"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.