D&D General What are your reasons for doing something because "It's what my character would do"?

[pukunui]

I think there may be times when there's a differences between wanting to play a character who's a coward, likely because they want some arc where said character overcomes that cowardice, and the player being risk-averse, basically not wanting to be in melee because that's a higher likelihood of being attacked = their character dying. I suppose you could call it being selfish in a team game.

I've got a player in my home game right now who's developed a healthy fear of melee combat, so she's playing a vengeance paladin who tries to avoid melee as much as possible and once even ran away, abandoning the rest of the team. (Admittedly, she was very badly injured and was retreating to the party's room at the inn rather than just running away forever, but I nevertheless had the bad guy whose base they'd infiltrated catch up to her and taunt her with words to the effect of "A templar of the Silver Flame who runs from combat and leaves her friends to die? How unusual!" She convinced the paladin to turn around and go back with her. She called off her guards, and then she and the party made a deal.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've got an associated player who is notoriously risk-averse. She isn't averse to getting work done, but she's always vaguely resentful when her character gets attacked, and will try and position herself so that happens a minimal amount of time. Only good thing is she's not prone to avoiding it so much she gets nothing done, but as far as I can tell her attitude is "taking damage is for other people" given any chance.

 

[payn]

Someone gets it!

Someone finally gets it!!!

What happens in character stays in character.

Separation of self and character is the key element here; that you and Bob at the table can laugh about his character's thieving and resulting expulsion from the party even while in the game your characters are plotting how to murder each other.

Not everybody enjoys nyuck nyuck play.

 

[TiQuinn]

Someone gets it!

Someone finally gets it!!!

What happens in character stays in character.

Separation of self and character is the key element here; that you and Bob at the table can laugh about his character's thieving and resulting expulsion from the party even while in the game your characters are plotting how to murder each other.

You took away that they were laughing about it afterwards?

 

[DammitVictor]

If I had a fellow player and their character stole from me and justified it by "That's what my character would do" then I would feel entitled to tell them in character that I will no longer adventure with them. After all, "That's what my character would do."

As a much wiser man once told me, the difference between a villain and a supervillain is presentation.

 

[Richards]

I once played a cowardly PC, and designed him that way on purpose, because my son was building a Skylanders-based D&D game to introduce my nephew (who was 10 years old at the time) to RPGs, and we decided we'd be running a two-player campaign where my nephew was the main character and I was the sidekick. My PC, a humanoid crow named Sam Crow, was a ranger/rogue and an absolute coward, whose battle cry upon seeing danger was, "Let's get out of here!" But that's when my nephew's PC, a humanoid sheep baabarian/cleric named Baabby, would rush into battle and Sam would be forced to follow along, because he knew deep down the safest place to be was standing right next to the hulking Courageous Sheep of Legend.

That whole campaign was me keeping Sam in the background so Baabby could have the spotlight. When it came time to pick my ranger's animal companion, for example, I went with a snail, who pretty much did nothing but sit on Sam's shoulder. But it worked: soon thereafter, my nephew joined our regular D&D game.

Johnathan

 

[The Sigil]

We've all heard the phrase. We've all heard the horror stories. Maybe we've used it ourselves.

How do you use it, and why?

For me, the most frequent use case can be summed up as "player knowledge is not character knowledge."

I, as the player, may be able to use (metagame) knowledge to understand what the most optimal decision in a given situation is.

My character does not know they are in a game and certainly isn't going to apply metagame logic to come up with the optimal decision. My character may in fact come up with a very un-optimized solution ... but one that is true to what the character would do based on the character's knowledge and experience in the game world ("yes, I've read the Monster Manual and know that this obscure monster has resistance to slashing damage... but my axe-wielding CHARACTER hasn't encountered this foe before and hasn't read the Monster Manual and therefore wouldn't have any way to know this foe has resistance to slashing damage so there is no reason to drop the axe and reach for a warhammer").

It's NOT used for "I, the player, want my character to be a jerk."

 

[el-remmen]

I have certainly used the phrase but at the moment I cannot remember a specific instance because it has been literal decades.

That said, I have mixed feelings about it because on the one hand, ideally for my style of play I want us all to embody our character and see the world through their eyes.

On the other hand, my most recent experiences of hearing that phrase from someone else was when they were questioned about a series of choices that were creating a slog and frustrating everyone else at the table including me, the DM, without providing much in the way of fun or frisson, or revelation.

Personally, when I find that “what my character would do” is at odds with the rest of the party and the conflict is just not gonna be fun for the table, I turn it around and simply figure out a course of action that does jibe with everyone one to enough of a degree and then justify that action to myself. In other words, what does my character have to think to agree to this? And then I think it.

And that’s because even if it is what your character would do, you are the one who decides what that is and there is a lot more range in behavior than many people care to admit. So while there are some definitive lines a character may not cross (a paladin killing those who has surrendered perhaps), in general you can figure out a way for lots of things to fit your character’s thinking in that moment.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, and if that's what the other characters would have done then IMO they should bloody well have done it long since.

Just because a character is someone's PC doesn't and shouldn't make it immune to such things.

Absolutely. But that's where the meta issue comes in, where the players don't do things they think their PCs would do because "out of game" they are trying to be nice or keep the peace. And I don't blame them necessarily for that, because group dynamics can be very tricky things.

 

[billd91]

What happens in character stays in character.

Separation of self and character is the key element here; that you and Bob at the table can laugh about his character's thieving and resulting expulsion from the party even while in the game your characters are plotting how to murder each other.

In a word: No. In a few more words: whether "but I'm just playing my character" is a sufficient justification or not for behavior depends a lot more on the relationship of the player to the group. I guarantee there are people who are just disruptive and will grief other players through their PCs because they're simply dicks. "I'm just playing my character" is never sufficient justification for that kind of behavior. Period.

Why? Because if I'm playing a character true to itself - which, IMO, should always be priority number one - then that in-character truth-to-self should take precedence over out-of-game considerations every time.

And this doesn't always mean being a jerk or having the character be nasty to the party etc. Sometimes playing a character true means sacrificing it to save the party, or role-playing it out of the party if the party have become too mercenary, and so on - because it's what the character would do.

Priority number one should be working with the other players and DM to make an enjoyable gaming experience. And that may take some kinds of characters off the table for that particular group and that particular campaign. That's being a responsible player. I have no time for irresponsible players at my table.