General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I do love for Players to seriously role play their characters, but there is a limit. There is a line between playing a role to the benefit of the game and playing the role to the detriment of the game.
I don't think there should be any limit, except (if any) those agreed on by the group in question.
Quote:
Do you consider it a good thing or a bad thing to be willing to cross that line for the sake of "pure" role playing? Should a Player be willing to stop their true role playing for the sake of the game?
There are some serious misnomers at work here: '"pure" role playing' and 'true role playing', both. Some of what you have described is just plain old roleplaying (i.e., the playing of a role), with the occasional problem of a DM being exceedingly unhelpful, whereas some of the rest is not roleplaying at all - by the sounds of it - and more like attention-seeking behaviour. Metagaming, if you will, but of a type not usually referred to as such. Seeking to create some kind of 'drama' outside of the characters' setting, rather than in it, IOW.
'Pure' roleplaying, as you put it, is something I haven't encountered in that many roleplayers. I treasure it most highly, whenever I do come across it.
It really depends on what's fun for your players. For me fun priority #1 is exploration, #2 is roleplaying my character, and #3 is completing goals/adventures. I don't see a problem with most of the OP's examples. The ones where a player wouldn't participate are a problem, but the solution is for your players to make characters that won't behave this way in the first place.
You only really run into problems with this when players have different values. If some want to get on with the adventure while others want to take some actions their characters find important you're going to have a problem. The best solution is to find people that want to play the way you do. If that's not practical then everyone has to be a grown up and compromise, realize that the game is not always going to run the way they prefer, and try to have fun anyway.
__________________ "Enough screwing around. It's time to kill."
The no-show-at-mansion player was a poor player, since they were rejecting the premise of the game, that their PCs showed up at the mansion. Often this kind of thing is done by attention-hog players who want their anti-social PC spotlighted with the GM forced to improvise a whole sub-plot around them. I think of it as the "Wolverine Syndrome".
The cases of the cohort (definitely) and the raging ranger (marginally) I find forgivable though; though I agree that TPKs resulting from "I'm just playing my character" are rarely much fun.
The "rude NPC" situation is one I've seen firsthand many times, and I'm always kind of amazed that the DM expects the PCs to fall in line. But if the players are really being unreasonable, I'd just let them not go on the adventure. Next time, they'll probably be thicker-skinned.
As GM, I've learned to expect that if an NPC is rude or tight-fisted the PCs may well kill them & take their stuff. If I want the PCs to cooperate with an NPC, I darn well make them respectful & generous!
As a DM, you need to provide for the fact that your PCs love RPing and will act in character. You need to consider what they might do and plan accordingly the same way a DM of a combat-heavy group would need to prepare tactically for his PCs. As a player, try getting into your character more and enjoy getting in character along with the others in the group.
I fully agree. Maybe change the adventures so you have less Dungeon Crawls, and more city adventures, whith more hooks and plots that run parallel.
I run most of my adventures that way - I offer lots of plots and hooks, and run those the PCs get involved with. We have three players, so splitting the party is no problem - it happens often that the PCs are off on their own, one doing a dungeon crawl like trip, the other infiltrating a mansion as an entertainer and the third trying to free a kidnapping victim, all at the same time. As long as the overall arc/mission keeps them together, and brings them together regularily, it works well.
We all chose to tell the GM that we were serious - we would not do it. Our characters would prefer to stay than become mass murderers, even if that ended the Chronicle, or meant that we'd need to make new characters, and we asked if the GM could come to the next session prepared to discuss the new characters...
Similar thing happened to me years ago, when my co-DM run an adventure that had the party trapped in some dungeon, and the only way out was some mage NPC - with a party who strongly disliked mages on general, considering them heretics. We killed the NPC after a few "Hot" words were exchanged, and before we even realised that he was supposed to teleport us out. Not that the "trap" was very likely either, imagine a dungeon named "Portal of Heavens" but apparently created to "trap undead", full of low-level skeletons, which any cleric could have permanently laid to rest with turn undead, in a country ruled by churches since three thousand years.
DM wouldn't budge, said he saw no way to get us out, was not willing to rewrite the dungeon into an actual portal to somewhere, or simply let us Dimension Door out, or do anything else to get the party unstuck - and got mad when we suggested such solutions. Instead he dropped from the group.
Why didn't the DM do something simple? Like say "The school has offered to cover all transportation expenses." Or have her teenage girl the recipient of some money from the discovery of her powers? Or any one of a million other ways to get her in? This is a simple problem, with a simple solution.
What's the DM's problem?
Indeed. Sounds like the DM was unable to simply say "ok, since you cannot fly you were sent by bus, in advance, so you arrive on time with the rest". Like, you know, people do all the time when planning a trip.
The guys in my group are good role players. They will role play their characters' personalities and motivation fully -- and I've seen this become a problem a few times.
I started a Marvel Super Heroes campaign where the PCs were newly rising supers invited to join a group overseen by an NPC -- picture something like Professor Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters. To start the first game session, I had each Player describe how they arrived at the mansion of the NPC. One came by bus, one came by borrowing his parent's car, etc.
One guy, whose PC was a teenage girl from California commented that there was no way his family could fly her all the way to the east coast. While I started the introductions as each PC arrived, this Player willingly sat at the table without having his character introduced.
That's not an example of good roleplaying. The player is entirely responsible for the character's personality and background, and coming up with a personality or background that is causing problems right at the start of the campaign is just being disruptive.
It's one thing to have a long-standing character with a well-defined history and motivation act in a manner that causes problems for the group because "that's what my character would do". At the outset of the campaign, the same is simply not true.
In this specific case, the player should have adjusted the background to bring his character in - perhaps a rich uncle just died, allowing his parents to send his character for this "once in a lifetime opportunity". Perhaps your Professor X-equivalent NPC agreed to pay the plane fare. Or something like that.
As GM, I've learned to expect that if an NPC is rude or tight-fisted the PCs may well kill them & take their stuff. If I want the PCs to cooperate with an NPC, I darn well make them respectful & generous!
Exactly. Problems can crop up though of the PCs are rude to begin with, and the NPC answers in kind.
Indeed. Sounds like the DM was unable to simply say "ok, since you cannot fly you were sent by bus, in advance, so you arrive on time with the rest". Like, you know, people do all the time when planning a trip.
IMO it's perfectly reasonable and fair for the GM to say "Tell me how your PC arrives" and accept any semi-reasonable answer. The GM has to deal with several PCs, the player has to deal with one.
Exactly. Problems can crop up though of the PCs are rude to begin with, and the NPC answers in kind.
If the PCs are looking for a fight, I'll run with it. If that derails the planned adventure, I'm happy to improvise rather than railroad or end the session. However if I want to run a particular adventure I'll more likely begin with "OK, your PCs are working for the King, investigating the evil lurking in the ancient ruins. As evening falls you arrive at a village 5 miles north of the ruins. The locals tell you a shepherd-boy is missing..." - and I'll have told the players in advance that I'm running an heroic campaign. If at that point the PCs massacre the village, that's really not my fault - I'll run an outlaws campaign, probably brief but possibly a lot of fun. Later on if the PCs meet the King and decide to kill him and take his stuff, I'll run with that too. The campaign exists for the PCs, not vice-versa.
I agree with KM very much here, though I wonder about the party dynamics in #2, #3, and maybe a little in #4:
in #2, you'd think the rest of the party would join in, cajoling with visions of treasure-chests, or reminding the PC about the time they saved their bacon from the whatsit with the poisonous bite, or whatever
in #3, yeah, really, they're just going to let one of their number (a cohort counts!) go raving about in the countryside? Was there a fire in the dungeon they had to put out?
in #4, well, it just seems like a Stereotypical Party Drill:
Stereotypical Ranger: Nooooo! Bimpy is DEEEEEEAAAD! Avenge! RAAAR
Stereotypical Cleric: Sun God does not teach us to grieve in this fashion!
Stereotypical Rogue: Great, Grievance Boy's gonna bring the whole dungeon after us. Screw this, I'm outta here.
Stereotypical Wizard: Crude as he may be Stereotypical Rogue has a point.
Stereotypical Cleric: We cannot just compound a death in the party with another death!
Stereotypical Wizard: Hmm. How about I turn Stereotypical Rogue invisible, he cold-cocks 'im, and we beat feet for the time being?
Stereotypical Rogue: ...fine, but you're the one gets to pay for all the ales Stereotypical Ranger's gonna be crying over for the next week.
My DM quick rule is: Roll with it unless players are not having fun.
If one player has a character that is being disruptive that character will have a very short life span. It's easy to make someone disappear when your in charge of reality.
__________________ Pablo El Vagabundo
"Mercy!? You want MERCY? I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!"
The no-show-at-mansion player was a poor player, since they were rejecting the premise of the game, that their PCs showed up at the mansion. Often this kind of thing is done by attention-hog players who want their anti-social PC spotlighted with the GM forced to improvise a whole sub-plot around them. I think of it as the "Wolverine Syndrome".
The cases of the cohort (definitely) and the raging ranger (marginally) I find forgivable though; though I agree that TPKs resulting from "I'm just playing my character" are rarely much fun.
Yes, it's often done to emulate lone wolves like Wolverine, but I always say to those players "Wolverine is a lone wolf, but even he is still a part of a group, so if Wolverine can find a reason to stay with the X-Men, your character can certainly find a reason to stay with the other PCs".
Yes, it's often done to emulate lone wolves like Wolverine, but I always say to those players "Wolverine is a lone wolf, but even he is still a part of a group, so if Wolverine can find a reason to stay with the X-Men, your character can certainly find a reason to stay with the other PCs".
If you said to me "Wolverine is a lone wolf" I'd be laughing too much to hear the rest of the sentence
__________________ Embrace the chaos!
Pathfinder RPG (no hearts were broken in the making of this product)
Wow, a lot of 'It's the DM's problem' here, isn't there? The players have an obligation to the game as well as to their own inner Drizzt.
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
A strange concept for the purists, I admit. And I submit to you that my personal experiences have provided a great deal of perspective on the matter. I have several purists, hardcore roleplayers who would certainly be offended by any expectation that would require them to compromise their characters' personalities and/or behavioral tendencies for metagame scenarios, amongst my players. Learning how to work with such players has been a challenging and ultimately very rewarding experience for me as a Dungeon Master, and I consequentially strive to run a game that challenges and rewards their focus on character depth.
That being said, there are a couple of priorities which absolutely must be enforced to make such a game feasible. One is a matter of simply clarifying certain expectations at my gaming table. If you play in my game, it is expected that you will strive to enjoy the game and help provide, and more importantly try never to prohibit, the enjoyment of the game by everyone involved. This isn't always as simple as it sounds, but as long as you make the fun of the game a clear priority, and learn to enjoy the experience as a group, it becomes a fairly self-perpetuating expectation.
The second represents a sort of loose contract between the roleplayers and the game master. I will do everything I can to facilitate the viability of roleplaying a character in the manner that you desire, but I expect you in turn to help me find ways to integrate your needs into the campaigns. I enjoy the way my players react to the fact that I can read their characters so well and often predict their actions in response to the stimuli I provide, but I have been known to approach a player between sessions and ask for their advice on how best to deal with a peculiarity that's cropped up that may interfere with the character's involvement in the plot.
In short, the "line" is definitely there, but I don't think it has to be a question of roleplaying purity. All of the problems presented by the OP could have been addressed and/or avoided by simply creating an understanding between the player(s) and the GM, without ever comprosing the realistic reactions and involvement of their characters.
__________________ "My life reminds me of a shadow on the wall.
The candle flickers as the wind blows.
And as these images, they finally seem to fall,
No one will ever know what I know..."
-- Excerpt from "Memories" by E. Carl (c)1996 ECLIPSE
I can say that I've played in games that went the other way. When you're in a group of 6, but only 2 people are willing to roleplay, that tends to suck just as much.
It does occur to me that I have played with someone who played her character "too well". We were playing an Underdark campaign using the New World of Darkness rules. She played a Drow Scout. Her virtue and flaw were Charity/Greed respectively. She did a surprisingly good job pulling that off for a while. Eventually, though, it got to the point where her character was arguing about the most ridiculous things and saying, "My character wouldn't do that." Which was true. But when you're in a game that includes combat, and you're not willing to fight, you're playing the wrong character.
I definitely think that there's a line that can be crossed. That line, as others have said, is when one character becomes an unwanted focus. While railroading is bad, there should be a certain understanding when it comes to the players and the game. In the game that I DM, I call it "Our Game", not "Mark's Game". I have an overarching plot, I gave them the initial stuff that I wanted them to do and timelines, but I also told them that they could go off range and do whatever they wanted to complete the goal. They knew what the game was about when they sat down to play as a group, and they decided to play with the understanding that there were certain things that they should do.
If someone new comes in, makes a character, and then tells me that that character wouldn't leave the town to join the other people, I would have that player make a character who would and thank them for the NPC that they just created. If they wanted to have 2 separate characters, one for in town and one for adventuring, I'd be fine with that. For a character to go off range and go raging about a dungeon, or refuse to have the character show up somewhere, is bad form. They're saying, "I care more about this individual aspect than about anything/anyone else."
Location: “Over the Hills and Far Away” - (TDY in Florida - "Home" is Michigan)
Posts: 1,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Yeah, this seems more like a DM problem -- you need to clearly communicate what characters are "appropriate," or be faced with the prospect of actually doing some work to get a character in.
The important thing to remember, IMO, is that the DM has much more ability to be flexible and adjust their plot than the character has to adjust their character. The DM, after all, can control the entire world, and only a certain part of it should really matter to them. The player only controls a character, and it's not unreasonable for them to have most every part of a character matter to them.
So, for example:
Quote: One guy, whose PC was a teenage girl from California commented that there was no way his family could fly her all the way to the east coast. While I started the introductions as each PC arrived, this Player willingly sat at the table without having his character introduced.
Why didn't the DM do something simple? Like say "The school has offered to cover all transportation expenses." Or have her teenage girl the recipient of some money from the discovery of her powers? Or any one of a million other ways to get her in? This is a simple problem, with a simple solution.
What's the DM's problem?
Quote: In a D&D game, (in which I was a Player, not the DM), a Player had his PC refuse to go on the adventure because an NPC was rude to him.
Why would someone design an adventure with a bottleneck like that? Every quest should provide multiple motivations. If the lure can overcome potential death and destruction, then it can probably overcome "rudeness," the idea is to have the appropriate lure.
Why did the DM only consider things so narrowly?
Quote: We set to go back into the dungeon without the cohort. But the PC (leader of the cohort) decided to stay loyal to his cohort and not leave him outside alone
Why did everyone leave the cohort for dead? Why didn't they care about what that PC evidently did?
Quote: Until they managed to take the PC out, I had visions of a TPK. I was stressing out that the raging PC was going to die and take the whole party with.
That sounds like a bucket of fun to me.
I dunno, maybe my expectations from the game are different than yours, but I see this as an extension of the "say yes" rule. Yes, I will make your character motivated, yes I will let you do dumb things that are in character, yes I will let you be the character you think they are.
Ultimately, if it's too big of an issue, it boils down to "yes I will let you retire that character and make a new one that is more appropriate to this adventure."
In general, as long as they make characters within the bonds that I set forward as a DM, it's up to them how to play it, and it's up to me to work with that. I do not expect, nor do I want, complicit box-checkers who do what they're supposed to. It's very boring to me.
I agree with this 100%. I wish I could have been this articulate about the OP. This absolutely hits the nail on the head.
__________________ Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong - Semper Operor Verus
". . . after all, that is why we're here. Kill the last bad guy and then there's cake." - Major General Jack O'Neal
"Don't Just Do It, Just Do It Right!"
"Right, without Reason, is unmitigated Foolishness."
"If you make a mistake, Acknowledge It, then make it Right."
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
