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

[Timeboxer]

This one is a player behavior question from perhaps a unique perspective -- one of the other players.

So last session of my D20 Modern game we'd just come out of negotiating a settlement with a pimply necromancer and his undead mother to write a tell-all book about how Disney ripped off the Pirates of the Caribbean from their famiiy history. (Long story.) In the group are me, my roommate, a mutual friend, and my roommate's boyfriend as the GM.

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.

Player (as character): "I will guarantee that the book deal will turn out and we will recoup our losses."
GM (as boss): "Would you stake your job on it?"
Player (as character): "I would."
GM: "Okay. Tell me what you would do."
Player: "What? Just tell me what rolls I have to make and I'll do 'em."
GM: "No, you got yourself into this, so you're going to have to get yourself out."
Player: "No."
GM: "No?"
Player: "No. I'm not going to do this. If the entire session were about this plotline it would be ---ing boring."
GM: "Yes, but your character made the decision to stake his job on it."
Player: "Fine, but I'm not going to play it. We are not going to play this plotline. Tell me what rolls I have to make and move on."

At this point the game had to be called for ten minutes so people could stalk off while the other player and I looked at each other nonplussed. Eventually the two of us talked my roommate into apologizing, though perhaps not in the most ideal way, and the game got back on track after an extended effort between the two of us to lighten the mood.

So, yes. I must admit that I would not be surprised if something similar were to happen in the future, so, any advice or experiences someone can share on how to handle a situation like this, either as a GM or fellow player? Saying "Just eject her from the game" is fair enough, but the personal relationships involved make these things much harder to deal with.

Edit: Just to point out, the rough expectation of the GM (and I didn't convey this properly in the original post) was that the character would find an excellent ghostwriter of some sort, would somehow invest in the marketing campaign, or otherwise pull strings of some sort. We had the deal already but the details were up to higher-up administration (i.e., not-us) to figure out -- the implication was that the character would take on some of that responsibility and thus either the success or failure of the project. This did come out in discussion at the table.

Having thus done so, it seemed as if ensuring that the venture succeeded was going to be the focus of the whole session. The issue here, at least in my eyes, though, is that the player said, "No, we are not going to focus on that. Give us something else to do. I will roll the rolls you need me to, but I won't spend any time on this narrative path."

 

[IcyCool]

So, yes. I must admit that I would not be surprised if something similar were to happen in the future, so, any advice or experiences someone can share on how to handle a situation like this, either as a GM or fellow player? Saying "Just eject her from the game" is fair enough, but the personal relationships involved make these things much harder to deal with.

"Eject her from the game".

Seriously. I had a player do something similar (I believe his words were "Is this going to be a problem?"), and things would have gone much easier and smoother had I just booted him. That said, I still have no idea how I would have gone about doing that.

It sounds like your roomate is there to play the game, and the rest of you are there purely for her enjoyment. There's a word for people like that, selfish.

Edit - I would also like to note that it sounds like the GM was also being a bit of an ass, but I'm not sure. What was he/she asking your roomate to do?

 

[papakee]

Easy Button

easy....

GM : "Ok, roll a d20.... "::regardless of roll::" you loose your job"

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Player (as character): "I will guarantee that the book deal will turn out and we will recoup our losses."
GM (as boss): "Would you stake your job on it?"
Player (as character): "I would."
GM: "Okay. Tell me what you would do."
Player: "What? Just tell me what rolls I have to make and I'll do 'em."
GM: "No, you got yourself into this, so you're going to have to get yourself out."
Player: "No."
GM: "No?"
Player: "No. I'm not going to do this. If the entire session were about this plotline it would be ---ing boring."
GM: "Yes, but your character made the decision to stake his job on it."
Player: "Fine, but I'm not going to play it. We are not going to play this plotline. Tell me what rolls I have to make and move on."

I actually don't understand what the GM is looking for in the bolded text. How could the player predict the book deal would turn out one way or another? The situation would just have to play out, and if the book deal didn't work out, he'd suffer the consequences at a later date, right?

Was the GM looking for something along the lines of:

Player: "Well, I'm willing to invest a good portion of my own money into the marketing campaign."

Or something like that? Or did the GM want something more specific? Obviously telling the GM "No" reflects a poor attitude on the player's part. I'm just trying to get an understanding of what the GM wanted as well. From what I'm reading it's not completely clear.

 

[kengar]

I agree that the player was being a bit unreasonable, but maybe next time a situation like that arises the DM can simply tell the player they need to describe -at least in general- how they want to proceed. Then the DM can decide what rolls and modifiers are appropriate. Maybe the entire thing doesn't have to be roleplayed out, but some narrative description/detail is probably in order. It sounds like a fairly non-hacknslash game, so the player shouldn't be intimidated by a little creative RP.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

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.)

 

[Shalimar]

I have to side with the player on this one, this is a total WTF to me. Seriously, what was the GM actually trying to acomplish with the expense thing? Either the book would sell and it would be written off as an expense, or it wouldn't sell and the boss would charge the characters for the expense. If the expenses were legitimate then the boss is being an ass, if not the characters should expect to pay back unneccesary expenses. Thats all role-play and in character though, especially the character putting their reputation on the line. Its the character saying, look, I'm willing to take all the blame if it comes down to it, but until we see how it works out get off my back.

I think its assanine to except the characters to do something further then their job to ensure it does well. I have absolutely no clue what it was the DM was looking for in this situation. There isn't really anything the character can do expect wait and see how well it sells which is GM fiat regardless. Its like those stupid puzzles that some gms love to through at players. The game stalls out while the GM feels smug at how clever their one solution to the puzzle is.

 

[Hjorimir]

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.

 

[Gold Roger]

Both sides come from different gaming view points. If you all want to keep playing with each other, you need a clear, set in stone compromise. I suggest diplomatic encounters need to be parafrased, before they are rolled. Playing out gives boni.

The other two options are scraping the group completely or you as third party, manage a diplomatic wonder and get the two to aknowledge that they have viable but incompatible gaming styles and one of them bows out, without hard feelings.

Option one is realistic but suboptimal, option two is easy but crappy, option three is ideal, but nearly impossible and will end in drama if not successful.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Sounds like there's more afoot than meets the eye.

Does the GM have a history of ignoring character skill ranks and abilities and "Role Playing" through what would be a skill check and drawing something out that might be less-than-mission-critical? Some GMs get into that, and it isn't always fun.

Y'know, the Charismatic character has maxed out Diplomacy and would like to make a Diplomacy check to get a rich backer to grant them 2,000$ for a related mission expense and instead of rolling a check the GM decides that everybody has to dress up for a fancy dress party at the backer's home and force the player to word-by-word role-play convincing the backer's butler that they should be allowed in the door and then the wife because he doesn't loan anything without his wife's approval and then word-by-word play through getting the money ... taking up two or three sessions for something that was, at best, partially related to the plotline at hand.

It could be frustrating if the game keeps getting "derailed" to humor the GM's like of innane subplots that take away from character resources.

--fje