Teamwork and "My Guy"ism

"Brave Team" by DiegooCunha
For more by this artist, see:
http://diegoocunha.deviantart.com/

My writer friend Kit Bradley was the one who first drew my attention to what he called "my guy" ism. This was a tendency that some players have to say "well, my guy would do this/wouldn't do this/would act this way" in justification of roleplaying decisions that may be harmful to the enjoyment of the group as a whole.

This is, to some degree, one of those "do as I say and not as I do" sort of posts. I know I have a bad tendency towards this as a player, and it's something I try to work on in the times when I get to play anymore.

Not to be Confused with...

Before I go into this, I am not saying that roleplaying your character is bad. I'm very pro roleplaying. I'm even pro roleplaying characters who are selfish or deceptive or unintelligent or otherwise not 100% helpful to the interests of the player character group. I wrote a post recently even providing advice to players on how to roleplay effectively.

This is about when roleplaying goes too far and makes the game less enjoyable for other players. Sometimes, that's a hard line to distinguish. It's even harder given that some groups may be more in favor of certain things than others and that some games/campaigns have different norms. (For instance, if you're playing Paranoia, you can probably throw out pretty much everything in this post.)

A Dirge for Malego

When I was fairly new to the hobby, and younger and less mature than I am now, I created a character named Malego. Malego was a tiefling (read as: mostly human, part demon, for those who are unfamiliar) rogue. He was super depressed most of the time, and tended to not really like working with the team.

One of the first fights that he got into with the team, he ran off on his own rather than sticking or working with the team, and it led to his being captured and eventually killed.

I played three different characters in that campaign. I remember, in talking to one of my friends in that group, being surprised when they had said they hated Malego/hated when I was playing Malego. I was surprised since I really liked him. I thought he had a lot of personality and life to him. As it turns out, he really got on other people's nerves and they weren't all that sad about his short tenure with the group.

I remember when he died, the GM saying that it was an example of a character that was roleplayed well, but that didn't really fit with the group. I didn't really understand what he meant at the time.

Tabletop Games are a Group Activity

Different people might enjoy different things about tabletop RPGs. Some might like the mechanics and game aspect to it. Some might like getting to act and play a character unlike themselves. Some might like exploring a fantastic world. Some might like enjoying a group story. Some might even just be there as a social activity. Some might like exploring different philosophical ideas behind the guise of fiction in order to make themselves and others better. Most people play tabletop RPGs for some combination of these reasons and a few others. But, whatever the reason(s), people play because they get some form of enjoyment.

The way tabletop roleplaying games are set up, generally, is that you have a game master, and then you have players working together as a team. In the game, they work together to achieve objectives.

In real life, you have a group of people in a room wanting to enjoy themselves. This is what is actually happening, and to some degree the reality should take precedence over the fiction.

There is no guy. The "my guy" from "my guy would act this way" doesn't exist. The character shouldn't get preference over the real live people who are in the room with you.

When a Player acts their Character in Certain Ways, they can Reduce the Enjoyment of the other Players

There are a couple primary ways that I've seen this happen, and I've been guilty of most of them. It's probably something I still need to be aware of and work on as a player.

By no means is this a complete list:

Acting Without Group Consensus (Before/Without Discussions)

This one is pretty iffy. Sometimes, especially if your team is in a situation where fast thought and action is required, acting on your own without group consensus is necessary and/or good.

However, there are other situations in which progressing or acting on one's own reduces the agency of the rest of the group. When a player acts without group consensus, especially if their actions are such that they could affect the group as a whole, they're saying "I know best, I don't need to consult any of you."

they take away the ability for the rest of the group to have any discussion or decision making. Remember, tabletop RPGs are a group activity. If a player is making all the decisions or causing everything to happen on their own, they're cutting away everyone else's experiences. They're playing as though the game is a one playered game focused on them.

Being a Jerk to Other Player Characters (During Discussions)

A lot of times, the way that this happens is that a player/their character will either be dismissive or insulting of something another player/player character says. They treat the idea as stupid and/or not worth considering. Either the player or their character thinks they no better than their teammate and expresses it as contempt or superiority.

When this happens, a lot of times, players feel that they, rather than their character, have been directly insulted. It raises negative feelings, and more often than not makes that player feel that they can't contribute to group discussion/planning. This can lead to them closing up more and speaking up less in the future. It can also lead to frustrations that make them no longer like playing with that group.

A lot of times, players are already self-conscious. This behavior doesn't help.
Many of the people who Tabletop RPGs appeal to are by their nature introverts. Many of them have social anxieties, and being insulted or disregarded can aggravate these more in what should be a fun activity

Acting Against Group Consensus (After Discussions)

Sometimes, even after the group has made a decision, a player who opposed the decision will go off and do what they wanted to do anyway. This is extremely problematic and can make other players feel that they have been entirely disrespected. It cheapens the process of group discussion and can leave a taint on future group discussions and decisions with other players either giving in because the one player will do what they want anyway, or with them acting bitterly towards that player because of their actions previously. Either way, it has the potential to create a rift between the player/character acting against the group's decision and the other members of the group.

Respectful Group Discussions

In most/all of those examples, the problem comes from players feeling like they don't have agency/like they cannot contribute to the decision making process.

Some people might look at the "acting against group consensus" reasoning and claim that when the group decides against their idea, the group is reducing their agency. I'd claim that there's a difference, mostly that comes from consensus and respect between group members.

Everyone is not going to get their way all the time. However, by being receptive to others ideas, group conversation can explore different ideas and create a welcoming environment for players.

Discussion between group members should encourage everyone to participate and offer any ideas they might have. All ideas that are offered legitimately should be looked at respectfully. Even if there are obvious holes in the ideas, a player shouldn't be made to feel bad for not noticing the hole. The group should work to come to a consensus and move forward together, with people feeling like they've been heard even if their idea wasn't the one that was chosen.

"But I really want to play a selfish/manipulative/jerk character"

Okay, great. These can actually be a lot of fun to play. And they can be fun for your group as well. IF you don't direct your selfish/manipulative/jerk side against your teammates. They're your teammates after all. Stealing from them does you no good. Sharing the spoils of your thievery with them helps lift them and, in turn, you up higher than if you kept it for yourself. Manipulating them does you no good. Manipulating every other NPC to the benefit of the group is a good show of cleverness. Being a jerk to your teammates just makes them less likely to help you. Being a jerk to other people...well...it probably won't cause much good either, but it might cause entertaining results rather than making your friends mad at you.

In the end...

I know I said it already, but I want to reiterate.

I'm very pro realism in roleplaying games. However, I draw the line at making the experience worse for your group-mates.

Your character is not real. Your friends who are playing the game with you are. They should get priority.