"It's what my character would do!"

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.

In Defense of Group Character Creation

Oftentimes GMs will have their players create the character they need for the game at home before they arrive to the table for the first session of play. Arrays and point buys have eroded the need for ‘GM confirmed’ rolls for attributes and there are so many systems out there that allow for easy character generation for most major systems. Making the character before the game saves a session of time, but what is the cost of this convenience?

I have always felt that by having characters generated before the game starts, we lose out on a chance for our players to appreciate the setting. Watching over their shoulder while they consider their choices allows you to both make sure you are providing an adequate challenge, but you can also help strengthen their bond with the setting. Offer suggestions from the handout (if there is one) about how certain classes can tie in with existing organizations. Talk about the terrain and certain events while they create which can give them ideas as to what would be strong in the campaign. Talking about a setting will churn thoughts among your peers more than simply placing it on a piece of paper. Speak with a tone that shows you care about what you created and you can easily encourage your friends to think about their in-character choices.

With everyone in the same room, you also allow for the group to synergize better with one another. You have an easier time filling class roles, and people can work together to create a bond that works in-character for the campaign. Probably one of my biggest gripes is when players come to the table with multiple characters rolled ready to go when I ask them to roll at home. It gives of a feeling of caring only for the game portion of the campaign, not the setting itself. It’s a nice gesture in order to make sure roles are established to avoid shortcomings, but it feels hollow unless they have a good back story for each.

Newer players will always benefit the most from group creation, with veterans helping them determine the direction they should go for the idea the new player has in mind. Many systems that offer a lot of complex choices also suffer from the Ivory Tower gaming theory where certain options seem appealing, but are useless. These options are traps for new players who only know the basics, and can deteriorate playing experience in later sessions. The group experience can also make sure that the player’s character is in line and 100% correct for game time to help keep the game time flowing smoothly.

The best reason though to create characters as a group is the bonding aspect of it all. Knowing what design process went into each character, interacting with each other by providing suggestions and support for character ideas and themes, all of this can result in a greater experience at the table come game time.