Deep Thought: The statement "I'm just playing in character"

[subplotkudzu]

Is the gaming equivalent of the Nuremberg Defense.

And no, I haven't resolved that other issue as yet. Been out of town.

Comments

[kriz1818.livejournal.com]

Oooh, good one. And so very true.

[wombattery.livejournal.com]

The player's excuse is that he's only taking orders from himself. Mod up.

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

The difference is that, if someone is playing the character they designed, and the results are a problem for you as the GM, they are a problem you brought on yourself by consenting to let that character be played in the first place. The "orders" don't come only from the player; they have your countersignature on them.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

That depends a lot on how much vetting of the character personality the GM does pre-game, and how much the character might evolve in play. I usually have done very little vetting of character personality, in part because my group has (until recently) had the unspoken assumption that the character personality would be someone who would work with the rest of the group towards the campaign goals - otherwise that character wouldn't be there.

(Assuming of course that the player isn't suddenly playing the character in an inappropriate fashion contrary to both the character sheet description and the evidence of previous play. In that case the Player is just lying - at least to you, and perhaps to themselves as well.)

This is not to say that I am denying all responsibility. Clearly as GM I have to step in and handle the issue, and wonder whether this incident means that I have to codify and enforce table rules going forward, so that my consent based on the assumption that the character would be suitable becomes an is replaced by an actual sign off. Oddly enough, this is exactly the sort of thing that happens in my Human Resources work all the time, especially in new companies or new departments. Things reach a point where you can no long trust that everyone will get along and work towards the same goal, so new rules and bureaucracy are needed.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I don't think you need rules. But I wouldn't dream of letting a player run a character without looking over the character closely. This hasn't always avoided all problems, but it does let me make sure the character makes some kind of sense for the campaign premise. And I also insist on all the players sitting down together to discuss character concepts before building their characters. So everyone should know what kind of character everyone else is playing, from the outset. I don't know how much of that you do, but if you don't, it might help avoid some of the problems you describe.

[ctwriter.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure spending energy codifying table rules for something that is supposed to be fun, not work, is a good idea. You have one problem player every ten years. I'd say your track record for putting together players who can and will work toward a common goal is pretty darned good without the rules.

My advice? Stop worrying yourself over it. Have the conversation with him if you're going to and then move on.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

"I'm only playing my character" is usually a sign that something's going wrong. But, it's not always the same thing.

Fr'ex, I've had players using it when they themselves did not enjoy the results, but felt they had to play their character that way. This is a different problem from someone who's being an ass. It's not necessarily easier to solve, but it's a different problem.

Then, there's cases where I agree with the player. These are a minority of cases. But, if you tell me I am the head of security, and you then say, "Wait, why are you running a full diagnostic on the ship's sensors and insisting no one carry weapons?", well, I will answer, "Because that is what my character would do -- he's the head of security."

This may not necessarily be out of line for me. It all depends on how the situation was set up. If you're running a convention game and pregenerated the characters, the context is very different. If you've told me up front that this is pulp, and I should assume that the rules of the universe work such that my PC is competent, no matter how many times bad guys get the drop on the group, well, okay. Not always to my taste, but you've told me the ground rules.

But, if it's a reasonable action to take under the circumstances, then "I am playing my character" is not the Nuremberg Defense.

If we're talking "My character really insists on this insane course of action and won't be budged from it and won't compromise and generally acts like an ass, and it's just his character," well, my first reaction is "Why?" At that point, you're not saying, "Look at my character's background and profession, and look at the situation. You're asking me to break game reality here." Instead, you're saying, "I'm defining game reality as letting me be an asshole, and you're not allowed to have a problem with it." That's the Nuremberg Defense.

Actually, in some ways, I have more sympathy with the Nuremberg Defense, because those using it were in an extreme situation, and I would not wish that situation on anyone.