Xarune's Personal Issues

 The Use of ‘No, but-’ in Tabletop Roleplaying

Introduction

For the past year I have been playing a phenomenal game of D&D 5e with a group of friends and we’ve finally come into the final act of the campaign, which is very exciting. I mentioned in last week’s post that I want to write about my feelings simply about finishing a campaign, a rare thing in my experience. This isn't that piece as I'm going to hang on until we are well and truly finished, probably a month or two from now. Instead, this week I want to talk about my player-character Xarune, a Githzerai Fighter. For context, the other members of our party are a Tiefling Warlock, a Human Druid, a Half-Orc Bard and a Bariaur Cleric, all very magic-based classes. The problem with this is that Xarune started the game staunchly believing that magic doesn't exist. This later morphed into a ‘magic is real, but it’s an immoral tool of the ruling classes that I will tolerate only until our quest is over’. Something (I hope) I have not allowed is for this to encroach on the fun had by other players, owing to what I am calling the ‘no, but-’ method (I don’t know if anyone else has a name for this). This is when, for example, my player-character sees someone cast an ice spell and says ‘no, that’s not what I see, but I do see some freak weather happening’.

This feels like a slight inversion of what I’ve heard referred to as the ‘yes, and-’ method in improvisation. Now, disclaimer: I don’t do improv so I’m not any kind of authority on this. I do enjoy a lot of Dropout’s improv shows like Make Some Noise and Play It By Ear and have heard a few terms thrown around during these. The idea that you should not give a ‘hard no’ as an answer seems to be a pretty core guideline, as well as the ideal response to something is some variation on ‘yes, and-’. 

Yet improv and roleplaying, whilst undeniably connected, are not the same thing and different guidelines should apply to each. In improv, from what I’ve garnered, one should aim to keep building upon one idea to create a scene. Whereas in roleplay, each player usually controls an individual character that starts with a handful of traits and usually becomes more well-rounded and fleshed-out as the game goes on. It is inevitable (and good, actually) that player-characters should have conflicting interests, views and desires and this, as long as this conflict doesn’t get in the way of the players’ fun, should be encouraged.

Xarune’s Whole Deal

Sometimes the best character traits are not devised during Session Zero but instead appear at random later in the course of the game. This is not a disparagement of Session Zeroes by the way, I love those things, in fact I'm going to make a quick note to write about how great they are in a future post. That being said, I’ve found that some of my favourite traits in my own player-characters came originally from what were meant to be one-off bits and side-comments. One of these is Xarune’s magic-denial. Xarune’s issues with magic have their roots in these improvised jokes that are common in my (and I think most)  group’s games. Our druid’s son (also a druid) turned into a horse before galloping away and Xarune’s reaction to this obvious, garish and undeniable show of magic was not to nod along and say, "ah yes, I fine display of a young druid's shapeshifting capabilities," but to exclaim: “Woah! Where’d that horse come from?” Throughout the session Xarune doubled down on this magic-denial, ascribing all kinds of day-to-day D&D-style magic as freak weather and strange animal appearances. Often in fantasy roleplaying our innate response is to allow the elements of the genre (magic, monsters etc.) to wash over us and our characters. There is nothing wrong with this. However, throwing the odd ‘no, but-’ into the mix can help create memorable and interesting characters.

This approach to roleplaying can allow us, as players, to imbue our characters with a different perspective of the fiction they inhabit, and at the same time increasing the detail of the world and the fun had at the table. This is what allowed me to have Xarune say, when confronted with what, to everyone else, is obviously magic: ‘Well that’s not how I’m perceiving this situation’ without derailing the narrative or the fun. He simply diverged from the commonly held experience of the world, but in a way that did not put him in direct conflict with his allies. This outlook continued as Xarune held himself quietly to be the only sane person he had ever met, not letting it colour his interactions with characters to such a degree that it provoked irritation. ‘No, but-’ allows you to parry an idea, letting it flow around your character’s perspective rather than blocking it entirely, building upon your character’s own, unique perspective.

Giving your character(s) differing perspectives from their companions and/or society at large provides opportunities for fiction to be built around them. An example of this can be found in later developments of Xarune's story. Our adventurers eventually found themselves in Sigil, the city of inter-planar doors from the Planescape setting for D&D. Here they each began to experience character-defining moments. Xarune’s came at the end of a long line of failed Wisdom saving throws as his denial of magic began to take its toll on his ability to perceive reality. He ran into the head of a new faction in Sigil known as The Mundane. These were people who acknowledged the existence of magic, but condemned its usage. They specialised in diverting, reflecting and nullifying magic with the sheer power of belief. Xarune joined their (very small) ranks and began writing ‘The Mundane Manifesto’ which I will not inflict on you here as it is nearly 2000 words in length. You can see then that the employment of the ‘no, but-’ method can result not only in a bit of banter at the table, but a fully-realised socio-political movement within the fiction, if that sort of thing appeals to you. An imaginative player or game master can  really take these alternate perspectives to a new level by viewing them through a wider lens, creating new factions and ideologies to shape the created world.

A Conflict of Interest

As I feel I’ve stated so far, having a conflict of interest within a group of player characters does not need to be divisive, but can instead be incredibly rewarding, allowing for an interesting diversity. This could result in petty squabbling between player-characters, but often in roleplaying games our characters are encouraged to set aside their differences and focus on the big picture, whether that’s defeating Evil™, pulling off a heist or just getting somewhere in one piece. Everyone is different in real life and sometimes our differences don’t all align perfectly, and I feel that this should be reflected in roleplaying. This obviously has limits which I’m about to get into in a moment. What is so great about ‘no, but-’ as a roleplaying tool is that it allows for a kind of harmonious disagreement where members of a group disagree on certain things but have deemed a cause or a goal more important than their own interpersonal issues, which serves to highlight the stakes of a story quite well.

This being said, it’s important that any inter-player character conflict should not in any way ruin the fun of the game, or else what’s the point in playing? Inter-player conflict should not happen at your table, and the game is not an arena for players’ real-life issues with each other to be played out. For example, Xarune can have his issues with his fellow adventurers, dealing as best he can with the contradiction of adventuring with people who partake in what he sees as an oppressive system, simply because there’s currently a worse, more evil magical being doing more damage right now. However, it would be completely different if I had an issue with a fellow player and I used the game as a tool to address that, like an ass. I feel that this sort of thing is more common in games where players frequently use a ‘hard no’ in their roleplay, as it can often feel antagonistic.

The best way to avoid these issues is through the use of safety tools which are easily accessible and readily available. A fantastic set of documents that I reference any time I run a game has been put together by Kienna Shaw and is available here under 'TTRPG Safety Toolkit'. The use of safety rules strengthens your table, allowing players to avoid arguments or discomfort breaking out by being able to skip over or deal vaguely with problem-causing segments. In addition, remember not to tolerate intolerance. Anyone acting in bad faith trying to antagonise other players is just asking to be kicked from your table. Yes, I find ‘no, but-’ to be a great roleplaying tool, but it can be misused and that’s where your safety rules should kick in.. 

Conclusion

Being at gentle odds with his party has made Xarune incredibly fun to play and has resulted in a unique, intriguing side-plot for him. Not only this, but a group of characters with diverse opinions and beliefs coming together for a common cause makes for a great story. Nobody likes an echo chamber, otherwise you may as well make it a bit and play a group of clones trying to figure out which one is the original. Finally, remember to keep your safety rules close when you’re playing TTRPGs to make sure the in-game conflict doesn’t become a real-life argument! Thank you for reading and keep an eye out next week for another stray letter from The Lost Post.