-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How do you remember to rp your character and not you?
- Thread starter poppin_fresh
- Start date
Thasmodious
First Post
I do this, as well.
When I make a character a spend a few minutes thinking about the characters goals, motivation, and personality and specifically how traits he or she has differs from or are the same as mine, so I know where the character's boundaries are in relation to myself.
I look at possible arcs for the character to develop along, as well, evolve as amnuxoll says. This, for me, is the real fun of playing a character, playing their growth as well as their personality and background.
As a DM, as others have said, I tend to let the player play as he chooses, unless it conflicts with in-game choices they've made in relation to flaws or other trait systems. Sometimes, and very rarely, I might question a PC action if it seems completely out of sorts with their character. Not to disallow it, but to make sure that the player remembers a certain known aspect of their character and is making a conscious decision to go against that (something that will likely have in game consequences, good or bad).
No, I have not. I've never felt a pressing need to implement a merit/flaw system for a D&D game.
The Shaman
First Post
I remember that my character is a sneaky thief, or a noble knight, or a steely-eyed gunfighter, or a drunken swashbuckler, or a starship pilot, and I am not, and react accordingly.
The character is who he is in play, not what's written on his character sheet, so whatever the player does is the character.
i think a majority of responses are in the line of "whatever the player says the PC does is in character"
I think that depends.
On a mature group, everybody's PCs are probably doing things that are in character anyway.
In an imature group (say teenagers), the players want their PCs doing such stupid and inane things that aren't in character for the PC, but in character for an adult paladin being controled by a 15 year old boy to do.
I see a difference in role playing a position on a team (the fighter role), and role playing a character in a shared story (Alandrius the Paladin).
The point of the latter is to define traits about the character and to self-restrict your self to "acting in character". In the case of a paladin, this usually means a code of behavior, etc.
That shouldn't prevent character growth, change and evolution. But it should mean some consistency in behavior within a period of time and self-restraint from taking any and all actions because it is expedient to the player but not to the PC.
Basically, I call shennanigans when a player contradicts his character definition, soley on the basis of game benefit.
I based my half-orc barbarian on Tyler Mane's portrayal of Sabretooth in the first X-men movie, except not a villain, and not entirely nice. With an 8 int, I didn't want to play an idiot, so instead I played him as someone with violent impulses (less talking, more killing), and made sure I never participated in planning sessions.
I interpreted my class and stats, identified with a role model character to emulate, yet still played him differently and consistently.
If I were to pick up his sheet today, and play him like a smooth talking swashbuckling ladies man, that would be out of character for him.
There should be behaviors for any PC that don't fit that PC, because they are out of character.
I think that depends.
On a mature group, everybody's PCs are probably doing things that are in character anyway.
In an imature group (say teenagers), the players want their PCs doing such stupid and inane things that aren't in character for the PC, but in character for an adult paladin being controled by a 15 year old boy to do.
I see a difference in role playing a position on a team (the fighter role), and role playing a character in a shared story (Alandrius the Paladin).
The point of the latter is to define traits about the character and to self-restrict your self to "acting in character". In the case of a paladin, this usually means a code of behavior, etc.
That shouldn't prevent character growth, change and evolution. But it should mean some consistency in behavior within a period of time and self-restraint from taking any and all actions because it is expedient to the player but not to the PC.
Basically, I call shennanigans when a player contradicts his character definition, soley on the basis of game benefit.
I based my half-orc barbarian on Tyler Mane's portrayal of Sabretooth in the first X-men movie, except not a villain, and not entirely nice. With an 8 int, I didn't want to play an idiot, so instead I played him as someone with violent impulses (less talking, more killing), and made sure I never participated in planning sessions.
I interpreted my class and stats, identified with a role model character to emulate, yet still played him differently and consistently.
If I were to pick up his sheet today, and play him like a smooth talking swashbuckling ladies man, that would be out of character for him.
There should be behaviors for any PC that don't fit that PC, because they are out of character.
Quickleaf
Legend
jbear
First Post
As a DM I see PCs 'personalities' evidently become the player when a situation has them under pressure and thinking like their character would be a disadvantage.
When I play I try and keep one very important concept clear for myself: there is no way to 'WIN' D&D. Playing and enjoying yourself is as close to winning as you can get. So when the group suffers set backs or failures, I remind myself that they are just new roads to more fun. So, I try not to play to 'win'. Which means I don't mind if my character doesn't do things the 'best way'. I don't mind if he messes up or further complicates the situation because of his actions. I do all this keeping a second very important concept present: 'Have fun but not at the expense of your team mates fun'.
How that works then becomes very subjective, taken in a case by case fashion. Okay, simple example that I have present because it's in the game I'm playing PbP right at the moment. My character is Blind to anything more than 30' away from him. It adds an interesting dimension to a wizard who are usually not very interested in having to be so close to the action when a fight breaks out. It's a very improtant limitation, which will become advantageous as he picks up levels in the Oracle class (pathfinder) and the curse gains benefits as time goes on ... a kind of true seeing develops despite the severe near sightedness. So while it effects my allies in a small while, it doesn't step on their fun.
Now, in our first encounter we were attacked suddenly by a swarm of diving hawks. Although my allies spotted them from afar and reacted defensively, noone thought to shout out what was going on. My character reacted as someone would who couldn't see that far: in total confusion and near panic as I thought they were about to slaughter the two farmers who we were talking to at the time and who were on the verge of a punch up. So I can choose, be me and forget my self imposed limitation, which won't even be a legal mechanical feature til level 2 or 3, and see the hawks and prepare myself accordingly, or play my character and the 'rules' I've set myself instead, even though there is no way that is going to be mechanically advantageous.
Because playing the character is the 'winning' for me, I chose the latter.
This is something I'm trying to relay to my players as well, the idea of simply playing their characters and not limiting themselves to 'trying to win' something that can't be won.
As far as remaining 'true' to your character ... that is a grey area as far as I'm concerned. I know as a person my character is not constant. It's variable and I often contradict myself. So i think PCs can and should be equally complex and changeable. I really only think there is any kind of issue when it slips into the realm of meta-gaming in a vain attempt to, as I said before, win the game.
When I play I try and keep one very important concept clear for myself: there is no way to 'WIN' D&D. Playing and enjoying yourself is as close to winning as you can get. So when the group suffers set backs or failures, I remind myself that they are just new roads to more fun. So, I try not to play to 'win'. Which means I don't mind if my character doesn't do things the 'best way'. I don't mind if he messes up or further complicates the situation because of his actions. I do all this keeping a second very important concept present: 'Have fun but not at the expense of your team mates fun'.
How that works then becomes very subjective, taken in a case by case fashion. Okay, simple example that I have present because it's in the game I'm playing PbP right at the moment. My character is Blind to anything more than 30' away from him. It adds an interesting dimension to a wizard who are usually not very interested in having to be so close to the action when a fight breaks out. It's a very improtant limitation, which will become advantageous as he picks up levels in the Oracle class (pathfinder) and the curse gains benefits as time goes on ... a kind of true seeing develops despite the severe near sightedness. So while it effects my allies in a small while, it doesn't step on their fun.
Now, in our first encounter we were attacked suddenly by a swarm of diving hawks. Although my allies spotted them from afar and reacted defensively, noone thought to shout out what was going on. My character reacted as someone would who couldn't see that far: in total confusion and near panic as I thought they were about to slaughter the two farmers who we were talking to at the time and who were on the verge of a punch up. So I can choose, be me and forget my self imposed limitation, which won't even be a legal mechanical feature til level 2 or 3, and see the hawks and prepare myself accordingly, or play my character and the 'rules' I've set myself instead, even though there is no way that is going to be mechanically advantageous.
Because playing the character is the 'winning' for me, I chose the latter.
This is something I'm trying to relay to my players as well, the idea of simply playing their characters and not limiting themselves to 'trying to win' something that can't be won.
As far as remaining 'true' to your character ... that is a grey area as far as I'm concerned. I know as a person my character is not constant. It's variable and I often contradict myself. So i think PCs can and should be equally complex and changeable. I really only think there is any kind of issue when it slips into the realm of meta-gaming in a vain attempt to, as I said before, win the game.
Last edited:
The Shaman
First Post
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
Jacob Marley
Adventurer
I generally start out playing not wanting to know who this character is or how he should be role-played; at most, I may have a physical or mental image of the character (Edit: possibly with a few sentences of light background), but nothing more. I am curious to learn who this character is, what he believes, and what truly motivates him. These are things that I discover via play. In that respect, any decision I make for the character is, in fact, role-playing the character. From my point of view, it is impossible to role-play a character incorrectly.
I like this summation.
I like this summation.
megamania
Hero
1) create backstory to give direction and a reason for being
2) Create quotes and reactions to common events
3) pictures and drawings also can help
4) Don't base character on one known character but 2+. A bit of cold-hearted ruthlessness of a Terminator mixed with a bit of Dexter Morgan (careful and methodical) can lead to a nasty hard to keep up with villian.
2) Create quotes and reactions to common events
3) pictures and drawings also can help
4) Don't base character on one known character but 2+. A bit of cold-hearted ruthlessness of a Terminator mixed with a bit of Dexter Morgan (careful and methodical) can lead to a nasty hard to keep up with villian.
Similar Threads
