Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[Earthwalker]

Depends on who is giving it.

My read of the article by the Giant (which was what was being referenced) was a big middle finger to role-playing and character personality.

Or, at least, that's my senile recollection. I reserve the right to be wrong.

For me the idea was. When confronted with a situation there are multiple ways a character can react and still be in character.

If you believe that to be true then act in a way that is both in character and doesn't blow up the game.

Now... if you believe that in situations there is only one possible way for a character to act then the advice is pointless.

[Quertus]

For me the idea was. When confronted with a situation there are multiple ways a character can react and still be in character.

If you believe that to be true then act in a way that is both in character and doesn't blow up the game.

Now... if you believe that in situations there is only one possible way for a character to act then the advice is pointless.

IME, there is a spectrum of meanings for the phrase, just as there is a (larger) spectrum of beliefs about role-playing, which covers a range of

• There is only one right answer (the style of role-playing that I was taught)
• There is one or more right answers, and there are wrong answers (my current stance)
• Anything can be a right answer, as you can rationalize how it makes sense for the character, or change your character as needed (commonly advocated on this forum)
• There is no character, it's only you, so choose differently (which is how I remember Giant's article reading)

[Cluedrew]

Do they whine and moan if things are too easy? Maybe just try a game where things always go their way, and see how they react. Don't tell them you're doing this. Pit them against foes who are no challenge. Have enemies cower before them. Make their plans go off without a hitch by letting their expected course of events play out. Try to be excited and thrilled about it the whole time. Don't let on that they can't fail.

[...]

Ah yes the true most evil of plans: Give them everything that they want.

I approve. Both seriously and kind of for the irony of it.

I reserve the right to be wrong.

And this is why I enjoy talking to you about things, despite disagreeing on many things. You are the only other person I know to utter that phrase. (Although just to be clear, it means "I accept the fact I will make mistakes" and not "I will hold to incorrect positions just because" right?)

Speaking of disagreeing, I think there are two things about The Giant's article I disagree with you on. First is the rate at which this out-of-character thinking has to be used and how far from the character you will get. Actually that may be two things bringing the total to three. But I digress. Generally you should only have to worry about this when it is going to clause very serious campaign level/out-of-character problems. Like the party not forming (which is not to say everyone has to be friends) or ending the campaign at a bad time/in a bad way. The second is... and I just say you sword-sage post and I would say - even at your current view - that of the possible in-character choices there is usually one in-character (if a bit unusual for them) choice that does not lead to problems. Speaking of which I believe that things start at 3 but than move towards 2 as the campaign progresses and the character is established. Or as I put it "nothing about anything is true until it has been shown in game".

So that is why I think the Giant's advice is not as extreme as you thought. Second is I believe it has a right to be extreme. If anything is getting in the way of the game, put it aside, give it the finger, kick it where it hurts or take it out back and shoot it. The point of the game is to have fun and a scene or two of you holding to your role-playing principles is not worth the rest of the group having a decidedly unfun experience during that time.

[MrSandman]

IME, there is a spectrum of meanings for the phrase, just as there is a (larger) spectrum of beliefs about role-playing, which covers a range of

• There is only one right answer (the style of role-playing that I was taught)
• There is one or more right answers, and there are wrong answers (my current stance)
• Anything can be a right answer, as you can rationalize how it makes sense for the character, or change your character as needed (commonly advocated on this forum)
• There is no character, it's only you, so choose differently (which is how I remember Giant's article reading)

First of all, your last point has nothing to do with the first three. The last point is a true statement regardless of your approach. The fact is that your character is not a separate entity that exists outside of the game and you are one who decides your character's personality, drives, goals, et al. This is true regardless of whether you think that there's only right option, that there are some right and some wrong options or that anything can be a right option.

I have gone back and re-read the Giant's article and I would summarise his take on this issue as follows: "You are the one in control of your character. It is your responsibility to craft a personality that fits with the party and the campaign."

Interestingly, he gives an example of a character of his who would run recklessly into danger and have little concern for his personal safety. He says this:

A caveat, however: if you decide to play a character who takes risks or acts rashly, you should let yourself get talked out of it from time to time by the more level-headed characters. Isawa, for example, often suggested wildly inappropriate courses of action, which the far more cautious paladin Adhemar would convince me to not enact. Throwing caution to the wind is fun once in a while, but if done during every encounter, it gets annoying to the other players.

So the point isn't "make a character with no personality," but "realise that characters can have more than one dimension and make one that works in your group."

[Quertus]

And this is why I enjoy talking to you about things, despite disagreeing on many things. You are the only other person I know to utter that phrase. (Although just to be clear, it means "I accept the fact I will make mistakes" and not "I will hold to incorrect positions just because" right?)

Correct. I recognize that I do not *always* speak with the infallible voice of God, and mark those rare few occasions with a corresponding disclaimer.

Also, *enjoy*?

Speaking of disagreeing, I think there are two things about The Giant's article I disagree with you on. First is the rate at which this out-of-character thinking has to be used and how far from the character you will get. Actually that may be two things bringing the total to three. But I digress. Generally you should only have to worry about this when it is going to clause very serious campaign level/out-of-character problems. Like the party not forming (which is not to say everyone has to be friends) or ending the campaign at a bad time/in a bad way. The second is... and I just say you sword-sage post and I would say - even at your current view - that of the possible in-character choices there is usually one in-character (if a bit unusual for them) choice that does not lead to problems. Speaking of which I believe that things start at 3 but than move towards 2 as the campaign progresses and the character is established. Or as I put it "nothing about anything is true until it has been shown in game".

So that is why I think the Giant's advice is not as extreme as you thought. Second is I believe it has a right to be extreme. If anything is getting in the way of the game, put it aside, give it the finger, kick it where it hurts or take it out back and shoot it. The point of the game is to have fun and a scene or two of you holding to your role-playing principles is not worth the rest of the group having a decidedly unfun experience during that time.

Rate, level of divergence, odds of good, established character, sacrifice, principles - sound like good keywords for your stance?

Well, yes, we disagree on all 6 counts.

Actually, "sacrifice" is probably where we come closest to agreeing / have common ground.

"If anything is getting in the way of the game, put it aside, give it the finger, kick it where it hurts or take it out back and shoot it." - if your mom pestering you about taking the dog for a walk is getting in the way of gaming, you should not take her out back and shoot her. In other words, yes, the game has value, but other things have value, too. Some things - like people's lives or the oft-referenced spousal fidelity / trust - are things that are lost, catastrophically, in a single instance.

So, while you, personally, may not care, I would like you to recognize that some people do care. That, if you force me to play against character even once, the campaign and likely the character are done. This is not a recoverable state.

But, yes, the unimportant things, like the GM's plans, the needy dog, the social contract, or the particular players at the table, you absolutely should sacrifice to keep the game fun (color blue to taste).

I'll make separate posts for any of the other 5 (or so) points of disagreement I respond to.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So the point isn't "make a character with no personality," but "realise that characters can have more than one dimension and make one that works in your group."

This is the key. If there's always one right answer to every question, then you've got a flat character. Real people are multidimensional and often contradict themselves. As Walt Whitman said:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself;
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Characters are not character studies. They're not fixed slates, not instruments to probe the universe. They're people, with all that that entails. Even the most resolute person will dither occasionally. Even the most devout will have a moment of doubt. Even the most craven will do something brave. And, most miraculously, people change. Someone who was craven can become bold and brave--this is not "breaking character", because no one has a character set in stone.

So out of the multitude of "right" answers, choose one that is party-friendly. If there isn't, then consider changing the character (either the character of the character or retiring the character). The party comes first--the characters are the protons and neutrons to the party's atom. And it ain't hydrogen here.

Edit: and if you made a character that routinely cannot make party-friendly decisions, the onus is on you. You can't blame the character, because it doesn't exist outside of your brain. You are solely responsible for its existence, its current state, and its behavior. Hiding behind "it's what my character would do" to justify party-unfriendly behavior is just trying to deflect the rightful ire of your friends. And that's behavior I'd expect of the OP's group, not a sane, healthy gaming group.

[Quertus]

First of all, your last point has nothing to do with the first three. The last point is a true statement regardless of your approach. The fact is that your character is not a separate entity that exists outside of the game and you are one who decides your character's personality, drives, goals, et al. This is true regardless of whether you think that there's only right option, that there are some right and some wrong options or that anything can be a right option.

I have gone back and re-read the Giant's article and I would summarise his take on this issue as follows: "You are the one in control of your character. It is your responsibility to craft a personality that fits with the party and the campaign."

Interestingly, he gives an example of a character of his who would run recklessly into danger and have little concern for his personal safety. He says this:



So the point isn't "make a character with no personality," but "realise that characters can have more than one dimension and make one that works in your group."

Link? I should enjoy checking my assumptions, rather than just going by my increasingly fallible memory.

From what you quoted, the Giant makes some nasty assumptions there - primarily, that every group will always have more fun if your character can sometimes be talked out of their defining characteristic. This is demonstrably untrue. Some groups have had more fun with characters who are dependable in their idiosyncrasies.

Second, there's once again that hubris issue in assuming you'll know when to act in character, and when not to.

Lastly, Talakeal made a character who worked with the group - until they catastrophically didn't. Why is it not the GM's responsibility to craft a campaign that works with the PCs - or, better yet, that works with any PCs / that doesn't fall apart when a PC takes an utterly predictable action? Why is it the player's responsibility to sacrifice their character on the altar of "the story", rather than the GM's responsibility to keep the game running smoothly with the characters that he accepted into the game?

Personally, I believe in setting criteria in session 0. If there's a problem, refer to session 0. If the players made PCs that do not follow session 0 guidelines, it's their problem; otherwise, it's the GM's problem.

Lastly, yes, "the personality you choose to craft" is on you. But, having created that personality, it exists. Advocates of my 4th stance - including my memory of my read of the Giant - do not acknowledge that.

[Quertus]

This is the key. If there's always one right answer to every question, then you've got a flat character. Real people are multidimensional and often contradict themselves. As Walt Whitman said:



Characters are not character studies. They're not fixed slates, not instruments to probe the universe. They're people, with all that that entails. Even the most resolute person will dither occasionally. Even the most devout will have a moment of doubt. Even the most craven will do something brave. And, most miraculously, people change. Someone who was craven can become bold and brave--this is not "breaking character", because no one has a character set in stone.

So out of the multitude of "right" answers, choose one that is party-friendly. If there isn't, then consider changing the character (either the character of the character or retiring the character). The party comes first--the characters are the protons and neutrons to the party's atom. And it ain't hydrogen here.

Edit: and if you made a character that routinely cannot make party-friendly decisions, the onus is on you. You can't blame the character, because it doesn't exist outside of your brain. You are solely responsible for its existence, its current state, and its behavior. Hiding behind "it's what my character would do" to justify party-unfriendly behavior is just trying to deflect the rightful ire of your friends. And that's behavior I'd expect of the OP's group, not a sane, healthy gaming group.

Perhaps I should clarify - when I say "one right answer", I'm not talking about flat characters. That's bad role-playing. I was taught that whatever the player thought that the character would do is correct. That includes all the nuance, all the inconsistency, all the personality of a "real" person.

Thing is, yes, sometimes, there are other things that would *also* have been in character. And, rarely but not never, there is a *huge* difference in the amount of fun to be had between those options.

Yes, people change. Yes, characters should be able to change, too. The problem comes (per my 4th point) when people not just want but *expect* characters to have those moments of change *when it is convenient for (or required by) the story*, rather than organically.

I am calling out those who (like Talakeal's GM) craft fragile stories that fall apart when the PCs don't dance to one specific tune *unless the GM explicitly got buy-in for that tune during session 0*.

As to routinely not making party-friendly decisions… understand, I come from a background of idiots, like GMs who expect paladins to be OK with assassinating the lawful king, who is good and just. So, IMO, the burden is primarily on session 0 to define what an acceptable character looks like. This is also related to why I like the idea of running multiple one-shots, and the group making an informed decision about a party that they believe will work well together. Otherwise, I largely agree with your edit.

[Quertus]

@Cluedrew

Rate.

To paraphrase the Angry GM, you've got to metagame like a mother****ing dolphin.

Simply put, you never know when the unknown will strike - when you pull out a spider mini and discover that a fellow player is deathly afraid of spiders, when your clever plan steals another player's thunder or derails the game.

If all your players are caricatures, completely predictable with no significant personality, and the plot is trivial and known to all, then you can probably do all the work creating a personality up front, and spend the session "just role-playing".

But when taking the obviously right answer for the character kills the campaign? No, you've got to be walking on eggshells, assuming every 5' square may well hold a landmine.

It's surprisingly similar to living with an abusive partner.

[Earthwalker]

[snip]
Thing is, yes, sometimes, there are other things that would *also* have been in character. And, rarely but not never, there is a *huge* difference in the amount of fun to be had between those options.
[snip]

I do remember reading the article a long while ago and the idea that their are other things you can do in character that wont ruin the game, for me being a revelation.

Its weird I know, but I would get into the mind set of but that one first thing I chose to do was what my character would do.

Many times it is what my character would do, in all those times there is also something else my character that would do that wont

Now I am not saying in Talakeal's example that his GM was doing the right thing (I don't know the full story but from what was posted it was just stupid)

What I am saying is I find the "Think Differently" article worth a read and some consideration. I think that "huge" difference in level of fun is there for you, it certainly isn't there for me.

[Quertus]

I do remember reading the article a long while ago and the idea that their are other things you can do in character that wont ruin the game, for me being a revelation.

Its weird I know, but I would get into the mind set of but that one first thing I chose to do was what my character would do.

Many times it is what my character would do, in all those times there is also something else my character that would do that wont

Now I am not saying in Talakeal's example that his GM was doing the right thing (I don't know the full story but from what was posted it was just stupid)

What I am saying is I find the "Think Differently" article worth a read and some consideration. I think that "huge" difference in level of fun is there for you, it certainly isn't there for me.

Same!

That is, I came from the same "one first thing I chose to do was what my character would do <was the right thing>" background. I was introduced to the same "idea that their are other things you can do in character that wont ruin the game", and it was a revelation.

Awesome that someone else has shared that experience! Btw, do you ever miss the purity of "just role-playing"?

I agree that the (one-sided) description we get from Talakeal makes the GM sound stupid (and, hey, it's part of my character to kick GMs (and 4e) whenever possible).

I just think that the Giant's article - as I remember it (link please?) reads a bit… fanatical on the far side, and might actually turn some people away from our revelation, instead of guiding them towards the light.

[Quertus]

The second is... and I just say you sword-sage post and I would say - even at your current view - that of the possible in-character choices there is usually one in-character (if a bit unusual for them) choice that does not lead to problems.

Edit: and if you made a character that routinely cannot make party-friendly decisions, the onus is on you.

So, Cluedrew, I think I missed (the importance of) this sentence when I was trying to summarize your points.

PhoenixPhyre, I wanted to come back to… hmmm… how much / the way that I agree with this point.

So, yes, I agree - usually, there exists some in character option that does not lead to problems.

There's a whole lot of fine print - like how aware (and socially adept) you need to be in order to successfully pick that option, and the fact that "usually" is not the same as "always" - but, at the highest level, we agree.

If, however, one particular character, when played with one particular group, *routinely* does not have good options, yes, that character is not a good fit, and a) the onus is on you to fix that, but b) the onus is on the GM (and the group) to facilitate that, and c) the onus is on everyone to evaluate how this came to be (ie, was there a failure in session 0, did the character grow badly, etc).

Further, if you *routinely* have characters who *routinely* don't have good answers, it's time for some serious evaluation.

[MrSandman]

Link? I should enjoy checking my assumptions, rather than just going by my increasingly fallible memory.

Here it is.

From what you quoted, the Giant makes some nasty assumptions there - primarily, that every group will always have more fun if your character can sometimes be talked out of their defining characteristic. This is demonstrably untrue. Some groups have had more fun with characters who are dependable in their idiosyncrasies.

How would your statement change or remain the same if instead of always it suggested that groups will generally have more fun if your character's whimsicality doesn't get in the way every scene?

Second, there's once again that hubris issue in assuming you'll know when to act in character, and when not to.

I don't think I quite follow what you're saying here. You should act in character when you're describing your characters actions and you shouldn't when you're asking your mate to pass the crisps (well, "shouldn't" is a strong word here, let's say "needn't")

Lastly, Talakeal made a character who worked with the group - until they catastrophically didn't. Why is it not the GM's responsibility to craft a campaign that works with the PCs - or, better yet, that works with any PCs / that doesn't fall apart when a PC takes an utterly predictable action? Why is it the player's responsibility to sacrifice their character on the altar of "the story", rather than the GM's responsibility to keep the game running smoothly with the characters that he accepted into the game?

I tend to favour the idea that scenes depend on input from both the GM and the players, unless railroading be present. This makes me stand against the notion that it is the GM's fault for not crafting a good enough campaign.

There are many things about Talakeal's tale that I don't understand, the main ones being why the campaign ended and why everyone was mad about it. From what I read, though, I can't see why the action was utterly predictable.

The player's responsibility is not to "sacrifice their character one the altar of 'the story'", it is to make a character that can work in that group.
Notice that I say group, not party. If your group is happy with intra-party conflict and characters being mean to each other and each one doing their own thing and all that, then there's no problem with creating a character who will be mean to the party. But if the group isn't, it is the player's responsibility to create a character that will be nice to the party. The reason is very simple: everyone is there to have fun.

From a more practical approach, you could say that it is so because if you make a whimsical, unyielding, uncompromising character, and I make a whimsical, unyielding, uncompromising character, and my cat makes a whimsical, unyielding, uncompromising character, your character will be trying to seduce every NPC we encounter, while my character stabs it, while my cat's character runs around setting off all the traps in the room.

Making the game run smoothly is not the GM's responsibility, it's everyone's responsibility.

I find that statement puzzling when it comes from someone who takes pride in using "not from here" as the whole backstory of his character. I thought you'd stated elsewhere that in your opinion a GM should know as little as possible about the PCs?
(This, by the way, is not a personal attack, I am genuinely trying to understand how these two things fit together)

Personally, I believe in setting criteria in session 0. If there's a problem, refer to session 0. If the players made PCs that do not follow session 0 guidelines, it's their problem; otherwise, it's the GM's problem.

I agree that setting criteria in session 0 is important. But I'm also aware that two people may have different understandings of what something means and, especially, that characters tend to evolve during gameplay. In my experience, most characters are played differently after a few months in the game, so whatever things one decided at character creation don't always hold true for the rest of the campaign.

Lastly, yes, "the personality you choose to craft" is on you. But, having created that personality, it exists. Advocates of my 4th stance - including my memory of my read of the Giant - do not acknowledge that.

I've never read or heard anyone suggesting that you shouldn't consider your character's personality when choosing what to do, so I wouldn't know.

[Quertus]

The second is... and I just say you sword-sage post and I would say - even at your current view - that of the possible in-character choices there is usually one in-character (if a bit unusual for them) choice that does not lead to problems. Speaking of which I believe that things start at 3 but than move towards 2 as the campaign progresses and the character is established. Or as I put it "nothing about anything is true until it has been shown in game".

Established character.

This is probably where I disagree with you most strongly.

Everything has to come from "first principles" (yes, I've stolen and abused your phrase), otherwise, it risks incoherence. That is, how can you build a character backwards, having them ask, "how much is this", or taking any other action, if you don't know what it says about your character?

Similarly, if you don't think it through from first principles, you could take two actions that say contradictory things about your character.

Whereas, even if you don't know what that question says about your character, but you start with the personality, and roleplay them correctly, you'll say that phrase and take actions when appropriate (and not when it isn't).

Or you'll just default to your personality, always, on whether you ask that question, and that isn't part of your range.

-----

Babble babble babble. Sigh. I'm shooting all around my point, but somehow missing it.

Let me try a few more paths to "next to my point", to try to outline its shape.

Imagine a murder mystery where the GM doesn't plan "who done it" ahead of time, run by an incompetent GM. Imagine a game where "none of this actually happened - all the PCs are just insane"… when one of the players is a shrink, and knows the difference between delusions and how the PCs were ran. Imagine that I give the same level of cringe at trying to establish a *character* after the fact, from their actions.

I mean, sure, we do it all the time - ingesting media or interacting, we assign a personality to the actors. We register that they have "depth" somewhere between when we recognize that our simple personality model has failed / needed revision X times and when we start to see the underlying patterns, when we have had to assign more than Y traits understand them, etc.

From this, we may incorrectly assume that personalities can be constructed from random actions, but, for good media, the character already had that underlying cohesion that we are simply observing. And there's plenty of bad media with incoherent characters to point to that leaves its fans / detractors asking wtf the media's creator was thinking.

I want the characters to start with that depth, and to progress logically forward from that point.

Now, this may just be my own weakness, my own lack of skill, but I cannot see how to start with a random set of behavior, and work backwards to a consistent personality.

And, mind you, those behaviors aren't just the mega "killed the orcs", but the micro-acting - the word choice, the particular inflection in their tone, the facial expressions - everything that distinguishes a great actor from… everyone else.

Mind, I'm not saying that I do it right, but I certainly notice a lot of the ways that others do it wrong. For some players, when they finally "get" their characters is when my character should kill them, assuming them to be an imposter, since they clearly suddenly start behaving differently.

-----

I cannot perfectly predict what kind of plant will grow from a given seed. I have no interest in playing a character whose growth I have not witnessed, no interest in playing a character who is not established.

Thus, I greatly prefer groups with lots of one-shots, where characters come and go, to establish my characters. For anything long-term, I want to be able to choose one of my established characters, that I know will work with the premise.

-----

"I believe that things start at 3 but than move towards 2 as the campaign progresses and the character is established" - that may be one valid way to play the game, but it is not the only way. And certainly not my way.

[MeimuHakurei]

This is the article (swordsaged on the link >.>)

What I would agree on is that the "React Differently" segment seems to not take into account that there's also a responsibility for the DM to actually provide hooks that take the motivations of the characters into account. Also, people aren't perfect and can get emotional over game decisions (like the monk player he mentioned).

Then again, I always hold articles like that under scrutiny, so it's probably fine.

[Quertus]

Here it is.

This is the article (swordsaged on the link >.>)

Thanks!

EDIT: my apologies (especially to the Giant) for misrepresenting the article. There is a lot about it (especially but not exclusively its alignment-heavy subtext (alignment <> personality!)) that I dislike / disagree with, but it's generally pretty decent, and not at all as fanatically anti-personality as I remembered.

How would your statement change or remain the same if instead of always it suggested that groups will generally have more fun if your character's whimsicality doesn't get in the way every scene?

Erm, that's a lot of changes. Namely, generally, whimsy, get in the way, and every scene. I'm not about to address all 16 combinations of how my response changes.

One character's core personality trait that only comes up in certain scenes can *make* a game, even (and especially) when they don't deviate from it.

A watered down "eh, he's usually pretty honest" is unlikely to make a game.

Most groups will have more fun if you aren't running a character who gets in the way of the group's fun. That's almost tautologically true.

Some groups will prefer wishy-washy characters; others will prefer characters with more backbone, who will stand up for their principles. Shrug.

I don't think I quite follow what you're saying here. You should act in character when you're describing your characters actions and you shouldn't when you're asking your mate to pass the crisps (well, "shouldn't" is a strong word here, let's say "needn't")

"Choose differently" implies that you realize that your action is game-destroying dumb. I didn't know that Bob* was deathly afraid of spiders when I decided to play a Drow Summoner. Heck, Bob didn't know, either, until I put the huge spider mini on the table.

Talakeal didn't know that attacking this NPC would end the campaign. Heck, many of us are still scratching our collective heads over that one.

Not every decision is labeled with blindingly obvious "this is the right answer" and "you're an idiot" tags. This is one of those times when epimethian "fix it once you realize it is a problem" tactics are called for, even if only as a backup plan for when "metagame like a mother****ing dolphin" fails.

* EDIT (for clarity / compulsive honestly) - this is someone else's story, that I have blatantly stolen for illustrative purposes. "Bob" was just a name chosen "at random", and not indicative of the name of the player in the original story. I'm too senile to remember my own stories, and/or they weren't as good as this one. Although I think that something like this was part of the impetus for my own personal "choose differently" epiphany.

I tend to favour the idea that scenes depend on input from both the GM and the players, unless railroading be present.

Good answer.

This makes me stand against the notion that it is the GM's fault for not crafting a good enough campaign.

Agreed. But not everyone runs their games our way; for them, I call it the GM's fault.

There are many things about Talakeal's tale that I don't understand, the main ones being why the campaign ended and why everyone was mad about it. From what I read, though, I can't see why the action was utterly predictable.

It is - or should be - utterly predictable that someone might say "no". That it apparently never occurred to this GM is… telling.

The player's responsibility is not to "sacrifice their character one the altar of 'the story'", it is to make a character that can work in that group.
Notice that I say group, not party. If your group is happy with intra-party conflict and characters being mean to each other and each one doing their own thing and all that, then there's no problem with creating a character who will be mean to the party. But if the group isn't, it is the player's responsibility to create a character that will be nice to the party. The reason is very simple: everyone is there to have fun.

Agreed.

From a more practical approach, you could say that it is so because if you make a whimsical, unyielding, uncompromising character, and I make a whimsical, unyielding, uncompromising character, and my cat makes a whimsical, unyielding, uncompromising character, your character will be trying to seduce every NPC we encounter, while my character stabs it, while my cat's character runs around setting off all the traps in the room.

Again with the whimsy. I think "whimsy" is a red herring - and a bad one.

So, suppose that we all make characters of principle. My nature spirit follows the principles of nature, and maximizing reproduction, and AoE impregnates everything we meet… yeah, I think I'm going to stop right there.

I think that it is absolutely true that characters of principle are bad for party cohesion. This is why my evil characters are generally much more party-friendly: they have no "principles" to get in the way of working with their friends and allies.

So "all evil characters" / "no good / principled characters" is clearly the optimal session 0 statement to maximize party cohesion.

Making the game run smoothly is not the GM's responsibility, it's everyone's responsibility.

Agreed.

I find that statement puzzling when it comes from someone who takes pride in using "not from here" as the whole backstory of his character. I thought you'd stated elsewhere that in your opinion a GM should know as little as possible about the PCs?
(This, by the way, is not a personal attack, I am genuinely trying to understand how these two things fit together)

Brilliant. Kudos on catching that.

First, "not from around here" is the whole of the *public* backstory; I know a great deal more about the character.

For the most belligerent answer, you could read it as, "if you need to know anything about my character, you'd better ****ing take responsibility, and make a story that they'll work in. Otherwise, be smart, and make a story that *anyone* will work in - or define the types of characters who will/won't work, and let me choose my character accordingly". In other words, why do you need the information, if you aren't going to use it? (Hint: you don't need the information)

In other words, I'm not exclusively addressing my way of playing (despite it being obviously superior in every way ), but also including comments that acknowledge other playstyles.

This was one of them.

I agree that setting criteria in session 0 is important. But I'm also aware that two people may have different understandings of what something means and, especially, that characters tend to evolve during gameplay. In my experience, most characters are played differently after a few months in the game, so whatever things one decided at character creation don't always hold true for the rest of the campaign.

Agreed, and agreed. This is why all those one-shots are useful, to establish what people mean by their words, and for characters to become established before being chosen for a campaign.

Really, this paragraph all but forms the core of my beliefs on this topic.

I've never read or heard anyone suggesting that you shouldn't consider your character's personality when choosing what to do, so I wouldn't know.

Really? I think I've read it several times, just in this thread.

[Segev]

Depends on who is giving it.

My read of the article by the Giant (which was what was being referenced) was a big middle finger to role-playing and character personality.

Or, at least, that's my senile recollection. I reserve the right to be wrong.

My read on it was that you should do your best, when confronted with a situation that will cause the game to fall apart if you make the "in character" choice, to find a choice or rationalization of a choice that will let you choose something that keeps the game moving. This isn't about violating your character. It does involve potentially stepping OOC and discussing it with the other players and the GM: "Okay, I don't know how to have my guy do anything but X and have it be in character. Can you guys help me identify what options there are that seem in character and are not problematic?"

Sometimes, you'll find the GM saying something like, "Well, yeah, X seems like exactly what you'd do. I was kind-of counting on it." This may surprise the players, but I've had DMs more than once who actually planned for PCs to do the seemingly-disruptive thing, with ideas on how that would progress. Half the time, the ultimatum-deliverer or whomever isn't nearly the threat the players thought, and the DM is surprised the players thought their PCs outmatched. As an ST in Exalted, I run into this fairly frequently, with NPCs who have their own agendas and my players thinking they're disrupting my plot (and apologizing for it) when they don't cooperate with the heavy-handed requests or admonishments of the NPCs. When in reality, I don't have plans for that stuff; that's just the NPCs being blowhards because they're not used to dealing with Exalts and/or are desperately trying to bluster their way through.

Other times, it's exactly as you see it: you doing X is going to, at best, get your PC out of the game while the others keep playing. So try to find reasons why he'd do something else. Perhaps the heroic PTSD guy will agree to work for the bad guy but quietly undermine his operations, for example.

That said, yes, the DM really should have thought his clever plans through, and been prepared for revolt from PCs who have issues with such strongarm tactics from such lowlife characters.

And I still don't get why the game ended. It's one PC. The others could keep on with the plot, and Talekeal could've made a new one that would work with/for them. Maybe even their "minder" appointed by the bad guy.

[Quertus]

My read on it was that you should do your best, when confronted with a situation that will cause the game to fall apart if you make the "in character" choice, to find a choice or rationalization of a choice that will let you choose something that keeps the game moving. This isn't about violating your character. It does involve potentially stepping OOC and discussing it with the other players and the GM: "Okay, I don't know how to have my guy do anything but X and have it be in character. Can you guys help me identify what options there are that seem in character and are not problematic?"

Sometimes, you'll find the GM saying something like, "Well, yeah, X seems like exactly what you'd do. I was kind-of counting on it." This may surprise the players, but I've had DMs more than once who actually planned for PCs to do the seemingly-disruptive thing, with ideas on how that would progress. Half the time, the ultimatum-deliverer or whomever isn't nearly the threat the players thought, and the DM is surprised the players thought their PCs outmatched. As an ST in Exalted, I run into this fairly frequently, with NPCs who have their own agendas and my players thinking they're disrupting my plot (and apologizing for it) when they don't cooperate with the heavy-handed requests or admonishments of the NPCs. When in reality, I don't have plans for that stuff; that's just the NPCs being blowhards because they're not used to dealing with Exalts and/or are desperately trying to bluster their way through.

Other times, it's exactly as you see it: you doing X is going to, at best, get your PC out of the game while the others keep playing. So try to find reasons why he'd do something else. Perhaps the heroic PTSD guy will agree to work for the bad guy but quietly undermine his operations, for example.

That said, yes, the DM really should have thought his clever plans through, and been prepared for revolt from PCs who have issues with such strongarm tactics from such lowlife characters.

And I still don't get why the game ended. It's one PC. The others could keep on with the plot, and Talekeal could've made a new one that would work with/for them. Maybe even their "minder" appointed by the bad guy.

As I said, the article that is now linked, I agree, is not as reprehensible as I remembered. Perhaps I'm remembering one from the Angry GM or something?

Between your players apologizing for ruining the plot / fearing that X, the only thing that they can think would be in character to do would ruin the plot, when it's actually fine, and my comments about players ruining the fun of the game without realizing it, I'm amazed that more people aren't taking in terms of epimethian fixes and retcons after people have declared a game- or fun-destroying course of action.

It seems like "skill at fixing problems" would have come in handy at Talakeal's old table, too - "oops, you attacked the NPC, I never considered that*, I guess it's campaign over, all Talakeal's fault".

* Que "who would of thought a little water would ever fall on me?" reference

[Cluedrew]

Also, *enjoy*?

I mean I enjoy being on this forum, why would I be here otherwise? Just in this thread I counted 3 people I can remember having good conversations with, another that makes me feel happy for no reason when I see there name and another I feel said some good things but I can't remember what at all. And one I'm just blanking on.

Also the rest of your reply is kind of absurd because that wasn't even close to what I meant and I think you know that. Let me add a qualifier "anything that exists for the sake of the game", which excludes parents and dogs (hopefully). Why do you game? People say things like to build complex characters or get deep into a different mindset or whatever. But really that is skipping over the core reason to get to some details. People game to have fun. There are exceptions, as a learning exercise say, but I bet that is less than 1%.

So if something exists to help people have fun and it isn't doing that? Put it aside. Why stay in character if no-one is enjoying it? Trust? My friends can trust me to not make things unpleasant for them* and that seems good enough.

* Often, mistakes do happen. Which also gets to the comment about "How are you supposed to get it right every time?". You won't, I certainly can't. But I get it right more often if I am trying.

And those are the main points, I did not see get addressed since my last post. Actually one more, I'm not sure why the Giant's article is anti-personality since the assumption seems to be your character has a strong personality and it is some notes about how to make sure it works in a campaign. Then again I haven't read it in a while either.

[Quertus]

I mean I enjoy being on this forum, why would I be here otherwise? Just in this thread I counted 3 people I can remember having good conversations with, another that makes me feel happy for no reason when I see there name and another I feel said some good things but I can't remember what at all. And one I'm just blanking on.

Also the rest of your reply is kind of absurd because that wasn't even close to what I meant and I think you know that. Let me add a qualifier "anything that exists for the sake of the game", which excludes parents and dogs (hopefully). Why do you game? People say things like to build complex characters or get deep into a different mindset or whatever. But really that is skipping over the core reason to get to some details. People game to have fun. There are exceptions, as a learning exercise say, but I bet that is less than 1%.

So if something exists to help people have fun and it isn't doing that? Put it aside. Why stay in character if no-one is enjoying it? Trust? My friends can trust me to not make things unpleasant for them* and that seems good enough.

* Often, mistakes do happen. Which also gets to the comment about "How are you supposed to get it right every time?". You won't, I certainly can't. But I get it right more often if I am trying.

And those are the main points, I did not see get addressed since my last post. Actually one more, I'm not sure why the Giant's article is anti-personality since the assumption seems to be your character has a strong personality and it is some notes about how to make sure it works in a campaign. Then again I haven't read it in a while either.

I'm… having trouble deciding which way to respond, as I've got so many possible responses.

Yes, most people game for fun. But I don't abandon my principles just because I'm playing an RPG, or at a water park, or whatever, even if doing so might increase my fun. That's… not how principles work.

Now, I'm not sure if "role-playing" is one of my principles, or one of the game's principles (it is 2/3 of the meaning of RPG, after all), or just a handy metaphor. But, in whichever case, it's not something I'll just abandon in order to optimize fun.

Were I ever to find myself in the bizarre scenario where "me role-playing" was an active detriment to the fun of those at the table - not just "me role-playing this character", but the actual act of role-playing itself - then I suppose I'd stop playing RPGs with that group. Because "RPG" without "role-playing" is just "game" - and not a particularly good one, at that.

… and, as I've said, the Giant's article that was eventually linked was not as fanatically anti-personality as I recalled. It mistook "alignment" for "personality" something fierce, and made numerous other mistakes, but it was either not the article that I associate with the phrase "choose differently", or my memory is getting even worse than I remember. Either way, I have already - and will continue to - apologize for misrepresenting the Giant's article.

[RedWarlock]

Quertus, I mean this in the kindest way possible for such a statement, so please take it by the intent in which it was offered:

Your methods and strictures about gaming are not so strictly held by the majority of folks, and I am glad for that, because while I can appreciate your points, I would not enjoy playing with your style of player at my table. You do you just fine, but we would conflict too much for either of us to enjoy it.

Roleplaying is, in my book, for the purpose of fun. Roleplay is itself not a reward, it is an action. Roleplaying which divorces itself from enjoyment is work, labor, and it is at that point no longer a game. Both portions of the label are just as critical, roleplaying AND game, and neither can take supremacy without destroying the fundamental nature of the activity.

[Koo Rehtorb]

… and, as I've said, the Giant's article that was eventually linked was not as fanatically anti-personality as I recalled. It mistook "alignment" for "personality" something fierce, and made numerous other mistakes, but it was either not the article that I associate with the phrase "choose differently", or my memory is getting even worse than I remember. Either way, I have already - and will continue to - apologize for misrepresenting the Giant's article.

If you're like me, it's the legion of people on these boards who read that article and then use it as an excuse to spout off a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.

[NichG]

This kind of discussion really makes me feel that principles are an anti-pattern to successful group dynamics. They're basically the equivalent to making an ultimatum - fully accept and endorse this behavior, or kick me out/I will leave.

One of the points to 'choose differently' for me is to recognize that when someone is saying 'it's what my character would do', that's not just an explanation of their behavior, it's a request that it be excused or that blame be attributed to someone else - and that, regardless of what explanation they offer for why they behaved that way, it's fundamentally the case that they could have chosen to behave differently (and, in fact, often they could have behaved differently in a way that doesn't fully compromise the factors underlying their explanation). So rather than dealing with that situation the way you'd deal with an accident or mistake, it makes sense to deal with it the way you'd handle something deliberate. They're not just saying 'oops', they're asking for a concession. Combining that with naming it a matter of principle, they're asking for a concession while simultaneously refusing to give a concession in return.

That doesn't seem like a good social dynamic to me, regardless of what anyone might say about the nature of roleplaying.

[Quertus]

Quertus, I mean this in the kindest way possible for such a statement, so please take it by the intent in which it was offered:

Your methods and strictures about gaming are not so strictly held by the majority of folks, and I am glad for that, because while I can appreciate your points, I would not enjoy playing with your style of player at my table. You do you just fine, but we would conflict too much for either of us to enjoy it.

Roleplaying is, in my book, for the purpose of fun. Roleplay is itself not a reward, it is an action. Roleplaying which divorces itself from enjoyment is work, labor, and it is at that point no longer a game. Both portions of the label are just as critical, roleplaying AND game, and neither can take supremacy without destroying the fundamental nature of the activity.

Confusion. Which part - the role-playing in an RPG, the willingness to metagame like a mother****ing dolphin and choose differently, the willingness to retcon a failed game back to a functional game state, or demanding that "choose differently" be applied to the GM's NPCs too - do you feel would cause constant conflict at your table?

This kind of discussion really makes me feel that principles are an anti-pattern to successful group dynamics.

I mean, I already pointed out how characters with principles are a detriment to party group dynamics, so I cannot help but agree with you. It's kinda a tautology that anything that gets in the way of the group dynamic gets in the way of the group dynamic, and principles definitely can get in the way of the group dynamic.

[Segev]

Principles only cause conflict when they are opposed by other, contrary principles. Generally, it’s the person whose principles are in the minority who gets credited or blamed for sticking by them and “causing conflict,” though it can also be the more honest one who didn’t poison the well and pass his principles off as “just how things are,” such that anybody with differing principles is automatically the bad guy opposing what’s “natural.”

But usually, it’s the former.

[Great Dragon]

This kind of discussion really makes me feel that principles are an anti-pattern to successful group dynamics. They're basically the equivalent to making an ultimatum - fully accept and endorse this behavior, or kick me out/ I will leave.

From what I understand of the original complaint Talakeal made, the ultimatum was more on the DMs side of that "Encounter".

Talakeal's PC had clear motivations, with behavior patterns backed by the "principals" of his LG Alignment - already fully established in the game.

The GM caused the Encounter With Powerful NPC, and made it where the "villain" in question made the "Join or Die" ultimatum.

To me, this encounter shouldn't have happened unless (A) the rest of the party was also there and (B) the DM planned it to be the Final Encounter. With the DM planning for the campaign to end, either way. Talakeal's response shouldn't have surprised the DM.

Reminds me entirely too much of the old "Paladin Trap" - where the PC either Turned Evil, Fell From Grace, and/or Permanently Died: with no escape or rescue possible.
*******
As far as the "PC/NPC and Monster" abilities being different, that's a Session Zero World Building problem, and I'd say that unless the Players were willing to sit down and hash out everything dealing with this, don't bother.
******
As for "Wounded Monsters", it's not really needed in most of the Editions I've played/DMed.

It's why all the non-PCs always have Average HPs in their stat blocks. Shows that they don't have maximum "resources" and saves the DM time rolling HD +Con times Level for every monster in every Encounter.
Which most likely wasn't planned, because - you know - Random Encounter.
*********

Talakeal

The best suggestion I can offer is:
To run the game for your Group for maybe a month (4-6 sessions) without Legendary Actions (maybe keep Lair Actions for flavor during Boss fights) and see if that makes them happy - or at least complain less.

Then ask how they feel, as well as do analysis on your feelings about it.

[Earthwalker]

Yes, most people game for fun. But I don't abandon my principles just because I'm playing an RPG, or at a water park, or whatever, even if doing so might increase my fun. That's… not how principles work.

Now, I'm not sure if "role-playing" is one of my principles, or one of the game's principles (it is 2/3 of the meaning of RPG, after all), or just a handy metaphor. But, in whichever case, it's not something I'll just abandon in order to optimize fun.

This reads like...

If I am in a campaign that has lasted for 200 hours. If for 10 mins I have to not role play, then the entire experience is ruined and I have broken my core principles.
The entire experience is ruined and pointless. I have wasted 200 hours.

Which seems in conflict with your tales of meta-gaming dolphins.

So my question is, are their times when you would back off the role playing just to move forward ?

[NichG]

From what I understand of the original complaint Talakeal made, the ultimatum was more on the DMs side of that "Encounter".

Talakeal's PC had clear motivations, with behavior patterns backed by the "principals" of his LG Alignment - already fully established in the game.

The GM caused the Encounter With Powerful NPC, and made it where the "villain" in question made the "Join or Die" ultimatum.

To me, this encounter shouldn't have happened unless (A) the rest of the party was also there and (B) the DM planned it to be the Final Encounter. With the DM planning for the campaign to end, either way. Talakeal's response shouldn't have surprised the DM.

Reminds me entirely too much of the old "Paladin Trap" - where the PC either Turned Evil, Fell From Grace, and/or Permanently Died: with no escape or rescue possible.

'Principles' on either side don't justify or excuse behavior that damages the group dynamic. So in this case, the DM should have 'chosen differently' once the join or die thing was likely to have ended the campaign. And if Talakeal felt that in that situation their character would have been so driven to stop the villain that even if it was futile they would kill themselves trying, then in that case Talakeal should 'choose differently' upon recognizing that that course of action would likely cause the game to fall apart.

But if the DM says 'well, realistically the NPC should just kill you if you say no' that doesn't excuse the DM from having responsibility over what happened. Neither would Talakeal saying 'my guy wouldn't compromise at all or do anything other then charge headlong into death' excuse Talakeal from having responsibility over what happened.

The point is, everyone involved has a responsibility for what happens. The only people who don't have responsibility? Fictional entities such as 'Talakeal's character' or 'the DM's NPC'. They don't exist, can't make choices, and don't get to be used as excuses to hide behind when something goes wrong. That's the point.

[Quertus]

This reads like...

If I am in a campaign that has lasted for 200 hours. If for 10 mins I have to not role play, then the entire experience is ruined and I have broken my core principles.
The entire experience is ruined and pointless. I have wasted 200 hours.

Which seems in conflict with your tales of meta-gaming dolphins.

So my question is, are their times when you would back off the role playing just to move forward ?

Two Three several things:

1) you are at a water park. There is an elderly couple struggling in front of you, slowing things down. Would you push them out of the way / murder them just to move forward?

2) per my falling into category #2 on my list of 4, metagaming like a mother****ing dolphin, for me, equals "evaluating what I know the scenario, the players, and their expressions, and making my best guess whether my intended action would be massively detrimental to their fun. If so, ask myself, 'is there another course of action that would also be in character, but would not negatively impact the group's fun?'. If not, return error."

3) it is foolhardy hubris to believe that one will always know best what will produce maximal fun for everyone at the table, and laughably overconfident faith to believe everyone else at the table will do so, too. Thus, one should expect that, even if everyone at the table is metagaming like a mother****ing dolphin, someone (especially the GM) may still declare a fun-destroying action while role-playing their characters.

4) in the event that role-playing and fun have reached an impasse, ask the GM to just "choose differently".

5) in the event that all participants in the scenario respond that there is no in-character different choice that will allow the game to move forward in a fun fashion,

5a) some would advocate that the player ignore role-playing, and have their PC take an uncharacteristic action, murdering the elderly couple to allow fun to move forward.

5b) instead, why not have the elderly couple move out of the way; ie, have the GM choose differently with these troublesome bit player NPCs, to allow the game to move forward without sacrificing the character of the more important (and generally more established) PCs?

5c) or (IMO, better yet), why not rewind the scenario until you reach a point where everyone can move forward, in character, in a way that produces rather than destroys fun, by just "choosing differently" at that point?

In other words, it takes two to argue. If you hold everyone to the same standards of choosing differently, there is no reason for the (established) PCs to make out of character choices, when the (generally unestablished) NPCs could just do the same.

If you come along with us, and murder that elderly couple at the water park so that we can just move forward, I guarantee it will ruin the whole day. Sacrificing the *character* of the character - much like the GM fudging or otherwise giving unearned results - will have much the same effect.

So, to directly answer your question, no, I see no reason to ever sacrifice role-playing a PC, as there are better alternatives. (EDIT: or, alternately, yes, I might do so as GM)

[Earthwalker]

Two Three

[snip]

Sorry for the snip too many other discussions in there.
No I will not murder people to move a live forward. Hope that clears that up.

I think my issue is. I don't equate spending 10 mins of not having fun out of a 100 hour experience to be the same as murdering people.

So when situations arise then I am willing to spend those 10 mins not having fun. equally I would expect if the solution to the problem was another player (or GM) not having fun for 10 mins to be fine as well.

It still seems your point of view is.

Its ok for the GM to have 10 mins of not fun.
Its ok for another player to have 10 mins of not fun.
Its ok for the whole group apart from me to have not fun.

What is not ok, is for 10 mins for me to have not fun. If that happens then the whole 100 hour experience is ruined for me.

I just don't get that.