Players refusing to play within GM's ruling/narrative?

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm interested in the larger question: does a player have the right -- beyond the right of the beat-feet-veto -- to refuse to play out a given minor sideplot?

I think we all agree that the DM has that right (and responsibility), but does the player?

In some circumstances -- romance leading to sex, for instance -- I think it's very clear the player has that right. How far does it extend?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Ah. I suddenly suspect that the problem has nothing to do with the game...

That sounds horribly plausible.

Of course, it might be something else! Right?

Yeah, anyway.

does a player have the right [. . .] to refuse to play out a given minor sideplot?

Innaresting. And my response would be "of course". Of course they do. It might be disappointing if they do so refuse, and it might even be disruptive I suppose. This might present a good case for those 'rewarding roleplaying' subsystems that some people champion.

Personally, I've never been in favour of them at all. Still, what *do* you do when players must be dragged kicking and screaming to the playing of their characters. Hm.

 

[Timeboxer]

Ah. I suddenly suspect that the problem has nothing to do with the game...

Well, fair enough. But practically speaking she's had somewhat similar behavior in games that I run -- I think it's more a matter of the whole GM-as-boyfriend thing meaning that she feels more free to disagree openly, if that makes sense.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm interested in the larger question: does a player have the right -- beyond the right of the beat-feet-veto -- to refuse to play out a given minor sideplot?

Of course they do. And they do it all the time. As a DM you should know when your players have checked out mentally. This is usually an indication that the story has taken a turn they aren't enjoying or there is some disconnect on the level of interaction required of them to be on the same page you are on. Polite players will still look like they're paying attention. But others will suddenly start looking up spells in the PHB for no reason or otherwise occupy themselves until the game becomes interesting again. When they go to another room to play video games, you need to regroup because now you aren't even playing the same game together.

Frankly, I hope I wouldn't be offended by someone bluntly saying, "I don't want tonight's focus to be on this minutia. Can we focus on some larger piece of the plot." I'd like to think this would spark a discussion about why what I'm focusing on isn't important to this (and/or other) players. My fun hinges on their fun far more than it does my own side tracks.

 

[Timeboxer]

Frankly, I hope I wouldn't be offended by someone bluntly saying, "I don't want tonight's focus to be on this minutia. Can we focus on some larger piece of the plot." I'd like to think this would spark a discussion about why what I'm focusing on isn't important to this (and/or other) players. My fun hinges on their fun far more than it does my own side tracks.

interestingly, this game is a bit of an improvisational and episodic seat-of-the-pants game, so plot elements end up being very much determined by our characters' choices. As it is, the ultimate decision not to focus on this ended up potentially derailing a main plot (i.e., stopped us from continuing the previous storyline) and having the boss give us something entirely different and unrelated to do.

Whether this was good or not I'll leave to others to consider, I suppose, but during the exchange I was sitting there thinking about ways to capitalize on it and do something interesting with the situation and had a few great ideas, which sadly didn't get realized.

 

[Pielorinho]

After some back-and-forth it turns out that our boss, while pleased with our performance, is unhappy with our expense report, and accordingly is going to reduce it until everything evens out. My roommate is unhappy with this and the following conversation ensues.

Folks aren't focusing on this conversation; I suspect that, from an emotional standpoint, here's where the problem started. Did the player feel that the GM was taking treasure from them that they'd earned fair and square? Was the player irritated about this?

When I play, I like big challenges and big rewards. I like being told "yes," and having villains who also get told "yes." I don't like dealing with logistics much at all, and I don't like having rewards taken away, unless their removal is really dramatic and bright and shiny.

Sure, that may not be the most sophisticated gaming palate. I also like Kraft Mac n Cheese.

If the player was feeling irritated because she thought her just reward was being nibbled away, she may have responded more shortly than she meant to to the GM's request. If the GM was picking up on her irritation (especially likely given their romantic status), he may have been feeling defensive, and may have responded more shortly than he intended to to the player's plan.

Daniel

 

[Thurbane]

I agree with your roomate 100%. She spent time and skill points and he wouldn't let her use them. (That's the real problem with roll-play vs. role-play these days. What's the point of having a skill system if the GM can ignore them whenever he wants? Just because a character has a zillion ranks in Diplomacy doesn't mean the player does.)

What's the point of calling it a role-playing game if all you're going to do is roll a die? This is one of those things that can go both ways depending on what you want out of the game. Neither way is right or wrong in the end; it comes down to tastes.

For my money, I want the role-play and that's how I run my games. My players all understand this and it works for us. The day they refuse to role-play is the day I cancel my game in favor of a MMORPG.

..and there we have both sides of the argument summed up nicely.

 

[pawsplay]

I know that in RL, book deals can be long drawn out affairs, and ghostwritten books are usually forgettable (and soon forgotten). So I side with the player. The book deal is a throwaway line, not an adventure.

 

[Timeboxer]

I know that in RL, book deals can be long drawn out affairs, and ghostwritten books are usually forgettable (and soon forgotten).

I almost feel obligated to mention that my character's plan involved getting Ghostwriter (yes, that one) to ghostwrite the book.

 

[maggot]

I agree with your roomate 100%. She spent time and skill points and he wouldn't let her use them. (That's the real problem with roll-play vs. role-play these days. What's the point of having a skill system if the GM can ignore them whenever he wants? Just because a character has a zillion ranks in Diplomacy doesn't mean the player does.)

So is this "role-play" or "roll-play"?