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

[the Jester]

I'd like to preface this post by saying that we only have one side of the story, and that since the dm and player in question are bf/gf, there might have been more at work than it at first appears. Right. Now then:

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."

Wow- to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what I would have done at that stage of the game. As a dm, I likely would have asked the player if she wanted to take up the reigns of dming, because she sure isn't acting like she wants to play in my game. And that's fine; change of venue, npc her character and pick up the game where we left off.

Alternatively, she could knuckle under.

Players who seek to avoid the consequences of their actions piss me off. If you're a 2nd-level fighter and you insult the hill giant chief while surrounded by his warriors, don't be shocked if you become a pasty liquified ingredient in the stew.

This incident reads to me- and granted, we only have one side of the story- like a player who wants to control the game. She wants to be the decider. What if someone else thought that getting into the book deal stuff would have been fantastic fun? Is it her place to tell them, "No, you have fun my way." IMNSHO, no. Worse yet, what's next? Is she going to decide that negotiations are boring, so just roll a damn Diplomacy check and get over it? Well, what about the two players who love the roleplaying aspects?

The DM is the decider. IF the dm decides a roll or set of rolls is all that's required, that's fine. However, if the dm decides that the scene needs to play out more actively, then hey, PLAY THE SCENE OUT.

Really, this is one idea where the player's only real control is the option to leave the table. She doesn't get to decide the course of the adventure.

Edit: Rereading my post, it sounds harsher than I had intended. But I think that the player's "No" response was completely unacceptable. I also think that the player in question might greatly enjoy dming, but prolly has a lot to learn about it.

I didn't mean up above that the player's choice should be "my way or the highway," but if she wants to stay in that game she needs to reconcile herself to the fact that the dm is in charge. Maybe take a couple weeks off and then come back in. Hmm, and then again, I also recognize that there are legitimate groups whose games are more "group games" than "James' game" or "Betty's game". Nothing wrong with that. But for me, and I think for most groups, ultimately it's the dm's game.

 

[Cadfan]

I look forwards to pulling this on my players.

Me, the DM: Ok, so you've broken into the massive complex of the supermegaconglomerate, and accessed their central mainframe! What do you do?
Player: I'll start hacking into the system. My character has been itching to do this for years! *rolls die* With my awesome hacking skills, that's a 39!
Me: No, don't just roll the die. What do you do?
Player: I said, I hack the computer. I have max ranks in this, a feat invested, all the best equipment.
Me: No, how do you hack the computer?
Player: How the hell should I know? I roll the die, the computer gets hacked!
Me: No, it doesn't! Role play for once! What ports are you accessing the computer from? How are you getting entry through the initial passwords? What about the system's access-detection?
Player: I'm majoring in animal science! I don't know how to hack a stupid computer!
Me: That's not my problem! Your incompetence and total inability to hack a computer sets off multiple alarms. Moron.

Its a whole new way to be a jerk!

 

[TheEvil]

Funny enough, I had a similar experience playing a Thief in 1st edition. The DM wanted to know how I searched for traps. I responded that I had no idea, not bring skilled in such things. He persisted. This continued for a bit. I though he was a real jerk.

I look forwards to pulling this on my players.

Me, the DM: Ok, so you've broken into the massive complex of the supermegaconglomerate, and accessed their central mainframe! What do you do?
Player: I'll start hacking into the system. My character has been itching to do this for years! *rolls die* With my awesome hacking skills, that's a 39!
Me: No, don't just roll the die. What do you do?
Player: I said, I hack the computer. I have max ranks in this, a feat invested, all the best equipment.
Me: No, how do you hack the computer?
Player: How the hell should I know? I roll the die, the computer gets hacked!
Me: No, it doesn't! Role play for once! What ports are you accessing the computer from? How are you getting entry through the initial passwords? What about the system's access-detection?
Player: I'm majoring in animal science! I don't know how to hack a stupid computer!
Me: That's not my problem! Your incompetence and total inability to hack a computer sets off multiple alarms. Moron.

Its a whole new way to be a jerk!

 

[Hjorimir]

Do you tell your players not to bother putting any ranks in social skills because you're never going to ask them to make social skill checks? Do they fail their Listen checks if they fail to hear you ask for a check?

Yes, I let them know that the social skills have less of an impact than what they do by the RAW (though they do have some impact); No, they don't fail their Listen checks if they fail to hear me ask for a check.

 

[Thurbane]

I look forwards to pulling this on my players.

Me, the DM: Ok, so you've broken into the massive complex of the supermegaconglomerate, and accessed their central mainframe! What do you do?
Player: I'll start hacking into the system. My character has been itching to do this for years! *rolls die* With my awesome hacking skills, that's a 39!
Me: No, don't just roll the die. What do you do?
Player: I said, I hack the computer. I have max ranks in this, a feat invested, all the best equipment.
Me: No, how do you hack the computer?
Player: How the hell should I know? I roll the die, the computer gets hacked!
Me: No, it doesn't! Role play for once! What ports are you accessing the computer from? How are you getting entry through the initial passwords? What about the system's access-detection?
Player: I'm majoring in animal science! I don't know how to hack a stupid computer!
Me: That's not my problem! Your incompetence and total inability to hack a computer sets off multiple alarms. Moron.

Its a whole new way to be a jerk!

Come on, that's a pretty extreme, apples and oranges, comparison.

To give an extreme example like yours, should a Rogue just say "I Hide my way into the dungeon, here's my roll...20! Woohoo! I loot the treasury and get our with noone ever knowing", or should he actually describe which route he takes, what doors he open etc. ?

Funny enough, I had a similar experience playing a Thief in 1st edition. The DM wanted to know how I searched for traps. I responded that I had no idea, not bring skilled in such things. He persisted. This continued for a bit. I though he was a real jerk.

Perhaps because the trap had a specific trigger listed depending on how you approached it? just a thought...

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

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?

If the side-plot largely focuses on the player to the exclusion of the rest of the party, and/or was largely at that player's instigation, then yeah, I think they can (and in some cases, should). It's the player's equivalent of the DM's hand-wave. But they shouldn't flat-out refuse; that's just childish. A simple 'Ok, I didn't think this was going to be that involved. I'm not that concerned with the outcome -- how can we wrap it up quickly?' can usually resolve things.

 

[Bagpuss]

Which I think was what the player intended by wanting to boil it down to some dice rolls. I can't see how the player is being selfish by not wanting to roleplay out a sideplot about marketing and accounting that wouldn't involved the other players.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I don't find anything interesting or adventurous about the situation, nor do I see an opportunity for the other players to get involved. It's dull. GM should've skimmed over it and got on with something interesting.

It's hard to diagnose the problem over the internet but I have the impression that your GM is fairly unprepared and is making up what happens as he goes along. I also have the impression that he felt the adventure had been going too easily up until then and decided to throw an obstacle at you.

I think that had the situation been more interesting, the player would certainly have been at fault. I very much agree with those who say roleplaying should challenge the player's ability to think her way around obstacles, not her ability to roll high numbers on a d20.

 

[Cadfan]

Thurbane-

I disagree. I have no idea how to market and publish a novel, and do not feel I ought to need to know this in order to play D&D. I suspect most people would agree with me on this. Do you not?

 

[Thurbane]

Thurbane-

I disagree. I have no idea how to market and publish a novel, and do not feel I ought to need to know this in order to play D&D. I suspect most people would agree with me on this. Do you not?

I'm not sure if that's exactly what the DM was getting at. I could be wrong, but I thought he was just asking the player for a little more direction of what he was doing than a simple skill check.

It's the same in my game - when my players approach an NPC, I dont just have them make a Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate or whatever check, I actually ask them how they intend to interract with the NPC first...