Telling others how to roleplay

In one situation I've seen, one of the players has a dead set way on how he wants to play his character and when the rest of the party doesn't like his actions, he always falls back on, "Don't tell me how to play my character."

At this point, the party doesn't want to travel with this character.

How do you help people see that sometimes compromise is a good thing.

In one instance, an injured party member asked for help. The character in question is a cleric with the healing domain. "Your not injured enough."

In another instance, an injured party member asked for help. The cleric took it as a demand and walked away from him.

In another instance, he cast a Concecrate Spell. The rest of the party decided they were moving on. He stayed behind.

In each case he feels that anyone telling him what to do is effecting his roleplaying.

To that I counter. I say that role playing is important, but what is more important is the acknowledgement that this is a group activity and that if you're always at odds with the group, either your character needs to adapt, you need to make a new character, or you need to start playing Neverwinter Nights.

Comments?

Seems as though he isn't doing much that would make the other characters want his company. You should perhaps try to make clear that whether his character plays nice with others is his decision, but if he doesn't, the rest of the characters will be leaving him behind, and the 'camera' goes with them.

Assuming the plot doesn't require that particular character's presence...

Sounds like he is suffering from The Party Healer issue.

Seriously, he shouldn't be made to feel obligated to heal other people with his spells, just to be a participating member of the group.

This is one of the reasons I love Arcana Unearthed...when EVERY spellcaster can heal, suddenly people get the picture that healing has an opportunity cost that isn't fully appreciated most of the time.

You don't make it clear whether you're a player or the DM, but here's my suggestions:

If you're the DM:

Don't worry yourself about it. This is definitely a player problem. The players need to kick out a "Healer" cleric who doesn't want to heal, and find somebody who does. Or, just do without a cleric at all. Not wanting to spend time around someone who make you want to throttle them is also "playing in character."

If you're a player:

Make it clear that 'Not wanting to spend time around someone who make you want to throttle them is also "playing in character." ' If he doesn't want to contribute appropriately to the party's efforts, the party will take the share of treasure he [his character] would normally get and spend it on a henchman who will.

Edit: Or, maybe as Mistwell points out, he should just try a different character/character concept to see if he'd be happier playing something else.

I agree. There are two levels of "what's good" at the table, what's good for the individual player and his character, and what's good for the game itself. While it's fine to work towards what's good for the individual, sacrificing the game as a whole to accomplish this makes little sense. If addressing this by questioning the motives of his character won't work, questioning the motives of the player may. I've seen players who think the only way to contribute is to be antagonistic towards other players or think that being a unique and interesting character requires individualism- individualism that means doing just about everything the rest of the party doesn't want.

There is a fine line your group has to draw in regards to deciding which is more important; the integrity of their roleplay, or the integrity of the game. Some players are purists and would rather see a session go down in flames than break character, while others simply find messing with people a part of the game. Others will gladly push into meta that is beneficial to the game, or develop characters that embrace teamwork. Getting all the players to discuss which end of the spectrum they'd prefer to be on (or even a moderate position) would probably reveal this player to be in the potential minority that will gladly ruin your evening and that of your buddies for his perhaps overly uncooperative character.

One of my mottos is "Don't upset real people to please imaginary ones." but.. well, such may not be the case in your group, and so, they'll have to deal with it in character. If so, on with the poobeating, the disassociation, and the secondary character. Hopefully a nicer one.

With my latest campaign, I specificied from the outset that each player was free to come up with whatever character concept they thought would be interesting to play. I also specified that, as the DM, I would not force the party to retain a character for any reason. Party cohesion is the responsibility of the players in this campaign and the party is freeto reject or eject any character.

I did offer some encouragment that the players might want to choose a character concept that would be able to work with others for one reason or another. I also looked over everybody's character concept and offered my opinions on whether they might mesh with the whole party. Something along the lines of a warning. "You know, your character is interesting, but he seem rather self-serving. If he alienates the rest of the characters, they might not want to adventure with him and you might need to make a new character." I just wanted it clear from the outset. I have also made it clear that we are all friends and should be responding to in-character events. It has been interesting. Noboy has been shaken out yet, but it is still early.

In your case, are the actions of the cleric in-character? If so, then the player has every right to insist that the rest of the players desist from trying to define how the cleric should be played. But, there is no reason why the rest of the characters (as opposed to the players) would want to adventure with the cleric. If all the players are able to distinguish between in-character actions and out-of-character actions, then don't look at this as a problem. This is a roleplaying opportunity. Perhaps there is an in-character reason why the cleric is so disagreeable. Perhaps the other characters need to address it. There might be some great roleplaying experiences that can come out of this.

However, if the players are unable to keep this on an in-character basis you have a problem. This is a group activity and if one player is portraying a disruptive character for the sake of being disruptive, then it is making the game less fun for everyone else. In that case, the character needs to adapt, be swapped out, or the player can choose to participate in a leisure time activity where he will not impede the fun of everyone else around the table.

BardStephenFox said:

However, if the players are unable to keep this on an in-character basis you have a problem. This is a group activity and if one player is portraying a disruptive character for the sake of being disruptive, then it is making the game less fun for everyone else. In that case, the character needs to adapt, be swapped out, or the player can choose to participate in a leisure time activity where he will not impede the fun of everyone else around the table.

Click to expand...

That's sort of the kicker, if you like the player make darn sure that he knows that it's not him that the characters don't want to adventure with, but it's his character that's being spurned. This can be very tricky, especially if the player is attached to the character.

BardStephenFox said:

With my latest campaign, I specificied from the outset that each player was free to come up with whatever character concept they thought would be interesting to play. I also specified that, as the DM, I would not force the party to retain a character for any reason. Party cohesion is the responsibility of the players in this campaign and the party is freeto reject or eject any character.

I did offer some encouragment that the players might want to choose a character concept that would be able to work with others for one reason or another. I also looked over everybody's character concept and offered my opinions on whether they might mesh with the whole party. Something along the lines of a warning. "You know, your character is interesting, but he seem rather self-serving. If he alienates the rest of the characters, they might not want to adventure with him and you might need to make a new character." I just wanted it clear from the outset. I have also made it clear that we are all friends and should be responding to in-character events. It has been interesting. Noboy has been shaken out yet, but it is still early.

Click to expand...

Good points. In my group I've made it clear to the players that during character creation they have to keep two questions in mind - (1) Why would this character be adventuring? (2) Why would this character want to stay with the party and be allowed by the other PCs to do so? I find that players often concentrate purely on the idea of creating an interesting character (which I think is a good aim) without considering how the PC fits into a group. "I'm a self-sufficient loner who doesn't trust anyone else" is great for a one-player campaign, but not much else.

Is there any attempt to discuss these differences of opinion in character? Do others try to convince him in-character why the party needs to move on or does he explain why it is important to consecrate some ground at that moment?

By keeping all such things "in-character" my groups usually resolved these kinds differences and even if it takes a while at least the debate helps develop the characters personalities and bonds.

Also, in terms of healing I have a house rule whereby no one can say how many hit points they have left.

They just say they are lightly (less than 1/4 hps gone), moderately (between 1/4 and 1/2 hps gone, seriously (between 1/2 and 3/4 hps gone or critically (between 1/4 and all hit points gone) wounded. Being at negs is considered "mortally wounded".

Based on the examples listed, it does not sound like the other players are telling him how to play his character, which might affect his roleplaying. It sounds to me like in-character, the other characters are asking for assistance and the other player has decided to roleplay his cleric as someone who does not listen to others. If thats the way he wants to roleplay it, fine, but if he wakes up on morning and the rest of the party is gone, he should not be surprised.

Now, if for some reason, the player feel that other characters making demands of his character affects his roleplaying, then in my mind he is a prima donna who thinks everybody should accommodate him, and he will be nothing but trouble to the gaming group.