Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="el-remmen" data-source="post: 8242009" data-attributes="member: 11">The &quot;I'm just playing my character&quot; brings up to me an approach to role-playing I try to encourage (to various degrees of success, and the degree to which some players were unable to follow me there has led to parting ways):If you come upon a situation where the rest of the party wants to (or doesn't want to) do something or you want to do something they don't agree with and you defensively want to react to it by saying &quot;I'm just playing my character,&quot; try working backwards. Start with assuming that your character will (or won't) do it (depending on which breaks the deadlock) and then figure out the reasoning necessary to keep that choice &quot;in character&quot; to the most degree. If that can't work for some reason (the rest of the party wants to sacrifice an innocent child to keep a demon at bay but you're playing an LG paladin or something), then the discussion should move OOC to find a way the characters can move forward without dissolving the party.I am not saying conflict and disagreement needs to always be avoided - but when it becomes a cluster of acrimony or a way too long argument at the table, find a way through, so we can keep playing.Edit to Add: For some players the argument is the playing, but I have a limited tolerance for that style - esp. if it happens too often. The last 3E game I ran had too much of that (endless in-character arguing) and I wasn't all that disappointed when that game had to end - but at least they weren't arguing over murder-hobo-ism but rather minute in-character political differences and motivations for choosing adventures to go on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="el-remmen, post: 8242009, member: 11"] The "I'm just playing my character" brings up to me an approach to role-playing I try to encourage (to various degrees of success, and the degree to which some players were unable to follow me there has led to parting ways): If you come upon a situation where the rest of the party wants to (or doesn't want to) do something or you want to do something they don't agree with and you defensively want to react to it by saying "I'm just playing my character," try working backwards. Start with assuming that your character will (or won't) do it (depending on which breaks the deadlock) and then figure out the reasoning necessary to keep that choice "in character" to the most degree. If that can't work for some reason (the rest of the party wants to sacrifice an innocent child to keep a demon at bay but you're playing an LG paladin or something), then the discussion should move OOC to find a way the characters can move forward without dissolving the party. I am not saying conflict and disagreement needs to always be avoided - but when it becomes a cluster of acrimony or a way too long argument at the table, find a way through, so we can keep playing. Edit to Add: For some players the argument [I]is[/I] the playing, but I have a limited tolerance for that style - esp. if it happens too often. The last 3E game I ran had too much of that (endless in-character arguing) and I wasn't all that disappointed when that game had to end - but at least they weren't arguing over murder-hobo-ism but rather minute in-character political differences and motivations for choosing adventures to go on. [/QUOTE]

Verification