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

[Shalimar]

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...

The players already did roleplay things out though, they rolplayed getting the book deal signed. People seem to ignore that. What the player was getting at, was that they had done their part and it was up to the DM to tell them if the book ended up succeeding or not. At that point I would have no clue what the DM wanted since how well the book sells is up to the public, unless the DM wanted the player to buy up all the copies or something foolish like that its really on the DM to just flat out say how well the book does, and that is not something that a character could control, good books fail all the time its just luck, and the Boss was already whining about their expenses so its not likely he would have agreed to doing promos that would have cost more money.

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.

 

[kengar]

I *think* the DM wanted to know what sort of deal the PC was willing to make with the boss re: the expenses. Would she agree to a pay cut, or loss of salary/employment if the book tanked? Would she be willing to work unpaid overtime to help promote the book? Does she want to try and convince the boss that she's right so that the boss signs off on the expenses, possibly with the caveat "If this book doesn't sell, it's your a$$ on the street." ? Once the player clarified how she wanted to resolve this issue with the boss, then the GM can tell her what to roll (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc.).

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.

In the case of skills where a player has no personal knowledge (lockpicking computer hacking, spaceship repair, whatever). It's -IMO- more fun if the player and GM sort of cooperate on creating a little "flavor text" for the game. In the computer hacking example someone used earlier, the player might say "Okay. I want to access information, not crash the system, so I guess I'm looking for a password or a way to bypass the system's security and get the data by some other way than just logging in. Maybe I have some software (like an e-lockpick) that can crack passwords?" At that point, a good GM says, "OK, roll your hacking skill." with a success, the GM describes something along the same lines as what the player described, with a failure the result might be the hacker can't get in, or if he really screws up, the system locks down and an alert is sent that someone is trying to hack their way in (and NINJA ROBOT DRONES ARE DEPLOYED!! )

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[Henry]

I *think* the DM wanted to know what sort of deal the PC was willing to make with the boss re: the expenses. Would she agree to a pay cut, or loss of salary/employment if the book tanked? Would she be willing to work unpaid overtime to help promote the book? {SNIP}

However, the GM it seems was a little too undiplomatic themselves to get that point across, especially with the, "No, you got yourself into this, so you're going to have to get yourself out" line. I could understand that reasoning (i.e., what angle you're going to approach a problem from), but he needed to say that instead of seeming to force the player to roleplay out specifics of the conversation.

I'd like to say it broke down to a "roleplaying specialists" argument (we all come to a situation with our own blinders on), but that's not what it seems to be about. If there is some boyfriend/girlfriend tension there, it's possible it could have played into it, but better not to read too much into it. The GM it seems wanted the player to give a little more detail, not make it a big production, but put her on the spot, instead.

 

[Timeboxer]

This incident reads to me- and granted, we only have one side of the story- like a player who wants to control the game.

This is what really seemed to me like the central point of the matter. Reading all the diverging perspectives is fascinating, though.

By the way, the implication was that if the book did terribly she'd lose her job as a result, which was definitely a very big issue. So the situation is possibly akin to, for instance, having a law trial at which a D&D character says "I will bet my life that this girl is innocent," at which point the player says, "I refuse to play out the trial. Just tell me what rolls I need to make."

 

[Bardsandsages]

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...

This is kind of what I got out of it as well. Before I can set a DC for a check, I want to know how the player intends to go about the situation. If a player is trying to get pass a bouncer at a bar, I ask them how they are going to go about it. I can't tell them what to roll until I know what they are doing.

"I'm gonna flash my badge and demand entry." Intimidation check
"I'm gonna flash some cleavage and tell him how hot he is," Buff check
"I'm gonna flash some cash and explain that I am looking for someone" Diplomacy check

So for a player to just say "Tell me what to roll" and then refuse to explain what they are doing, would be unacceptable.

 

[IcyCool]

Edit - Bardsandsages said it much better than I did.

 

[kengar]

"I'm gonna flash some cleavage and tell him how hot he is," Buff check

Heheh, I think you meant "Bluff" check, but in this case, your way works too!

 

[DonTadow]

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.)

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.

 

[buzz]

I don't think the issue is a binary "players shoud do this" or "the GM has the power to do that", because then you get into this "role-playing vs. roll-playing" stupidity.

The issue is that the two people in this situation were not communicating. If the player didn't want to extensively roleplay the situation, the GM needs to respect that, especially if the situation was not central to the campaign. If the GM needed more input from the player in order to adjudicate things, he should have said so.

Were these people mature adults, I would picture the conversation thusly:

Player: "Look, I'm not sure what I would do, but my PC has a bunch of skills that probaby mean they would. I'm also not interested in spending a lot of time on this. Can we fast-forward?"

GM: "Okay, you can make some quick rolls, but I do need some idea of what your character is actually doing in-game. Let's look at your skills for a second."

(They look.)

Player: "I've got Profession and Craft."

GM: "Hmm. Let's say you're using some of your contacts in the industry, as well as your writing skills. Make a Profession check, and I'll give you a +2 synergy for the Craft. Also, you'll need to make a Wealth check for some of the promotional fees."

Done.

 

[Hjorimir]

If the player didn't want to extensively roleplay the situation, the GM needs to respect that, especially if the situation was not central to the campaign. If the GM needed more input from the player in order to adjudicate things, he should have said so.

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.