Players, GMs, and "My character"...

[Celebrim]

The thing is, Will's scenario was, in almost all other respects, utterly brilliant. A Golden Age superhero adventure, wonderfully period appropriate, comics literate, influenced by Warren Ellis, Sandman Mystery Theatre and John Steinbeck. A flawed masterpiece, really.

Yeah. The problem you run into is that alot of the best DM's are also fairly compotent novelists, and that they naturally want to start applying their techniques as writers of fiction to the game. Alot of positive things can come out of that, but if the DM doesn't recognize the different constraints of the medium then trouble ensues.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The DM is pretty much 100% at fault in just about 100% of cases.

To keep the party together, there have to be certain shared goals and motivations, sometimes other features are agreed upon too. These mostly come from the GM and the players have to agree to them.

In trad D&D it's, usually tacitly, agreed that PCs will go to dangerous places and try to gain xp and treasure. If the PCs don't do this then the game doesn't work. Imo if a player says, "My character wouldn't do that", the DM is entirely right to reply, "Yes, he would. By agreeing to play in the game you have signed up to create a PC that will do that."

Likewise it's quite common for the GM to set certain parameters at the start which include PC personality and motivation, such as no evil alignments. When I run a superhero game, the PCs have to be superheroes. If half are heroes, half villains and one's a guy who never does anything dangerous and just wants to be left alone then the game won't work.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I've seen those words come up in two real situations that are problematic.

The first is to have them presented as justification for disruptive actions. A PC who steals from other characters can be a problem. The easiest approach is to try and talk with the player and ask them not to have a character do that - at which point you start to here, "That's just how the character acts!" There are certainly other approaches. Coming up with in-character consequences tends to be the most common one, but can also elicit claims that you are picking on that PC.

Either way, I don't think it unreasonable to try to get a potentially disruptive PC to stop acting disruptive, or stop ruining the game for other players.

Two ways to handle this;
1) Let the PC's work it out. If they insist on fighting each other let the other players know that the time spent on their personal squabble will detract from the overall adventure time actually earning XP and loot. Other players may implement internal sanctions against this kind of behavior up to and including fragging the instigator.

2) Warn the player out of game to cut the crap or hit the road.

The other situation is when a PC simply happens to not fit with the plot of the game. Some farmers want to hire the PCs to go slay a black dragon that is ruining their lands. 4 PCs agree, but the last says he won't due it, because he loves dragons. Or has an irrational hatred of farmers. Or will only go if they pay him 10,000 gp.

Now, a DM can just go ahead and run with that - either by having the other PCs go on the adventure and leave him behind (and then either ignore him, or let him RP hanging out in town drinking), or by coming up with some extremely convoluted reason to convince him to go along.

But that doesn't change the fact it can be frustrating for a DM when a PC has some backstory element that puts them completely at odds with the direction of the game.

I outlined a method for dealing with special snowflakes a bit upthread. The player will get the hint or get bored and leave. Either way problem solved.

 

[Kraydak]

...

But that doesn't change the fact it can be frustrating for a DM when a PC has some backstory element that puts them completely at odds with the direction of the game.

Why is it "the PC's backstory is at odds with the direction of the game" rather than "the game's direction is at odds with the PC's backstory"? At character creation, the DM can make requests/demands based on campaign details. After that, the PC's backstory is set and the DM doesn't get to complain.

 

[Dausuul]

That should never happen. Why didn't you read the backstory and go, "Wait a minute? You want to play a homebody misanthrope how loves dragons and hates farmers? I'm afraid that's just not going to work with the rest of the group, and I'm going to have a hard time creating a story for that character to participate in that everyone else will find satisfying. I could run a game for this character if you were the only one playing, but you aren't."

You have to work with the players to come up with character concepts that work both for them and for you and the rest of the group. It's a requirement of wearing the DM hat. I learned this the hard way (and I'm sure most DM's do). You can't just give the players a blank check to create any sort of character that they want and then expect it to work out, and this is particularly true if you have imaginative and sophisticated RPer's for players.

I find it's generally sufficient to get the players together and say, "Okay, guys, plan out your party. The PCs need to have relationships to each other such that you can trace linkages from any character to any other character, and they all need to be motivated and willing to work together." Then sit back and let them hammer out their concepts.

A unified party is generally all I need. I don't so much care what unifies them; they don't have to go in the direction I planned for them to go, just so long as they go somewhere and they do it together.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In trad D&D it's, usually tacitly, agreed that PCs will go to dangerous places and try to gain xp and treasure. If the PCs don't do this then the game doesn't work. Imo if a player says, "My character wouldn't do that." the DM is entirely right to reply, "Yes, he would. By agreeing to play in the game you have signed up to create a PC that will do that."

I would still never tell a player that their character has to do anything. Unless magically compelled, the character is free to not participate and so is the player.

The #1 expectation is that everyone at the game is there to contribute to the entertainment of everyone else. Unwilling participants are free to leave.

 

[MrMyth]

That should never happen. Why didn't you read the backstory and go, "Wait a minute? You want to play a homebody misanthrope how loves dragons and hates farmers? I'm afraid that's just not going to work with the rest of the group, and I'm going to have a hard time creating a story for that character to participate in that everyone else will find satisfying. I could run a game for this character if you were the only one playing, but you aren't."

Sure - but these sort of tidbits aren't guaranteed to show up in the background. Someone's backstory might be that he's an aspiring nobleman looking to make a name for himself. The adventure presents itself, it seems like a good hook for the character to me as the DM, but he decides it would be degrading to 'work for farmers' - "My character wouldn't do that!"

Now, from here, I can try and work with him to either convince him to change his character to be one more functional with the party, or try and invent alternate reasons for him to adventure, or eventually I can give up and try to pressure him by letting his character get bored sitting around uselessly in town.

I don't think I quite agree with this level of DM-blaming you seem to be advocating. There are players out there that will sometimes genuinely just be contrary, whether for good reasons or not, and putting all the fault on that for the DM is just an invitation to set the stage for one bad game after another.

 

[MrMyth]

Two ways to handle this;
1) Let the PC's work it out. If they insist on fighting each other let the other players know that the time spent on their personal squabble will detract from the overall adventure time actually earning XP and loot. Other players may implement internal sanctions against this kind of behavior up to and including fragging the instigator.

2) Warn the player out of game to cut the crap or hit the road.

And that's my point. Up above, you firmly said that a DM should never tell a player what to do or how to act. Now, you are saying it is an acceptable option to tell them to stop acting disruptive or they will get kicked out of the game.

Those are the same thing. There are times and places when a character's behavior isn't going to mesh with the group. At which point the best initial approach, for me, is to try and talk it over with the player and see if they can stop having their character act like that.

If they say that no, they can't, they have to "be true to the character"... well, that's when I would try to curtail their behavior through in-game consequences, or let the other PCs deal with it. Or, ultimately, ask them to leave the game.

I'm largely in agreement with the suggestions you've given on how to handle the problem with such players. It was that initial comment of yours, that a good DM will somehow never run into this sort of situation, that I just didn't quite get.

I would still never tell a player that their character has to do anything. Unless magically compelled, the character is free to not participate and so is the player.

To try and clarify a bit, in the end, I just don't see any real difference between saying:
1) Sorry, Joe, your character has to find a reason to go on the adventure to save the princess; vs
2) Sure, Joe, you don't have to go save the princess! But if you don't, you can't play.

 

[MrMyth]

Why is it "the PC's backstory is at odds with the direction of the game" rather than "the game's direction is at odds with the PC's backstory"? At character creation, the DM can make requests/demands based on campaign details. After that, the PC's backstory is set and the DM doesn't get to complain.

Again, I don't think that from a starting backstory the DM will be able to extrapolate every action a character might take, especially in the case of some players. If a character doesn't specifically say he hates farmers in his backstory, but later decides that is the case halfway through the game, how do you propose the DM respond? Or, say, the character starts acting in a way that is inconsistent with their backstory?

Basically, it feels weird that people think it perfectly ok for the DM to veto any backstory elements at character creation, but it is out of line to be concerned about a character's behavior at any later point in the game, even if it proves disruptive to play.

 

[Rel]

1) Narrating Player Action: You should never tell a player what their character does or how they respond emotionally to something, except in the fringe case of their character being mentally dominated by something (which shouldn't happen very often) as provided by by the rules. You shouldn't do this even as color, nor should you do it as part of a text dump or hook. You shouldn't even do this by expounding on extended action in a scene that occurs as the result of player choice. Every point where there is a player choice between too paths, or where the player can explore and learn new information, you should stop - even where it seems trivial.

It appears that I'm in the minority but I disagree with this pretty strongly. My games benefit significantly when I provide some narration that helps frame the upcoming session and glosses over stuff that would take a long time to play out during the session in minute detail and would, ultimately, not be very engaging for the group as a whole. Let me give an example of what I'm talking about to see if I'm really at odds with most of the posters in this thread:

Let's pretend my campaign has three players, each with one character. Here they are with the basic personalities that the players themselves have established:

Tricksy, the Halfling Rogue - Tricksy has a thirst for knowledge, especially about maps and history. He's shy around women.

Grongar, the Human Barbarian - Grongar is a simple man with simple tastes. He likes beer and he likes wenches. He knows that his chosen profession is likely to result in his death at a young age and he's all about indulging his vices whenever he isn't risking his life.

Snevish, the Human Wizard - Snevish views adventuring as a means to an end. He wishes to open a school of wizardry and that's going to take a lot of money. He takes every opportunity to grow his fortune by making good investments with the loot he gains by adventuring.

So, last session, the party arrived at the town of Stinkport after making their way through the many dangers of the Fetid Swamp and were able to turn in a bunch of Lizardman Heads for a bounty. I'm trying to frame the action for the next adventure, but I'm not sure what exactly that will be. I have a few things prepared and want to figure out what direction they are headed. So, the day after our game night I send out the following e-mail:

"Over the course of the next week you grow familiar with Stinkport. You had already indicated that you were fine to stay at the Barnacled Anchor Inn because the innkeeper, Belik, regarded you as heroes for slaying so many of the accursed Lizardmen that slew his brother. As such he's cutting you a low rate on your rooms.

He's also cutting Grongar a low rate on ale, which Grongar proceeds to consume in large quantities. Grongar is also cutting a swath of conquest through most of the serving wenches as the week progresses. Belik is fairly tolerant of Grongar's behavior in general as many other patrons are coming into the Anchor to hear his tales from the swamp. Amid the debauchery, Grongar hears from some of the wenches that it's been a while since they were "with a proper man since the sailors don't seem to come to town much anymore". He also picks up from some of the other patrons that the Coast Road to Kingsport across the border with Faldren is dangerous and trade is light.

Meanwhile Tricksy has been at the Temple of Shaldra, Goddess of Knowledge. There he meets the head archivist, a female elf name Kaella. After stumbling over their initial meeting she points Tricksy to a cramped room crammed with maps and books, which he dives into with relish. Among other things he finds some documents referring to the new king of Faldren who ascended the throne a couple of years ago. It seems that since that time the area has been beset by more pirates than usual. A look through some of the maps shows a multitude of small islands located off the coast within a couple days sail of Stinkport.

Snevish spends the majority of his time meandering through the Merchant Quarter and the Docks looking for a place to sell some of the Drake Blood that he collected in the Swamp. He is told that there is little market for it here but there might be at the University in Kingsport or at the College of Arcanum on the island of Skyfall. But the prices he is quoted here are terribly low. When he asks further about that he's told that the merchants traveling the Coast Road have high overhead because they must hire large numbers of guards. The ship captains are clearly afraid to venture west toward Skyfall due to an increase in piracy. Both the merchant caravans and the ship captains seem interested in hiring the party as protection for their respective ventures.

Let me know what you guys want to do so I can plan for next session..."


So tell me, is that wrong in your opinion?