Role playing to the detriment of the game

[Afrodyte]

I understand situations like this to be a problem with passive players.

No matter how in-depth the concept, if a player does not come up with motivations to act within the world (not the same as the adventure the GM comes up with), it's like pulling teeth to get them involved. Characters need motives for what they do, or the GM will always have to "force" the players into an adventure. Or players may have to "water down" their characters just to be able to cooperate.

Besides needing reasons to act in the world, PCs need a reason to interact with each other (not just NPCs) beyond the elite commando unit paradigm. Speaking for myself, if my deepest connection to the party comes from my character sheet, I'll get bored very quickly.

When I GM, I like players who are more like co-creators or partners instead of puppets on a stage or subordinates. I'm happiest when I'm helping them tell their own stories instead of trying to impose a plot on them. I need that personal element to feel really engaged with a game. It does take a willingness to invest time to find out and take advantage of what PCs want, need, and hope for.

But it's worth it.

 

[Mallus]

One guy, whose PC was a teenage girl from California commented that there was no way his family could fly her all the way to the east coast. While I started the introductions as each PC arrived, this Player willingly sat at the table without having his character introduced.

It's everyone's job to keep the game running smoothly, and I see little value in someone who comes across merely as a obstructionist. All I ask of my players is that they work with me. It's not too much to ask.

The Player essentially threw up his hands in apparent exasperation, and had his girl show up. He seemed annoyed to have to do something out of character/background for his PC.

I'd be annoyed that the player couldn't find a reasonable way to integrate their character while still staying true to their concept. Is the person unwilling to compromise or simply unimaginative?

In a D&D game, (in which I was a Player, not the DM), a Player had his PC refuse to go on the adventure because an NPC was rude to him.

This is childish, not to mention rude to the people that actually matter, ie the real folks you're gaming with.

But the PC (leader of the cohort) decided to stay loyal to his cohort and not leave him outside alone. After some attempts to find a solution, we ended up going back into the dungeon without that PC.

This is (barely) less inconsiderate... still, honoring the players wishes here means putting more work on the DM, seeing as they probably need to re-balance the remaining encounters.

But the Player had the PC go on a rampage through the dungeon, into areas they hadn't explored, heedless of danger to the PC or the other PCs in the party. The other PCs, all badly wounded from the previous fight, had to magically and physically restrain the raging PC.

I'm okay with this. Gonzo displays of incautious behavior are the soul of D&D -- to me.

I do love for Players to seriously role play their characters, but there is a limit.

There sure is. And you seem to have found someone who blithely dances over it, repeatedly. My condolences.

 

[Dragonbait]

One guy, whose PC was a teenage girl from California commented that there was no way his family could fly her all the way to the east coast. While I started the introductions as each PC arrived, this Player willingly sat at the table without having his character introduced.

The NPC leader began his lecture/sales pitch to the other PCs. I'd break occasionally to prompt the last Player to bring his character in. Eventually I stopped the game and stated directly, do you want to be a part of this game? The Player essentially threw up his hands in apparent exasperation, and had his girl show up. He seemed annoyed to have to do something out of character/background for his PC.

THe player was not being disruptive and even sounded very accomidating and willing to wait for an appropriate time to introduce his PC. I think this could have been solved with you asking "When do you want your character to come in to the adventure?"

In a D&D game, (in which I was a Player, not the DM), a Player had his PC refuse to go on the adventure because an NPC was rude to him. From my point of view, it seemed that the DM intended the NPC to be annoying, but he didn't expect the annoyance to completely loose a PC from the game. I, playing my PC, tried to talk the other PC into rejoining the adventure, but he wouldn't budge. I looked at the DM and said, "I tried, but I'm not going to twist his arm to get him to play in the adventure." Eventually the DM managed to get the PC on the game.

If a player thinks his character wouldn't do something, so be it. He can leave the session, and just make it clear that he'll be back in the next session (or whenever) for the next acventure/mission/etc.. Did he want the GM to run him on a solo? If so, that's bad form and selfish (I've seen this. The player refuses to do something with their character, then sits out, and tells the GM that they want a solo adventure or else). If not, then no harm no foul.

In another D&D game, (in which I was a Player again), a cohort got cursed with insanity and fled the dungeon. Our whole party tried to wait out the insanity, thinking it was temporary, but after three hours gave up. We set to go back into the dungeon without the cohort. But the PC (leader of the cohort) decided to stay loyal to his cohort and not leave him outside alone. After some attempts to find a solution, we ended up going back into the dungeon without that PC.

Like above - this seems okay if the player was willing to miss out.

In another D&D game, (in which I was the DM), the ranger's animal companion was killed in a fight. The Player had always played his character as very close to the companion, so the PC getting upset was in character. But the Player had the PC go on a rampage through the dungeon, into areas they hadn't explored, heedless of danger to the PC or the other PCs in the party. The other PCs, all badly wounded from the previous fight, had to magically and physically restrain the raging PC.

This seems okay, and reasonable for a low-level character who is new to the whole concept of losing friends to the dangers of their chosen adventuring lifestyle. That's why low-level characters usually die and there are fewer mid- to high-level characters.

 

[TerraDave]

I agree with Orryn, there has to be an implicit or explicit contract (like Ravilah's) that acknowledges that this is a group activity, and certain kinds of more extreme roleplaying won't be fun for the group (or in some cases, even for the player...) and hence should be tempered.

I think the reactions are interesting. When I was younger, I would have welcomed, perhaps even encouraged, some of the examples from above. Now, not so much. There are just too many real life constraints to let hours of scarce time be chewed up by some poorly considered "role-playing". (If I want to kill time, I have ENWorld).

Fortunatly I have generally been able to nudge players away from more disruptive actions, but I think at this point we do have that implicit contract, and that helps.

 

[Remathilis]

I typically find this phenomenon in PCs desperate for "attention." For whatever reason, they feel the need to "act out" to get the GM to focus on them (much like how a child acts out in class to get the teacher's attention). The phenomenon acts out in the following ways:

* Refusal to go on adventure/Plot Hook Refusal
* Antagonism or outright violence of non-hostile (non-combatant or plot-hook) NPCs.
* Going off alone (either to scout/solve part of the adventure alone or by doing something else during adventure, and wishing to know what happens to his PC while the others play the quest).
* Irritation over PCs losing/failing/dying.
* Antagonism vs other players (Paladins scolding other players, thieves stealing from party members)
* Playing PCs that are antagonistic to the group, even if not directed AT the PC (the CN thief running amok in a party with a LG cleric and paladin)
* (occasionally, but not always) playing any of the following archetypes: dark, brooding wizards, slutty females (esp if male player), any evil PC, PC of an evil race (tiefling, drow) or PCs who thrive on being a "bad-ass" at all times. (While none of these alone qualify you as an antagonistic player, I find they commonly go hand-in-hand with them).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Wow, a lot of 'It's the DM's problem' here, isn't there? The players have an obligation to the game as well as to their own inner Drizzt.

Absolutely true.

However, I don't see any of these actions as being particularly disruptive. They fall into basically two categories:

#1: The PC won't go on the adventure!

This problem is generally solved by DM's being clear about what their adventure is, then by DM's providing relevant hooks for their PC's. Creating a new character takes a lot longer than the DM asking "Okay, what motivates your PC?", or by having an NPC get rid of a problem for them. If the PC's are turned off by a rude NPC, then the DM isn't giving relevant hooks. If the PC's can't show up, then the DM isn't giving them a reason to show up.

It is well within the DM's power to gloss over minor disruptions instead of ruining the night, and, for the most part, this is a minor disruption that can be fixed.

#2: The PC is re-directing the adventure!

The problem is generally solved by a DM rolling with it. A DM should be willing and able to put the main adventure aside if it gets sidetracked and to give a new adventure (complete with pre-made motivation!).

If the rest of the party is dead-set against it, then it is up to the DM to say "Okay, what you want to do is going to de-rail what the rest of the party wants to do. If you want to go and do that, you can, but your character is going to be "retired," at least for tonight. You'll have to make someone new who wants to do what the rest of the party wants to do."

And then maybe next time, the DM focuses on the character who is "retired," and has the rest of the players make new PC's to help him in his quest.

The DM has the power to set the camera, but he should be able to move the camera wherever the action is. If the PC's make the action somewhere else, he should be able to adapt, focusing in on somewhere else.

So, ultimately, the DM has more power and more autonomy and more flexibility than any of the players do. This should make it easy to keep things going when they hit hiccups like this. If it's not, the DM is probably being too stubborn. Let the PC's tell the story, don't think you have to.

 

[GlaziusF]

Sometimes the onus is on the players for using "but my character!" to cover up a lack of creativity. But these times are really few and far between. The onus more usually is on the DM for using "but my setting!" in a similar way.

The guys in my group are good role players. They will role play their characters' personalities and motivation fully -- and I've seen this become a problem a few times.

I started a Marvel Super Heroes campaign where the PCs were newly rising supers invited to join a group overseen by an NPC -- picture something like Professor Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters. To start the first game session, I had each Player describe how they arrived at the mansion of the NPC. One came by bus, one came by borrowing his parent's car, etc.

One guy, whose PC was a teenage girl from California commented that there was no way his family could fly her all the way to the east coast. While I started the introductions as each PC arrived, this Player willingly sat at the table without having his character introduced.

The NPC leader began his lecture/sales pitch to the other PCs. I'd break occasionally to prompt the last Player to bring his character in. Eventually I stopped the game and stated directly, do you want to be a part of this game? The Player essentially threw up his hands in apparent exasperation, and had his girl show up. He seemed annoyed to have to do something out of character/background for his PC.

The solution to this dilemma is for the wealthy NPC who's hand-picked these heroes to make sure they'll all show up. It's perfectly reasonable for a rising hero to be smart and capable but still working-class a la Spiderman and not have the ability to get out into the world.

I would argue this onus is more on the DM, who could have either said at chargen "make sure your characters can get to location X" or looked over the starting characters, realized that his intended method of intro wouldn't work too well, and had Mr. Mansion and his staff get around the country in their scramjet code-named, I dunno, "Nightingale" picking people up.

In a D&D game, (in which I was a Player, not the DM), a Player had his PC refuse to go on the adventure because an NPC was rude to him. From my point of view, it seemed that the DM intended the NPC to be annoying, but he didn't expect the annoyance to completely loose a PC from the game. I, playing my PC, tried to talk the other PC into rejoining the adventure, but he wouldn't budge. I looked at the DM and said, "I tried, but I'm not going to twist his arm to get him to play in the adventure." Eventually the DM managed to get the PC on the game.

DM onus. If an NPC is rude and unapologetic then absent force it's reasonable for a player not to want to help the NPC solve their problems. In this case the solution is not to apply force but introduce someone with the same problem who's a more sympathetic character, and establish him as such by acknowledging that Mr. Rude was being rude: "I saw you talking with Digbar. Believe me if, we'd known someone was coming he would be locked in the back room of the inn. [Problem X] is a real pain for all of us, even if Digbar's the only one who rants about it to anybody he sees."

In another D&D game, (in which I was a Player again), a cohort got cursed with insanity and fled the dungeon. Our whole party tried to wait out the insanity, thinking it was temporary, but after three hours gave up. We set to go back into the dungeon without the cohort. But the PC (leader of the cohort) decided to stay loyal to his cohort and not leave him outside alone. After some attempts to find a solution, we ended up going back into the dungeon without that PC.

DM onus. This does look like a player problem on the surface. You were worried about where a guy might have gotten off to and you didn't even try to look? No tracking, no scrying, no divination?

But if the DM had plans for where this guy had run to, he would also need some kind of fallback for getting you that information. A rider comes up to the dungeon and says "man, I hate being right. I saw your buddy getting dragged away by Baron Goatface's Evil Pants Brigade, and Marco, he says 'that can't be him, he's out in the old catacombs'. Least Marco owes me a couple rounds now." Similarly, if the DM was going to have this guy run away and never come back, that's his fault for not having the guy come back on his own when it becomes apparent it's holding up play.

In another D&D game, (in which I was the DM), the ranger's animal companion was killed in a fight. The Player had always played his character as very close to the companion, so the PC getting upset was in character. But the Player had the PC go on a rampage through the dungeon, into areas they hadn't explored, heedless of danger to the PC or the other PCs in the party. The other PCs, all badly wounded from the previous fight, had to magically and physically restrain the raging PC.

Until they managed to take the PC out, I had visions of a TPK. I was stressing out that the raging PC was going to die and take the whole party with.

This one's on you. Why not just plunk down a solid iron door on the exits deeper in? Somebody saw a crazy ranger incoming and activated the emergency lockdown.

Maybe stick some mystic runes on it so it can reliably just kinda stand there while the ranger whales on it.

Once it becomes evident he can't get through on his own the ranger will either have worn himself out or put his sword on the mage's neck and start pushing it toward the door and it's up to the mage if he follows.

If you're still worried about this being a TPK, just say it's going to take a while to get the runes off and let the ranger bleed off his frustration. Then when the door's open the ranger can storm in with a revitalized party to back him up.

 

[GlaziusF]

Ultimately, the DM has more power and more autonomy and more flexibility than any of the players do. This should make it easy to keep things going when they hit hiccups like this. If it's not, the DM is probably being too stubborn. Let the PC's tell the story, don't think you have to.

Yeah, this pretty much wins the thread.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I do love for Players to seriously role play their characters, but there is a limit. There is a line between playing a role to the benefit of the game and playing the role to the detriment of the game.

Have you seen Players cross this line? Have you crossed this line? Do you consider it a good thing or a bad thing to be willing to cross that line for the sake of "pure" role playing? Should a Player be willing to stop their true role playing for the sake of the game?

I guess that depends on what you think the game "is", and what people should do when "their character" would do X, Y or Z.

In basketball a team of players only has one goal (accumulate more points than the other team). Everyone can work together towards that. D&D isn't like that. Everyone can have their own goal, and the PCs work together (or not) as their personal goals dictate.

I don't see a problem here. If "my character" wouldn't go on a quest, fine. I can go home (and resume play next week) or make a new character. What's the big deal? That's my call. I've done that. Recently I had a PC that was a city-boy heavily involved in local politics. When the rest of the group decided they'd had enough of urban adventure and were off to the High Forrest he said "Okay, have fun." I made a different character for that adventure.

Frankly, I think you've got a great group. The imperfections of execution are the memorable ones ("Remember the time Bill's ranger went nuts ...").

I think the bigger problem is when players bring "out of character" problems to the table, say by deliberately sabotaging a quest not because of character goals but because they had a lousy day at work or are having a snit with the DM over non-D&D issues.

 

[SiderisAnon]

I have had several players who crossed the line in the name of "roleplaying". Generally, they annoy me. In at least one player's case, it means I will never play with them again because they did it repeatedly and always managed to screw over the rest of the party when they did. I've also had a player justify treating most of the party like dirt because their PC was of higher station than the others. This one actually resulted in the death of that PC at the hands of the rest of the party because they thought she was going to turn them in to an Inquisition type group and get them all killed. (To be fair, she probably was.)


As for my crossing the line, I think it varies. I am currently in a game where the local "kingdoms" are tiny. Ours is maybe 1,200 people right now. A neighboring smaller power is using a form of walking dead as soldiers. (Not D&D undead, more like constructs who maintain all their original memories and personality.) This really freaks out my character. He won't even talk to these NPCs, who that culture refers to as "honored dead" and treat as heroes. (Some are actually volunteers.) It seems to really upset the DM because he clearly wanted us to work closely with these people and my PC, who is the king, refused to. However, in the interest of the GAME, I have allowed the other PCs to convince him that from a political standpoint, we can't just burn these people to the ground. It's come up with some great roleplaying. The point for me was to have the PC be who he is but still allow for him NOT to interfere drastically with the game. Of course, they won't be the staunch allies the DM intended, but that seems okay to me. (And besides, the secret negotiations between the necromancer's wife and one of the other PCs, plus hiding it from my PC, have been a blast.)



The OP talked about a PC who refused to leave their debilitated cohort alone and exposed outside the dungeon. Frankly, I don't see that one as a problem. I like it when the PCs treat the NPCs like people.

As for the comment about refusing to go on an adventure because the NPC was rude, the question comes down to: What is at stake? If it's doing a favor for an NPC, then it's understandable. If it's saving people from unspeakable evil, then you should be doing it anyway because you're a hero. You don't have to like it, but you do it. It's just who you are.