Role playing to the detriment of the game

[El Mahdi]

Sometimes players role play a little too much, especially when it regards trivial matters with trivial NPCs, eg: . . .

Player "What kind of apples?'

DM "Umm..red ones..."

Player "They don't have a name?"

DM "Ummm...They're Mordenkeinitosh Apples" . . .


. . . Player "I finish my meal and find Applefarmer Applebee's Orchard"

DM "????"

Player "Didn't you read Rolgath's backstory? His favorite food is apples. What varieties of apples are grown in the orchard?"

The rest of the players in the group "The party as a whole attacks Rolgath the Cheap. Sneak attack or fireball first guys?"

I've personally never played with someone like this, but I can see where that would definitely be annoying. I think I might need to find ways to bring about the players demise, let alone his character.

On a seperate note, that's some funny stuff. I liked the "Mordenkeinitosh Apples" the best.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Sometimes players role play a little too much, especially when it regards trivial matters with trivial NPCs, eg:

DM "The Innkeeper charges you 2gp for room and board"

Player "Rolgath the Cheap inisists that is outrageous and offers 1gp" (Rolgath is a 6th-level character with hundreds of GP)

DM "Sigh....Okay"

Player "What? No haggling? What's the innkeeper's name?"

DM "He avoids eye contact and scurries away with his gold piece before you can question him"

Player "What are we fed?"

DM "Roast goat and apples"

Player "What kind of apples?'

DM "Umm..red ones..."

Player "They don't have a name?"

DM "Ummm...They're Mordenkeinitosh Apples"

Player "Rolgath the Cheap asks where the apples come from"

DM "The innkeeper says they are grown in an orchard outside of town"

Player "Who's orchard?"

DM "Ummm....Applefarmer Applebee...."

...<snip>...

LOL

This is amusing but far, far from a regular type of problem. In over two decades of DMing I have only had a handful of experiences like this. Yeah, its annoying. IME however this is a player who is really, really into exploring the world and they take a real interest in what's going on in the setting outside of the adventure. If you can find a way to allow the PC to learn some trivia from time to time, you will find yourself with a very interested player...ofter far more involved in your campaign than those that only care about the current story.

Usually this type of player isn't trying to be disruptive instead he or she is in character and is enjoying the RPing for the sake of RPing. Allow him to get into it every now and again and ask him to allow you to breeze by some trivial things from time to time. Reach a bit of a balance.

My players have played for hours without picking up dice and got into the RPing. Their reward, at these times, was the fun of RPing.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Dausuul]

I've seen situations just like this. I was Vampire: The Masquerade and one of the other players created a slightly insane vampire doctor. Problem was he refused to come out of his mansion claiming that he's quite comfortable and doesn't need to go out on hunting missions with total strangers. The GM had to constantly all but force the player to have his character be involved. Needless the rest of us were pretty frustrated.

The problem is while this might make perfect sense from a character stand point it makes no sense from a game stand point. In other words when he set out to make the character instead of realizing that the character he's going to play has to go on adventures with the rest of us he purposefully created a character that just wants to stay at home. He didn't create a real PC. Instead he made an NPC and trust me the DM did not need the help.

See, I find that problem quite easy to solve. I'd just shrug and say, "Okay, you stay in your mansion and go about your life... er... undeath. What's everybody else doing?"

If he doesn't want to play, far be it from me to make him.

 

[S'mon]

It's not an issue of whether it's the GM's job or the player's job. It's the group's job.

To assume otherwise is to claim that a good game can happen without prior communication and consensus, and that's simply not true.

Yes, I agree. Both sides need to be working together. If the GM has an adventure to run, and the group agreement ("social contract") is that they play that adventure, then the GM should facilitate PC involvement and the players should work to get their PCs involved.

The GM who keeps the Jedi PC guarding the starship for 3 hours despite player's best efforts is a bad GM. The player who refuses to have their PC show up at the start of the adventure despite the GM giving them carte blanche to do so is a bad player.

 

[Delta]

See, I find that problem quite easy to solve. I'd just shrug and say, "Okay, you stay in your mansion and go about your life... er... undeath. What's everybody else doing?"

If he doesn't want to play, far be it from me to make him.

Sounds good at first blush... but truthfully that's passive-aggressive, and the reality will be having a miffed, silent player at the table while the other players uncomfortably try to go on with the game. Yuck.

What you really need is a direct, honest statement: "You need to come up with a reason why your PC joins in this adventure, or you won't be able to play tonight."

 

[Starbuck_II]

Yes, I agree. Both sides need to be working together. If the GM has an adventure to run, and the group agreement ("social contract") is that they play that adventure, then the GM should facilitate PC involvement and the players should work to get their PCs involved.

The GM who keeps the Jedi PC guarding the starship for 3 hours despite player's best efforts is a bad GM. The player who refuses to have their PC show up at the start of the adventure despite the GM giving them carte blanche to do so is a bad player.

So what happens when you combine a bad DM with a Bad Player? The world explodes?

 

[El Mahdi]

So what happens when you combine a bad DM with a Bad Player? The world explodes?

As in the Hadron Goblin Supercollider thread, they spontaneously create a Sphere of Anhilation, destroying the gaming table and everyone within a three square radius.


Seriously however, I think if the game was continued, it would just become an exercise in masochism. Other than that, I think it would have to be "game over".