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

[buzz]

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

It's not either/or. The players, GM included, are there to serve each other. The whole point of my example was that the GM and player met in the middle. The GM has in the in-character action data he needs, and the player got a result wihtout having to spend a lot of time playing out a scene in which they had no interest.

I should not be expected, as a player, to do whatever the GM wants. That's not fun. The tempo of the game is dictated by everyone at the table. If a GM can't handle this sort of basic give-and-take, they should go write a novel. If a player, they should play a console game or watch a movie.

 

[papakee]

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?
.....
!

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! I sit down at the computer and place my keycard into the slot. Loading a quick password breaking program, I press the enter button and watch the numbers flash across the screen Matrix-style. If an alarm starts to go off, snip with the wire clippers on the third green wire coming from back of the computer-box-thingy and pray.
Me, the DM: Roll

Total BS Yes..plausible no..possible no....More interesting that just rolling a die, Yes. Roleplayed, Yes. Used Skill aka roll-played, Yes.

Give a player any situation and he should be sufficiently ready to spew out some cliche or total BS that has some tinge of sounding half way good...and if not good at least he tried..and thats worth alot more than a dice roll. I think what people miss in this argument is not whether the roleplay is feasible, its if it is attempted.

 

[SiderisAnon]

Heroes Shouldn't Be Passive

I have had similar problems with player who would rather roll the dice than do any roleplaying at all. It's very frustrating as a DM, becuase while the dice are great for dealing with minor encounters or things which do not effect the major plotlines, the players should at least TRY to roleplay their way through anything that has a major effect -- and it sounds like losing this job would be a major effect. (Now, this doesn't mean that player cannot come up with some ideas and plans, then supplement their roleplaying with the dice. Sure, Bob doesn't know how much to bribe the studio exec to get the movie deal, but a decent Diplomacy roll might just mean that his character does.)

However, I do not think that the real problem here is about the rolling versus roleplaying. The real problem here is that the player decided that they were going to decide how the plot and game were going to play out. The players are part of the story, but the DM is the storyteller and one single player cannot simple decide, "No, we're not going to play out the hole I dug myself into." It's up to the DM to take control of their game and move things along. If the player still refuses to play out the hole they've dug, then the DM should warn them that using a die roll will always produce suboptimal results when compared to trying to roleplay it out or at least come up with ideas on their own. After all, the player got themselves INTO the situation, now they have to get themselves OUT of the situation.

Then if the player is determined not to do any work and just let the dice decide, let them roll. Just remember that since the player refused to put any work into this, they should not gain ANY benefit from this. Sure, they may get to keep their job, but they've missed out on all the possible advantages. Now, they're the guy who bet his job and didn't get fired, but nobody really cares and it will soon be forgotten. If they'd played it out, they're the problem solver who bet their job and then darn well came through for the company.

Think about the real world business environment. Rolling it out is being passive. Playing it out is being active. Which one are you going to want to call for the big jobs with the big bonuses? The active guy. (That's why they're the "heroes" after all.)

The truth is, the players could have turned this into a really interesting opportunity. I have seen my Shadownrun players turn less of a hook into something that they controlled with their own creativity. That's generally more memorable to the players anyway, because it was THEIR adventure because they got themselves into it.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The player should have at least given a brief hint of how they would go about it. Bardsandsages said it best. The player was being unreasonable.

 

[painandgreed]

Personally, I feel the GM failed on their part. If for no other reason than they let it stop the game and disrupt flow. Stonewalling at "What do you want to do?" is not good GMing. His job is to keep the game running and in a likable fashion. Why does he have more responsiblity than the player? Because the player cannot punish the GM when the GM is guilty of not answering the player's questions as the Dm can punish the player for not answering his questions.

He could have offered her a roll inorder to tell her the different courses of action open to the character. Even then, he could have given her a roll, and then progressed to the actions that he wanted her to role-play. If the character had no appropriate skills, he could have explained such and that it would be an impossible roll unless modified by actions she explained to him.

 

[Anthraxus]

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! I sit down at the computer and place my keycard into the slot. Loading a quick password breaking program, I press the enter button and watch the numbers flash across the screen Matrix-style. If an alarm starts to go off, snip with the wire clippers on the third green wire coming from back of the computer-box-thingy and pray.
Me, the DM: Roll

Total BS Yes..plausible no..possible no....More interesting that just rolling a die, Yes. Roleplayed, Yes. Used Skill aka roll-played, Yes.

Give a player any situation and he should be sufficiently ready to spew out some cliche or total BS that has some tinge of sounding half way good...and if not good at least he tried..and thats worth alot more than a dice roll. I think what people miss in this argument is not whether the roleplay is feasible, its if it is attempted.

Sure, the "action movie" description of hacking can be replicated by the average person, but a book deal???

Something I wouldn't know the slightest bit about roleplaying, and doesn't sound that interesting to roleplay. I would rather gloss over this bit myself, as a player.

 

[papakee]

Sure, the "action movie" description of hacking can be replicated by the average person, but a book deal???

Something I wouldn't know the slightest bit about roleplaying, and doesn't sound that interesting to roleplay. I would rather gloss over this bit myself, as a player.

True. But if their plot up to this point involved book publishing, one could assume they (as a group) had some interest in it.

Here's a couple of stabs at it:

GM (as boss): "Would you stake your job on it?"
Player (as character): "I would."
GM: "Okay. Tell me what you would do."

Player (as character): "I'm planning to send the first case published over to Universal Studios...they are itching to have anything on Disney, may even buy out our rights to the book or at least carry it in the gift shops."

Here's another lame one:

Player (as character): "I've got a connection with an assistant producer in Chicago. She owes me a favor. How does Oprah's Book Club sound to you."

One lamer still:

Player (as character): "The religious right has been anti disney for some time now. Chances are they will endorse this book exposing Disney's sordid past of constant plagarism. I've already got letters in the mail to the three major organizations."

 

[buzz]

GMs-serve-the-Players

Sidebar: I'd also like to point out that this type of game doesn't exist, other than in web fora. I.e., it's a strawman.

I can't think of any RPG I've encountered, mainstream or otherwise, in which the balance of authority is on the side of the players. All I have ever seen is: games weighted heavily in favor of the GM (most RPGs); weighted somewhat in favor of the GM, but with more equitable player authority (a lot of recent, "indie" RPGs); and GM-less RPGs with equal authority among all participants.

If someone can point me to an RPG in which a player is both designated a GM role AND given less power than the other players at the table, I'd love to see it.

 

[Bardsandsages]

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

I was gonna edit my post to correct the typo, but perhaps the Freudian slip is more accurate.

 

[Gothmog]

I read it as, the GM couldn't tell the player what to roll because she hadn't told him what she planned to do in order to make sure the book deal went through.

It's like a D&D player saying "I want to get some treasure," and the DM saying, "how are you planning to do that?" Then the player responds, "hell if I know. Tell me what I need to roll to see if I get treasure, and then tell me how much I get."

Exactly. This is precisely the reason the player was being a jerk and unreasonable.

If the player said, "well, I have this plan to see if the boss goes for it" and then asks to roll a skill check, thats fine. But simply stating "I dunno, what do I need to roll to skip this and not put up with your lame-@ss ideas" is insulting to the GM and the other players. I myself am more roleplay oriented as a GM, but I'd allow a skill check if the player paraphrased their plan or ideas since its not a major point. A player that did that in my game would be talked to about our various playing styles, and if it continued, s/he would be shown the door.