World Hopping, Character Conversion, and Tying Characters into Adventures

[Darth Ultron]

Well, the basic, but vague question is: Is a Character that is played long term more developed then a Character that is just created? Well, that vague answer is yes.

You really do go off on a tangent talking about ''the character'' and how they, um, ''emerge'' and ''do things'', but I guess such thoughts are common among many gamers.

But I think you are over looking the Big Thing in Reality: It is You the Player, and nothing else. This question has nothing at all to do with the fictional character, and everything to do about the Real Player.

It does not matter how long a character is played, it matters what the Player thinks and does. A non role playing type of player, can play the same character for years, and even today they will be exactly the same as the very day the character was created. This is even more true for the non role players that ''just play as themselves''.

A character can never grow and change, not really, only a Player can grow and change: If the Player has the Opportunity, Will, Ability and Desire the Player can change and grow; and then and only then can the player role play fictional (but not real) growth and change in the character.

After all if the Player is Closed Minded and never changes or grows to any real extent, then they can't fake role playing that happening to their character.

When people say a fictional character or object ''did'' something, they really mean THEY did something. But this is very human: It is very common to project things outside of ones self to ''see'' them better. And this is very much true with creating things: very often a song or story or such ''is great'' in the mind....but once it's 'put on paper' and made for 'real' it is often not so great.

You can't ever really know a fictional character well, both as they are not real and it would be impossible to write out a trillion or so pages about them. But then most people don't really know all that much about themselves, so how can they be an expert on another character?

[Quertus]

But I think you are over looking the Big Thing in Reality: It is You the Player, and nothing else. This question has nothing at all to do with the fictional character, and everything to do about the Real Player.

It does not matter how long a character is played, it matters what the Player thinks and does. A non role playing type of player, can play the same character for years, and even today they will be exactly the same as the very day the character was created. This is even more true for the non role players that ''just play as themselves''.

You know, your way of looking at it is quite possibly optimal here. Attention is finite. For a new character, you are learning their mechanics, learning their personality / who they are, etc. Whereas, for an old character, these things are old hat, the character fits like a well-worn shoe, and you can focus your attention on role-playing. I remember one actor commenting, on the night of the last performance, that he finally "got" his character, that he was now ready to actually act the part.

I'd say that, from this PoV, it would be easy to see why I prefer established characters, why I'd like to actually roleplay a character in a role-playing game.

A character can never grow and change, not really, only a Player can grow and change: If the Player has the Opportunity, Will, Ability and Desire the Player can change and grow; and then and only then can the player role play fictional (but not real) growth and change in the character.

After all if the Player is Closed Minded and never changes or grows to any real extent, then they can't fake role playing that happening to their character.

When people say a fictional character or object ''did'' something, they really mean THEY did something. But this is very human: It is very common to project things outside of ones self to ''see'' them better. And this is very much true with creating things: very often a song or story or such ''is great'' in the mind....but once it's 'put on paper' and made for 'real' it is often not so great.

You can't ever really know a fictional character well, both as they are not real and it would be impossible to write out a trillion or so pages about them. But then most people don't really know all that much about themselves, so how can they be an expert on another character?

From my computer programmer PoV, role-playing is about running an emulator. You are attempting to emulate the personality of another (in)human being. That emulated personality can grow and change.

Your comments about... projection? I feel like that's the opposite of what I/you mean... are really quite insightful. I'm sure many people use characters as a way to externalize the introspection process. Myself, I generally use it as an attempt to understand other people, but the general mechanics seem like they would be similar enough.

[Quertus]

So, what does all this have to do with character conversions and world hopping? Well, numerous posters inexplicable keep talking about world-hopping characters who aren't connected to the adventure. This is horribly wrong-minded. One should never attempt to run an adventure where the PCs lack a demonstrable connection to the module. When the curtain goes up at T+0, I want to know how my character is connected. I want to be able to answer the actor's classic "what's my motivation?" question. And, OOC, I want to believe that this has a decent chance of being a successful adventure, because I know that the GM has discussed things with the players, and tied the campaign onto sturdy character traits.

Did I say "never"? Let me back that up a bit. There are exceptions to this rule, where the point of the adventure is the lack of connections: four characters, any reality, wake up in stasis pods on a space ship, go. But, barring something like that, if the GM expects to run Necrophilia on Bone Hill, they had best have made sure that my character is actually a good fit for the module, made sure that my character has an established character trait that can be used as a hook to tie them to the module. Regardless of whether I'm Sam the gardener who lives next door, or "not from around here".

[Jay R]

What a DM-hopping character loses is any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop.

I already gave the example of the player who took a character in my world to another one. When I heard that he had done that, I realized that:

• the curse on his sword that would only activate when he faced a dragon had just disappeared
• the potion of delusion he thought was a potion of flight had just become a potion of flight
• the wish he had and didn't know about yet was gone forever.

Similarly, there can't be a long-term rival, a plot-sensitive detail returning a long time later, or any other continuing plot element that isn't completely under the player's control.

D'Artagnan was threatened by Milady's son twenty years after he defeated her.
Lex Luthor is Superman's enemy for decades.
Han Solo and Chewbacca re-discover the Millennium Falcon years after they flew it against the Death Star.

Even in stories where the authors change, like long-running comic book stories or long-term movie franchises, the new authors are expected to know the entire background of what came before.

These kinds of stories can't occur, and you can't even believe that they might occur, if your current DM doesn't know about your earlier adventures.

I repeat: There's nothing wrong with people wanting to play games that cannot have a continuing plot element. But I won't play in such a game, and no character from another DM will play in my game.

[Quertus]

What a DM-hopping character loses is any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop.

I already gave the example of the player who took a character in my world to another one. When I heard that he had done that, I realized that:

• the curse on his sword that would only activate when he faced a dragon had just disappeared
• the potion of delusion he thought was a potion of flight had just become a potion of flight
• the wish he had and didn't know about yet was gone forever.

There is nothing inherently preventing this from happening. You could, for example, simply tell these things to the player's new GM. Problem solved.

The issue is, it isn't automatic, either. Characters don't exist in some central database, where GMs can add and review such "hidden information". But it's not an inherently unsolvable problem.

Similarly, there can't be a long-term rival, a plot-sensitive detail returning a long time later, or any other continuing plot element that isn't completely under the player's control.

D'Artagnan was threatened by Milady's son twenty years after he defeated her.
Lex Luthor is Superman's enemy for decades.
Han Solo and Chewbacca re-discover the Millennium Falcon years after they flew it against the Death Star.

Even in stories where the authors change, like long-running comic book stories or long-term movie franchises, the new authors are expected to know the entire background of what came before.

These kinds of stories can't occur, and you can't even believe that they might occur, if your current DM doesn't know about your earlier adventures.

Well, even if you / your old GM don't educate your new GM, they can still occur when you return to your previous GM...

I repeat: There's nothing wrong with people wanting to play games that cannot have a continuing plot element. But I won't play in such a game, and no character from another DM will play in my game.

Now, this is interesting. So, do I read you right when I say that your stance is that RPGs aren't worth playing unless they contain continuing plot elements, where the entirely of the character's life is tied together? Where you would accuse players who don't care about such things (or label them as narrative casualty or verisimilitude-breaking coincidences) as having Badwrongfun, and won't allow such people to have their brand of fun in your games? Would that be a gross misrepresentation of your position?

Yes, it would, because you explicitly don't call it Badwrongfun. So, what then? If it's not Badwrongfun, why are you denying other players their fun? What am I missing here?

This did not convey the meaning I intended - I'll try again in a future post.

[Jay R]

There is nothing inherently preventing this from happening. You could, for example, simply tell these things to the player's new GM. Problem solved.

It's a sheer accident that I found out he had used the character elsewhere. I learned it years after the fact, and never knew the GM. You can't just handwave it away. The problem is real.

Well, even if you / your old GM don't educate your new GM, they can still occur when you return to your previous GM...

If you return to your previous GM, and if you haven't already drunk the potion of delusion that you thought was a potion of flight, and if ...

But enough. You're trying to invent ways the problem might not exist, in the face of a specific, real example when the problem did exist.

Now, this is interesting. So, do I read you right when I say that your stance is that RPGs aren't worth playing unless they contain continuing plot elements, where the entirely of the character's life is tied together? Where you would accuse players who don't care about such things (or label them as narrative casualty or verisimilitude-breaking coincidences) as having Badwrongfun, and won't allow such people to have their brand of fun in your games? Would that be a gross misrepresentation of your position?

Yes, that is a gross misrepresentation of my position, which included the specific words, "There's nothing wrong with people wanting to play games that cannot have a continuing plot element." Saying I called it Badwrongfun is simply, directly, and obviously false. Saying I "accuse[d] players" of anything is equally false. I stated that there is nothing wrong with it.

There's an easy test for whether you are reading me right. If you block quote my words, with relevant context, then you are probably reading me right. But if you have to type in new words I never said, and that you know I would never say, then you are probably reading me wrong.

Yes, of course I won't let them have "their brand of fun" in a game I'm running that precludes it. My recent game was in a world that had no elves or dwarves, for plot reasons that the players could not know in advance. And that meant that they couldn't play an elf or a dwarf. Nobody complained, everyone enjoyed it.

Yes, it would, because you explicitly don't call it Badwrongfun.

Far more importantly, because I stated directly that there is nothing wrong with it.

Don't claim I said something was wrong when I said there was nothing wrong with it.
Don't claim I said something was wrong when I said there was nothing wrong with it.
Don't claim I said something was wrong when I said there was nothing wrong with it.

So, what then? If it's not Badwrongfun, why are you denying other players their fun? What am I missing here?

What are you missing here? You are missing the fact that not all ideas work together, and that my ideas aren't badwrongfun either.

I am not denying them their fun. They can play games the way the like, and (I repeat) there's nothing wrong with that. I will also play games the way I like. Sometimes this means we can't play in the same game. I'm not calling chess "Badwrongfun", or denying people their fun, when I don't allow them to use a rook or a knight in a checkers game I'm running.

I wasn't calling dwarf and elf PCs badwrongfun, and denying people their fun, when I ran a game in which elf and dwarf PCs couldn't be played. 50 years ago, the last of the dwarves were thought to be killed in the Giant wars, but were in fact captured and held as slaves by the giants, for a possibly high-level adventure. The elves would appear soon, and be the elves of Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies. These are potentially fun adventures, but they require no elf or dwarf PCs.

I like some games but not all games. You like some games but not all games. That may mean we can't play a game together.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

[OldTrees1]

Now, this is interesting. So, do I read you right when I say that your stance is that RPGs aren't worth playing unless they contain continuing plot elements, where the entirely of the character's life is tied together? Where you would accuse players who don't care about such things (or label them as narrative casualty or verisimilitude-breaking coincidences) as having Badwrongfun, and won't allow such people to have their brand of fun in your games? Would that be a gross misrepresentation of your position?

Yes, it would, because you explicitly don't call it Badwrongfun. So, what then? If it's not Badwrongfun, why are you denying other players their fun? What am I missing here?

You can be unwilling to do something without claiming that anyone who would be willing therefore must be wrong.

Imagine something you don't enjoy but I might enjoy(you don't have to be accurate, just be fair/charitable in this hypothetical). The two of us having different preference does not require you face a dilemma of "do what you don't enjoy OR decry it as badwrongfun" because that is a false dilemma.

[Quertus]

Don't claim I said something was wrong when I said there was nothing wrong with it.

Apologies - I was trying to make it very clear that I wasn't accusing you of claiming Badwrongfun, and clearly flubbed.

EDIT: let me try to ask my question a different way. You say that you wouldn't allow such characters in your games, my question is, why? Let's say my favorite color was blue. I then want my towel to be blue. Why would not allow anyone in my house to have a non-blue towel?

My question is, in what way does it affect you whether the character had zero history with you, or zero history with anyone, including you? There is still exactly zero threads for you to work with, zero things that you know to tie together, so why are you adamant that you would want one but not the other in your game? To me, it would seem that there should be no difference to you - you would need to spin threads either way.

What am I missing?

[kyoryu]

Far more importantly, because I stated directly that there is nothing wrong with it.

Don't claim I said something was wrong when I said there was nothing wrong with it.
Don't claim I said something was wrong when I said there was nothing wrong with it.
Don't claim I said something was wrong when I said there was nothing wrong with it.

Also, not wanting it in your game doesn't mean it's BadWrongFun. Just a poor fit for what you're trying to do.

There's nothing wrong with sushi. A steakhouse that doesn't serve it isn't saying sushi is bad and people who like it are bad. They just aren't a sushi restaurant.

Not all games do the same thing. Because of this, not all games can contain all elements. That doesn't mean that those elements are bad, it just means that those elements aren't being served up at that particular game. And no GM has an obligation or duty to serve you up exactly what you want - you have a conversation with them about what you want, and if you find a place of agreement, you play together. A failure to do so doesn't indicate wrongness, just that one of you likes steak, and the other likes sushi.

[Jay R]

Apologies - I was trying to make it very clear that I wasn't accusing you of claiming Badwrongfun, and clearly flubbed.

Thanks. The best aspect of internet discussions is the ability to go back and forth until all miscommunications are fixed.

EDIT: let me try to ask my question a different way. You say that you wouldn't allow such characters in your games, my question is, why? Let's say my favorite color was blue. I then want my towel to be blue. Why would not allow anyone in my house to have a non-blue towel?

Drying is not (inherently) a co-operative venture; a D&D game is. Your towel doesn't have to work with everybody else's towel. The analogy is not analogous.

I don't enjoy designing adventures for characters with no connection to any part of the world, and furthermore, I can't hook them into the plot directly. I can't bring up fun backstory returns (an old love, and old rival, etc.) to complicate the situation and make the PC more a part of it.

Furthermore, I have some hidden facts about many of the PCs that they don't know about. One of my recent players wanted a non-human character, and I wouldn't allow an elf or dwarf, so we made him a half-Fair-Folk. But neither he nor his character knew anything beyond the fact that he had pointed ears, could see in the dark, had a connection to nature, and was kind of an outcast in his home village. When he met Fair Folk and learned more about them, and about himself, it was a great adventure -- designed around him.

My question is, in what way does it affect you whether the character had zero history with you, or zero history with anyone, including you?

Thank you for coming so directly to the point. A character should have history. There is no particular difference between no history with me, or no history with anyone. A character I'm writing scenarios for should have history with the world.

D'Artagnan ceases to be D'Artagnan if he isn't a Gascon in Paris, with all that that means. Superman came from another planet, but he has strong roots from Krypton, and strong roots from growing up on a Kansas farm. When Voldemort returned, it's an important part of the adventure that he knew Harry Potter as a baby. Luke Skywalker's family history, unknown to him, was the biggest revelation of The Empire Strikes Back.

Also, I always start at first level. On those rare occasions that somebody joins the game later, I help them design a character which has history with the world, as much as the current PCs do.

There is still exactly zero threads for you to work with, zero things that you know to tie together, so why are you adamant that you would want one but not the other in your game? To me, it would seem that there should be no difference to you - you would need to spin threads either way.

What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that character generation does create threads to work from. Some of them are from pre-adventuring days, and some from the character's earliest adventures. If somebody comes into the game late, the player and I will work together to explain why a character at that level is at that location, with enough direct background to make them part of the game.

If I get back to that dwarfless, elfless game, I have a new player who is coming in. She and I know where her character grew up, and why she is the one sent with a message for the party. She will meet somebody else from her home town two adventures in, which will connect her life to their quest.

As near as I can tell, the real disconnect is that you really don't understand that I build scenarios that involve the background of the specific characters. I know why this party's earliest encounters will affect their future just as much as Dumas knew why the man D'Artagnan fought on his way to Paris would be important, even though D'Artagnan and the readers did not.

Now I have a question for you. My position is based on four basic assertions.
1. You should play games the way you like.
2. I should play games the way I like.
3. Sometimes that means we can't play the same game.
4. There's nothing wrong with that.

Clearly this bothers you. Which of my main four points is the problem?

[Quertus]

Thanks. The best aspect of internet discussions is the ability to go back and forth until all miscommunications are fixed.

Now I have a question for you. My position is based on four basic assertions.
1. You should play games the way you like.
2. I should play games the way I like.
3. Sometimes that means we can't play the same game.
4. There's nothing wrong with that.

Clearly this bothers you. Which of my main four points is the problem?

So glad we can understand each other.

This is, IMO, more important than the little details, so let me address this piece first: it bothered* me because you declared them incompatible, and I did not know why.

And here we are.

* bothered, interested, was an opportunity for me to learn, whatever.

[Darth Ultron]

You know, your way of looking at it is quite possibly optimal here. Attention is finite. For a new character, you are learning their mechanics, learning their personality / who they are, etc. Whereas, for an old character, these things are old hat, the character fits like a well-worn shoe, and you can focus your attention on role-playing. I remember one actor commenting, on the night of the last performance, that he finally "got" his character, that he was now ready to actually act the part.

I think your going to far in making the default player a bit too perfect. Your example is for too ''near perfect good players and good people'', and you don't seem to be acknowledging the other types of people and players.

Lets just take Player Steve. He wrote down his character, Orin, back in '88 and for personality he put 'is a cool dude'. Steve has only sometimes looked at a rule book and really knows next to nothing. He is just fine rolling a d20 and asking the DM to tell him what happens. Steve has used character Orin for years....yet in 2018 when using Orin in a 2E game(that Steve has played for decades), Steve will still say ''I shoot a magical missile at the goblin and rolled a 13, do I hit?".

Or Player Fred, and his character Fred Doom. Fred has been gaming from '96, and has never role played and never will. He only cares about pure combat, and sure he knows the combat sub rules of the game...but has ignored anything else. Character Fred Doom sees things and attacks...and loots dead bodies...and does that again. Even in 2018, playing 5E with Fred Doom converted, player Fred still just rolls and attacks everything in sight.

See, the only player can ''use the well worn character sheet'' is a good, deep role playing person that cares about the character and has a good memory. All the other player types don't have the will or ability or desire to do it.

One should never attempt to run an adventure where the PCs lack a demonstrable connection to the module. .

This is just a matter of taste and style. You really get these two broad ones:

The Characters are super special parts of the world and the whole world revolves around them.

OR

There is a World, and the Characters are in it.

Both are common ways to play the game.

The first type of game would have say the Evil Lich that was....Character A's brother, Character B's best friend, Character C's ex girl friend and they killed Character D's family. So all four player characters have big role playing reasons to want to go after and ''do something'' about the Lich.

The second type of game is the classic ''the characters are a group of rag tag hardy adventurers " that wander the lands. They hear about the lich, and decide to do something about it.

[Knaight]

There is nothing inherently preventing this from happening. You could, for example, simply tell these things to the player's new GM. Problem solved.

Oh joy, homework. Now, not only do I have to accept taking players that don't fit my game under your method, I also have to take the time to understand an inherit another GM's plot elements I don't care about - or, when going the other way, take the time to systematically explain to another GM a whole bunch of setting specific secrets that they have, and be party to imposing on their game. What fun.

[Quertus]

The problem with backstories, especially ones done in isolation, is that they get people invested into the idea of a certain story for their character, and that may be one that's incompatible with what the rest of the group wants.

If you want to have backstories, I'd recommend having them roughed out in session zero and writing them afterwards.

The whole "make your character before the first game, with no idea of who everyone else is or what the game is about" thing is just such a recipe for disaster.

You know, I'd be tempted to say that this was one of the most insightful comments in this thread... Except that you didn't make it in this thread!

Yes, if you want a game where character X is the childhood friend of character Y*, you can't do that if one character is "not from around here". However, you can still tie them together - perhaps even literally, with rope, when they were captured by bandits together before the curtain rises. How long before the curtain rises this happened changes a great deal about the initial state of the world - at the very least, whether the characters are still tied up.

* now, why you would want this still eludes me, but that may be because the only time that I ever had a GM mandate that, it was in the party that consisted of a Paladin, an Assassin, an Undead Hunter, and his dear childhood friend, an Undead Master. And my character.

Thanks. The best aspect of internet discussions is the ability to go back and forth until all miscommunications are fixed.

IMO, the world would be a better place were this sentiment more common in IRL conversations, too.

Drying is not (inherently) a co-operative venture

Thank you for that mental image.

You're missing the fact that character generation does create threads to work from. Some of them are from pre-adventuring days, and some from the character's earliest adventures.

That's part of it. Or, rather, that's it, but only from one PoV. It's still missing why you care about those threads.

I don't enjoy designing adventures for characters with no connection to any part of the world, and furthermore, I can't hook them into the plot directly.

Ah, that's the other half, I guess. I can't say as I understand why you only enjoy one specific thing.

But for hooking them into the plot? Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I believe that this is a solvable problem. See my example above for a silly and heavy-handed example. I believe that the player and GM can work together to tie the character into the adventure in a way that they'll both be happy with - or determine that the character is incompatible, and the player brings a different character*.

Even a complete outsider can be made to care if you give them the right motivation. As the character forms connections to the world, this gets easier, and you can have connections be recurring characters. More on this in a moment (or not, if I can't figure out how to say it...)

* Or, I suppose, the GM runs a different story - especially if multiple PCs would actually be better suited to a different story.

I can't bring up fun backstory returns (an old love, and old rival, etc.) to complicate the situation and make the PC more a part of it.

Yes and no. You can do it by introducing the character, and making them a recurring character. You have to actually build the relationship in play first, though, which may go against your desired "beats". Which is part of why I'm poking around here, to see what your objections are.

Now, for my next option you and I may have irreconcilable differences here, but let me explain my personal hangups, and see how you feel about my suggested solution(s).

See, I'm very... picky. One of the reasons I play a character who is "not from around here" is to prevent exactly this sort of thing. Whenever a GM has run someone from my backstory before, my response had always been that they are not role-playing them correctly - that my character never would have formed the relationship that they did, had the memories that they did, become the person that I've been roleplaying them as, if that had been the person in their backstory. Seriously, if I tried to describe my parents / siblings / childhood best friend to you, do you honestly think that you could pull them off convincingly? I tend to think not.

So, the only way I can see to make something like what you and I both want work, would be if my background connections were with established NPCs that I, as a player, was familiar with. Kind of a catch22.

As near as I can tell, the real disconnect is that you really don't understand that I build scenarios that involve the background of the specific characters. I know why this party's earliest encounters will affect their future just as much as Dumas knew why the man D'Artagnan fought on his way to Paris would be important, even though D'Artagnan and the readers did not.

Ok, but... why do you do this? It has obvious disadvantages of straining verisimilitude and coincidence, so what is the payoff? What benefit do your stories get to make it beneficial for you to both do extra work, and require Participationism? Is it purely related to your enjoyment being limited to a very specific pallet, or are there other reasons?

Now I have a question for you. My position is based on four basic assertions.
1. You should play games the way you like.
2. I should play games the way I like.
3. Sometimes that means we can't play the same game.
4. There's nothing wrong with that.

Clearly this bothers you. Which of my main four points is the problem?

I guess I just don't like declaring problems as unsolvable until I've not only found the wall, but beaten my head against it a few times? So, the principle behind #3?

This is just a matter of taste and style.

Dagnabbit, you're right. I clearly haven't integrated the lesson PP taught me yet, that there apparently are ways to play the game for which my assertions are not requirements.

[Quertus]

Oh joy, homework. Now, not only do I have to accept taking players that don't fit my game under your method, I also have to take the time to understand an inherit another GM's plot elements I don't care about - or, when going the other way, take the time to systematically explain to another GM a whole bunch of setting specific secrets that they have, and be party to imposing on their game. What fun.

First, I thought I was talking about characters, not players; second, I've been contending that having characters fit the game is one of the advantages of my method.

Now, I don't think anyone has mentioned anything resembling a setting specific secret affecting the mechanics of a character yet, but, if they did, that would be... interesting.

[OldTrees1]

Quertus, why do you think your hopping trait makes a character fit in better when it is the hopping trait that is being seen as making them not fit. Even if it is true that, ignoring the new issue, the character fits better -> the character still does not fit due to the new issue.

Additionally since you keep asking: What you are missing is: You are forgetting that DMs and other players can have preferences. Somehow you are only looking at the player's preference to have a world hopping character rather than seeing the preferences of the other players/DMs.

It is not a mystery of:
"Why does the DM refuse to accommodate the player on something the DM has no preference about?"
Instead it is the simple thing of:
"Why does the DM consider coordinating their preferences with those of the players they let join their game?"
Duh, because the DM wants the preferences to be compatible. (Rather than have to choose between 2 mutually exclusive preference).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Quertus, why do you think your hopping trait makes a character fit in better when it is the hopping trait that is being seen as making them not fit. Even if it is true that, ignoring the new issue, the character fits better -> the character still does not fit due to the new issue.

That would be my question, although not only the world-hopping trait is a problem, but the "pre-existing character" trait is a problem.

How is a pre-cut, non-campaign-specific character, with pre-established habits, likes, dislikes, friends, enemies, etc. going to be a better fit than a purpose-built, hand-crafted character designed for the campaign at hand? One brings with them tons of baggage, the other starts fresh. One has built-in assumptions about the way the world(s) work that almost certainly conflict with the new campaign. The other doesn't. The one requires starting at a high level with relatively free-rein on gear (unless you strip them bare each time, which might get problematic in 3e). The other can be made at any level, with any defined set of gear. And the list goes on.

I've spoilered a metaphor, because it could possibly cause contention. But I think it works pretty well here.

Spoiler: Potentially contentious metaphor

Show

Pardon the metaphor, but there's a reason that the divorce rate goes way up for second, third, etc. marriages. The two people come in with pre-existing baggage that often interferes with the adaptation to a new marriage. And a party is much like a marriage (although certainly not identical )--it requires flexibility, compromise, and a willingness to value the opinions and desires of other people at least as highly as your own.

[Quertus]

Quertus, why do you think your hopping trait makes a character fit in better when it is the hopping trait that is being seen as making them not fit. Even if it is true that, ignoring the new issue, the character fits better -> the character still does not fit due to the new issue.

You know, I tried to tease this apart for a reason. Let me try again.

There are numerous - generally related - factors here. They include

• world hoping
• table hoping
• system hoping
• multiple GMs
• existing character

My contention is not that world hopping makes the character a better fit. No, my contention is that tested characters are more predictable to know how they'll fit, much like tested RPGs have known balance. The "existing character" trait is the most obvious one to make a character "tested", but, as I explained in the "forged in flame" bit, "multiple GMs" also plays a role.

I did not in any way contend that world hopping made a character a better fit for a game, other than by relation to how the character came to be tested in the first place.

Now, the other side of this is, that there is nothing inherent to most of the systems that I play to make world hopping make the character fit poorly. Most if not all established cannon D&D settings have world hopping engrained in their history (and cannon items for system-hopping, to boot), reality hoping is the bread and butter of the superhero genre, Warhammer (and CoC, IIRC) even make time travel more mundane than D&D, and RIFTS is made of (and literally named for) this concept. So any incompatibility with world hopping is purely at the table level.

Additionally since you keep asking: What you are missing is: You are forgetting that DMs and other players can have preferences. Somehow you are only looking at the player's preference to have a world hopping character rather than seeing the preferences of the other players/DMs.

It is not a mystery of:
"Why does the DM refuse to accommodate the player on something the DM has no preference about?"
Instead it is the simple thing of:
"Why does the DM consider coordinating their preferences with those of the players they let join their game?"
Duh, because the DM wants the preferences to be compatible. (Rather than have to choose between 2 mutually exclusive preference).

Thing is, most people's objections have been about spotlight stealing, and it inherently making the campaign about world hopping. Given that this has never been the case in my repeated experience, I reject these as solvable problems and educatable bias.

I am, however, quite interested in any other reasons it wouldn't work - both to stubbornly test them to make sure that they're actually real show stoppers, and, well, to learn everything I can. Because learning.

That would be my question, although not only the world-hopping trait is a problem, but the "pre-existing character" trait is a problem.

How is a pre-cut, non-campaign-specific character, with pre-established habits, likes, dislikes, friends, enemies, etc. going to be a better fit than a purpose-built, hand-crafted character designed for the campaign at hand? One brings with them tons of baggage, the other starts fresh. One has built-in assumptions about the way the world(s) work that almost certainly conflict with the new campaign. The other doesn't. The one requires starting at a high level with relatively free-rein on gear (unless you strip them bare each time, which might get problematic in 3e). The other can be made at any level, with any defined set of gear. And the list goes on.

Wow. You really don't get the concept, do you?

So, back in the day, across the... well, to narrow the time frame, I'll say "dozens", not "hundreds" of tables I played at, adventures were billed with statements like "explore the ruins of Mount Pied, with characters level 5-7". If interested, prospective players would check their folders of characters, and submit a character in that level range.

Characters were mostly viewed as playing pieces. No one ever asked about the character's personality, it was merely a matter of the GM assessing their balance. There was no written concept of "WBL"; most GMs had their own personal opinions on this matter (which were about as informed as 3e is balanced). For most people, it was a purely gamist environment, where people brought their own playing piece (like a MTG deck, or those little plastic minis that interact with console games), and it fell apart if you looked behind the curtain, or thought about it too much.

Back then, I was the odd man out, caring about role-playing, and trying to get people to make the worlds make sense.

But, point is, your comments about gear are... bafflingly disconnected from how it was done, and how it likely would play out. As with any aspect of the character, if it doesn't fit, people can choose to retool, or bring someone else (me, I aim for the latter, because I care about verisimilitude and character continuity). Especially in the 3e WBL era, I can't really comprehend the disconnect.

As to the rest, "baggage" is what games are made of, assumptions and culture shock are an expected part of travel (even if within the campaign, under the same GM), and, as I covered in the "forged in flame" bit, all those pre-existing bits are the sturdy building blocks of successful campaigns.

Now, yes, you've said that you're happier with characters who don't know themselves, whose hand-crafted bits fall off in the fires of play, than ones forged to go the distance and actually remain compatible with the campaign from start to finish, but you still haven't explained why. Care to take this opportunity to explain now?

I've spoilered a metaphor, because it could possibly cause contention. But I think it works pretty well here.

Spoiler: Potentially contentious metaphor

Show

Pardon the metaphor, but there's a reason that the divorce rate goes way up for second, third, etc. marriages. The two people come in with pre-existing baggage that often interferes with the adaptation to a new marriage. And a party is much like a marriage (although certainly not identical )--it requires flexibility, compromise, and a willingness to value the opinions and desires of other people at least as highly as your own.

The hilarious part of your metaphor is that the correct parallel would be polygamy in a successful marriage - because, rather than having a failed marriage behind them, we're talking about characters that have demonstrated the traits that make for a success. Do you have any statistics for how well that works out? Because, based on my gaming experience, I'm guessing that the answer would be "rather well".

[OldTrees1]

You know, I tried to tease this apart for a reason. Let me try again.

There are numerous - generally related - factors here. They include

• world hoping
• table hoping
• system hoping
• multiple GMs
• existing character

My contention is not that world hopping makes the character a better fit. No, my contention is that tested characters are more predictable to know how they'll fit, much like tested RPGs have known balance. The "existing character" trait is the most obvious one to make a character "tested", but, as I explained in the "forged in flame" bit, "multiple GMs" also plays a role.

I did not in any way contend that world hopping made a character a better fit for a game, other than by relation to how the character came to be tested in the first place.

Now, the other side of this is, that there is nothing inherent to most of the systems that I play to make world hopping make the character fit poorly. Most if not all established cannon D&D settings have world hopping engrained in their history (and cannon items for system-hopping, to boot), reality hoping is the bread and butter of the superhero genre, Warhammer (and CoC, IIRC) even make time travel more mundane than D&D, and RIFTS is made of (and literally named for) this concept. So any incompatibility with world hopping is purely at the table level.

So world hopping characters, being tested characters, are more readily identified as not being suitable for games that world hopping characters are not suited for. This means you should be more (not less) trusting of a DM that says a world hopping character is not suitable for their table.

Thing is, most people's objections have been about spotlight stealing, and it inherently making the campaign about world hopping. Given that this has never been the case in my repeated experience, I reject these as solvable problems and educatable bias.

I am, however, quite interested in any other reasons it wouldn't work - both to stubbornly test them to make sure that they're actually real show stoppers, and, well, to learn everything I can. Because learning.

I understand that things occurred differently in your experience. Perhaps that is due to these DMs being mistaken, perhaps it is due to different outcomes, or perhaps it was due to the difference in vantage points. However you have been demanding reasons for why the DM's don't play against their preferences. And that is a different ball of wax.

However let's compare these claims:
1) A world hopping character is a character + they hop worlds. Having one player play a character+ while everyone else is playing a character seems like a recipe that lends itself to spotlight stealing. It might not happen everytime. However you would be hard pressed to argue that a DM can't have valid preference on the matter or that they need to give you some reason for why they are not playing against their preference.

2) A world hopping character existed in another world. If that prior existence has no impact then there is no reason for this instance to be connected to the past instance (and thus it stops having its world hopping history). Alternatively the prior existance has an impact, in which case the campaign suddenly has to deal with that impact. It is now a campaign that is, at least in part, about that world hopping. You have heard numerous preferences against dealing with impact of that sort.

However here is a 3rd reason you have ignored:
3) The DM does not want world hopping characters.

[kyoryu]

Ultimately, this is another example of "I like this thing, others don't like that. I want to prove them wrong!"

You can't. People like what they like, and they aren't obligated to do things they don't like. Find people to play with that like what you like. That doesn't make either of you objectively wrong. And trying to find arguments against the preferences of other people rarely does any good, it's more likely to just piss them off.

I expect the desired conversation goes like this:

Person Who Likes The Thing: "Hey, I want the thing."
Person Who Doesn't: "I do not like that thing. No thank you."
PWLTT: "Here are my logical arguments for why the thing is good and you should like it."
PWD: "Wow, your reasoned arguments have changed my mind. I was so wrong!"
PWLTT: "Yay, I get the thing!"

This would work if liking the thing was objective and provable. 99% of the time, it's not, so you get this instead.

PWLTT: "Hey, I want the thing."
PWD: "I do not like that thing. No thank you."
PWLTT: "Here are my logical arguments for why the thing is good and you should like it."
PWD: "I understand that you like the thing, why can't you understand that I do not. Please go away now."

... and that's because if the thing isn't objective and provable, then you're really arguing preferences and arguments don't work in that case.

Really, just find a group that likes what you like.

If you really want to do whatever it is with a particular group, a better result might be using this strategy

PWLTT: "Hey, I want the thing."
PWD: "I do not like that thing. No thank you."
PWLTT: "I understand. I will find something else that I like almost as much and we will play together and have jolly times."
PWD: "Wow, you are a nice person and a joy to have around!"

<gaming ensues, after a while, a new game starts>

PWD: "You know, I said I didn't like the thing before, but you are such an amazing human being of awesomesauceness that I think we should try a game where you can have the thing."
PWLTT: "Yay! I get the thing!"

[Quertus]

So world hopping characters, being tested characters, are more readily identified as not being suitable for games that world hopping characters are not suited for. This means you should be more (not less) trusting of a DM that says a world hopping character is not suitable for their table.

Trust? A GM? Me? No, you clearly have me mistaken for someone else.

However, a known ingredient is much more predictable in how it will go with a given dish / meal - whether we're talking taste, texture, acidity, color, whatever.

Similarly, a known character is, indeed, in a much better position to have a reasonable conversation around, and have it be rejected (or accepted) based on how / whether it would fit.

However you have been demanding reasons for why the DM's don't play against their preferences. And that is a different ball of wax.

Well, no. I may be interrogating people as to why they have such preferences, and whether it is because it actually adds something to the game. But, as you say, that's a different ball of wax.

However let's compare these claims:
1) A world hopping character is a character + they hop worlds. Having one player play a character+ while everyone else is playing a character seems like a recipe that lends itself to spotlight stealing.

You are correct - but not for the reason that you believe. The characters who are connected to the world will be more likely steal the spotlight - will have more narrative leverage - because they are connected to the world. There is a reason that "connections" costs points rather than being a disadvantage in systems that feature them.

2) A world hopping character existed in another world. If that prior existence has no impact then there is no reason for this instance to be connected to the past instance (and thus it stops having its world hopping history). Alternatively the prior existance has an impact, in which case the campaign suddenly has to deal with that impact. It is now a campaign that is, at least in part, about that world hopping. You have heard numerous preferences against dealing with impact of that sort.

I'm confused. Have you ever moved? Would you claim that, just because your old postman doesn't incongruously follow you around, you may as well have amnesia, and, functionally, have no past?

I'm assuming that you'll say no, that that's not what you're saying at all. So, please, dumb this down for me, so that I can follow your reasoning.

Because, at some level, I think that I agree - because your old postman isn't following you around, why the **** should I care where you came from?

However here is a 3rd reason you have ignored:
3) The DM does not want world hopping characters.

I find it difficult to believe that that isn't just the external manifestation of some other core issue.

The most obvious one is that the GM is running a closed world. Well, duh, that makes sense then. However, IME, very few GMs actually have good reasons to require their worlds to be closed.

So, given that, for the reasons I've posted earlier in this thread, it is demonstrably advantageous to have open worlds to allow existing characters in from other tables, I am also poking at why GMs run closed worlds.

Ultimately, this is another example of "I like this thing, others don't like that. I want to prove them wrong!"

While the two may look similar, this is actually another example of Quertus (me, the poster) saying something that produces WTF responses at best, completely unrelated misrepresentations of my position at worst, and me trying to explain my actual position.

Followed by my confusion at some of people's responses, and me interrogating asking them to explain their PoV.

EDIT: were I a caricature of myself, then you would be correct. The many wrong-minded GMs I had encountered IRL would have left me with an unflappable belief that all GMs are inherently completely wrong, and I'd be unable to see past that. Of course, that doesn't mean that, even as a real boy, that I'm immune to blind spots.

[CantigThimble]

So, given that, for the reasons I've posted earlier in this thread, it is demonstrably advantageous to have open worlds to allow existing characters in from other tables, I am also poking at why GMs run closed worlds.

This is a bit I still do not understand. How having an open world 'demonstrably advantageous'?

Is it just because you now have more options and options=good? Because if that is your premise then I disagree with it. Having more options for the sake of having options very often makes things worse.

Is it because you don't want to have to learn about the DM's world? Because if that's the reason then I think many DMs would be justified it wanting someone who was interested in learning about their world to join instead.

Is it because it allows you to drop in and out of campaigns with minimal fuss? Because I want players who are willing to make a long term commitment to the campaign. If you aren't interested in doing that then I want a player who will instead.

Edit: Is it because you believe that you can roleplay a character you've had for a while better than one you've just made? While that's true up to a certain extent, it's also highly beneficial to start fresh once and a while. (Some of my best characters have come from deliberately making a new character who was very unlike the one I had been playing, even when the old one was very good.) The beginning a new campaign is a good time to do that, and I don't think its unreasonable for DMs to ask their players to do this.

In addition, as to the advantages of a closed world: If there is a multi-verse worth of worlds out there for the picking for any powerful wizard that introduces a variety of elements into the setting that I don't want to deal with. I much prefer a limited set of planes, most of which are extraordinarily inhospitable for humans/demihumans.

[NichG]

I find it difficult to believe that that isn't just the external manifestation of some other core issue.

The most obvious one is that the GM is running a closed world. Well, duh, that makes sense then. However, IME, very few GMs actually have good reasons to require their worlds to be closed.

So, given that, for the reasons I've posted earlier in this thread, it is demonstrably advantageous to have open worlds to allow existing characters in from other tables, I am also poking at why GMs run closed worlds.

I remember you saying before in this thread how you're very picky, and how you don't want GMs to run characters from your backstory because they'll do it wrong and that will cause dissonance for you.

So here I think it would be useful for you to put yourself in the shoes of these GMs, and understand that you bringing in a character with hidden details may mean that you are playing their world wrong, in a way that causes dissonance for them, no matter how much before-hand discussion or hashing out or care you take about your character. By bringing in a character whose backstory exists in a space totally outside of the GM's control, you are requiring them to accept things about the setting itself which you inject into their campaign, or be forced to no-sell your character in a very disruptive way. This applies even if the character is from the same setting/world as the GM is running, because no two GMs are going to run identical versions of the world - not to mention that events which happened during the sessions are certainly not assumed to be shared.

I find it odd that you can understand how it would be frustrating and worth going way out of your way to avoid when a GM runs a family member or other backstory character in a way that doesn't mesh with how you envision your character relating to others, but you can't understand how when that's reversed it could possibly be seen as an undesirable negative.

If you create a character with a particular GM and say e.g. 'I want to have had a run-in with some cultists of a amputation-themed demon in my backstory', the GM can say 'there's no such group in the setting - demons are a particular thing and are well-understood, and that cult just doesn't mesh'. If you on the other hand bring in a character who in their past had such a run-in - that is to say, to you this is established fact - and mention it in-character at some point... imagine if at that point the GM outright said to the other players 'your characters know for a fact that this is untrue, and that the only explanation is that your companion is delusional'. Rude, right? But it'd be the same if the GM suddenly played your character's father - who you had decided was an exemplary rolemodel who shaped your characters growth - as a drunken layabout; at that point, you would probably feel that you should no-sell it and say e.g. 'you've changed' or 'I don't believe you're my dad' because the alternative would be disruptive to your character. Injecting uncontrolled history can be disruptive to a GM's plans in the same way.

That's not going to be true in all cases, and some GMs would welcome that history as a way to give you stake or have some of the work of enriching the setting done for them, and would welcome any disruption as a challenge to improvise around. But, since that's not always the case, there is an etiquette to those things - part of it is understanding that when a GM says they don't want that, you should take them at their word and not assume that they're just lying about what they actually want. Some GMs, indeed, simply do not want open world games.

[comk59]

See, the "known character" thing is the weirdest part of this for me. The idea of using a character from another campaign is odd, but I can understand it to some extent.

But the concept that you HAVE to use a character that you've already played (and not just the same build, but the exact same character with the same name and personality), because you won't know how to roleplay this hypothetical new character, is utterly alien to me.

Maybe it's due to my status as a perma-GM? Not only do I need to roleplay multiple characters per week, per group, but when I DO get to be a player the idea of wasting this rare opportunity on exploring a character concept and personality I've already played is bizarre. It'd be like being on death row, and asking for my last meal to be prison food.

[kitanas]

I think a lot of the disagreement can be boiled down to a fundamental difference in mindset, which I am going to call open-table vs closed-table. Open table as I understand it is as quertus describes it. Characters an settings are plug-and-play, backstories generally don't matter, anyone who wants to play, just show up. Closed tables expect long term commitment, and ideally everyone has worked together to make it fit. The difference between making something out of interchangeable parts, versus a hand crafted, custom made item.

I also think another reason people are reacting negatively to quertus is that you are demonstrating inflexibility. Your character is your character, it will be exactly the way you want it to be, and no one else gets any input. Whereas in a closed table environment, it is somewhat implicitly expected to make concessions to fit each other better. So when you bring your inflexible character into a closed table environment, you are in fact, by the unspoken norms of the table, demanding that the campaign be warped around you. Even if you don't intend to.

[Darth Ultron]

My contention is not that world hopping makes the character a better fit. No, my contention is that tested characters are more predictable to know how they'll fit, much like tested RPGs have known balance. The "existing character" trait is the most obvious one to make a character "tested", but, as I explained in the "forged in flame" bit, "multiple GMs" also plays a role.

Well, I agree it is accurate to say a Good Role-Player with the Will, Desire and Ability to do so will have a better and more well rounded character if they play that character for a long period of time.

And again, for the DM part: a Player that games with Excellent Role Playing DMs that have different views and styles will gain better and more well rounded character, as well as some personal effects.

But note this only happens with the above extremes.

I am, however, quite interested in any other reasons it wouldn't work - both to stubbornly test them to make sure that they're actually real show stoppers, and, well, to learn everything I can. Because learning.

Well, world hopping and game hopping are different. If your playing D&D 5E, and the character(s) go from World A to World B...well, that utterly does not matter for this thread.

Game hopping is the big one. Like taking Zor my Jawa Tech in the old D6 Star Wars, and having them in D&D 5E. Or how about Buck my gunslingger from Boot Hill to Pathfinder? How about Zor to Boot Hill? This type of conversions just makes a mess, just take Zor's Ion Blaster, and think of the head ache of converting that to each system. And that is on top of the role playing: in Star Wars, Zor's ion blaster is quite useful as the galaxy is full of tech, but in Boot Hill, even if you give Zor a 'mechanical disruption thing daggle', he can only use it like once a year or so, maybe, if he encounters like a Clock.

So, back in the day, across the... well, to narrow the time frame, I'll say "dozens", not "hundreds" of tables I played at, adventures were billed with statements like "explore the ruins of Mount Pied, with characters level 5-7". If interested, prospective players would check their folders of characters, and submit a character in that level range.

This is one of the two most common ways to Game. The other is the connected game.

Characters were mostly viewed as playing pieces.

But this has nothing to do with the style of game being played. THIS have everything to do with: Is the Player a Role Player or Roll Player....or even if the are a Casual Gamer or a Serious Gamer.

So, given that, for the reasons I've posted earlier in this thread, it is demonstrably advantageous to have open worlds to allow existing characters in from other tables, I am also poking at why GMs run closed worlds.

Well, is not the basic reason that the DM to not want to taint the world with whatever wacky thing the player might want to bring in; very, very, very often for no other reason other to spite and/or annoy the DM. It is the classic the DM picks a game and setting of Mystical Ireland, and one Player just has to be That Guy and Demand that he be allowed to use his Cybog Ninja.

[Cluedrew]

So I was reflecting on the exchange last time and I think I have some answers (and better questions) now.

On What is a Character: I was thinking about flushed out characters and all that and I realized something. It is kind of how I don't like flashbacks that detail some part of a character's background because many of them either A) cover information you can figure out by reading the main story and are so a waste of time or B) cover information that doesn't effect the main story and are so a waste of time. There is a space between these two but it is very narrow. A character is who they are, not who they were.

Long back stories might be a tool, but they don't make a character. As a simple example Ammanda (who I mention previously) wears a gold ring on each hand, the only decoration of her entire dress. She looks at these when she is upset and I think I even wrote down beside them "(won't sell)" or something to that effect. They carry obvious sentimental value. And I have no idea why. I thought up a reason or two, but I realized that she didn't know anyone in the campaign well enough to tell them. So I didn't bother to fill it in. Maybe that wasn't a simple example. But is Ammanda less of a character for there being this big question mark in her past? I don't think so, I could have made something up if it came up and it different.

Put a different way: A character is a (fictional) person as they appear in the story. Things that don't appear aren't part of the character in the same way.

On Closed Worlds: I default to closed worlds because I have standards about consistency and explanations that are really hard to meet with multiverse travel. Even harder with arbitrary multiverse travel opposed to a closed set.

[OldTrees1]

Trust? A GM? Me? No, you clearly have me mistaken for someone else.

However, a known ingredient is much more predictable in how it will go with a given dish / meal - whether we're talking taste, texture, acidity, color, whatever.

Similarly, a known character is, indeed, in a much better position to have a reasonable conversation around, and have it be rejected (or accepted) based on how / whether it would fit.

Good, now you know to trust a DM when they say a world hopping character does not fit their campaign.

Well, no. I may be interrogating people as to why they have such preferences, and whether it is because it actually adds something to the game. But, as you say, that's a different ball of wax.

When you continue to refuse an answer and keep interrogating for another underlying answer, you are demanding an underlying answer rather that listening to the answer.

You are correct - but not for the reason that you believe. The characters who are connected to the world will be more likely steal the spotlight - will have more narrative leverage - because they are connected to the world. There is a reason that "connections" costs points rather than being a disadvantage in systems that feature them.

A world hopping character is a character that world hops. There is nothing in that definition that implies they would have less narrative leverage. In fact, since they can be as connected as other characters AND have world hopped, they have more leverage.

I'm assuming that you'll say no, that that's not what you're saying at all. So, please, dumb this down for me, so that I can follow your reasoning.

As you guessed, that is not what I said. So I will rephrase (I won't dumb down, but that is because you don't need that):

I have a character with a secret. If the secret never comes up, then my character did not really have a secret because it never affected play. On the other hand, if the secret came up, then the campaign is, at least in part, about that secret because it impacted play.

It is the same for world hopping characters. Either there is no reason for them to be world hopping, or the DM has to deal with the campaign being, at least in part, about world hopping.

Summary: If you don't see the world hopping impacting on the campaign, then don't make it a world hopping character. You are either being blindly insensitive to the impact or there is no reason for it to be a world hopping character. On the other hand if you see it impacting the campaign, then accept the fact that the DM chose to deal with the world hopping you imposed on the DM.

DMs can say no to world hopping characters without you needed to demand answers.

I find it difficult to believe that that isn't just the external manifestation of some other core issue.

Congrats! You now know what you are missing. You are missing the ability to believe that sometimes preferences have no underlying reason and yet remain preferences that can be acted upon in a valid manner!


Edit: Also 2 people explained things very well. I suggest you go reread them (since you will have read them before this post)

kyoryu post 80
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...0&postcount=80
This does a good job of describing what you are doing and why it is not working. You have already said this is not what you mean to be doing, but then missed the message that this is what you are doing. Please read through it to understand what you are doing that makes you look like someone refusing to see an answer they asked for.

kitanas post 85
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...6&postcount=85
They talk about how players inherently impact each other at the table. If you insist on being a world hopper, that forces changes to the characters of the other players and forces changes to the campaign of the DM.

[kyoryu]

I also think another reason people are reacting negatively to quertus is that you are demonstrating inflexibility. Your character is your character, it will be exactly the way you want it to be, and no one else gets any input. Whereas in a closed table environment, it is somewhat implicitly expected to make concessions to fit each other better. So when you bring your inflexible character into a closed table environment, you are in fact, by the unspoken norms of the table, demanding that the campaign be warped around you. Even if you don't intend to.

In almost any environment, some amount of flexibility, compromise, and concession-making is expected. An unwillingness to do so is the biggest red flag I can have in a potential player (whether I'm a GM or a player), or anyone I'm doing any activity with, to be fair.

[Quertus]

I think a lot of the disagreement can be boiled down to a fundamental difference in mindset, which I am going to call open-table vs closed-table.

I was going to limit myself to responding to just 3 posts, but then I read this line, and, while I haven't read the rest of your post yet, I'll go ahead and say that you're probably right.

This is a bit I still do not understand. How having an open world 'demonstrably advantageous'?

An excellent question. First off, I am clearly using my words wrong. A sports car is demonstrably superior to a pickup truck, because it's faster. A pickup truck is demonstrably superior to a sports car, because it can hold more. That's probably not how most people use those words.

Is it just because you now have more options and options=good? Because if that is your premise then I disagree with it. Having more options for the sake of having options very often makes things worse.

That wasn't what I meant, but thank you for adding that advantage to the list. A player who only has one character only has one chance for their character to be compatible with the adventure. The probability of finding a suitable character - or of having a more suitable character - go up as the portfolio of valid characters increases.

Tell me your world, ask me how many new character ideas I have, and I'll likely respond with a single-digit number ("zero" is a single digit number, right? Just checking). If instead, you ask me how many of my existing characters I can see having fun to play adventures on that world, and I'll generally respond with a number order(s) of magnitude greater.

Is it because you don't want to have to learn about the DM's world? Because if that's the reason then I think many DMs would be justified it wanting someone who was interested in learning about their world to join instead.

Clearly, you haven't been stalking my post history. It's because - probably more than anyone I've ever gamed with - I want to learn about the GM's world. In character. Exploration is my favorite aesthetic (seriously, what did Angry rename those to?), my favorite / greatest source of fun in a game.

Is it because it allows you to drop in and out of campaigns with minimal fuss? Because I want players who are willing to make a long term commitment to the campaign. If you aren't interested in doing that then I want a player who will instead.

Strike three, you're out.

So, why then? Well, I'm senile, but I think I've covered two reasons.

One is, attention is finite, head space is finite. When I'm learning a character, my head space that I would use for role-playing is competing with learning mechanics, and evaluating how the history and personality I crafted interact in actual play. With an existing character, they fit like a glove, and I can focus my attention on actually role-playing. But that's arguably just my fun, if no-one else at the table cares.

The second reason, though, as I tried to explain in the whole "forged in flame" bit is that well-played characters are known quantities. When you commit to playing a med school game, and have a good session zero where the GM and you tie the character to the campaign via one of their established character traits, then, unless the GM is incompetent or a ****, and throws a character-defining moment at your character designed to change that trait, you can be confident that the character will have the optimal chance to remain appropriate to the adventure.

And, the third, completely personal reason is, I see no value in putting effort into creating the history and backstory for yet another half-baked throwaway character that will never properly be forged in the flames of the variety of experiences that 20 GMs can deliver.

I think a lot of the disagreement can be boiled down to a fundamental difference in mindset, which I am going to call open-table vs closed-table.

You know, this clearly bears repeating.

If anyone wants a good laugh, just read me trying to understand and respond to NichG. I think it's pretty clear that we're not understanding each other - and I almost posted this without even having a guess why.

Spoiler: me trying to respond to NichG

Show

I remember you saying before in this thread how you're very picky, and how you don't want GMs to run characters from your backstory because they'll do it wrong and that will cause dissonance for you.

Yup.

So here I think it would be useful for you to put yourself in the shoes of these GMs,

Um, I also am those GMs, in that I've GMd for such characters, so, um, done?

and understand that you bringing in a character with hidden details may mean that you are playing their world wrong, in a way that causes dissonance for them, no matter how much before-hand discussion or hashing out or care you take about your character.

Nope, now you've lost me.

The only time I see this sentiment is when I try to run a character from their world, and get told that no-one from that region of their world could possibly hold that opinion on slavery, distribution of wealth, mercy to prisoners, whatever.

So, um, that's a reason why I'm "not from around here"?

By bringing in a character whose backstory exists in a space totally outside of the GM's control,

Can you say this in a way that doesn't make me respond, "control freak GM is bad GM"?

you are requiring them to accept things about the setting itself which you inject into their campaign

Unless I misread you and others, the setting is requiring them to accept things about their setting that they should have already accepted. You must mean something different than what I read.

, or be forced to no-sell your character in a very disruptive way.

Nope, still lost me.

This applies even if the character is from the same setting/world as the GM is running, because no two GMs are going to run identical versions of the world - not to mention that events which happened during the sessions are certainly not assumed to be shared.

Yes and no. Anne's Toril is not Bob's Toril, unless they are running a shared world. Completely with you there. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, has wondered at the meaning of the proliferation of copies of certain worlds.

I find it odd that you can understand how it would be frustrating and worth going way out of your way to avoid when a GM runs a family member or other backstory character in a way that doesn't mesh with how you envision your character relating to others

erm, that's only about half right. Imagine who you'd be if you had me for a father, or how insulting it would be for me to try to roleplay your mother after talking to you about her for a few minutes, then continue that thought.

, but you can't understand how when that's reversed it could possibly be seen as an undesirable negative.

Nope, you completely lost me here. What are you trying to say? Because I have no idea.

If you create a character with a particular GM and say e.g. 'I want to have had a run-in with some cultists of a amputation-themed demon in my backstory', the GM can say 'there's no such group in the setting - demons are a particular thing and are well-understood, and that cult just doesn't mesh'. If you on the other hand bring in a character who in their past had such a run-in - that is to say, to you this is established fact - and mention it in-character at some point... imagine if at that point the GM outright said to the other players 'your characters know for a fact that this is untrue, and that the only explanation is that your companion is delusional'. Rude, right?

No, that's just displaying the myopic ignorance of closed-minded individuals. It's to be expected. My character may have to educate them... or not.

No, seriously, my characters do exactly the same thing when encountering things outside their experience - whether that's characters from other worlds, or things that the GM added. We call this "Tuesday". Or "role-playing". Shrug.

But it'd be the same if the GM suddenly played your character's father - who you had decided was an exemplary rolemodel who shaped your characters growth - as a drunken layabout; at that point, you would probably feel that you should no-sell it and say e.g. 'you've changed' or 'I don't believe you're my dad' because the alternative would be disruptive to your character. Injecting uncontrolled history can be disruptive to a GM's plans in the same way.

That's not going to be true in all cases, and some GMs would welcome that history as a way to give you stake or have some of the work of enriching the setting done for them, and would welcome any disruption as a challenge to improvise around. But, since that's not always the case, there is an etiquette to those things - part of it is understanding that when a GM says they don't want that, you should take them at their word and not assume that they're just lying about what they actually want. Some GMs, indeed, simply do not want open world games.

Yeah, just.... what?

Over half the stiff you wrote doesn't make any sense to me, unless the GM took epic ranks in "being a ****", allowed the character, then went "backsies ", as though that was normal. But, since that can't be what you're saying... just... what?

See, the "known character" thing is the weirdest part of this for me. The idea of using a character from another campaign is odd, but I can understand it to some extent.

But the concept that you HAVE to use a character that you've already played (and not just the same build, but the exact same character with the same name and personality), because you won't know how to roleplay this hypothetical new character, is utterly alien to me.

Maybe it's due to my status as a perma-GM? Not only do I need to roleplay multiple characters per week, per group, but when I DO get to be a player the idea of wasting this rare opportunity on exploring a character concept and personality I've already played is bizarre. It'd be like being on death row, and asking for my last meal to be prison food.

Just in case you somehow missed it, existing characters are easier to roleplay, because you don't have to divide your attention to include things like learning their mechanics, or learning the intricacies of their personality.

As to the rest.... Hmmm... I imagine someone more well versed in human psychology could explain this better...

Psychology? Hmmm... Let me start there.

Different people have different personalities, different things they care about, different attention spans. I believe it was an Onion article that said it best:

Child Baffled By Stationary, Non-Violent Images
11/18/98 3:00pm
SEE MORE: NEWS IN BRIEF
NEWTON, MA–Local first-grader Jamie Linnell is in stable condition following exposure to a static, non-confrontational image Tuesday. The image, a 1947 Life magazine photo of a woman tending to a rose garden, left Linnell in a state of panic and disorientation. "Jamie was turning the picture in all directions, desperately shaking it in an attempt to make it move," the boy's mother, Rita Linnell, told reporters. "He was frightened and trembling, and he kept asking me, 'Mommy, why isn't this exploding?' Then he collapsed to the floor." Linnell regained consciousness after receiving emergency doses of Tekken 3.

Me? I tend to want to complete the "portrait" of a character. Consider it the difference between someone whose focus is on completing a level in a video game, and someone who wants to find 100% of the secrets on the level first.