Role playing to the detriment of the game

[Afrodyte]

I understand situations like this to be a problem with passive players.

No matter how in-depth the concept, if a player does not come up with motivations to act within the world (not the same as the adventure the GM comes up with), it's like pulling teeth to get them involved. Characters need motives for what they do, or the GM will always have to "force" the players into an adventure. Or players may have to "water down" their characters just to be able to cooperate.

Besides needing reasons to act in the world, PCs need a reason to interact with each other (not just NPCs) beyond the elite commando unit paradigm. Speaking for myself, if my deepest connection to the party comes from my character sheet, I'll get bored very quickly.

When I GM, I like players who are more like co-creators or partners instead of puppets on a stage or subordinates. I'm happiest when I'm helping them tell their own stories instead of trying to impose a plot on them. I need that personal element to feel really engaged with a game. It does take a willingness to invest time to find out and take advantage of what PCs want, need, and hope for.

But it's worth it.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

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.

It's everyone's job to keep the game running smoothly, and I see little value in someone who comes across merely as a obstructionist. All I ask of my players is that they work with me. It's not too much to ask.

The Player essentially threw up his hands in apparent exasperation, and had his girl show up. He seemed annoyed to have to do something out of character/background for his PC.

I'd be annoyed that the player couldn't find a reasonable way to integrate their character while still staying true to their concept. Is the person unwilling to compromise or simply unimaginative?

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.

This is childish, not to mention rude to the people that actually matter, ie the real folks you're gaming with.

But the PC (leader of the cohort) decided to stay loyal to his cohort and not leave him outside alone. After some attempts to find a solution, we ended up going back into the dungeon without that PC.

This is (barely) less inconsiderate... still, honoring the players wishes here means putting more work on the DM, seeing as they probably need to re-balance the remaining encounters.

But the Player had the PC go on a rampage through the dungeon, into areas they hadn't explored, heedless of danger to the PC or the other PCs in the party. The other PCs, all badly wounded from the previous fight, had to magically and physically restrain the raging PC.

I'm okay with this. Gonzo displays of incautious behavior are the soul of D&D -- to me.

I do love for Players to seriously role play their characters, but there is a limit.

There sure is. And you seem to have found someone who blithely dances over it, repeatedly. My condolences.

[Dragonbait]

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

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.

The NPC leader began his lecture/sales pitch to the other PCs. I'd break occasionally to prompt the last Player to bring his character in. Eventually I stopped the game and stated directly, do you want to be a part of this game? The Player essentially threw up his hands in apparent exasperation, and had his girl show up. He seemed annoyed to have to do something out of character/background for his PC.

THe player was not being disruptive and even sounded very accomidating and willing to wait for an appropriate time to introduce his PC. I think this could have been solved with you asking "When do you want your character to come in to the adventure?"

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. From my point of view, it seemed that the DM intended the NPC to be annoying, but he didn't expect the annoyance to completely loose a PC from the game. I, playing my PC, tried to talk the other PC into rejoining the adventure, but he wouldn't budge. I looked at the DM and said, "I tried, but I'm not going to twist his arm to get him to play in the adventure." Eventually the DM managed to get the PC on the game.

If a player thinks his character wouldn't do something, so be it. He can leave the session, and just make it clear that he'll be back in the next session (or whenever) for the next acventure/mission/etc.. Did he want the GM to run him on a solo? If so, that's bad form and selfish (I've seen this. The player refuses to do something with their character, then sits out, and tells the GM that they want a solo adventure or else). If not, then no harm no foul.

In another D&D game, (in which I was a Player again), a cohort got cursed with insanity and fled the dungeon. Our whole party tried to wait out the insanity, thinking it was temporary, but after three hours gave up. 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. After some attempts to find a solution, we ended up going back into the dungeon without that PC.

Like above - this seems okay if the player was willing to miss out.

In another D&D game, (in which I was the DM), the ranger's animal companion was killed in a fight. The Player had always played his character as very close to the companion, so the PC getting upset was in character. But the Player had the PC go on a rampage through the dungeon, into areas they hadn't explored, heedless of danger to the PC or the other PCs in the party. The other PCs, all badly wounded from the previous fight, had to magically and physically restrain the raging PC.

This seems okay, and reasonable for a low-level character who is new to the whole concept of losing friends to the dangers of their chosen adventuring lifestyle. That's why low-level characters usually die and there are fewer mid- to high-level characters.

[TerraDave]

I agree with Orryn, there has to be an implicit or explicit contract (like Ravilah's) that acknowledges that this is a group activity, and certain kinds of more extreme roleplaying won't be fun for the group (or in some cases, even for the player...) and hence should be tempered.

I think the reactions are interesting. When I was younger, I would have welcomed, perhaps even encouraged, some of the examples from above. Now, not so much. There are just too many real life constraints to let hours of scarce time be chewed up by some poorly considered "role-playing". (If I want to kill time, I have ENWorld).

Fortunatly I have generally been able to nudge players away from more disruptive actions, but I think at this point we do have that implicit contract, and that helps.

[Remathilis]

I typically find this phenomenon in PCs desperate for "attention." For whatever reason, they feel the need to "act out" to get the GM to focus on them (much like how a child acts out in class to get the teacher's attention). The phenomenon acts out in the following ways:

* Refusal to go on adventure/Plot Hook Refusal
* Antagonism or outright violence of non-hostile (non-combatant or plot-hook) NPCs.
* Going off alone (either to scout/solve part of the adventure alone or by doing something else during adventure, and wishing to know what happens to his PC while the others play the quest).
* Irritation over PCs losing/failing/dying.
* Antagonism vs other players (Paladins scolding other players, thieves stealing from party members)
* Playing PCs that are antagonistic to the group, even if not directed AT the PC (the CN thief running amok in a party with a LG cleric and paladin)
* (occasionally, but not always) playing any of the following archetypes: dark, brooding wizards, slutty females (esp if male player), any evil PC, PC of an evil race (tiefling, drow) or PCs who thrive on being a "bad-ass" at all times. (While none of these alone qualify you as an antagonistic player, I find they commonly go hand-in-hand with them).

[Kamikaze Midget]

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.

Absolutely true.

However, I don't see any of these actions as being particularly disruptive. They fall into basically two categories:

#1: The PC won't go on the adventure!

This problem is generally solved by DM's being clear about what their adventure is, then by DM's providing relevant hooks for their PC's. Creating a new character takes a lot longer than the DM asking "Okay, what motivates your PC?", or by having an NPC get rid of a problem for them. If the PC's are turned off by a rude NPC, then the DM isn't giving relevant hooks. If the PC's can't show up, then the DM isn't giving them a reason to show up.

It is well within the DM's power to gloss over minor disruptions instead of ruining the night, and, for the most part, this is a minor disruption that can be fixed.

#2: The PC is re-directing the adventure!

The problem is generally solved by a DM rolling with it. A DM should be willing and able to put the main adventure aside if it gets sidetracked and to give a new adventure (complete with pre-made motivation!).

If the rest of the party is dead-set against it, then it is up to the DM to say "Okay, what you want to do is going to de-rail what the rest of the party wants to do. If you want to go and do that, you can, but your character is going to be "retired," at least for tonight. You'll have to make someone new who wants to do what the rest of the party wants to do."

And then maybe next time, the DM focuses on the character who is "retired," and has the rest of the players make new PC's to help him in his quest.

The DM has the power to set the camera, but he should be able to move the camera wherever the action is. If the PC's make the action somewhere else, he should be able to adapt, focusing in on somewhere else.

So, ultimately, the DM has more power and more autonomy and more flexibility than any of the players do. This should make it easy to keep things going when they hit hiccups like this. If it's not, the DM is probably being too stubborn. Let the PC's tell the story, don't think you have to.

[GlaziusF]

Sometimes the onus is on the players for using "but my character!" to cover up a lack of creativity. But these times are really few and far between. The onus more usually is on the DM for using "but my setting!" in a similar way.

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

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.

The NPC leader began his lecture/sales pitch to the other PCs. I'd break occasionally to prompt the last Player to bring his character in. Eventually I stopped the game and stated directly, do you want to be a part of this game? The Player essentially threw up his hands in apparent exasperation, and had his girl show up. He seemed annoyed to have to do something out of character/background for his PC.

The solution to this dilemma is for the wealthy NPC who's hand-picked these heroes to make sure they'll all show up. It's perfectly reasonable for a rising hero to be smart and capable but still working-class a la Spiderman and not have the ability to get out into the world.

I would argue this onus is more on the DM, who could have either said at chargen "make sure your characters can get to location X" or looked over the starting characters, realized that his intended method of intro wouldn't work too well, and had Mr. Mansion and his staff get around the country in their scramjet code-named, I dunno, "Nightingale" picking people up.

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

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. From my point of view, it seemed that the DM intended the NPC to be annoying, but he didn't expect the annoyance to completely loose a PC from the game. I, playing my PC, tried to talk the other PC into rejoining the adventure, but he wouldn't budge. I looked at the DM and said, "I tried, but I'm not going to twist his arm to get him to play in the adventure." Eventually the DM managed to get the PC on the game.

DM onus. If an NPC is rude and unapologetic then absent force it's reasonable for a player not to want to help the NPC solve their problems. In this case the solution is not to apply force but introduce someone with the same problem who's a more sympathetic character, and establish him as such by acknowledging that Mr. Rude was being rude: "I saw you talking with Digbar. Believe me if, we'd known someone was coming he would be locked in the back room of the inn. [Problem X] is a real pain for all of us, even if Digbar's the only one who rants about it to anybody he sees."

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

In another D&D game, (in which I was a Player again), a cohort got cursed with insanity and fled the dungeon. Our whole party tried to wait out the insanity, thinking it was temporary, but after three hours gave up. 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. After some attempts to find a solution, we ended up going back into the dungeon without that PC.

DM onus. This does look like a player problem on the surface. You were worried about where a guy might have gotten off to and you didn't even try to look? No tracking, no scrying, no divination?

But if the DM had plans for where this guy had run to, he would also need some kind of fallback for getting you that information. A rider comes up to the dungeon and says "man, I hate being right. I saw your buddy getting dragged away by Baron Goatface's Evil Pants Brigade, and Marco, he says 'that can't be him, he's out in the old catacombs'. Least Marco owes me a couple rounds now." Similarly, if the DM was going to have this guy run away and never come back, that's his fault for not having the guy come back on his own when it becomes apparent it's holding up play.

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

In another D&D game, (in which I was the DM), the ranger's animal companion was killed in a fight. The Player had always played his character as very close to the companion, so the PC getting upset was in character. But the Player had the PC go on a rampage through the dungeon, into areas they hadn't explored, heedless of danger to the PC or the other PCs in the party. The other PCs, all badly wounded from the previous fight, had to magically and physically restrain the raging PC.

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.

This one's on you. Why not just plunk down a solid iron door on the exits deeper in? Somebody saw a crazy ranger incoming and activated the emergency lockdown.

Maybe stick some mystic runes on it so it can reliably just kinda stand there while the ranger whales on it.

Once it becomes evident he can't get through on his own the ranger will either have worn himself out or put his sword on the mage's neck and start pushing it toward the door and it's up to the mage if he follows.

If you're still worried about this being a TPK, just say it's going to take a while to get the runes off and let the ranger bleed off his frustration. Then when the door's open the ranger can storm in with a revitalized party to back him up.

[GlaziusF]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Ultimately, the DM has more power and more autonomy and more flexibility than any of the players do. This should make it easy to keep things going when they hit hiccups like this. If it's not, the DM is probably being too stubborn. Let the PC's tell the story, don't think you have to.

Yeah, this pretty much wins the thread.

[Irda Ranger]

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

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.

Have you seen Players cross this line? Have you crossed this line? 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?

I guess that depends on what you think the game "is", and what people should do when "their character" would do X, Y or Z.

In basketball a team of players only has one goal (accumulate more points than the other team). Everyone can work together towards that. D&D isn't like that. Everyone can have their own goal, and the PCs work together (or not) as their personal goals dictate.

I don't see a problem here. If "my character" wouldn't go on a quest, fine. I can go home (and resume play next week) or make a new character. What's the big deal? That's my call. I've done that. Recently I had a PC that was a city-boy heavily involved in local politics. When the rest of the group decided they'd had enough of urban adventure and were off to the High Forrest he said "Okay, have fun." I made a different character for that adventure.

Frankly, I think you've got a great group. The imperfections of execution are the memorable ones ("Remember the time Bill's ranger went nuts ...").

I think the bigger problem is when players bring "out of character" problems to the table, say by deliberately sabotaging a quest not because of character goals but because they had a lousy day at work or are having a snit with the DM over non-D&D issues.

[SiderisAnon]

I have had several players who crossed the line in the name of "roleplaying". Generally, they annoy me. In at least one player's case, it means I will never play with them again because they did it repeatedly and always managed to screw over the rest of the party when they did. I've also had a player justify treating most of the party like dirt because their PC was of higher station than the others. This one actually resulted in the death of that PC at the hands of the rest of the party because they thought she was going to turn them in to an Inquisition type group and get them all killed. (To be fair, she probably was.)


As for my crossing the line, I think it varies. I am currently in a game where the local "kingdoms" are tiny. Ours is maybe 1,200 people right now. A neighboring smaller power is using a form of walking dead as soldiers. (Not D&D undead, more like constructs who maintain all their original memories and personality.) This really freaks out my character. He won't even talk to these NPCs, who that culture refers to as "honored dead" and treat as heroes. (Some are actually volunteers.) It seems to really upset the DM because he clearly wanted us to work closely with these people and my PC, who is the king, refused to. However, in the interest of the GAME, I have allowed the other PCs to convince him that from a political standpoint, we can't just burn these people to the ground. It's come up with some great roleplaying. The point for me was to have the PC be who he is but still allow for him NOT to interfere drastically with the game. Of course, they won't be the staunch allies the DM intended, but that seems okay to me. (And besides, the secret negotiations between the necromancer's wife and one of the other PCs, plus hiding it from my PC, have been a blast.)



The OP talked about a PC who refused to leave their debilitated cohort alone and exposed outside the dungeon. Frankly, I don't see that one as a problem. I like it when the PCs treat the NPCs like people.

As for the comment about refusing to go on an adventure because the NPC was rude, the question comes down to: What is at stake? If it's doing a favor for an NPC, then it's understandable. If it's saving people from unspeakable evil, then you should be doing it anyway because you're a hero. You don't have to like it, but you do it. It's just who you are.

[Scribble]

I don't mind when people do things that are in characetr even if it's a PITA for the rest of the members to deal with... But I think sometimes people go a bit too far either just to be a PITA or unwilling to believe that their idea on how best to RP the situation isn't the only way, and don't realize they're just being a PITA...

Case in point the girl from California.

I don't get why that was the end of it? I'm not in your group so I can't say for sure, but still. Ok, her parents can't afford (or wouldn't be willing) to fly her out... Theres a million other ways she could have gotten there. (Especially when dealing with super heros!) Why did he insist it was a no-go situation instead of looking for a solution?

Saying she wasn't allowed to go, but got there anyway seems like it would also add potential plot hooks down the line.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

So, ultimately, the DM has more power and more autonomy and more flexibility than any of the players do.

While I agree w/a lot of what you posted KM, practically speaking, I don't think it's the DM's job to go out of their way to motivate under-motivated PC's. The players know what motivates their character better than the DM does, even when the DM and players are communicating openly. Therefore, it's just easier for a player to provide their character's motivation is for a given situation/adventure.

And if the DM is seen as the primary motivator, it gets more complicated as you add in the other players. Better for the DM to provide general motivators -- gold! glory! -- and let the PC's hash out the specifics.

Let the PC's tell the story, don't think you have to.

This cuts both ways. If the PC's able to 'tell the story', then they're perfectly capable of providing a reason for being in the story.

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

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 see the problem, but I suspect the problem you're having is not with roleplaying but with player TPKs. Frankly, I don't see the difference between players suffering a TPK because one of them did something foolish (like attacking a monster that he shouldn't have, or whatever) and one of them doing something in character.

It all comes down to the same problem I always read about DMs having, and a thing I'm challenged by myself. And that is - do you have the will power to really allow the PCs to face the consequences of their actions. And consequences sometimes means a TPK. If your "plot" and "story" are too delicate to survive a TPK, and the dice are wrecking the plot, then I'm not sure why player roleplaying is the only thing that a "detriment" to your game.

I don't TPK the party out of a sense of punishment. I've played enough times (as opposed to DMing) to realize that you don't always see the things that the DM thinks are obvious. So I don't take a "this is punishment for doing something stupid" approach to PC death. Instead, I take a "this is why you feel a sense of risk during the game that makes it exciting" approach to PC death.

So the ranger goes nuts and all of the PCs get killed. Sounds like a roleplaying game to me. Allowing such a thing to occur gives the players a clear sense that there are consequences to their actions. I don't see how that's a detriment to anything except the DM being able to put the plot of his adventure into a nice safe box.

[Kamikaze Midget]

While I agree w/a lot of what you posted KM, practically speaking, I don't think it's the DM's job to go out of their way to motivate under-motivated PC's.

If someone is showing up at the game, then they want to play. The DM just needs to give them an excuse. Sometimes, it's easy: "I pay you," or "You're a hero." Sometimes, it's harder. Neither of the examples seemed particularly reticent.

"My character's family can't afford to send them across the country!" isn't something that the DM can't solve easily. Likewise, "That NPC was too rude to expect me to help him!" isn't a real problem. Both of these just rely on the DM to tweak their narrative a little bit. The Cali Girl shows up on scholarship. The sensitive PC gets recruited because there is more at stake than what the rude guy was telling them. The adventure, so to speak, has to COME GET THEM. These are problems that a DM can easily solve, since the DM sets up the entire world. Any adventure should be designed not only with "what happens when they take the quest" in mind, but also, "what happens when they DON'T take the quest" in mind.

If the PC's able to 'tell the story', then they're perfectly capable of providing a reason for being in the story.

I care more about motivations and goals than I care about race and class. I think a DM really needs to. It's not unreasonable for a DM to say: "You're going into this dungeon. Tell me why your character would want to go in a dungeon."

But these issues are minor. They shouldn't bring the game screeching to a halt. The DM can prevent this. If the DM chooses not to, I can't understand why. Nobody ties the DM's hand.

[Obryn]

It's my job as a DM to create and run a game that my players and I will enjoy, so that we all look forward to coming back next week. It's also my responsibility to create adventures which will have sufficient hooks for my players, keep them interested, keep things "fair" (in whatever definition you wish), and to referee fairly.

It's my players' jobs to play their characters well, contributing to the fun of the whole group. It's their responsibility to (1) create characters who would have some reason to play nice in a group, and (2) create characters, the roleplaying of which will not ruin other players' fun. I lay these expectations out for them before they make their first character.

My players have a ton of latitude about what character to make. However, I put the onus on them to figure out why they're hanging out with the rest of these bozos. Maybe they're relatives, maybe it's a business relationship, maybe they happen to be on a similar quest and meet up, but there should be a reason.

-O

[SteveC]

I have seen problems like this quite often, and as I've gotten older I have really changed my mind to be far more direct and to the point about it.

Your character's being a jerk, do you really want to be in this session, is something I'd say both as a player and a GM these days when someone really crosses the line. "It's what my character would do," isn't much of a defense in my mind, because you are the person running the character, after all, and not the other way around.

The most important thing to do in cases like this is to define what the social "table rules" are and what different characters can be expected to do. A number of the situations that have been described in the thread could be just fine, or they could not be, depending on what the expectations are for the game.

So I guess my advice is to talk about what is in bounds and what is unacceptable behavior, and then to break away from the game to address any problems that come up. Oh, and share the resulting stories, they tend to be fantastic!

--Steve

[JustKim]

I've been a part of this problem. I give my characters aversions and desires that won't always mesh with what the DM or the other players have in mind. I have never shown up to the first session and said "my character doesn't show up to the meeting because X, Y, Z," but when it's time for the PCs to react to something, I sometimes dissent.

I also recognize that games like D&D are cooperative, so I try not to let it become more than a speed bump. But when my character's aversion or desire is strong, she reacts strongly and tries to get the rest of the group with her on something. If the rest of the group doesn't have a compelling reason or strong reaction to the contrary, it's difficult to just shrug and agree. I've played with people who HATE this, and it's led to some arguments and retiring of characters.

One example was when the party entered a cursed haunted house, where a ghost told us we would be keeping him company for the rest of our lives. We couldn't leave and we couldn't affect the ghost. I decided my character would react to this by tearing apart the ghost's belongings. This was not what the DM wanted. When the other PCs told me that there might be some clue to escaping in the books I was shredding, I stopped. I had a good reason to stop.

Another example was where the party was protecting a sinister little girl. We had gone out to a cairn in search of power to stop some malicious fey, and became vastly outnumbered by monsters. The cairn told us to spill the girl's blood on the altar. My character was high mobility, and I wanted to try to flee to safety. When the other characters started picking out knives to use for the bloodletting, my character picked up the sinister girl and ran. This derailed the whole game. Eventually some facts were retconned by the DM to make it easier for my character to accept the bloodletting (there are monsters in every direction, it's just a drop of blood, the girl doesn't want to go with you), and I said okay, I didn't run after all. But the only reason the PCs had was "we might survive if we do this," which wasn't enough to change my mind.

So why do I do it? Probably because I want an avenue to show everyone the thought I put into my character, that she isn't identical to the 200 other characters I've played.

If I were to put the responsibility for dealing with this on the DM, I would suggest running some scenarios that the players can react to without affecting the flow of the adventure or something important to the whole party.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Neither of the examples seemed particularly reticent.

Heh... they did to me.

"My character's family can't afford to send them across the country!" isn't something that the DM can't solve easily.

Note that so could the player, and that that no solution from the player was forthcoming. I got the impression they merely 'said no' and then waited for the DM to trot something else out. Of course, we are hearing only one account of these incidents.

Likewise, "That NPC was too rude to expect me to help him!" isn't a real problem. Both of these just rely on the DM to tweak their narrative a little bit. The Cali Girl shows up on scholarship. The sensitive PC gets recruited because there is more at stake than what the rude guy was telling them.

Sure. All fine solutions. But there does come a point where the DM simply doesn't have to time to keep brainstorming up reasons for a single player to participate in the the game. At that point its incumbent on that player to find their own reasons or go home.

The adventure, so to speak, has to COME GET THEM.

I disagree more-or-less completely. You're playing adventurers, go adventure. Why shouldn't the players meet the DM at least half way?

These are problems that a DM can easily solve, since the DM sets up the entire world.

Why should the DM have to? It's not only his job.

It's not unreasonable for a DM to say: "You're going into this dungeon. Tell me why your character would want to go in a dungeon."

This I agree with more-or-less completely. No, make that completely.

[Greg K]

I agree with KM and Dragonbait. There was nothing here that was out of line.

#1. Relevant hooks. As the DM, imo (and I am always the DM/GM), it is your responsability to sit down with the players and find out their characters' backgrounds and motivations.

#2-3. Derailing the adventure. If the other pc's can't convince the hold out, the player sits out the session. Or, perhaps, the DM throws in a few short cut scenes with the remaining PC and then supplies a situation to bring the PC back into the adventure. Worst case scenario, the player retires the character.

Ex1. I was playing a monk in a friends campaign. In his campaign world, there was an order of monks, who were very paladin like. Be an exemplar of good. Protect the helpless and down trodden. My character was from that order.
At one point, the party came to town in another country. People were on the gallows set to be executed. When member of the crowd were questioned, the party learned that these people had stolen bread, fruit, etc.
The rest of the party wanted to ignore the situation for the time being until they learned more about the country we were in. The party tried convincing my character to turn a blind eye and threatened to disavow my character if he got involved . However, it would not have been in character for the monk to stay idly by and let these people die for such a petty crime- the GM agreed (and the players agreed). I was prepared to retire my character.

We played out the rescue. Then, the DM focused on the group. Rather than have me retire the character, the GM threw occasionally threw out random news of a vigilante throughout the session. Occassionally he did a quick cut scene to have the monk rescue people from criminals (including one that was stage in attempt to capture the monk). However, most of the play focus was on the other PCs.

He brought my character back in by having him catching the attention of a local group of freedom fighters. They received word that the other PCs had attracted to much attention asking questions and were going to be ambushed.
One of the individuals that the monk had rescued alerted him and he arrived to disrupt the ambush and the party was back together.

Ex 2. I brought in a replacement character. The PCs were in another nation far from their homelands. My replacement character was from the local desert nation and worked with the PCs for the adventure. However, when the adventure concluded there was no reason for my PC to continue with the others to their homeland as he had family matters to deal with at home. So, I simply retired the character.

#4. A character going berserk out of grief-not a problem. Let the party deal with him. Maybe the party restrains the character or casts a spell if they think his behavior is harmful to them.
In my most recent supers campaign, one of the PCs shot a restrained captive in the head. Two characters turned in disbelief . Another player heard the shot and got word over the comlink as to what happened.
Quickly the two characters nearby used thier power to restrain him.
The offending player thought I would let his actions slide, because he was a PC. He was wrong and the others promptly turned his character to the authorities to stand trial. (I may or may not use a mind control scenario after talking to the offending player as the victim was a minion. I doubt it, but the possibility is there).

[Scribble]

I think the onus isn't on the DM or the Player, but both of them really.

If I'm runnign a game I present a hook. Players generally come up with reasons why they are in a certain location. If a player can't fathom a reason why his character would do soemthing I'll offer suggestions.

If I'm running a game and a player does something that's possibly detrimental to the others players, it's not a problem. It's an opportunity. If the other players roll with it, cool. If it's just annoying the other players I'd expect the offending player to either figure out a story reason why he stops, or deal wih the consequences.

Role Playing is a collabrative game.