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

[GothmogIV]

Thanks, friend! It was a memorable moment for sure.
I should have added: in the game there is a mechanic called "shadow points," which lead characters into bad directions if they accumulate too many. Little Mr. Man had a bunch, and was on 'the path of despair,' which means he struggled with acts of courage. Still: epic moment. Super dramatic and emotional for all of us.

 

[Umbran]

Most of my action declarations are because that's what the character would do. Like, that's playing a role, right?

But then, most of my action declarations are not things that would cause issues for other players at the table, so there's no problem.

When I realize that "what the character would do" is not suitable for the meta-concern of playing a game with other humans, then I change what the character would do. Real humans I am playing with are more important than my ideas of character of the moment.

 

[DammitVictor]

Remember, in the real world people go on killing sprees because they think a pizza parlor is harboring human traffickers, because they feel entitled to sex they're not getting, or simply because they "don't like mondays."

Remember in the real world that I don't have to put up with those people or their behavior at my kitchen table, and they don't have plot armor that protects them from public ridicule, blanket parties, or law enforcement.

In the real world, people  applaud when playing CN games wins you CE prizes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

An inability to understand? Perhaps. It feels more like apathy towards the rewards than deficiency, but the circumstances might be compelling in a specific case.

I'm just saying the fact something does not feel rewarding to you says nothing about it not being rewarding to a character. The former means, in practice, you can't or are uninterested in playing any character driven by things that wouldn't drive you, and at the least that pretty much adds up to you only wanting avatar or token play to some extent (which, okay, no-bad-wrong-fun, but you should at least understand its not the way a lot of people approach it).

If one is already comfortable where they are, then there just doesn't seem sufficient reason to engage risk.

"Comfortable" and "satisfied" are not entirely synonomous.

If there is a hermit wizard, and he has a small hovel that is either hidden or very isolated, and he has some means of accessing lore by occasionally traveling to a nearby city's library or the home of the city's master wizard with whom he is on good terms, does he have motivation to join up with a bunch of adventurers hanging out in a tavern that want him to accompany them for adventure?

Depends. Is he interested in doing things other than what his current resources provide?

I guess it might depend on what's being offered. He might, but I could also see that he might not.

That just means you're only playing the wizard who "might".

 

[DammitVictor]

"It's what my character would do" is, in fact, entirely sufficient justification for any reasonably in-character action you assign to your PC in the game. It's what your character would do.

The thing about Thermian Arguments is that they don't exist in the game's narrative-- inside the fiction, they're just arguments, and they're usually compelling. It's what they're there for.

What it doesn't justify is your OOC and metagame decision to play a character that ruins other players' fun and relies upon the social contract-- that you're violating-- to force them to tolerate. You are not your character; the people at your gaming table are your friends and you should play the game in a way that takes their enjoyment of the game into account.

The thing about Thermian Arguments outside of the fiction is that they're something a real person invented outside of the fiction and inserted into the fiction-- for reasons-- and it's those OOC, Doylist reasons that  they are being held accountable for.

The PC is following the story's narrative logic because they're part of the story; they're not the ones at fault for telling the story that way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"It's what my character would do" is, in fact, entirely sufficient justification for any reasonably in-character action you assign to your PC in the game. It's what your character would do.

The thing about Thermian Arguments is that they don't exist in the game's narrative-- inside the fiction, they're just arguments, and they're usually compelling. It's what they're there for.

What it doesn't justify is your OOC and metagame decision to play a character that ruins other players' fun and relies upon the social contract-- that you're violating-- to force them to tolerate. You are not your character; the people at your gaming table are your friends and you should play the game in a way that takes their enjoyment of the game into account.

The thing about Thermian Arguments outside of the fiction is that they're something a real person invented outside of the fiction and inserted into the fiction-- for reasons-- and it's those OOC, Doylist reasons that  they are being held accountable for.

The PC is following the story's narrative logic because they're part of the story; they're not the ones at fault for telling the story that way.

I generally agree with this, but I do have to note its possible for someone to find themselves in a situation where to play their character outside a specific way in some specific situations violates the psychological integrity they have for the character sufficiently that it is extremely disruptive not only to their current enjoyment, but to their ongoing enjoyment of playing the character.

This is, however, almost always an indication of a breakdown in process somewhere along the way, whether its the player's understanding of possible events in the campaign (or disregarding that those might happen and force their hand), or the GM or another player ignoring that they have created a situation that backs the player into a corner (or not understanding the seriousness with which they engage with their character so that they don't see it as such.

Any way you cut it, it may not be so much a violation of the social contract in the moment as a failure of the social process of arriving their in the first place on one or more people's part.

 

[DammitVictor]

... but I do have to note its possible for someone to find themselves in a situation where to play their character outside a specific way [...] is extremely disruptive not only to their current enjoyment, but to their ongoing enjoyment of playing the character.

Yep. There are reasons I never played Paladins in editions where Paladins could Fall. I don't mind having to walk a line-- but I object to having to guess where that line is while dealing with someone who wants me to cross it.

There's be nothing wrong with D&D if I didn't have to play it with other people.

 

[môrgondír]

I've played characters that were driven by goals or ideals that wouldn't drive me.

The most recent Paladin I played (which was twenty years ago) falls into that category. Playing him was fun, but the other characters in the party were not like him at all in terms of their motivations and goals (they pretty much thought he was just another goody-goody).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've played characters that were driven by goals or ideals that wouldn't drive me.

The most recent Paladin I played (which was twenty years ago) falls into that category. Playing him was fun, but the other characters in the party were not like him at all in terms of their motivations and goals (they pretty much thought he was just another goody-goody).

I'm just saying that it seems odd to be bothered by some characters being driven by money for its own sake, when there are very obviously people in the real world who are.

(You can occasionally ask if they've chosen the most effective way to get that money, but even when that question can be answered "no", its not like people can't be blind to such things.)

 

[Umbran]

I generally agree with this, but I do have to note its possible for someone to find themselves in a situation where to play their character outside a specific way in some specific situations violates the psychological integrity they have for the character sufficiently that it is extremely disruptive not only to their current enjoyment, but to their ongoing enjoyment of playing the character.

Sure. But there are lots of things that are disruptive to ongoing enjoyment of playing a character - character death being the most obvious.

Playing a game with other people will almost certainly involve some amount of compromise. You can't always get what you want, as the man said.

This is, however, almost always an indication of a breakdown in process somewhere along the way, whether its the player's understanding of possible events in the campaign (or disregarding that those might happen and force their hand), or the GM or another player ignoring that they have created a situation that backs the player into a corner (or not understanding the seriousness with which they engage with their character so that they don't see it as such.

(emphasis mine)
This is just "but that's what my character would do" by that other player.