Excessive In-Character Philosophizing

[Ralif Redhammer]

One of the skills of a good players is to either be able to do their thing in the spotlight and get off stage quickly or to do so and loop other players in so that their moments become shared moments.

A bad player will talk just to hear themselves talk, and keep on talking. That's when it drags the game down.

As for moral quandaries, I love when the group starts discussing those together, when there's no good answer and they have to try to thread that needle. I get to sit back, relax, and just watch them be invested in the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I’ll say this: as a GM, I try to avoid placing players in true moral quandaries. People have been debating the needs of the few/many and other situations for centuries. Making someone’s fun depend on “solving” one doesn’t seem fair.

 

[GrahamWills]

I’ll say this: as a GM, I try to avoid placing players in true moral quandaries. People have been debating the needs of the few/many and other situations for centuries. Making someone’s fun depend on “solving” one doesn’t seem fair.

For some genres the fun is in knowing that there is no “solution”. If you are playing a game more interested in dramatic action than task resolution, then moral quandaries are great, because they force drama. It’s only if you frame your enjoyment in terms of finding solutions that it’s an issue. Classic stories show this; forcing a choice that will be a disaster no matter what — do you uphold the law you have made your life’s goal, and hunt down and kill your wife and her lover? No, there is no winning solution, but it’s how you choose to lose that makes it fun.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For some genres the fun is in knowing that there is no “solution”. If you are playing a game more interested in dramatic action than task resolution, then moral quandaries are great, because they force drama. It’s only if you frame your enjoyment in terms of finding solutions that it’s an issue. Classic stories show this; forcing a choice that will be a disaster no matter what — do you uphold the law you have made your life’s goal, and hunt down and kill your wife and her lover? No, there is no winning solution, but it’s how you choose to lose that makes it fun.

I might do that.

In my post above, I’m talking about situations with no good outcomes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it depends on the game, and the expectations. If I’m running 5E, the players are likely gonna expect their characters to be heroes and have a chance to save the day. So too many “tough decisions” may not suit.

But in my Spire campaign, the point is often “how far will you go for your cause”, so in that kind of game it’s central to the premise.

 

[SteveC]

This sort of thing can be tons of fun, right up to the point where it isn't

I run for a lot of people who really love this sort of discussion, but unfortunately not all them them are. What I've done over the years as a DM is encourage that kind of discussion and debate for a modest amount of time. You have to figure out how long everyone is engaged with it, and when you get to the cutoff point, you need to transition to more action.

When I'm a player, I try and do the same thing and shift focus after it starts to lose people.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

So here's m question to the board: How do you play with moral quandaries and philosophical conundrums in-game without beating a dead horse?

I found the solution to that in 1 on 1 RPG session. You and the GM, and it's desinged as a solo character, and that kind of thing drives the adventure. But then I married my GM almost 35 years ago and she likes the kind of stuff... so I don't know applicable that answer would be in a more general sense.