“It’s What My Character Would Do"

So why did you make a character who acts that way?

…

For the uninitiated, Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) is a table top roleplaying game (TTRPG) where players take on the roles of different characters and interact with each other in a fantasy world. This world is run by one of the players, called the Dungeon Master (DM), who takes on the roles of everything else the players interact with, and adjudicates the results of the actions of both characters (chosen by the players) and all other things in the world (chosen by the DM) via the game’s rules, their own creativity, and an element of chance. It’s an amazing shared experience of creativity and imagination that I highly recommend everyone try. It’s not like any other form of entertainment as the possibilities are endless.

“There’s no wrong way to play D&D as long as everyone at your table agrees and is having fun".

While there are written rules, ultimately how those rules are used, not used, changed, or added to, is up to each individual group of players (commonly referred to as a table). As a result, how each table chooses to play this game can be different. Beyond the game rules each table generally sets it’s own etiquette standards when they start as well. A first game session, often referred to as a session zero, is when a table’s players and DM(s) work out character creation, rules variations, table etiquette, why this group of characters (called a party) have come to work together, any content the group would prefer to include or avoid, and go over the basics of the fantasy world setting they will be playing in before starting their multi-session game together (called a campaign). Generally speaking, there’s no wrong way to play D&D as long as everyone at that individual table agrees and is having fun. That said, some players are not a good fit for some tables, and what some tables find fun might be the exact opposite for others.

The most common variation of D&D is when the party is a cooperative group working together to accomplish a series of common goals.

While this varies from table to table the most common variation of D&D is when the party is a cooperative group working together to accomplish a series of common goals (and sometimes individual character goals as well). The personalities of individual characters might clash as part of the roleplay, but these common goals and a reasonable level of trust is usually what keeps the characters together.

Where problems can sometimes arise is when a player, or players, at a table disagree about how far this cooperation goes. Conflicts that can arise from this can often be avoided though good conversation during session zero, but sometimes issues still crop up.

“It’s what my character would do"

One of the most common ways this becomes an issue is when one or more the players create a character that is, in one way or another, antithetical to the rest of the party or the party’s goals. When this is just attitude or personality without a direct impact on the party it can sometimes be good roleplay, but that can also become repetitive and grate on other players at the table after a while. When this goes beyond personality and into actions this can result in conflict both in and outside of the game that can destroy the fun for others and end a campaign abruptly, if not break up a table altogether.

These background concepts aren’t inherently bad for gameplay, but any sort of character concept can be misused to "justify" non-cooperative behavior.

This is one of the risks of playing such an open-ended type of game. Players often come up with interesting concepts for their characters covering not just what the character can do and how they do it, but why they do things (backstories). This can sometimes become problematic in a social game with real people play at a table together. For example, a character may have grown up as a homeless orphan having to do whatever was necessary to keep themselves alive (giving them a different outlook on the morality of stealing). Perhaps a character was traumatized by some sort of attack that involved betrayal (making it very difficult for them to trust others). A character might simply be a bad person who expertly obfuscates their negative traits (which could tempt them to act against the party at times). These background concepts aren’t inherently bad for gameplay, but any sort of character concept can misused to "justify" non-cooperative behavior. "It’s what my character would do" is the oft heard excuse whenever this becomes an issue at a table. However, this excuse can fall flat when you consider that it was the player who chose to create a character like this, and who is making the choices to play their character this way, regardless of how others the table may feel about it. This can create a situation where the table is not in agreement, not having fun, and thus playing D&D wrong.

This can be avoided by clearly talking though such possibilities in session zero. However, if issues like this come up in actual game play how can it be addressed? While this could be shutdown by the players and/or DM at a table outside of the game, this can sometimes leave the player of the problem character feeling targeted as a person instead of seeing their character as the issue. What about addressing the problem in game though the characters to try to avoid this sort of misunderstanding?

Why would any party continue to allow someone like this to remain with them?

Consider the typical concept of an adventuring party in the world of D&D. They’re generally a group of oddballs and outcasts who came together to try to make their fortune by taking on risky tasks others won’t do, frequently putting their lives on the line in the process. A group like this requires a level of trust between the members to succeed. If one member is known to steal from other party members, is always getting the rest of the party in trouble in town, plots against the party, doesn’t follow plans, or can’t be counted on the stand with the party when death is on the line, why would any party continue to allow someone like this to remain with them? This is one of the problems often ignored by those who use the "it’s what my character would do" excuse.

Sometimes the best approach to deal with "it’s what my character would do" is to simply respond in kind.

In these situations problem players like this usually expect others at their table to accept how they play because it’s a fantasy roleplaying game and they’re just playing a role. However, these same types of players rarely seem to consider the logical response their character might receive from the other characters in a party when their players are also playing their character roles and simply doing "what their characters would do". Is your character the type of person who would continue to allow themselves to be abused and put at risk by someone who clearly cannot be trusted? Perhaps, but if so why? Also, what is the likelihood every member of the party would feel the same way? Sometimes the best approach to deal with "it’s what my character would do" is to simply respond in kind. A party needs to be a tight knit group that works together. Those who can’t do that should be kicked to the curb for the sake of the party’s success and survival as a whole. This approach has a better chance of being a teaching moment and potentially avoiding the player of the problem character feeling like the group is targeting them rather than their character’s actions. They can always create another character and try again at the same table.

It’s far better to come up with characters that have a reason to work together and do so throughout the campaign.

Ultimately things like this are not good for most tables and will likely cause friction both in and outside the game that can result in a campaign coming to an abrupt end. In my opinion for your game to be fun, and a for table to last a long time, it’s far better to come up with characters that have a reason to work together and to continue to do so throughout the campaign. Leave the backstabbing, thieving, undermining, and general nastiness for the various monsters and dastardly non-player characters the party encounters (unless that’s what your entire table happens to be into). Depending on your table your character can still have a nasty disposition without perpetrating nasty actions on the rest of the party.