TheRPGSite

Split off from Everybody always rolling for checks (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=32146) since it seems to be a distinct issue.

Quote from: Bren;827157* Players fall into several somewhat overlapping categories.

   A) Those players who intentionally use OOC knowledge. They aren't actually interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge.

B) Those players who are interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge but who, for one reason or another, end up more or less unintentionally using  OOC knowledge.

C) Those players who are interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge and who are willing and able to separate the two.

D) Those players who separate IC and OOC knowledge, but go too far and have their PC do IC stupid actions just so they won't be perceived to be using OOC knowledge.

Most people I game with fall into types B) and C). Category B) players will sometimes ask not to be told things their characters don't know. Some players who really want to act from a deep in character perspective will also not want to know OOC stuff.
As another side note, in over 40 years of gaming on two continents and many states I've never encountered a player who in my judgment was able to fully separate all OOC knowledge.

On the one hand, I agree that players can't fully separate OOC knowledge. An important corollary to this, however, is that I cannot recall ever encountering a GM who really *wanted* the players to act only on IC information.

Most importantly, GMs almost always give out a host of out-of-character cues that they expect to be acted on. Things like "Are you sure you want to do that?" along with "There is rumor of strange hauntings in the ruined castle" and other "the adventure is here" cues. In a lot of games, there are a ton of IC options that I avoid because they wouldn't be fun OOC for the players.

Of course, there are still players who will blatantly act on completely OOC information - which I am annoyed at. My point is that fixing this should be focused on communicating norms rather than pretending that there is a hard-line "No OOC" stance.

Again, I am an outlier.
Using OOC is bad in my games.   Very.

My PCs, luckily, pick up on this and are stellar at not using it.  I know it is for fun, it is a game, etc, but we play long games with the goal of them being 'narrative quality'.
This means using OOC knowledge is a serious offence.

For my games, at least.

And yeah, it's not pretending.  There is a hard line in my games.

It's a pretty bad offense in our Pathfinder group as well. The Players generally police themselves but I've seen that the GM keeps a close eye on the one guy who is most likely to 'cheat' that way.

In the games I run I'm fairly strict about it... again, the Players love catching each other at it but it doesn't happen all that often of late.

The current group I am DMing for and two I am playing in are pretty darn good about not acting on OOC information. This was one reason why I selected certain players to help playtesting Next as we all needed to be able to explore the Caves of Chaos as if we'd never been there before, and possibly have to do that more than once. Which we ended up doing.

On the whole you are right, jhkim. This really is about communicating expected norms than presuming such norms. And given how much this hobby depends on communication, it's surprising how often this tension between talking & assuming appears.

I've personally given up on subtlety. I think of myself as a fast read, having lived my youth on the qui vive for 'fun' like most others. But gamers in general, and particularly FLGS gamers, tend to have more than their share of social laggers.

So what's the point if they can't take the hint? As a GM, or friendly player, break the fourth wall already and help a brother out. I've only seen dividends pay afterwards from the initial awkwardness.

Now if they persist... that's another chat.

I won't hesitate to ask a player: "How exactly does your character about this?"

If they have anything resembling a coherent explanation, I'll allow that their character might know something, and they can act on that.

If not, their options will be limited based on what their characters know, as established by the GM.

Quote from: jhkim;827196On the one hand, I agree that players can't fully separate OOC knowledge. An important corollary to this, however, is that I cannot recall ever encountering a GM who really *wanted* the players to act only on IC information.

I'm fine with players only acting on IC knowledge. For me the balance is between what is practical in creating a separation, not in whether or not I want a separation.

QuoteThings like "Are you sure you want to do that?"

When I GM, what that means is - "given your PC's capabilities and the situation as your PC should understand it, your stated action sounds nuts." Lately I've taken to asking what the player was trying to accomplish instead of asking "are you sure you want to do that?" as quite often the nutty plan is due to a misunderstanding of the situation. But if the player understands the situation and still wants to do something nutty well then they try that and the other PCs and the rest of the world responds.

The most recent instance was the PC who suggested locking his NPC love interest in a cage. To protect her from a werewolf. That was in a cave. A cave that the party was planning on entering...while bringing the NPC and cage with them. :eek: Fortunately the other PCs over ruled that plan. Shortly after that their romance fizzled...for some reason.

Quote"There is rumor of strange hauntings in the ruined castle" and other "the adventure is here" cues.

If we are playing a sandbox style where the PCs seek out their own adventure then they do that. If a hook is presented they bite or they don't. That's the point of sandbox style play. If they aren't interested in that style of game then we tend to be playing a game where the PCs who are part of some group...currently in our Honor+Intrigue campaign, most of the PCs are members of Cardinal Richelieu's Red Guards. So they are often doing the job they are assigned by the Cardinal or his left hand, Pere Joseph the Gray Eminence.

QuoteIn a lot of games, there are a ton of IC options that I avoid because they wouldn't be fun OOC for the players.

To me there is a difference between OOC creation of characters who are suited for the premise of the game - which is agreed on OOC. Similarly continuing to play in a manner suited to the premise of the game isn't the same thing as acting on OOC knowledge while playing IC.

QuoteMy point is that fixing this should be focused on communicating norms rather than pretending that there is a hard-line "No OOC" stance.

I agree that communicating expectations or norms is important. But I think the line can be very firm. Even though I'm not personally interested in pursuing that goal to the nth degree. When I GM, I apply a rough Pareto principle. Not acting on OOC knowledge even when it matters significantly is my goal. If we are there 80%-90% of the time that's probably good enough for a game that is a fun leisure activity.

The level of effort to get more than 95% separation just isn't worth it to me. It would require physically separating players every single time their characters aren't together or it would necessitate the really odd practice of requiring parties to stay together no matter what, it would also involve a lot of writing notes, emails, or text messages to the GM or other players for everything that isn't announced aloud, and it would require players, as their PC, to actually describe to every other player's PC every single thing that happened when the PCs were separate and then recording or remembering what they said for posterity to insure there was no inadvertent knowledge transfer. I could go on, but you get the idea. There is a point at which that sort of separation is far too time consuming and resource intensive for anyone's taste.

For me, all I really aspire to, and all I expect from others is a solid B.

My reasoning is that as players, we lack so much in-character information that the occasional bit of out-of-character info isn't going to unbalance anything. How many of us really know what it's like to be . . . well, most types of characters, really? And how many of us keep an exhaustive record of our characters' history, contacts(and what they could reasonably provide), how much access to libraries(and what kind of books are likely to be contained w/in those libraries), etc. etc. etc.? No matter how many questions you ask the GM, you're going to be lacking some info. Sometimes even a lot of info.

That said, when it happens it should be at least plausible. Have some kind of explanation if called on how your character knows something. As long as your explanation makes sense and doesn't retcon something, I'm generally pretty flexible.

Quote from: jhkim;827196Most importantly, GMs almost always give out a host of out-of-character cues that they expect to be acted on. Things like... "There is rumor of strange hauntings in the ruined castle"

I'm not sure why you would consider that to be OOC information.  IC, the characters have been living in a community.  IC, they have interacted with NPCs, even if that interaction happened off-camera instead of being played out at the table.  IC, the characters have heard the rumors of the hauntings.  So how is that OOC information?

At most, I can see it kind of nudging vaguely in that direction because the GM is only telling them about the one rumor he wants them to follow up on and not all the other rumors the characters may have heard, but:

A) This is easily rationalized as "IC, you've heard several rumors and done a little checking around.  Based on what you've found, the haunted castle seems the most interesting/urgent/suited to your abilities."

B) There's nothing stopping the GM from telling the players about several rumors and asking which one they want to follow up on.  e.g., In the last cyberpunk campaign I ran, I maintained a bounty board and, after each session, gave the players a list of some of the latest news headlines, then asked them which one they wanted to look into next week so I'd know which one to prep.  Admittedly, my way of doing it may have been more sandboxy than some GMs prefer, but there's no reason that the end result could be the same regardless of which hook the players chose to bite on.

I like to keep as firm a line as possible between IC and OOC information. I don't expect anyone (including myself) to be perfect and I can and have veto'd character actions that are driven by information that the PC couldn't have known. I make this clear to anyone I play with.

When I play I do the same even if it means doing "stupid" things. If its a problem for the group in question, I bow out.

The "Are you sure you want to do that?" question is IC for me. It means that either the character would know something that makes the action dubious that the player doesn't or the situation is such that it could be obviously danger. Its that nagging voice of caution in the character's head.

I'm not sure why things like "There are rumors of a haunting in the ruins..." are OOC or meta information. The characters over hear things and interact with NPCs, probably much more than might be role played out especially if they've been in the area for awhile.

Quote from: Opaopajr;827251On the whole you are right, jhkim. This really is about communicating expected norms than presuming such norms. And given how much this hobby depends on communication, it's surprising how often this tension between talking & assuming appears.

I've personally given up on subtlety. I think of myself as a fast read, having lived my youth on the qui vive for 'fun' like most others. But gamers in general, and particularly FLGS gamers, tend to have more than their share of social laggers.

So what's the point if they can't take the hint? As a GM, or friendly player, break the fourth wall already and help a brother out. I've only seen dividends pay afterwards from the initial awkwardness.

Now if they persist... that's another chat.

I think that's part of it, but a lot of players all have their own different ideas about how much OOCness is okay at the table, so it could just be that they aren't agreeing.

I'm pretty hardcore against the use of OOC knowledge in the game. And it's not just me - my long-time players police the other players who try to metagame.

I'm always surprised when I come across comments where GMs are eager for new monsters because players have memorized the stats and discovered optimal tactics against existing monsters. They let their players look at the stats? That's cheating in my books.

Quote from: LordVreeg;827199Again, I am an outlier.
Using OOC is bad in my games.   Very.

I concur, it is metagaming and one of the few forms of cheating that can occur in tabletop RPGs.

The only cavaet (and it is a minor one). I don't care if a player roleplays in a way that the character is just a reflection of himself. A lot of players can't or don't want to act as a different personality. As long as they act as if they were really there in the setting I am good with that type of roleplaying.

Quote from: estar;827351I concur, it is metagaming and one of the few forms of cheating that can occur in tabletop RPGs.

The only cavaet (and it is a minor one). I don't care if a player roleplays in a way that the character is just a reflection of himself. A lot of players can't or don't want to act as a different personality. As long as they act as if they were really there in the setting I am good with that type of roleplaying.

I have had a few of these.  Players who seem to play the same character no matter what the backstory is. After a while, you realize they are sort of playing themselves.

I run my online game as text only on Roll20.  Nothings wrong with my system.  I just find players stay more IC when they are writing, with the ease of the off hand remark removed.  The latest game's archive is over 2000 pages of IC.  

Live games, we make that very clear as well from the beginning.  So the players become very adept at 'thinking' in IC.  

Again, no one else is doing it 'wrong'.  I don't claim to do it 'right'.  But whatever I am doing, it does lead to very, very long campaigns.

Any player who tries to pull this stunt on me is in for a sour surprise. I absolutely disallow use of any form of OOC knowledge in my games - if you want to know something you read in the Monster Manual, roll for skill/intelligence, same for any other game. In CoC, any player who tries to base his actions on statistics of monsters in the handbook might be surprised to find that monsters could work differently than in Chaosium's corebook.

One of the straws that broke the proverbial camel's back in my 5e campaign was when one of the players accused me of not reading the Monster Manual, when the rust monster destroyed paladin's sword with one successful hit (it's normally supposed to only implement a penalty of -1, with the penalties cumulating until the weapon breaks).

Quote from: Haffrung;827349I'm pretty hardcore against the use of OOC knowledge in the game. And it's not just me - my long-time players police the other players who try to metagame.

I'm always surprised when I come across comments where GMs are eager for new monsters because players have memorized the stats and discovered optimal tactics against existing monsters. They let their players look at the stats? That's cheating in my books.

It's not "let them look at it," you can't do anything if your player just decides to crack the book open at the game store or buy it for himself.

Quote from: Rincewind1;827397One of the straws that broke the proverbial camel's back in my 5e campaign was when one of the players accused me of not reading the Monster Manual, when the rust monster destroyed paladin's sword with one successful hit (it's normally supposed to only implement a penalty of -1, with the penalties cumulating until the weapon breaks).

What did you do?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827402What did you do?

Pulled the plug on the campaign, removed the 2 most offending players from my rooster (they were somewhat new to it), started a Kult game.

Did the other players find object?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827345I think that's part of it, but a lot of players all have their own different ideas about how much OOCness is okay at the table, so it could just be that they aren't agreeing.

You're right, they could be disagreeing with their own different ideas. That's why the GM is there to set the tone and correct openly and honestly when such things arise. It's the easiest and friendliest way, though in part confrontational.

Now remember everyone, when offering criticism: sandwich. A slice of praise on the bottom, a hefty stack of criticism in the middle, a dollop of sauciness to bring in some kick, and another slice of praise atop. Tah-dah, criticism.
:)

Quote from: Haffrung;827349I'm pretty hardcore against the use of OOC knowledge in the game. And it's not just me - my long-time players police the other players who try to metagame.

I'm always surprised when I come across comments where GMs are eager for new monsters because players have memorized the stats and discovered optimal tactics against existing monsters. They let their players look at the stats? That's cheating in my books.

On Sunday I was playing 5e. The GM was using zombies, she asked me about how their mechanics worked - so I turned to the back of the 5e Player's Handbook, where zombies are listed, and we went over their not-dying mechanic.

It was quite a 'not in Kansas' moment. OTOH I guess really 5e's back-of-PHB monsters are a big improvement from the 3e/Pathfinder paradigm where certain classes like Wizard, Druid and Summoner get to play with the entirety of the Monster Manual, choosing the most powerful creatures there to summon or polymorph into, while everyone else is a schmuck.

Quote from: Rincewind1;827397One of the straws that broke the proverbial camel's back in my 5e campaign was when one of the players accused me of not reading the Monster Manual, when the rust monster destroyed paladin's sword with one successful hit (it's normally supposed to only implement a penalty of -1, with the penalties cumulating until the weapon breaks).

I can't say this has happened much to me -- not playing D&D, for one, seems to insulate against most of it, and running my own setting takes care of the rest.  On the three occasions it has, over the years, I've pulled out the Viking Hat.  To quote that famous TBP post, "... it is very clear that *I'm* running the game, not three-hundred pages of recycled paper and second-rate art."

I am a DM. I am also a player. I by my very nature must not act on my knowledge of monsters. I am very good at that. Others are not. Such is. It is up to the DM to curb players who get a little, or a-lot out of hand with OOC knowledge.

This is simmilar to rules enforced on MUDs, MUCKs and other MU**s  in that your new character or ALT cannot act on knowledge or events that happened to a previous character.

My players know that sort of bullshit won't be tolerated in my games.

As I DM, I routinely change up stats and abilities of monsters. Whether a player regards that as legit or unfair gives a pretty good idea of how they approach the game.

What do you do if every player in your group likes ignoring all OOC info, except one, who thinks all OOC is the best way to play?

This is an unbridgeable gap.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828719What do you do if every player in your group likes ignoring all OOC info, except one, who thinks all OOC is the best way to play?

This is an unbridgeable gap.

Maybe. What is it the one player likes about OOC knowledge in play?

Quote from: Bren;828722Maybe. What is it the one player likes about OOC knowledge in play?

He likes to have the freedom to just do what he wants rather than be stuck with a character personality, and he likes to use it to support what the other players like to do, in his view. So he feels like they should do the same thing for him, and ignore their characters when he does something he wants to do.

For 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.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828728He likes to have the freedom to just do what he wants rather than be stuck with a character personality, and he likes to use it to support what the other players like to do, in his view. So he feels like they should do the same thing for him, and ignore their characters when he does something he wants to do.

For 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.

Funny, I had a player doing that sort of thing with 2 characters in 2 separate campaigns I was running.

He became the first player ever to have 2 characters in separate campaigns killed by the other PCs at the same time in my 38 years of running games.  All for IC reasons.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828728That kind of thing.

Sounds unbridgeable to me.

Also it sounds like he is only interested in supporting the other players in some of the things their characters want to do but not everything. For example, while he would support the other PCs being thieves or murderers he is totally unsupportive of the other players wanting to play characters who are good people.

Given that is so, he shouldn't be too surprised that the other players act just like him in that they also don't want to support his character in everything. Specifically they don't want to support or enable his character in being a murderous thief.

He either needs to get on board with the game that the group wants to play or he needs to find a new group. And I say all that as a player and a GM who is perfectly fine with playing or running a game with murderous thief PCs.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828728He 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.

There's the crux of the problem right there. As a player, you simply don't know what situations will present themselves to you beforehand. You may know that your character would be susceptible to certain kinds of temptation, and you can make the GM aware of this, but you still can't guarantee that those things will come up(or come up as often as you'd like) in the game. Or that if they do come up, they'll do so at opportune moments to take the bait(separated from the party, or only when party member(s) also susceptible to the same temptation are present, for example). You. Just. Can't. Know.

Planning out your character's arc in advance is bullshit. Doing horrible things in front of your good-aligned companions(or just in front of even halfway decent people in games w/o alignment) and expecting them to stand by and let you get away with it is bullshit. And for full disclosure, I say this as someone who plays quite a few Storygames; even by their standards(the ones I'm familiar with, anyway), this kind of pre-planning and asking other characters to overlook things they oppose for the sake of your pre-planned story arc bullshit is . . . well, 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.

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...