Roleplaying - Is there a right or a wrong way as far as you are concerned?

[Raven Crowking]

It's far, far better, IMHO, to say, "I won't get on the plane" and let the other players decided to knock him out and put him on the plane comically, or some such, to avoid the 'blocking' described above by Janx. Or to just leave him there, and have him play a stand-in for a while.

IOW, not being willing to fly is a problem, which the characters/players must seek a solution for. The introduction of problems (including subplots!) is not "blocking" and it is not anatehma to good role-playing.

Nor is it problematic that the character attempts to avoid the other PCs' comic solution. Only if the player is offended by the other players trying to solve the problem and/or attempts to prevent them from using role-playing or the game mechanics to do so, is there any real problem or "blocking" going on.

Otherwise, we get into territory where the DM including a locked door in an adventure becomes "blocking" or "bad DMing".....Or a player who refuses to agree to jump with his party into the Green Devil Mouth in the Tomb of Horrors becomes accused of "blocking" or "role-playing wrong".

No thank you.

If it is mandatory that each player must go along with whatever foolishness the group decides (and I have seen metric tonnes of foolish decisions over the years), or with whatever decision the GM wants them to make, one wonders why any player need actually show up at all!

To both make the player/character deal with the consequences of the decision, while at the same time denying the agency to make that decision, is antithethical to the function of "fair play".

IMHO, anyway. YMMV.



RC

 

[scruffygrognard]

Right way: Be invested in having fun, paying attention to whether other people are having fun or not.

Wrong way: Being a selfish dick.

Exactly what I was thinking. I've seen players (no lie):
1] Shoot innocent bystanders during the chaos of melee in order to rob them.
2] Refuse to go on an adventure because he "didn't see the point" of going as he had enough gold to live in comfort.
3] Insult NPCs for being weak and unable to defend themselves, and demand that they send townsfolk into danger with the party.
4] Insult NPCs and ask for impossibly high payments, or threaten to leave them to their doom.
5] Buy orphans and use them as meatshields or trap-springers.
6] Butcher tribesmen and then force other members of that tribe to eat their slain brethren.

I could go on but I think you get the point. All of the above are example of "badwrongfun".

 

[fuzzlewump]

Nor is it problematic that the character attempts to avoid the other PCs' comic solution. Only if the player is offended by the other players trying to solve the problem and/or attempts to prevent them from using role-playing or the game mechanics to do so, is there any real problem or "blocking" going on.

There it is.

What I meant by the character saying to knock himself out is just to have some form of consent from the player. Even if its within game mechanics territory, I can't see knocking a player's character out without his consent going well at all. Sort of the same reason why you can't use bluff on a fellow player and force him to believe it if you roll well. The only time I've ever seen such a situation is when consent is involved. "Can I use intimidate on your character to make him do this?" "Sure, go for it." I was actually playing a coming-of-age Seeker and he was starting to break down psychologically from combat and one the fellow players offered to make an intimidate to kind of keep him in line. I think that dynamic worked well.

I agree with the rest of your post as well. 'Blocking,' I think, is mostly a player thing, not a character thing.

 

[Janx]

Blocking is most definitely a player thing, rather than a character thing. It's the player blocking the scene from moving forward.

It's also a grey area. A paladin isn't going to go along with buying orphans to use to spring traps and later sell the survivors in the fetish-sex trade. The player will probably say "That's not what my character would do".

But you'll also hear that statement from a player who's just being obstinate. It ends up being an excuse for refusing to cooperate. In a game that is pretty much about cooperation.

If we over-generalize the definition of blocking, as I think RC has done, then any obstacle to success would be blocking. I don't think that's a useful definition, as the game is still about overcoming obstacles.

I suspect the other criteria mentioned by others applies. Dickishness. When somebody won't cooperate so the game can move on, that's blocking.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If we over-generalize the definition of blocking, as I think RC has done, then any obstacle to success would be blocking. I don't think that's a useful definition, as the game is still about overcoming obstacles.

RC is not over-generalizing; RC is cautioning against over-generalizing what should be acceptable -- even desireable -- game play as "blocking".


RC

 

[joebobodo]

However, I have an additional thing I consider as bad. It doesn't bother me when others do it, but I try my best to avoid it, so I guess it's shows how I feel about it:
- being a one trick pony. 528 thieves that differ only by name, 328 dwarven clone warriors, that kind of thing.

Been there, done that, decided to stop. Which is also why I get really annoyed when I have a character I've invested in - die in first sessions.

This is a huge one for me! I play with 2 or 3 guys (1 quite often) who are horribly guilty of this phenomenon. Even when they play a different class than they usually do it's still the same character! Unfortunately, I am not the GM a lot of the time, so it's not my place to really say anything, and despite their laziness we do still have fun.

However, when I GM for these guys I am not opposed to bending over backwards to guide them toward trying something new and different. Shockingly, those are the games they seem to have the most fun! Maybe one day they will open up their eyes to this notion...

 

[Janx]

RC is not over-generalizing; RC is cautioning against over-generalizing what should be acceptable -- even desireable -- game play as "blocking".


RC

fair enough. We both seem to agree that not everything counts as " bad blocking".

 

[Janx]

With my first batch of points, my general point is the player should try to involve and move along with the party.


There's an inverse rule to that, which I think RC touches on.

The party should accept as limitations to their goals and plans, whatever limitations the characters in the party have.

Thus, instead of trying to force BA to fly, which will make the player mad. They should find alternatives to travel other than flying.

I'd say proper implementation of both sides accomodating the other, is that the party makes a big deal of never flying, always taking vans or boats. Then, when fleeing the exploding lair of the bad-guy, the only way out is to jump on a the last plane. BA acts scared through it all, but ultimately makes sure the party gets on the plane.

A party with a Paladin has to accept that certain courses of action are off the table. the paladin doesn't have to act like a dick all the time over minor issues.

RPGs are often about resource management. In Role-playing a character, to me, is to choose some limitations on behavior by virtue of the persona chosen.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think the idea is that if the party has to go on the plane to get to their next destination, and one member is afraid of flying, it's bad to say "it's not what my character would do," and not do it no matter what. I don't see how that's excellent roleplay. I think it's staying consistent with an attribute you decided on a whim to begin with, but I would say that's a neutral thing, since being consistent depends on the attribute. Being consistently a jerk would be a bad thing, consistently nice is a good thing.

It's better to say, "I won't get on the plane, but you can knock me out and put me on the plane comically" or some such, to avoid the 'blocking' described above by Janx.

Speaking as someone with a fear that is either a severe neurosis or possibly a phobia that could interfere with an adventurer's lifestyle, I can't see that playing a PC with a similarly debilitating affliction in such a way is anything but excellent RP. Ditto if the refusal results from a meaningful vow.

Just because it seems an arbitrary addition to you does not make it so; roleplaying such a limitation is good RP.

It is ALSO good RP for the non-flyer's compatriots to figure out workarounds- mind-control, knockout drugs or even simple ropes & a gagged hood- as opposed to dismissing someone's PC design and RPing it as "blocking."

 

[Cor_Malek]

Exactly what I was thinking. I've seen players (no lie):
1] Shoot innocent bystanders during the chaos of melee in order to rob them.
2] Refuse to go on an adventure because he "didn't see the point" of going as he had enough gold to live in comfort.
3] Insult NPCs for being weak and unable to defend themselves, and demand that they send townsfolk into danger with the party.
4] Insult NPCs and ask for impossibly high payments, or threaten to leave them to their doom.
5] Buy orphans and use them as meatshields or trap-springers.
6] Butcher tribesmen and then force other members of that tribe to eat their slain brethren.

I could go on but I think you get the point. All of the above are example of "badwrongfun".

Personally I' regard all of those as "good RP". I'd make damn sure that possibly 1, and definitely 5 and 6 backfire in the PC's face really, really bad, but that's more of a personal boundary than RP-thing. No 2 I applaud, and would possibly make the character as a NPC. 3 and 4 is the kind of response I encourage (although more on the CH-N alignment side). PC's are risking their lives, why shouldn't the people interested chip in? Of course this might lead to townsfolk agreeing to harsh terms just to delay the nearest threat until reinforcements come, thus depraving party of any reward at all... but you know. Actions→consequences. As far as I'm concerned that's players enacting evil alignment, and if they know me - they'd know it's going to be less beneficial to them than fair treatment.
Although I wouldn't stick around for long if players would regard this as preferred gamestyle for too long, because - wtf? I understand the appeal of dipping into evil, but hardcore Villain Sue* is IMO a no-no.


*Of course it's relative. Reverse dungeon? Hell yeah! Raping? Or detailed and sophisticated torture? Get the !@#$ out.