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

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm glad that some folk can enjoy playing this way- I've never been comfortable with it. It was never worth the stress, but I have some degree of social anxiety n' all that fun stuff.


That's definitely a big help, but resolving interparty conflict in-character has never sat well with me. Again, just my experience- I'd say yours is the exception, not the rule, but again I'm glad that it works for you.. I just wouldn't recommend it for everyone

100% the same for me.

The frustration and constant, draining effort of dealing with all the fallout, over and over and over, of constantly disengaging myself from the story and character so I won't feel any emotions about it, of keeping the game at arm's length...it both sours the joyful moments and deadens most of the excitement I would feel.

It's much easier to just work with folks to begin with, to make something that CAN produce conflict, in reasonable situations, but mostly produces cooperation toward our shared goals. And I'm completely with you that most people aren't super interested in that "absolutely no emotional investment"+"constantly putting in effort to avoid IRL conflict arising from character conflict" combo.

 

[môrgondír]

Perhaps this is why I don't play anymore, despite being given a couple of opportunities to try playing in two different online campaigns.

If I were offered some possible loot and some possible treasure (there are rumors that an old, mysterious cave contains within it a new PC, the latest iPhone, and $100,000 cash) to go off with a group of strangers on an adventure, I do not see myself doing it.

That a character I play in a game would feel any different than I do, despite that he'd be possibly be getting 1,000 gold pieces and magic +1 dagger (were the adventure successful) would feel strange or be difficult to reconcile.

The traditional rewards do not seem to be sufficient incentivization anymore. There would need to be something else - a really good motivational hook.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Oh, sure.

What's different, perhaps, between my view and that of the general community is that I'm usually fine with so-called disruptive play as long as it stays in character, because if it's what the character would do then it's what the character should be doing.

I wonder if your way of thinking on this goes hand-in-hand with what I've gathered about the way your table runs and plays from reading your posts over the years? Wherein it seems (to me) that your campaigns tend to appear much less about specific characters and more so on the experiences of the players? A player can have character after character die, but that's fine, because it's the player who is the one getting to experience everything the campaign has to offer, and not any one specific character. So with regards to "that's what my character would do!" character behavior... since the characters in your games seem to appear more disposable than other posters' games here (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as like I said this idea I have is merely from just how you've talked about your games in the past, not from any concrete knowledge)... if a character is a jerk, that's completely fine because there's a good chance its going to get killed soon anyway (either from events in-game or perhaps even the other PCs throwing the character out of the group because that's also "what their characters would do"). It's a character behavior that will come and go just as all the characters continually come and go throughout the life of your campaign.

I could be completely off on this... and I fully admit this is me just spitballing... but I do have to think that when there is out-of-game knowledge by the players that a disruptive character is not going to be one they are going to have to deal with or suffer under for years on end... it's probably much easier to just laugh that character's actions off. But please feel free to let me know if I'm way off.

 

[AlViking]

I wonder if your way of thinking on this goes hand-in-hand with what I've gathered about the way your table runs and plays from reading your posts over the years? Wherein it seems (to me) that your campaigns tend to appear much less about specific characters and more so on the experiences of the players? A player can have character after character die, but that's fine, because it's the player who is the one getting to experience everything the campaign has to offer, and not any one specific character. So with regards to "that's what my character would do!" character behavior... since the characters in your games seem to appear more disposable than other posters' games here (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as like I said this idea I have is merely from just how you've talked about your games in the past, not from any concrete knowledge)... if a character is a jerk, that's completely fine because there's a good chance its going to get killed soon anyway (either from events in-game or perhaps even the other PCs throwing the character out of the group because that's also "what their characters would do"). It's a character behavior that will come and go just as all the characters continually come and go throughout the life of your campaign.

I could be completely off on this... and I fully admit this is me just spitballing... but I do have to think that when there is out-of-game knowledge by the players that a disruptive character is not going to be one they are going to have to deal with or suffer under for years on end... it's probably much easier to just laugh that character's actions off. But please feel free to let me know if I'm way off.

It is the approach some old school gamers, and current games, take. That the character is more of an avatar than anything. Doesn't mean the players can't enjoy a specific character or be committed to playing a specific personality but all characters are disposable. Kind of like how I'm on death #146 in my Stalker 2 game (it gives you the count every time you die), half the fun is just trying to survive.

Certainly a different attitude than many modern gamers and my attitude towards most of my characters but it can be fun for a lot of people.

 

[Sausages]

1. Act as per The Social Contract

“what my character” would do is naughty word.
You chose the character.

If it ruins other player’s fun: YatA


2. Sausages

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps this is why I don't play anymore, despite being given a couple of opportunities to try playing in two different online campaigns.

If I were offered some possible loot and some possible treasure (there are rumors that an old, mysterious cave contains within it a new PC, the latest iPhone, and $100,000 cash) to go off with a group of strangers on an adventure, I do not see myself doing it.

That a character I play in a game would feel any different than I do, despite that he'd be possibly be getting 1,000 gold pieces and magic +1 dagger (were the adventure successful) would feel strange or be difficult to reconcile.

The traditional rewards do not seem to be sufficient incentivization anymore. There would need to be something else - a really good motivational hook.

This seems to suggest an inability to understand that other people have different drives and motivations than you do, or at least an unwillingness to engage with that.

 

[môrgondír]

This seems to suggest an inability to understand that other people have different drives and motivations than you do, or at least an unwillingness to engage with that.

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.

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

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?

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

 

[plecostomus]

My cleric had an encounter with the cursed Wish gem in Tomb of Horrors, which caused him to lose the ability to hold gemstones, including diamonds for resurrection spells. In a more recent quest he acquired a special diamond that not only had limitless value in terms of spell component usage, but was of a sufficiently weird composition that it did not trigger my cleric's curse and he could hold it. We called it the "lumpy diamond".

The DM seemed to think my cleric might use this to help the party at some point. But no, he used it to resurrect a child who has no ability to do anything useful for the party.

In a past life my cleric was affiliated with Ilmater, who is not officially a patron of children or the dead, but has a personality trait that he is especially caring towards children and young creatures of all kinds. I carried that unofficial trait into my cleric's doctrine. These days he is Lawful Evil, but sensitivity to the lives of kids is one of the things that keeps him from acts of mass destruction...most of the time anyway.

So on the one hand, "what my character would do" is used to keep my cleric on a leash. But on the other hand, it did cause him to flush a priceless diamond for no mechanical benefit.

 

[GothmogIV]

While playing the 5e version of LotR, my character--a halfling scholar--made it very clear to his party that he did not want to go into Moria. It was decided, naturally, that we were going to Moria. While in Moria, he made it clear that he wanted to get out as soon as possible, and when the opportunity presented itself, he was the first to escape (up a rope to the surface of a mountain). However, a battle began to rage down below, and my halfling didn't climb back down to help, resulting in the death of one of the PCs.

That, to me, is role-playing: he was afraid, and he said again and again that he wanted out ASAP. I could have said, well, my little guy's arrows will make a difference in the battle (they would have), but he was too scared to go back down.Now, when our campaign begins again, he will have to deal with the consequences of his choices.

That, to me, is making decisions in character.

 

[Sausages]

Great Roleplaying

The LotR has absolutely no examples of scared hobbits stepping up.

Im sure there were no earlier opportunities to play scared with lower stakes.

And then sacrificing someone else's character on the altar of your “Roleplaying”! [chef’s kiss]