"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.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 04:32 pm (UTC)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.