I rubbed my temples and sit my headset down. I’ve heard this
term before in multiple places as a GM and as a player. I have yet to hear it
used in a positive light. This time it’s to justify attacking another character
in the party, causing the game to enter an almost an hour and a half side path
over a misunderstanding. As a GM I should of shot the idea down but this group
of players has always been chill with almost solitaire like play, and thus I
let it play out. No characters were killed and the matter was resolved but it
really made me think back to one of my biggest buttons that can be pressed.
This is something that I blame TTRPG systems that claim to
be solid for roleplay on, they often lack systems for inter-party conflict
resolution. As a player it is very easy to justify a bit of theft from your
fellow adventurer, or maybe a quick haymaker followed by a shield slam. It’s
drama and no group of individuals in any setting will journey for years free of
confrontation. There has to be a line though where the players about to embark
on conflict stop and think… is it worth it? Will this cause an actual argument
at the table and ruin someone’s fun? Will this stop the game flow for no gain?
I have always tried to encourage any serious in character beefs to be talked
about between the parties out of character first, either between sessions or at
the table via texts while we play. I think it’s vital to address what a
character wants to do to another, and work together on a scene that will result
in all parties addressing the tension and providing a fun scene for all
involved.
“If I talked to them then they would of been ready for
<insert action>!” This is often used when I have suggested in the past to
address the issue OOC before acting. It’s a selfish take and I would suggest
any GMs in the future who get this sort of an excuse along these lines to let
them know in the future, it may result in leaving. Often TTRPG games are a team
game and are designed for party cooperation, where loot and life go hand in
hand. For someone to remove either from another player out of the blue can lead
to either a nasty argument or a game dissolving as others at the table want to
avoid the game after the fallout.
People are flawed and as such, characters should and do have
personality flaws. Some steal, some have bad tempers, some interrupt the party
in key moments all the time. These quirks can lead to enjoyable moments in
games but it should be heavily considered during the character planning stages
if it’s a fun take for the rest of the table. People are quick to be turned off
to a game when a problem player’s character has a funny quirk which means they
scream “ice peppers” when things are serious in a tense diplomatic setting.
Players can be confused when the party’s fighter turns out to be a thief, or
the wizard raises the fallen sorcerer as a skeleton without asking. Do these
characters -need- to have some quirk or moral rationality that will guarantee
run deep grooves in the party without mentioning them first?
It can be avoided, or at least discussed during character
creation.
“It’s what my character would do” is an excuse to get away
with actions that others dislike. Never accept it.
