put on hold and the "missing" players roll up new PCs for the continuing party. Then, a while later that group gets put on hold and the other group picked up, with the remaining players also rolling up new PCs (so by the end, everyone has at least one new PC).

 

[overgeeked]

We had it come up a fair bit when we were younger...and weren't the best at addressing the root causes of problems, shall we say. It can also be used as a sort-of in-game bullying. In every campaign now, I always rule that you cannot roll dice against another PC. Even if someone wants to do something like give the other character a wedgie, I always ask the player "do you let them." If they say no, it doesn't happen.

My general rule is that character individuality stops where it starts impacting the fun of the rest of the table. Characters need to be able to work together, and the players need to be able to trust the other players at the table. As the DM, I need to be able to trust the players at the table. And that includes trusting them to know the group's tolerance for in-character friction. When that starts breaking down, the inevitable result is the player causing the trouble either shapes up or they get the boot.

No amount of "I was just playing my character" can make it okay. Because if it gets to that point, it's the players (and possibly the DM) that are mad about it. D&D is designed as a group activity, and if your character can't play as part of the group, then that's a problem.

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins."

 

[Oofta]

There seems to be this subtext to this thread that it's an either/or choice. Taken to an extreme you have a unique and special individual that will stab their fellow party members in the back at the drop of a hat or you have a mindless drone that goes along with whatever the group wants and has no goals or will of their own.

I call BS. You can have people with very strong personalities, with unique goals and attitudes while still working as part of a team. I don't think it's too much to ask that people stop and ask themselves now and then "would the other PCs really continue associate with this person if it actually happened?" I've seen groups where people stuck together because of the people at the table, but if anything even remotely similar happened to a group of people who were voluntarily working together would split up and go their separate ways.

Different strokes for different folks and all. I just don't think it's too much to ask that the PC that is created is not a lone wolf who hates people and goes out of their way to subvert the actions of other members of the team. The group can always vote someone off the island team if I'm the DM.

 

[Lanefan]

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"

"It's what the character would do" is in my eyes the most honest way to play, even if it leads to roleplaying said character out of the party and-or into its own grave. And this applies to all characters, not just the disruptive ones: if a group of otherwise perfectly cooperative characters can't agree on what mission to do next - some want to do one, some want to do another - then honest roleplaying says that party splits in two, each half recruiting new people to round itself out and then each going on its chosen mission.

 

[Lanefan]

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)


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.

The broader question is whether character consistency and roleplay integrity should take precedence over table considerations.

As a player, my position is that yes they should. As a DM I'll waver a little bit, usually around finding ways for a PC to join a party if the player wants it to.

 

[payn]

"It's what the character would do" is in my eyes the most honest way to play, even if it leads to roleplaying said character out of the party and-or into its own grave. And this applies to all characters, not just the disruptive ones: if a group of otherwise perfectly cooperative characters can't agree on what mission to do next - some want to do one, some want to do another - then honest roleplaying says that party splits in two, each half recruiting new people to round itself out and then each going on its chosen mission.

You just regularly have 2,3,4 different parties on game night?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

"It's what the character would do" is in my eyes the most honest way to play,

My favourite anyway. I like worlds which feel coherent and credible, including credible characters. An assassin and a paladin just held together by PC glow, in this case PC glue, isn't something I like to see.

even if it leads to roleplaying said character out of the party and-or into its own grave.

Yep. Sometimes people won't cooperate, even if the enemy of my enemy is my enemy, there is a limit. Changing a character suddenly to accomodate another one is strange and should be avoided to maximize my enjoyment. Of course, if a players comme with a character concept antithetical to the party, there is a strong chance he won't be recruited.

And this applies to all characters, not just the disruptive ones: if a group of otherwise perfectly cooperative characters can't agree on what mission to do next - some want to do one, some want to do another - then honest roleplaying says that party splits in two, each half recruiting new people to round itself out and then each going on its chosen mission.

Exact. I once had a character who wanted to subquest doing something... that wouldn't fly with the other. We split the party, and I provided a few characters from the support cast of NPCs for the players to play [the player didn't object to the subquest, their character just couldn't participate].

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed, and it doesn't often take long for even the most loner-est of characters to realize that maybe there is some merit to the "strength in numbers" idea. Playing a loner character as part of a party is, for me anyway, fairly easy.

You shouldn't normally resort to violence against teammates, you should debate with them.

This depends on the character and-or the setting's culture; but yes, debate first, violence second.

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.

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

It can be done; also sometimes the "wangrod" ends up being the pillar around whom the party is built.

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.

Secret RP is a fact of life around here, and in fact is way easier now with the advent of email, text messaging etc. than it was in the 80s with telephones and paper notes.

 

[Oofta]

On a related note, one of the things I ask is that people not make final decisions on their PC until we've had a chance to discuss general theme and style of game. I have my own preferences, I want heroes, not thugs but other than that I'm quite open. Ideally people have a reason to join up together outside of just being a bunch of randos in a tavern one night, although we can make that work as well.

There are no hard and fast rules, of course. I've made decisions for my PC knowing full well that I would no longer be part of the group. I had briefly discussed this with my DM ahead of time, but not the other players. While I didn't directly harm any other PCs because I don't believe in direct PVP in D&D my PC did abscond with an artifact the group was sworn to collect for their benefactor. But I knew there was no way I could betray the party's trust that way and accepted the consequence of my actions.