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

[Ed_Laprade]

Which one do you play? becuse on the cover of the players handbook it says role-playing, meaning that at some point she needs to play the role of the character. This isnt acting, its not rocket science. The player should have just said something, anything and the DM would have given her a roll. Instead she wants to treat it like a bonafied board game. Roll the dice add your skill and hit go.

It seems the pcs were in a role playing environment at the time, not an environment where a roll was needed. The DM and the player are in role playing conversation. How muc hfun is a role playing game if the only thing players did was roll dice.

GM: which city will you go to
Player: Roll dice to know which one has the bestest treasure and the easist monsters and go there

GM: Ok you find the dungeon
Player: I roll a dice to quickly complete it and take the treasure

GM: the guard wants to know what business you have in the city
Player: I roll the dice and it tells him what he wants to know

This isn't role playing, just a bunch of dice hitting the table.

Well, I agree with those who have pointed out that there was a considerable lack of communication between GM and player. But I have refused to try to role-play something that my character knew how to do that I didn't. (Not nearly that abruptly, but I've done it.) My main point was to show that roll-play and role-play sometimes don't mesh very well. However, I do try if I've got any idea of how my character might proceed. Anyway, it did get some disscussion going on the problem.

 

[jollyninja]

I'm guessing the gm here just wanted "-enter any plan no matter how innacurate or profoundly unlikely to succeed in the real world-" and then the check(s) nessissary to pull it off but was simply irritated by the player's lack of interest in her character's career altering stand on the quality of her work. something like " i set a bunch of appearances for the "author" on talkshows around the time that the book is coming out" and then a roll to determine success. if he actually wanted to play out the conversations with each booker then it was a good call on her part.

"I'll stake my job on it" is a pretty major plot point in any d20 modern game unless your job is "grease trap cleaner" or "homeless guy in the park with three coats and a shopping cart that smells like urine" in which case, you can probably find equal employment with not much difficulty or downtime. as such were I the DM in this case I would find "tell me what i have to roll" unacceptable as the sole means of saving her career.

On the other hand there are players that get mad when you ask them to roll diplomacy checks to determine how effective their roleplaying was in affecting the npc's. If a character doesn't have the skills on the sheet, i don't care how smooth you are verbally. You said "perhaps good sir, a bath with scented oils may end the current trend of the barmaid's avoidance of our table." your barbarian with the 6 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy said "you stink, so women no like you" when you roll a 2 and have a - 2 modifier. same message with a bad roll.

what's the point of that last paragraph? the dm needs to have some vague idea of how you are trying to accomplish a task before he can determine how to resolve a matter. you also need to take the skills nessissary to do the tasks your character will have to do in the game. at least that's how I run a game.

 

[Cadfan]

While bardsandsages may have made a good point regarding how one talks past a bouncer and enters a building, I'm not sure it works for how one markets a book deal. The game splits social skills up into "Bluff," "Intimidate," "Diplomacy" and "Sense Motive" for a reason: there are a lot of different things one can do with conversation, and players, for the most part, are familiar with the nuances of how to hold a conversation. For opposite reasons, there's only one "Profession: Literary Agent."

And if the DM needs to have the player give him cues on what's going on for the DM to resolve the situation, and the player is angry because roleplaying out the marketing of a book deal is 1) not why they got into D&D at ALL, and 2) something they have no clue how to do in real life, then perhaps everyone needs to step back and ask why the plot centers around marketing contracts.

I'd suggest that perhaps this is the DM's fault because he's the one who's most in charge of the plotline, but I know that then everyone who's been ranting about how its not the DM's job to serve the players and the DM has the right to do this and that and the other thing, will instantly switch positions. And I'd hate to see that, really, I would.

 

[Timeboxer]

1) not why they got into D&D at ALL

D20 Modern.

Just thought I should point out.

 

[DonTadow]

Why does the GM need to respect that? The GM controls the tempo of the game. They know what is and is not most important to a given campaign (or at least they should know) and they shouldn't have to justify it. Maybe somebody was being paid off to block the deal. A die roll would never show that, but if the GM has to explain why it ruins the plot.

Yes, I'm not in the GMs-serve-the-Players camp.

I agree, at some point.. well someone needs to start role-playing. I can not choose a fighter as my class and claim because I am not a sword carrying, armor wearing heavy dude in real life, I shouldn't possibly be responsbile for moving my fig around hte battle board and picking the right ability or tactic to use.

I can not pick a wizard and assume because of his high intelligence or because he has a high spellcraft that I can bypass picking my own spells and performing tasks in encounters because (my wizard would know what to do, I"m not a wizard). Thing is you're playing the "Role" of a character, and like it or not thats what this subject boils down to.

 

[DonTadow]

While bardsandsages may have made a good point regarding how one talks past a bouncer and enters a building, I'm not sure it works for how one markets a book deal. The game splits social skills up into "Bluff," "Intimidate," "Diplomacy" and "Sense Motive" for a reason: there are a lot of different things one can do with conversation, and players, for the most part, are familiar with the nuances of how to hold a conversation. For opposite reasons, there's only one "Profession: Literary Agent."

And if the DM needs to have the player give him cues on what's going on for the DM to resolve the situation, and the player is angry because roleplaying out the marketing of a book deal is 1) not why they got into D&D at ALL, and 2) something they have no clue how to do in real life, then perhaps everyone needs to step back and ask why the plot centers around marketing contracts.

I'd suggest that perhaps this is the DM's fault because he's the one who's most in charge of the plotline, but I know that then everyone who's been ranting about how its not the DM's job to serve the players and the DM has the right to do this and that and the other thing, will instantly switch positions. And I'd hate to see that, really, I would.

What irks me about the whole thing is that it wasn't much role playing that was asked for. The DM didn't ask her to be in character, didnt ask her to give him a speech. Didnt ask him to draw up papers, and documents. HE asked her, how she plans on marketing her book. One word to a sentence would have suficed. If this were afantasy game, and I ask a player what direction they're going in, or where they are going to take the magical scroll , they can't just make a roll and its over. Those are minor decisions the character has to make at hte minimum level. Are you going to go left or right? Are you going to take the scroll to the evil Pharaoh or the unwildy rebel leader? Does your character drink the wine and show respect or dont drink the wine and risk poison?

 

[Thurbane]

People want to keep looking at the over all issue and are ignoring what actually happened to discuss the issue outside of the context of the situation. If you want to ignore the situation and discuss the larger issue, cool, just say that is what you are doing.

Nope, no sinister motives here, maybe I misread, or interpreted differently than you did.

I don't think the DM was out of line with asking "What next?", but I think both people involved could have handled things better...if the DM was indeed forcing a player to enact the minutae of a skill roll, the player was well in line to question why that would be neccessary. But for both DM and player to burst into hysterics was OTT...

It's perfectly fair for the player to want to use her character's skills and determine success via a roll, but it's also fair for the GM to ask the player to clarify how she's going about it.

That's basically what I was getting at, but summed up better than I did.