"I'm only playing my character"

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

This is inspired by one of brianrogers's posts.

"I'm only playing my character" is usually a sign that something's not working. But, it may not be the same thing every time. I think I've identified three general cases.

1. The player is an ass. Plain and simply, the player is using the concept of being in character to justify antisocial behavior.

2. The player is stuck in a box. That is, the player genuinely believes that doing anything other than the proposed action is breaking character. Sometimes, the player does not want to take the in-character action and has no fun doing so, but feels that it is cheating to do anything else. The solution to this may be to point out other options. It may even be to say, "Then, change the character."

But, the important point here is that the player does not want to be an ass. He or she just feels trapped. This does not make it an easier situation than #1 above, but it is a different situation. That said, if the player consistently falls into this rut, it becomes harder to distinguish from #1.

3. The player is correct. That is, the GM, or perhaps one of the other players, has set up a situation the character really would logically react that way, and those who insist otherwise are the ones with a problem. If I'm playing a competent bodyguard assigned to protect a VIP, yes, it really and truly is in character for me to search any room before allowing the VIP in, to prevent obviously armed people from approaching, and so on.

Unless there are specifics explaining why these actions are actually inappropriate in the gameworld situation, if a GM forces the issue, preventing my PC from taking logical precautions, it is in character for my PC to resign. After all, I'm being told "There is no way your PC can do the job."

Yes, there is an out of character issue here as well. If I have my PC tender his or her resignation, I am telling the GM, "I'm not playing." And this is why things can get ugly. It gets especially problematic if the game has a modern setting, intended to be realistic, but where the player knows more than the GM about the situation. pocketnaomi has a term for this, "Unicorn Trouble", coined when a poor GM realized that his or her players knew horses very, very well.

And, it may be that the player needs to bend, rather than the GM. But, this is a very different situation than #1 or #2 above.

Comments

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

I think you're broadening too much, but naturally i'm colored by my current predicment. I have had an instance of a plyer in situation number 2 some time ago, but it was readily handled by my pausing play and explaining that the genre rules just didn't allow for that action (a 'dark' hero in a relatively 4-color game nailing a mook's hands to a tree with her knife before she began her questioning) and doing a quick rewrite (nailing the mooks _sleeves_ to the tree). The player did feel that the action was in character, but understood why it was beyond the pale when we stopped to talk. Play proceeded swimmingly from there on.

I have had players in situation #3, but they've always pursued the solution with me out of character rather than pushing the "I will continue to act in ways that will damage everyone's enjoyment because I feel its more logical." It's usually enough for someone to come up with some rationalization for the game to move forward.

But the dodge of "I'm just playing in character" is, in my experience code for "I'm making the game less fun for everyone else and you can't stop me," and are usually a method of denying even the need for forgiveness, never mind permission. Otherwise the statements would be "I'm not sure why my character would do this," or "I don't see any way my character wouldn't to this," both of which are openings for someone to provide them a reason.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Good point about the semantics. It's like "Well, I'm just giving you my opinion" or "It's for your own good". The rewrite for your #2 case sounds elegant.

#3 is a tricky case, sometimes. Usually, for me, it's a "This really makes no sense, but okay, let's go on", when I'm a player. But, too many of those moments make for idiot plotting.

As a GM, sometimes I can deal with #3 by spotting the XY problem, and saying, "Okay, I need result Y. If you're spotting a problem with how I get there, tell me how I can get there within these parameters."

You use genre rules, and that makes a difference. But, there are too many GMs, including me, sometimes, who fixate on "And then I need this to happen, never mind how stupid the PCs have to be to allow it." And, we're not talking about genre conventions. We're talking about how Our Precious Plot must be allowed to progress to the point where we deign to allow the PCs to be awesome.

In many cases, talking with the GM helps curtail this -- but people can get too emotionally involved. And then, there's the case where it's not the GM doing the railroading, but a scenario author. "Right, here's where your vampire PCs get attacked in their havens for the third time this adventure, regardless of precautions take." "Okay, first you turn away from your mission so you can report failure of the same. Then, you and your fellow PCs who weren't technically on that mission go back to complete it, dropping everything else, including stuff the scenario author has just insisted was more important than completing the mission. Oh, and no, you can't just resign or commit seppuku."

At that point, we're very far from your situation, and we're not even talking about the in-character issue so much as about railroading the PCs and players alike.