D&D General Character Individuality

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that's at least partially a misreading of what he wrote.

He's talking about playing consistent to the concept he came up with before the game began. I don't think it's being a wangrod (in the Colevillian or a more generic sense) to want to stick to your character concept. Depending on the situation, if the player comes up with the concept beforehand and the DM then runs a scenario which conflicts with that concept, the DM may be the one at fault. Or no one person may be at fault, and it may just be a communication gap.

I do generally agree that players should be flexible, and have a responsibility to play a character who has reason to adventure with and trust the party. Unless it's specifically agreed otherwise beforehand.

And yet, if you bring up something exactly equivalent to this--like "I wanted to play a dragonborn, that was part of the concept I came up with before the game began"--Maxperson won't be anywhere near so keen on that. At least, that's what I recall from the various threads on the subject. It's "destroying the character" to tell the player "could you...like...not betray the party?" but it's not "destroying the character" to say they can't be a dragonborn even if the player had their heart set on doing so.

That comes off pretty hostile, and I think it's untrue. It's not telling them how to play. It's telling them up front the kind of game he's interested in running. If they agree to that, no one's being told how to play. They're deciding, like adults, that they are happy to play by those rules. It's no more telling his players how to play than it would be to say "I only run 1E AD&D".

I'm confused--is Max running the game, or playing in the game? Above, you spoke of players and their characters and a player wanting to run a concept within a game. Now you're explicitly referring to him as DM. Is he a player or a DM? If he's a DM, he's not the one pushing a treacherous/etc. character into a game, so the point is moot; and if he's not a DM, then this whole paragraph goes out the window.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed - I am not a neutral DM. I have explicitly stated such.

In which case you're probably talking about apples while I'm talking about snow skis.

 

[GuyBoy]

I can totally get creating a character with an interesting backstory and complex motivations; edgy, tragic, romantic, familial etc. I like to do so myself, and, as a DM, I like it too; gives some nice hooks to add to the campaign.
But I simply cannot see why anyone would create a character that they know is likely to disrupt the game, and even make the party completely dysfunctional. Why would you do this? What is the point? It may well be “what my character would do”, but why would anyone make such a character in the first place.

I have experienced this type of thing in 40+ years of gaming and it has never been a good experience for DM or players.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't think I've ever been in a game where one or more players are acting against the group or are otherwise not a good fit. We've never had any edgy loners with tragic backstories that don't want to adventure (I'm not even sure if this is a real thing or just an internet meme).

I've had it happen a couple of times, and it's awful. Usually it's because they made the pc's goals too narrow, so either tthe adventure is all about them or they don't go along.

Typically, I run games where the player characters are heroes and I let the players know that the party should work together, no one sitting on the edge playing their own game and ignoring the party.

This usually works, generally heroic characters generally try to get along with each other. But once in a while someone will try to play a thoughtlessly selfish character and it just ruins the fun for others.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

A thing that worked well in two separate campaigns was to make characters members of the same extended family. Sometimes, you can't stand a brother or a cousin, but you usually won't leave them to be eaten by a grue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

This is starting to look an awful lot like "If you're not playing an open ended sandbox its not really an RPG". When you make something for dinner or a group decides where to go eat, to some extent you're telling everyone who participates what to eat, but that's not "repression". That's just recognizing that not everything one does provides every choice possible.

Its fine not to like games with a narrower range of things you do, but its hardly "repression". Its just working within the confines of the campaign at hand.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"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.

This, however, assumes the GM has the time and energy to, effectively, run two (or more) campaigns. That's not a reasonable expectation as a default even if some people can do it.

 

[Oofta]

Not on the same night, but in my current campaign there's (thinks for a minute) something like 5 (or 6?) different parties either on hold due to covid or on hold waiting for other groups to catch up in game time or active in the field, plus numerous individual characters scattered all over the place doing whatever.

I can think of one memorable instance, however, where I found myself running ten (!) different one-character parties at once: a wild magic surge teleported each member of a ten-character party to a different random location within a rather big dungeon complex they'd been exploring (Dark Tower, for those who know it). I had to run each character individually as it a) tried to figure out where it was, b) negotiated any hazards it met, and c) tried to find anyone else familiar. I also had to keep careful track of exactly who was where when, in case two or more characters might meet each other.

Talk about cat-herding!

I think one big reason you allow things I would not is the number of players and frequency of play. I DM once a month and play in a campaign once a month. That's it. So ... no I don't want to run multiple groups or have groups dissolve into intra-party conflict. We don't get to play nearly as much as I like and for us it's just not worth the grief.

 

[Oofta]

Almost as bad as the destiny is the "was once a great leader who helped defeat an X invasion, slaying the enemy leader in single combat" type character to which the DM responds with "okay, so, you're level 1..."

Then when everybody decides they've had enough of the braggart and "let" the zombies eat them the player comes back with their identical twin with exactly the same story.

 

[Lanefan]

I can totally get creating a character with an interesting backstory and complex motivations; edgy, tragic, romantic, familial etc. I like to do so myself, and, as a DM, I like it too; gives some nice hooks to add to the campaign.
But I simply cannot see why anyone would create a character that they know is likely to disrupt the game, and even make the party completely dysfunctional. Why would you do this?

Sometimes this doesn't happen with any malice aforethought, though. There's no intent to disrupt.

For example, the complex motivations you create for your character might just by random chance end up directly conflicting with the complex motivations created by another player for their PC.

A very simple example: due to backstory and family history etc. your PC might be fiercely loyal to the local Baron, even to the point of laying down your life for him. Meanwhile another player has set their PC up as a sworn enemy of the Baron and all he stands for, to the point of killing him if the chance arises; again due to backstory, family history, etc.

Should a DM disallow either of these as character concepts? I sure hope not! Yet any party with these two in it is inevitably going to become a powderkeg at some point; and I say let it happen. The opportunities for roleplay are outstanding, and the other players/PCs will soon enough have to decide what their own thoughts are regarding the Baron and maybe take a side.

Neither player should be asked to rethink their PC in a case like this and if one is, IMO that player has a right to feel somewhat annoyed.