From now on, I shall be named "Michael Parpilion" :D Thanks a lot for this episode. Answers perfectly my question :)

I had to ask the DM about this once. I was the only chaotic player in the party. (I was a barbarian druid, it made sense that I didn't care about society at all). This wasn't a problem, until we found out that the big bad guy was a queen of chaos. Her goal was to use her armies to destroy all civilization. As a chaotic neutral character, I really supported this person more then I wanted to stop her. Considering how weak my reason to stay with the party was, an all out attack on this leader could easily lead to me directly trying to fight the party. This was particularly bad because I was the only player who optimized when making their character. There was a good chance I could take them. So, where a party member betraying the team could make for a good story. A party member betraying the team and killing almost all of them doesn't. So as soon as this came up as a possible eventuality, I asked the DM to make sure that before we run into the big boss: he either give me a reason to dislike this big bad person, or he set up an area for me to betray the party and still lose.

*_"My, what fine yet rustic architecture. I think I will examine it more closely."_*

Well said, sirrah! In my experience, many "great role-players" who stand on the "being true to my characte"r defense have, in fact, characters who are as complex as a Pavlovian dog. "They knocked me out. That is betrayal. I will attack. I must attack." As you suggest, actual sentient beings negotiate, compromise, think of the future. "Was knocking me out really a deal-breaker? Is it enough to flush years of friendship with these fellows down the tubes? There's gotta be a way around this." I'm glad you mentioned the GM. If he has any merit, and isn't asleep behind the screen, he will suss that Sir Virtuous ain't gonna allow the others to torture a little old lady. If he wants his plot to move forward before a player eruption occurs, he'd better throw in a new element to alter the course of events.

I tend to this problem by recognizing my character as someone who is dynamic and far more than what I had planned for them to be. So whenever I make a decision for my character, or am incapable of role-playing them, that doesn't match how I envisioned them to be, I spend some time afterwards and ask myself, "Why did they make that choice?" "Why didn't they take this action?" Sometimes I learn that my character who strives for freedom willingly indentured herself to the stranger who saved their lives because her paranoia led her to believe that this powerful person had snipers off in the distance to pick off those who refused his offer. Other times I find myself realizing that my character is no longer the coward that I drew up at the beginning of the story. He has faced too many demons; he has felt the rush of adrenaline; he has come out on top too many times to continue pretending as if every encounter is going to end in his death. Through these questions I often learn more about who my character is, and that allows me to be a better role-player.

The problem is that the 'in character' play is just fun for the specific player. I play to relax. I do not play to be belittled, yelled at, discriminated against or harassed in character. When a player says "Stop harassing my character, I am not enjoying this" maybe the "good roleplayers" should take a hint and throw "whatever crap their character would do" on a player who enjoys it.

These things sometimes happen with my characters. I find myself frantically searching for ways to stay in character whilst not sabotaging the party or storyline. Sometimes it's great fun, other times, however, it is not.

Sometimes the concept of eventual violence can be used for the character to express disdain with the course of events, without derailing them. If i might steal your plane example(modified to a boat), when the Dwarf who wanted to stay on land wakes up, andsometime after he wakes up, he tells the one responsible "one of these days, i am going to kick yer bum from here to the mountainhomes for this, you know that, right?" This works particularly well if the two in question had a FRIENDLY (i can't express that enough) adversarial relationship. Of course, I'm also of the mind that some headbutting among the characters is a good thing, as it makes it feel more real, as long as it isn't party cohesion breaking.

Great video! I'm playing an evil character so I often have to think creatively to make sure my roleplaying doesn't get in the way of the story or other player's fun. I'm enjoying the puzzles it creates. There was just one time where a story event happened, and after a week of thinking about it (and discussing with friends) I could not figure out a way to keep my character with the group. I sat down with the GM and talked it out. We eventually decided that we could retcon one small event (basically a throw-away line) that would solve a majority of the problems. Worked great, and our GM grew as well. Last session, the same thing almost happened to another player, but the GM used a similar throw-away line that kept the group together.

Great advice, once again. Thank you!

I wish one of the other players in the game I was in last night had seen this. They spent about 30 minutes staunchly refusing to agree to owe a favor to a powerful being (either a strong spirit or a god or something) in exchange for sending us home, and seemed to want to get into combat with it, which would have left us stranded in the Feywild. Every other character had agreed, but nothing we said or did could convince them to agree since the spirit couldn’t guarantee it wouldn’t be dangerous. It was the end of the session and the game, too, as this was a one shot with a possible post-time skip continuation. In the end I and another character volunteered to do two favors (wish I’d thought of that sooner, but I was completely checked out for a while there) at which time the problematic character tried to say that she’d do all of the favors. I was banging my head against the table at that point.

Great as usual.

Skillfully mediated. Thanks again for making great videos. My weekly posts to my party always seem to have your videos attached.

A very good piece of advice. I often use B. A. Baracus as an example to stubborn players and present the idea of 'overcoming' stubborn awkward characters as a party challenge. If the player is a good egg it often turns into a bit of a Whitehall farce. Luckily we don't have any really stubborn players in my group. Yet...

My current character has a similar thing to B. A. Baracus in that he has a fear of heights. This is due to a traumatic event in his past. It hasn't really came up yet in game but the DM and I found a way to incorporate it which doesn't require my being stubborn and spoiling things. We have set out different degrees of fear and difficulty he experiences at different heights and I have handed a lot of the power over to the DM. Specifically, in game terms, the DM has the ability to judge the situation and apply the fear effect or similar where appropriate. In this way, instead of it being a point of contention, it can become a plot point and a puzzle for all of us to solve. Also, because it's something my character can't control, he can actually be grateful if the party forces or helps him to overcome it. He would generally want the same result as the others he just finds it harder to get to that result.

I don't think you should ever compromise your character - it's deeply unsatisfying for any character that's more than a walking stat block. This video provides several useful strategies for avoiding doing so, particularly the last three suggestions. I would add also, that this is sometimes a design issue: Characters with aspects that give rise to occasional conflicts add depth to the interactions and can be great fun; characters designed to be difficult, at constant odds with the party and perpetual story blockers reduce total fun for everyone.

I ran into a situation like this in an Exalted game a long ways back. I'd written a Big Damn Hero-type character, and purportedly, everyone else had as well. I say purportedly because I'm the only one in the group who actively attempted to save anyone, or in fact, even attempt to do much of anything except hunt for Artifacts (the games magical items) or other loot. It finally came to a head when I attempt to go intercede in a war on the side of the good guys in the battle. I get knocked out from behind (against the rules, and all abilities of my character, right down to the armor that should've stopped it cold), and they load on the ship so they can go get Magic Sword #203, and that tore it. I'd tried for months of real time, and I looked at my partner in crime of the group, and gave 'the nod'. While the party had relieved me of my armor and weapons, it was irrelevant as I have the ability to summon them to myself. Meanwhile, PIC wouldn't board the boat, pretty well stating what was about to happen, And making a last ditch attempt to steer the party away from folly. No takers, so he just shrugged and waited on the pier for the fireworks to begin. I woke, broke clear of the boat, which sank, and proceeded about going to do my hero thing, cause fuck this shit, I'm not doing one more artifact run, and I'm not letting one more person die because of my 'companions' lack of ability to give a living shit about anyone until they get called out on it. I rode off to adventure, even agreeing to less actual time in the Main plot. Funny enough, I accomplished WAY more than the rest of the group combined, like maybe magic item hunting wasn't the most productive use of their time.

I had a similar problem you explained with the A team in our campaign. The party was going to investigate a disturbance. Undead were tormenting travelers by Old Owl Well. I, being a paladin, wanted to kill the damn things. We went, I killed a bunch, and then a necromancer came out. The rest of the party went to talk to him, and I stayed there with three undead. Bad idea. I breathed fire at the things (because I am a dragonborn) and promptly angered the necromancer, who paralized me. He told us the quest, and we went and did it. We had to return though, so to correct the problem, the cleric and I had cloths tied around our eyes. Can't see them, don't know they are there.

Was facing this exact dillema the other night when our group had a One-Shot under a different DM from the group itself. We had decided, after careful investigation and rescue of a tiefling Lord and Lady of a township, from a Diamond plague, that we would not follow the (newly revealed as evil) King's orders and we wouldn't kill Sleekfang, the 500 year old Dragon, who, red scales and all, was actually a protector of the land. Instead we went with the option of asking for his help in overthrowing the king and we did so. It was actually a fairly short fight, us vs the King and we took him down in less than two turns. The DILLEMA that occured was in the final moments of the fight. Our Eledrin Necromancer Wizard, newly awoken from a dream of madness, killed the king, when my halfling Cleric of the Life Domain, under Lady Istus, a Lawful Good character, wished to instead have him stand trial for for his crimes. I even had a Zone of Truth ready to go, should he deny his crimes. A wonderful argument happened between our characters, who slowly were building up their Order vs Chaos dynamic over the 4-5 hours this game took us to get through and ultimately, my level 5 character's window of opportunity to revivify the king passed, because our characters argued instead. The Firbolg Ranger's pet Puma, Ginger, bit off a piece of the dead king's flesh and our Wizard set him aflame. The situation was intense, but we understood that this was all in-character and we kept it as that. Ban, my cleric, ultimately felt distraught for failing to bring the king back and have him pay for his crimes and Simon (Formerly calling himself Gammon Steak) now had to worry about whether or not his moment of clarity, given to him by Ban, would pass and he'd shift back to his crazy persona. We had no epilogue to our adventure, but I imagine that Ban would stick close to Simon, as he swore that he'd help him remember his past, should his madness overtake him again. Roleplaying was fun as all hell.

This advice seems really useful :) Thank you for it

It can work in some situations but in my experience going against your character for the sake of the story does not always works. I did it one time but after what my character was forced to do I could not enjoy playing with her anymore. Sometimes it's better to stay in character and go against the party. It will not necessarily ruin the story, other characters can always stop or kill yours or something.

My first serious campaign was 4th E, and I was playing a very pious and boisterous Paladin, who quickly became leader at the request of everyone in the party. At some point, our party was overwhelmed and taken to the Underdark, hostage by Duergar that saved us... They worshiped an evil deity, and demanded we pay homage to their deity in exchange for words to negotiate our freedom (on terms of dangerous quest of course). My character had a total breakdown. I could not forsake my deity, my faith was too strong! (I accidentally called down the avatar of Helm to crush a deadly encounter in the temple of Neverwinter using a desperation prayer). I channeled a quiet prayer to my deity, but he could not hear me where I was at. I lied to the Duergar and went along with the party, later paying penance as soon as possible.

I ran into this problem in a game a few months back. Our party was on an island, on a world with no sun or moons, but it still stayed warm. There was a sea god in the ocean near this island, that every 6 months or so would demand a young maiden be sacrificed to it. And we just happened to arrive a few days before the latest sacrifice. My character is a dhampir thief of the Chaotic Good persuasion. And she takes the preservation of life rather seriously, and therefore was of the opinion that the party should intervene, and stop this once and for all. No one was exactly in favor of it, but pointed out that we had our own mission to accomplish, and we had a boat leaving to take us there leaving the day before. This lead to a lot of IC fighting. Well, the day before we were slated to leave, we met with the village's Spirit Cultists, who explored alternative religion to the human sacrifice demanding sea god. As we probed the Cultists a bit, we found they actually worshiped us and some others we'd met in our travels (long story how this came to be), but there a group for each of us. And my dhampir thief met a pair of sisters, one of who worshiped a Spirit that was definitely her, and the other sister worshiped her mother, the Vampire Queen, who generally wants two things in life. To accumulate more power, and bring her estranged daughter back into the fold. And the young woman who worshiped my character's mother offered a little deal from her diety. A way for us to get to our objective and back in time to intervene in the sacrifice, and a weapon that could help strike down the sea god when it showed up. All we had to do was give her a bit of the credit once the deed was done, presumable so she could get more worshipers, and eliminate incumbent opposition. Naturally I took this offer to the party. I was in favor of taking the deal. The vote did not go my way. Not everyone was opposed to the deal, but many felt it wasn't worth a deal with someone they felt may be no better. So, I ended up taking the deal anyway, figuring I'd go it alone if need be. It just wasn't IC to my dhampir thief to ignore a solution that could save an innocent life, even if it meant dealing with her mother. The rest of the party wasn't too happy about it, even as I told them I'd take the burden of the payment entirely on myself. Details of just what the deal involved came out only after accepting it, so it turned out going alone wasn't necessary. Sadly, they ignored my offer of taking the burden of thanking our sponsor on myself. Annoying Lawful types... It was a tough battle even with the afore mentioned present. But things worked out in the end. I probably could have handled the situation a lot better in retrospect, but that's always the way of things. Hindsight is 20-20.

I'm at a point in the story where my Cleric of Light, who hates darkness and creatures of dark, is in party with a Wizard who is about to start raising undead. It's going to be tough to find a way to allow her to raise undead without killing them all immediately. Turning the other cheek seems like a bit of a challenge when it's the core of your character, and these undead are going to be permanent minions. I Might have to make something up about only creatures who literally live in darkness irritate me.

My party had to give one of it's members the BA Baracus treatment a few times.

As a GM, how do I help new/unseasoned players roleplay their characters a bit more, if possible? (I don't mind which of the two channels the answer is put on, I love both

in the most recent campaign I am in the party kicked my character out of the group because I stayed true to my character XD. And now I get to play my character as a "villain" for the group :P

This is one video where I end up disagreeing overall. You make a great point in looking for exploring options, and seeing how you can turn things into making a better story. However, you also seem to advocate for characters convictions effectively being walked over or lessened temporarily just for things to move forward. I once was playing a Paladin who was in a party with a half black dragon. The dragon character was an absolute dick, but my character had been essentially forced to put up with his behavior for a while. Eventually said black dragon when full on evil and decided to try and eat a child. Dragon got a very high damage holy smite and died. How else should a Paladin act in that situation? Simply walk away and not take part, and keep watch over the area to make sure they don't get ambushed? There are times when a character will behave as they should, and sometimes that might go against the campaign. I'd honestly partly blame the gm for forcing two characters of such opposing alignments into the same party.

My answer in short: first be sure it would be better if your character would go with the story. That means, talk meta with your fellow players and the game master. If yes, test your space of interpretation, all your space of interpretation, all your player's character and the world of the game master. Are there any options to have the character follow the story without breaking her, him or it? What circumstances, challenges, requests or promises would allow consistent choices go along with the consistent story? Is there any compromise possible that doesn't feel bad? If no, honestly screw one of both, either the story or the story. In my experience, there are always options by space of interpretation, at least with the world at the end. All things can happen, and there is nothing that could happen to make it possible? Poor world. On the other hand some things feel weird. Space of interpretation: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/apmddtOV2rDNeX0.html

I believe there are situations in which it really is okay for a character to draw a line. However, if the player decides to do that, this creates a situation in which the group basically decides to either not cross that line or part with that character. The plaer whodrew the line would have to create a new character then. I just dislike the expectation that I should compromise my character just to keep the story flowing - I'd rather play another character. That said, I have what I call "rule 0": "Don't ttack the party unless they attack you and never deliberately ruin someones game". Thus, the worst my character would do is to leave and say "If we meet again, we will be enemies. I swear you will pay for your crimes." Your advice is sound, though. What I describe is the last resort. In the torture situation, I would ask the group to speak with the prisoner first, tell him that the group wants to torture them and that I have no means of stopping them if I don't get the information. If that failed, I would ask the wizard if he couldn't just read the prisoners mind instead. Only then, I'd draw the line.

Cool!

My dm is running an episodic campaign and is ignoring anything that isn't relevant to his campaign despite the fact it really makes no sense. For example he asked me to change my ranger into a cleric then sent us on an adventure to a hamlet beset by bandits and a fiend. Two of the bandits got away but we dealt with the fiend. He then said we returned to Bottlequay and I asked about the hamlet stating we haven't finished the mission as there's still bandits out there and we have no idea where the fiend came from and the hamlet has no protection from any further attacks. His view is that wasn't important, then I reminded him I'm running a cleric who wouldn't leave a flock unprotected and his response was generate up a new character. Which I did but I'm still not impressed. I sent him a short story trying to demonstrate why he's wrong by giving a potential solution to the problem but he definitely hasn't bothered to read it possibly because its not the first thing I sent him as I'm trying to get the hang of the character and he clearly isn't interested in that.

Getting angry and saying "no" can be funny, though. In The Adventure Zone, Taako refuses to get on the elevator, and gets to sit back and watch Merle and Magnus get shrunk and fight a cockroach.

I would be pissed if my fellow players knocked me out :D The more of your vids I watch, the more I start to doubt if it is all that helpful to me since we seem to agree on most points :V

In one of my groups, I play this rich guy who has the rest of the team working under him. One of the other players is always trying to have his way, twisting my character's orders and in some cases try to get my character into trouble. If I was just following my character's personality, I would have fired the player's character, but I just know it would probably ruin some of the game, especially since one of the other player's character kind of have him as his "dependents" character.

Along with my Character I will go around Passive agressively bitch about it for weeks "In game weeks not Real time"

I always have a problem with this! It's not really about me vs. story. It's more about me always being on my way out from the story... I don't know what to do! this is a good example: I play a game now were I'm a police officer. The plot was that I got a quest from my boss to track down a person. All the other players were working for me. But my character got a warrant on her (the police department thinks I'm a traitor) later in game and I told the group to continue working without me. They are still in the plot but I'm far up north getting beaten up by a gang because I wanted somewhere to hide for a while. And this is how it always goes! I don't understand! And this game was designed for me!

Play the character. Story that entertains who? If the character would want to stop the outcome the DM has in mind, the character should sabotage the DM's story.