Quote from: GeekEclectic;828771There's the crux of the problem right there. You. Just. Can't. Know. [...]

Planning out your character's arc in advance is bullshit. [...]

You don't plan out your character's story arc, much less try to impose it on other characters. You see what story arc emerges from actually playing your character. It's that simple, and if this dude can't come to terms with that, you probably just need to let him go.

All worth repeating and then some. Sounds like someone doesn't understand the point of a roleplaying game. Everyone else there is trying to have fun, too, not to support one-man shows.

If you want to write, write. If you want to play a role, play a role. Do not be surprised if the table of shared play rebels when you write a script for everyone to accommodate without their knowledge & consent.

I think part of it is not knowing where the line gets drawn with the whole "character bending" concept. It's a familiar refrain in RPGs that you shouldn't let "what my character would do!" get you stuck in something that the group doesn't enjoy. If what your character would do is abandon the party because he wants to eat chips at home all day, then it's on you to figure out a way to get him involved in the game. Or a Paladin not constantly smiting the party for every little thing they do that doesn't fit his Morality Police handbook. Or accepting a new PC into the group without too much of a fuss. Etc. These are all using OOC information to help smooth out potential speed bumps in the name of play.

Except here it's "what my character would do is not let this guy evil guy run loose" so the player wonders why they can't bend on that too, and chalks it up to a failure of on their part.

They actually do try to do that when it's feasible, aka you stole a piece of bread. But in this case it had gone too far for anyone to feel like they could justify it IC.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828800I think part of it is not knowing where the line gets drawn with the whole "character bending" concept. It's a familiar refrain in RPGs that you shouldn't let "what my character would do!" get you stuck in something that the group doesn't enjoy. If what your character would do is abandon the party because he wants to eat chips at home all day, then it's on you to figure out a way to get him involved in the game.

Or just make a new character who does want to adventure with the group.

Seriously, some character concepts just don't work with some other character concepts. Murderous thieves and good people don't have a lot of common ground. Either everyone else can create new characters who can actively participate in the murdering and the thieving or at least who are willing to accept the murderous thief character and turn a blind eye when necessary. Or the player of the murderous thief needs to create a new character who isn't a murderous thief.

I sometimes use OOC information. Sometimes, it's necessary. For a particular example, I was playing a changeling, a Sluagh, on an OWoD MUX, and know, OOC, that there was a vampire in the area, a Nosferatu under Obfuscation. There was no staff member there to tell me to make a roll, or make a secret roll for my character. But I knew, OOC, that he was there, that his Banality was high enough to make my character queasy, and that he was a Nosferatu and using obfuscation, so it was absolutely appropriate for me to roll my character's ability to see through illusions. The roll succeeded, and the scene became more interesting.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828800I think part of it is not knowing where the line gets drawn with the whole "character bending" concept. It's a familiar refrain in RPGs that you shouldn't let "what my character would do!" get you stuck in something that the group doesn't enjoy.

This really isn't that difficult. You should explain to the guy that there's a big different between having characters put up with the occasional thing that they find distasteful because group harmony and the job/mission is more important/pressing and going in expecting the other PCs to knowingly tolerate things they find morally reprehensible. If the one character is going to do such a thing, why is he not at the very least taking steps to ensure that it happens in secret where the other PCs won't find out about it? If he does that, no party conflict arises(at least for now), and the GM has a nice little bit of ammo to use later.

QuoteIf what your character would do is abandon the party because he wants to eat chips at home all day, then it's on you to figure out a way to get him involved in the game.

If you actually make a character like this, you screwed up bad.

QuoteOr a Paladin not constantly smiting the party for every little thing they do that doesn't fit his Morality Police handbook. Or accepting a new PC into the group without too much of a fuss. Etc. These are all using OOC information to help smooth out potential speed bumps in the name of play.

Paladins in D&D are lawful good, not lawful stupid. So I don't really see any conflict with them tolerating things they find distasteful so long as those wouldn't be downright reprehensible by Good standards. Not to mention they're going to have a hierarchy of morality with some things being far more important than others -- it's perfectly reasonable to let a number of petty crimes go when you have more important fish to fry and limited resources to do it with! The petty pickpocket won't even ping on the radar of a Paladin who's preoccupied with something more severe -- murder, outside threats to the safety/stability of society, etc.

And as for introducing new characters to the party, this is where I think the term "OOC knowledge" might be a bit too broad. Though given the context of the OP, I sincerely doubt this is the kind of thing they had in mind by "using OOC information." Again, another difference here -- this time between using OOC knowledge to ensure that your replacement character will work well with the party and what the OP meant, which is more using OOC knowledge to game/avoid the challenges the GM presents.

QuoteExcept here it's "what my character would do is not let this guy evil guy run loose" so the player wonders why they can't bend on that too, and chalks it up to a failure of on their part.

They actually do try to do that when it's feasible, aka you stole a piece of bread. But in this case it had gone too far for anyone to feel like they could justify it IC.

Yeah, it looks like most of your players have the distasteful/reprehensible distinction down.

Now for a few caveats:

First, even if the actions are merely distasteful, to the other characters, this shouldn't be an all the time thing. This is a principle to keep the group from breaking down over relatively trivial matters, not an excuse to see just how much you can get the party to let your character get away with.

Second, there can be valid in-game reasons for your character to be at odds with the party sometimes. But again, you cannot know that these situations will occur before they actually occur, so pre-planning a character arc at all, much less around events that might never happen, is a fool's errand. It just should not be done.

Third, certain other kinds of pre-planning are okay . . . to an extent. In games where builds matter, I go through and make myself a "default" progression, but I do so with the understanding that it's merely an easy go-to when level ups occur and that in-game events could occur that change my plans. That said, if you're the kind of person who gets "married" to a build and can't let it go even if it no longer makes sense with the way the game's story is going, it's better if you just don't pre-plan at all.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828800I think part of it is not knowing where the line gets drawn with the whole "character bending" concept. It's a familiar refrain in RPGs that you shouldn't let "what my character would do!" get you stuck in something that the group doesn't enjoy. If what your character would do is abandon the party because he wants to eat chips at home all day, then it's on you to figure out a way to get him involved in the game. Or a Paladin not constantly smiting the party for every little thing they do that doesn't fit his Morality Police handbook. Or accepting a new PC into the group without too much of a fuss. Etc. These are all using OOC information to help smooth out potential speed bumps in the name of play.

Except here it's "what my character would do is not let this guy evil guy run loose" so the player wonders why they can't bend on that too, and chalks it up to a failure of on their part.

They actually do try to do that when it's feasible, aka you stole a piece of bread. But in this case it had gone too far for anyone to feel like they could justify it IC.

This derives from tied-at-the-hip parties über alles. Some PCs just will not work together — ever. And in a sandbox this is completely OK, split up. And in a one-shot adventure commanded by superiors this is also OK, temporary alliance. Other than that, you should swap out PC concepts. Period.

Why? Because you get this sort of bizarre "accommodate my spotlight solo" thinking. Otherwise you are putting OOC player aesthetic concerns over IC setting coherence — and that road leads to tissue thin scenery and scene chewing PCs, a.k.a. badwrongfunshittygame. Might as well spare everyone the spiral into diva hissy fits and play something else.

Don't casually accept setting incompatibility so as to accommodate table cooperation because then you lose the core of an RPG, the imaginary world's logic that holds all those roles together into something meaningful. Throw out the logic and meaning gluing it all together and what are you left with besides players playing dress up and preening? If the world means little to nothing, then why are all of you bothering with "being in it?" (a.k.a. playing a role within.)

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828728For the most part this works out, but then you have situations where the guy might stab someone to rob them, and it causes all the good aligned characters to react negatively. He wants them to just look the other way because they're all players OOC, but the others don't want to because it's not in-character.

His argument boils down to "I'd do the same for you so why can't you do the same for me." He had a whole story arc planned out in his head about his character falling from grace and becoming evil, but being redeemed at the end, but it got stuck on the fact that the rest of the party wasn't going to tolerate the "fall from grace" part.

That kind of thing.

So basically he comes across as a slightly selfish player. He wants his "plotted story" at the expense of everyone elses "freeform story". Problem is. He may not see that he is being selfish there.

Try pointing out that he has essentially made the other players his personal NPCs. He is walking all over them to get his plot. He gets to play his character fully and they are not allowed to play their characters.

At some point. If they have not already. The other players may start to realize that they are not really being allowed to play their characters and then the real trouble starts. They may rightfully resent the DM catering to this one guy at their expense.

As a player I do not mind bending a little to accommodate others backstories and personal plot wants. But even I have my limits.

Were I in your group Id be Ok with such a player with a character idea as long as I still had the option to stop or talk him out of said acts. I am not going to look the other way against my character. If he wants to pull that off hes going to have to figure a way to do it when I am not around. Or a good excuse. But his "plot" has no right to take control of my character away from me.

Now if he discussed with me beforehand this idea of fall and redemption then I might well work with that and create for myself a more morally grey character that isnt going to freak out when the other players character starts down the slippery slope.

But it does not feel like acting on OOC info? It feels more like that player has a story they want to play out and is trying to occasionally NPC the rest of the group to get it?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828800I think part of it is not knowing where the line gets drawn with the whole "character bending" concept. It's a familiar refrain in RPGs that you shouldn't let "what my character would do!" get you stuck in something that the group doesn't enjoy. If what your character would do is abandon the party because he wants to eat chips at home all day, then it's on you to figure out a way to get him involved in the game. Or a Paladin not constantly smiting the party for every little thing they do that doesn't fit his Morality Police handbook. Or accepting a new PC into the group without too much of a fuss. Etc. These are all using OOC information to help smooth out potential speed bumps in the name of play.

Except here it's "what my character would do is not let this guy evil guy run loose" so the player wonders why they can't bend on that too, and chalks it up to a failure of on their part.

They actually do try to do that when it's feasible, aka you stole a piece of bread. But in this case it had gone too far for anyone to feel like they could justify it IC.

You are mixing up a few things here.

1: If you create a character personality that doesnt want to adventure. Then what the hell are they doing? That is not bending to OOC. That is the player creating a potentially unplayable character unless something bends somewhere dramatically. If the Paladin is smiting everyone for every fault then that may be a problem with how the player is playing the paladin. See the other thread on alignment snarls and paladins. Paladin does not = moron. And who says the group always accepts a new character in without a fuss? None of this is a "familiar refrain" and none of it is really character bending.

2: Because he wants to play his character rigidly and force the others to bend. Bending himself only when it suits him. He has created a conflicting plot without the others consent and then expects them to play it. Therein lies the potential for trouble.

3: And there is where the trouble starts. This can flow into the valid worry of. "What if this guys "plot" involves something really squicky later like rape or killing one of us off as part of his fall?" Or just the above mentioned feeling that they have become NPCs.

Quote from: Bren;828809Or just make a new character who does want to adventure with the group.

Seriously, some character concepts just don't work with some other character concepts. Murderous thieves and good people don't have a lot of common ground. Either everyone else can create new characters who can actively participate in the murdering and the thieving or at least who are willing to accept the murderous thief character and turn a blind eye when necessary. Or the player of the murderous thief needs to create a new character who isn't a murderous thief.

For most games I like to have the players run their character concept by each other. Just some basic information (in game reveals can fun after all) or at least give something to me to try and avoid major conflict. Some conflict is probably inevitable and can generate good rp.

One thing WFRP 3E got right was the party sheet. It really helps to have some idea of why your PCs are working together, and what their aim is. You don't have to go as far as WFRP 3E did and include mechanical penalties and bonuses for party behaviour. But I think D&D 5E missed an opportunity by not including some framework for structuring parties. Righteous Avengers. Tomb Robbers. Swords for Hire. Eldritch Investigators. Some framework for players agreeing on what PC they're going to bring to the group and what their goals are.

The notion that almost anyone would trust their life to 3 random strangers met in a bar over a couple of drinks has always seemed a tad suspect to me.

Quote from: Nexus;828968For most games I like to have the players run their character concept by each other. Just some basic information (in game reveals can fun after all) or at least give something to me to try and avoid major conflict. Some conflict is probably inevitable and can generate good rp.

Totally agree.

And if you want conflict between PCs I've found it can be very helpful for the players to talk a bit OOC before play starts about how conflict might work. Talking through escalation steps can do wonders for including conflict and drama without immediately going to literal knife-in-the-back solutions.

Quote from: Haffrung;828988One thing WFRP 3E got right was the party sheet. It really helps to have some idea of why your PCs are working together, and what their aim is. You don't have to go as far as WFRP 3E did and include mechanical penalties and bonuses for party behaviour. But I think D&D 5E missed an opportunity by not including some framework for structuring parties. Righteous Avengers. Tomb Robbers. Swords for Hire. Eldritch Investigators. Some framework for players agreeing on what PC they're going to bring to the group and what their goals are.

I didn't realize Warhammer did that. That's a cool idea.

One thing I really liked about WEG Star Wars was that the character templates included suggested connections to other character templates. e.g. Smuggler might treat Brash Pilot like a younger sibling, Kid might actually be someone's younger sibling, Failed Jedi might be training Young Jedi, Bounty Hunter may have worked with Brash Smuggler in the past, etc. Sometimes just that simple a reminder to think about how characters are connected is enough for players to include that for their PCs.

Quote from: Bren;828996One thing I really liked about WEG Star Wars was that the character templates included suggested connections to other character templates. e.g. Smuggler might treat Brash Pilot like a younger sibling, Kid might actually be someone's younger sibling, Failed Jedi might be training Young Jedi, Bounty Hunter may have worked with Brash Smuggler in the past, etc. Sometimes just that simple a reminder to think about how characters are connected is enough for players to include that for their PCs.

QuoteSpecial Rule: Choose another player character as your older sibling/adopted parent/idol/whatever. You don't have to get the other player's permission. In fact, if he or she is annoyed, that's entirely appropriate for the character - who likes have a kid brother or sister tag along?

Best rule ever.

Quote from: Brad;829004Best rule ever.

Or worse.

If its annoying the character. That is (hopefuly) good role play.

If it is annoying the player. Then that is a kender...