D&D General Character Individuality

[Lanefan]

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

Whatever the group agrees to. Personally, I prefer to set the expectation that everyone be a team player, by which I mean they play characters who are willing to work with others towards common goals. But, if a group prefers to play with no such expectation, that’s also completely valid.

 

[overgeeked]

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?

I think the PCs should have as much freedom as possible in their individuality so long as it’s not disruptive to the game or other players’ enjoyment of the game. If everyone’s on board for an evil campaign of plotting and assassinations, great. But if one character is evil and plans on screwing over the group, that’s going to lead to problems.

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?

If the group wants to play D&D they need to be at least minimally cohesive as a group. Otherwise you’re sitting around someone’s dinning room table listening to real people argue about their characters arguing while sitting around a tavern table.

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

Up to a point, yes. Group cohesion. Both at the game table and in the game. Some people love the game Diplomacy, others hate it. If everyone’s expecting heroic D&D with a cohesive group and it turns out to be a game of Diplomacy…there will be problems. Some players want group cohesion as an absolute baseline to enjoy the game. Any kind of disruption to that will wreck their enjoyment of the game.

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?

Up to a point, sure. Depends on what the group is okay with. We had things get so bad with “secretly evil” PCs being disruptive we had to house rule thieves who stole from the party were assassinated and any stolen loot returned. Clerics who refused to heal the party unless paid were instantly struck down by their gods. It turned the supposedly cooperative game of D&D into a competitive one. Destroying some players entire reason for playing the game. Camaraderie.

Can a PC be a spy for the party's enemy, for instance?

Only if blackmailed or magically controlled. Otherwise the spy PC is a dead man walking.

 

[S'mon]

It depends on the campaign. But assuming there is a 'party', my view is that PCs need to be sufficiently cooperative that they are clearly of value to the party. If anyone is asking "Why would we let this guy be with us?" then there's a big problem IMO. The party is partly a meta-game construct; the social contract is (normally) that we let the new player character in, whoever they are. It's not ok to abuse that by bringing in a character the other PCs would not allow in if he were an NPC - if meta-game considerations did not apply.

Beyond that, the extent to which PCs can have conflicting agendas depends very much on the specific nature of the campaign. If your group is The Dirty Dozen, they may have a fair bit of conflict, even up to PVP in extreme cases. If they're the Magnificent Seven, they may have some conflict, but they work it out.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

There are no real restrictions other than don't be disruptive to the campaign.

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?

I don't expect them to repress their individuality at all.

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

There is no requirement to trust or be trustworthy.

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?

They are allowed to be untrustworthy all the way up to AND including PvP. PvP is very rare, but it has happened.

Can a PC be a spy for the party's enemy, for instance?

No. Things that are outright disruptive to the campaign are not allowed. The only purpose for spying for the enemy is to disrupt the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I personally think this is putting the Watsonian cart before the Doylist horse.

I asked my players--as I almost surely would for any game I'd offer to run--to play characters that are at least partially on board with the campaign premise. IOW, before the players even get to the point of "do I have to repress this character in order to permit the group to work together," I'm asking them to please choose characters that don't need repression in order to cooperate.

Like....this feels like inventing a problem where there needn't ever be one. Are you, and your players, okay with a game where people may choose to play someone of divided or even outright dubious loyalties? If so, great, people can opt in to those character types if they like. And if you or your players aren't okay with that, then the courteous thing to do is (a) discuss it to attempt to reach a more satisfying solution for everyone, (b) create a concept that meshes with that, or (c) bow out.

All this talk of "repress"ing characters and "permission" just strikes me as (effectively) deciding the issue in advance: that players have a "right" to play treacherous or untrustworthy characters and are the beleaguered party. You've decided players are entitled to pursue certain lines of roleplay, and thus it is either an unfair imposition on them to tell them not to, a dereliction of duty on the part of those asking them not to, or an ever-so-gracious act of self-denial to choose not to exercise that right.

Now, maybe I'm reading this wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. So, if I have misunderstood, I apologize. As it stands though, this looks a lot like priming the reader to see it from the perspective of the player that likes a betrayal or intra-party strife, and not at all from the perspective of the player who is sick to death of drama and people being horrible to one another and would like just this one place where they can leave that at the door.

 

[Lyxen]

We have a global agreement at all our tables (barring exception in some specific campaigns) that the characters developed by the players will have good reasons to cooperate, although of course discussion and possibly dissension is possible, and that although their personal stories will matter at some point or another, they are never to supersede the global arc of the party.

This is accepted by all players and put in place by them, the DM does not have much to do except possibly discuss with a player (or multiple players) if he feels that there is a drift. Or maybe it's a player who will initiate the talk.

We arrived at this after a number of campaigns where either it was all totally party-centric and people felt they could not develop their characters enough, or the backstories were so important that, once one was started, it took multiple sessions until it was either the turn of another character or back to the party arc.

Also, since we don't get to play as much as we would like, but absolutely want to play together, we feel it's the best compromise to maximise the time spent playing as a team, DM included, while still giving some freedom for personal character development. Note that quite a bit of that is also done out of sessions, email or visio or phone.

So it's not repression / control / enforcement, it's about players being aware and respectful of other players.

And, although not perfect, and with obviously some hiccups now and then, it works great for us.

 

[Shiroiken]

Characters can (and should) have their own agendas. Sometimes these agendas will be at cross purposes to the group's current goals. If this might be the case, the player should talk with the DM in advance, allowing them a plan to resolve the situation in a way that minimizes disruption. If this means the group is doomed to fail in a particular scenario because of sabotage, another route to success will appear afterwards that doesn't have the same problem. The saboteur, however, has to accept that their membership in the group may be revoked afterwards, leading to a new PC.

 

[Krachek]

Once every players agree on a play style and collaborate for having fun, there is no limits for players agenda and disruptive play. You can agree for silly situations like in guardians of the galaxy, or agree for serious dark drama or agree for light hearth comic like a Disney movie.

 

[Lyxen]

Once every players agree on a play style and collaborate for having fun, there is no limits for players agenda and disruptive play. You can agree for silly situations like in guardians of the galaxy, or agree for serious dark drama or agree for light hearth comic like a Disney movie.

Exactly, basically, once everyone agrees on principle not to be a wangrod, then you won't have any at your table.