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

[DEFCON 1]

A lot of my issues when people use the "that's what my character would do!" reasoning is that while it might work for that one specific instance when they do something counter to the desires of the rest of the group... that reasoning when taken to its logical conclusion means the character should never have gotten to that point in the first place. Because they would have left the adventuring party or been thrown out by the others in the party much, much earlier.

For instance... any time a PLAYER makes a cowardly PC that runs away from most fights without having specific instances or reasons as to when they wouldn't run away, or when they would actually fight against their fears and stay and battle because they knew they had to to be a good friend and party member... my first question would be "Why the heck is this character still going out adventuring if they are so afraid of being hurt? And why are the rest of the party members still dragging their sorry ass around with them?" (other than the other PLAYERS agreeing to do so because the first PLAYER wants to play the D&D game with them.) But that's an entirely out-of-game conceit-- the PLAYER is allowed to have their PC stick around the group because they want to play D&D... even though there is zero reason in-game why their character would remain with them with the way they are behaving. If the only reason one can give as to why this PC is still with the group is because the PLAYER wants to play D&D... that tells us that something is really wrong with that character they created.

I think having character flaws for your PC is fantastic when you use them as something to fight against in your nature. When your character wants to behave a certain way but can't (or won't) because they know if they wish to remain with this group of friends and acquaintances and continue to adventure with them and accomplish their goals... they have to subsume their desires most of the time and be a good doobie. Like if your PC is Greedy... it is narratively more interesting and less intrusive to the game when your PC is fighting against being greedy for the good of the group, rather than just stealing everything in sight. Your character may WANT to steal everything... but the more you can play it such that they don't, and thus not cause issues every single day in every single town because you aren't pickpocketing or breaking and entering everything in sight just because "that's what my character would do!"... it keeps the game moving forward and keeps it more fun for everyone. But even better... by being a good doobie most of the time and fighting against not doing what your character really wants... it gives you as the Player the license to perhaps have that ONE TIME when you let your PC make that "big mistake" and take something that actually causes a lot of problems for everyone in the group. If you have been purposefully holding back on your PC being a jerk and causing issues because it makes for a more interesting characterization and helps explain why the party might actually be willing to keep you around (because of all the other good things you add to the party)... they are going to be more willing to just have fun and run with it when that big oopsie! happens. And they'll be just as interested to see what happens and what they are going to have to do to get out of it that one time you finally let your PC loose.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think “it’s what my character would do” is a good reason to do something you might not in their shoes. It’s not an excuse to be a jerk.

 

[Basic Expert]

One of the major joys of RPGs is playing a character other than yourself. Doing something because it's what your character would do is essentially the game. However, it should never be used to justify obnoxious, toxic or narcissistic behavior towards other players.

My self-imposed guidelines for being a player are:

1. Create a character in keeping with the spirit and tone of the game.

2. Create a character that wants to engage in the content of the game.

3. Create a character that wants or needs to work with the other PCs. If playing an unsavory or problematic PC, soften any negative traits when dealing directly with other PCs.

4. Create a character that has a point of view or goals. Advocate for those positions IC, but understand that other PCs might have other priorities and you might be outvoted.

5. If circumstances threaten to cross a red line for your character ("Sir Duncan the Honorable would never kill prisoners!"), be willing to talk to the group OOC to try to find a solution every one is happy with.

6. Share the spotlight. Let other PCs do their thing. Let other PCs follow their own interests. If Myrad the Mystical is seriously into a 15 minute lore dump by an NPC, don't have your Bruto the Barbarian get bored and act out (even if he has the trait of "Can't sit still for 15 minutes").

7. Character foibles are as much fun to play as character strengths. Maybe your PC can't lie or is afraid of the dark or is a compulsive shoplifter. Foibles can cause problems for your PC and the party, but shouldn't be used as an excuse to blow up the campaign. However, this one really depends on the group and the campaign and should be covered in a Session 0.

8. Always know what the party goal is and work towards it. Drive the adventure forward as much as possible.

9. Know what your character can do and always be ready when your turn comes up. Have a rough idea of what you're going to do and do it as quickly as possible. Don't spend 5 minutes flipping through books looking for the spell descriptions or keywords.

10. Don't be adversarial with the GM. Let them run their game and their adventure their way. If something is unclear, ask clarifying questions. If something seems unfair, just go with it--it's only a game. If something is awesome, say so. Always thank them for the time and effort they put into the game.

 

[Kurotowa]

3. Create a character that wants or needs to work with the other PCs. If playing an unsavory or problematic PC, soften any negative traits when dealing directly with other PCs.

4. Create a character that has a point of view or goals. Advocate for those positions IC, but understand that other PCs might have other priorities and you might be outvoted.

Very much this. Too many players get sucked into the viewpoint of their character and lose sight of the fact that before they're an actor in the story they're an author of it too. And you have to stage manage your characters for a good game and a good story.

Back in 3e I had a Warlock PC who was not the nicest person. He believed that you did whatever was necessary to complete the mission and that the best kill was overkill. He was, however, something of a religious man, even if he knew that he personally often fell short. So he held the party's Paladin in the highest regard and would always defer to her judgment, even when he was the one suggesting the quick and dirty solution that she was rejecting. This was arranged before the campaign started and let me strike a balance between being true to the character and not disrupting the party or the game.

If the character is naturally a coward or a backstabber, then either script a reason why they're willing to go against those instincts and fight for the party, or bring a different PC to the table. If they want nothing more than to retire to run a cozy little tavern on the edge of town, and that's going to be within their means after just a couple of adventures, then either find a reason they need to keep adventuring or accept that this is an NPC and you need a different one as your PC.

 

[AlViking]

I've got to admit ... I don't understand people who play characters that are cowards, especially when it's to the detriment of the other players or it's every single character they play. Because it seems like almost every time I play (I DM more than I play), I have to run a front line fighter type (even when it was a 2014 monk) because every other player is ranged attacks, the rogue that darts in and out of combat or some other variant who's entire goal in playing is to take as little damage as possible when it means all the attacks are always focused on a different character. Play the wizard who stands in the back sometimes? Cool, it makes sense the wizard doesn't want to be front line. Do it every single campaign? When is it my turn?

Anyway, sorry about the rant. It just kind of seems like some people sign up to be the equivalent of firefighters but only if they never have to get exposed to smoke, much less an actual burning building.

 

[billd91]

Play the wizard who stands in the back sometimes? Cool, it makes sense the wizard doesn't want to be front line. Do it every single campaign? When is it my turn?

When you TELL them it’s your turn. If you have a regular group, they SHOULD accept that. If not, you’re playing with the wrong people.

 

[Ramhorn]

I've got to admit ... I don't understand people who play characters that are cowards, especially when it's to the detriment of the other players or it's every single character they play. Because it seems like almost every time I play (I DM more than I play), I have to run a front line fighter type (even when it was a 2014 monk) because every other player is ranged attacks, the rogue that darts in and out of combat or some other variant who's entire goal in playing is to take as little damage as possible when it means all the attacks are always focused on a different character. Play the wizard who stands in the back sometimes? Cool, it makes sense the wizard doesn't want to be front line. Do it every single campaign? When is it my turn?

Anyway, sorry about the rant. It just kind of seems like some people sign up to be the equivalent of firefighters but only if they never have to get exposed to smoke, much less an actual burning building.

If I am playing a character of a personality type very different than my own, and I think what I perceive them doing would take the story in an interesting direction, I'll likely do what the character would do.

This isn't excusing being a murderhobo or making every other players time at the table less enjoyable, I just think that sometimes your character having a strong ideology or way of looking at the world creates interesting lines for them to cross or not. This especially works well if you make a character who already has friction with the way the world works in your setting.

Speaking of playing a coward, last time I was a PC I played a middle aged ranger who was a highwayman. He was not a brave man, and while he didn't want to be on the front line, he would stay there until things looked like they were going south. He would not be above climbing up a tree to escape to higher ground if it meant leaving squishier PCs to fend for themselves. I think it worked for our group because he was something of a farcical character who made no amends about being a good person, and openly was proud of his occupation as a criminal. If you're going to play a character with flaws, it's important to set expectations early.

 

[lall]

I've played a Warlock who was famously a coward, running from combat whenever things began to look grim for the party. Like a hero!

Brave, IMO. Beginning at level 3, every first round = Rope Trick for my mage. Lots of ways to rationalize it. Combat is triggering and he needs his safe space. Lost his car keys and he’s pretty sure they’re in that portal somewhere. Too cute to die. Party won’t have to expend resources healing him, etc.

 

[Distracted DM]

I've got to admit ... I don't understand people who play characters that are cowards, especially when it's to the detriment of the other players or it's every single character they play. Because it seems like almost every time I play (I DM more than I play), I have to run a front line fighter type (even when it was a 2014 monk) because every other player is ranged attacks, the rogue that darts in and out of combat or some other variant who's entire goal in playing is to take as little damage as possible when it means all the attacks are always focused on a different character. Play the wizard who stands in the back sometimes? Cool, it makes sense the wizard doesn't want to be front line. Do it every single campaign? When is it my turn?

Anyway, sorry about the rant. It just kind of seems like some people sign up to be the equivalent of firefighters but only if they never have to get exposed to smoke, much less an actual burning building.

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 don't love those character arc ideas of "my character is a rude jerk who'll eventually come 'round to grudging acceptance of being part of the group" or "my character's a coward who'll eventually find that he needs to stand up and fight to make a difference" because you're likely putting the rest of the group through this whole pain in the arse months-long arc so you can hope to satisfy a narrative desire... unless they talk about it with the group first, and the group is OK with it. Though I also think that sort of thing pressures people to say "ok" rather than object to someone else's fun.. but they need to know that their fun is important too. Ugh. Sort of just makes everything more difficult.

Also, DnD generally has a lot of combat. It's probably not great to put your group at a disadvantage because a good portion of their team will be less effective... unless, I guess, the GM is in on it and either pulls punches or makes the game easier to account for the coward.

 

[payn]

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 don't love those character arc ideas of "my character is a rude jerk who'll eventually come 'round to grudging acceptance of being part of the group" or "my character's a coward who'll eventually find that he needs to stand up and fight to make a difference" because you're likely putting the rest of the group through this whole pain in the arse months-long arc so you can hope to satisfy a narrative desire... unless they talk about it with the group first, and the group is OK with it. Though I also think that sort of thing pressures people to say "ok" rather than object to someone else's fun.. but they need to know that their fun is important too. Ugh. Sort of just makes everything more difficult.

Also, DnD generally has a lot of combat. It's probably not great to put your group at a disadvantage because a good portion of their team will be less effective... unless, I guess, the GM is in on it and either pulls punches or makes the game easier to account for the coward.

Im far more likely to buy into this arc idea than the absolutist archetype. The absolutists are the types that just declare things like "Tobin the palladin destroys all undead" and they proceed to do so regardless of context even if it means the only result is essentially suicide for dear Tobin. Folks like this play essentially a one dimensional caricature instead of an actual character in the game setting.

On the other hand, sometimes GMs miss the signs that Charlie wants to play a palladin that gets to kill lots of undead. So, they either don't include any, or they set up a scenario where the players have to work with undead as allies all the time. Even worse, is sometimes GMs will do it on purpose to mess with an absolutist player.

However it plays out at the table, usually there is some break down of the out of character and in character communication in a way that is disruptive. Player or GM thinks they will fix/resolve the situation in game only. What makes "what my character would do" so powerful is that its not incorrect as far as role play goes, but it also doesnt mean its ok for you to be a butthole. YMMV.