Role playing to the detriment of the game

[Scribble]

I don't mind when people do things that are in characetr even if it's a PITA for the rest of the members to deal with... But I think sometimes people go a bit too far either just to be a PITA or unwilling to believe that their idea on how best to RP the situation isn't the only way, and don't realize they're just being a PITA...

Case in point the girl from California.

I don't get why that was the end of it? I'm not in your group so I can't say for sure, but still. Ok, her parents can't afford (or wouldn't be willing) to fly her out... Theres a million other ways she could have gotten there. (Especially when dealing with super heros!) Why did he insist it was a no-go situation instead of looking for a solution?

Saying she wasn't allowed to go, but got there anyway seems like it would also add potential plot hooks down the line.

 

[Mallus]

So, ultimately, the DM has more power and more autonomy and more flexibility than any of the players do.

While I agree w/a lot of what you posted KM, practically speaking, I don't think it's the DM's job to go out of their way to motivate under-motivated PC's. The players know what motivates their character better than the DM does, even when the DM and players are communicating openly. Therefore, it's just easier for a player to provide their character's motivation is for a given situation/adventure.

And if the DM is seen as the primary motivator, it gets more complicated as you add in the other players. Better for the DM to provide general motivators -- gold! glory! -- and let the PC's hash out the specifics.

Let the PC's tell the story, don't think you have to.

This cuts both ways. If the PC's able to 'tell the story', then they're perfectly capable of providing a reason for being in the story.

 

[gizmo33]

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.

I don't see the problem, but I suspect the problem you're having is not with roleplaying but with player TPKs. Frankly, I don't see the difference between players suffering a TPK because one of them did something foolish (like attacking a monster that he shouldn't have, or whatever) and one of them doing something in character.

It all comes down to the same problem I always read about DMs having, and a thing I'm challenged by myself. And that is - do you have the will power to really allow the PCs to face the consequences of their actions. And consequences sometimes means a TPK. If your "plot" and "story" are too delicate to survive a TPK, and the dice are wrecking the plot, then I'm not sure why player roleplaying is the only thing that a "detriment" to your game.

I don't TPK the party out of a sense of punishment. I've played enough times (as opposed to DMing) to realize that you don't always see the things that the DM thinks are obvious. So I don't take a "this is punishment for doing something stupid" approach to PC death. Instead, I take a "this is why you feel a sense of risk during the game that makes it exciting" approach to PC death.

So the ranger goes nuts and all of the PCs get killed. Sounds like a roleplaying game to me. Allowing such a thing to occur gives the players a clear sense that there are consequences to their actions. I don't see how that's a detriment to anything except the DM being able to put the plot of his adventure into a nice safe box.

 

[I'm A Banana]

While I agree w/a lot of what you posted KM, practically speaking, I don't think it's the DM's job to go out of their way to motivate under-motivated PC's.

If someone is showing up at the game, then they want to play. The DM just needs to give them an excuse. Sometimes, it's easy: "I pay you," or "You're a hero." Sometimes, it's harder. Neither of the examples seemed particularly reticent.

"My character's family can't afford to send them across the country!" isn't something that the DM can't solve easily. Likewise, "That NPC was too rude to expect me to help him!" isn't a real problem. Both of these just rely on the DM to tweak their narrative a little bit. The Cali Girl shows up on scholarship. The sensitive PC gets recruited because there is more at stake than what the rude guy was telling them. The adventure, so to speak, has to COME GET THEM. These are problems that a DM can easily solve, since the DM sets up the entire world. Any adventure should be designed not only with "what happens when they take the quest" in mind, but also, "what happens when they DON'T take the quest" in mind.

If the PC's able to 'tell the story', then they're perfectly capable of providing a reason for being in the story.

I care more about motivations and goals than I care about race and class. I think a DM really needs to. It's not unreasonable for a DM to say: "You're going into this dungeon. Tell me why your character would want to go in a dungeon."

But these issues are minor. They shouldn't bring the game screeching to a halt. The DM can prevent this. If the DM chooses not to, I can't understand why. Nobody ties the DM's hand.

 

[Obryn]

It's my job as a DM to create and run a game that my players and I will enjoy, so that we all look forward to coming back next week. It's also my responsibility to create adventures which will have sufficient hooks for my players, keep them interested, keep things "fair" (in whatever definition you wish), and to referee fairly.

It's my players' jobs to play their characters well, contributing to the fun of the whole group. It's their responsibility to (1) create characters who would have some reason to play nice in a group, and (2) create characters, the roleplaying of which will not ruin other players' fun. I lay these expectations out for them before they make their first character.

My players have a ton of latitude about what character to make. However, I put the onus on them to figure out why they're hanging out with the rest of these bozos. Maybe they're relatives, maybe it's a business relationship, maybe they happen to be on a similar quest and meet up, but there should be a reason.

-O

 

[SteveC]

I have seen problems like this quite often, and as I've gotten older I have really changed my mind to be far more direct and to the point about it.

Your character's being a jerk, do you really want to be in this session, is something I'd say both as a player and a GM these days when someone really crosses the line. "It's what my character would do," isn't much of a defense in my mind, because you are the person running the character, after all, and not the other way around.

The most important thing to do in cases like this is to define what the social "table rules" are and what different characters can be expected to do. A number of the situations that have been described in the thread could be just fine, or they could not be, depending on what the expectations are for the game.

So I guess my advice is to talk about what is in bounds and what is unacceptable behavior, and then to break away from the game to address any problems that come up. Oh, and share the resulting stories, they tend to be fantastic!

--Steve

 

[JustKim]

I've been a part of this problem. I give my characters aversions and desires that won't always mesh with what the DM or the other players have in mind. I have never shown up to the first session and said "my character doesn't show up to the meeting because X, Y, Z," but when it's time for the PCs to react to something, I sometimes dissent.

I also recognize that games like D&D are cooperative, so I try not to let it become more than a speed bump. But when my character's aversion or desire is strong, she reacts strongly and tries to get the rest of the group with her on something. If the rest of the group doesn't have a compelling reason or strong reaction to the contrary, it's difficult to just shrug and agree. I've played with people who HATE this, and it's led to some arguments and retiring of characters.

One example was when the party entered a cursed haunted house, where a ghost told us we would be keeping him company for the rest of our lives. We couldn't leave and we couldn't affect the ghost. I decided my character would react to this by tearing apart the ghost's belongings. This was not what the DM wanted. When the other PCs told me that there might be some clue to escaping in the books I was shredding, I stopped. I had a good reason to stop.

Another example was where the party was protecting a sinister little girl. We had gone out to a cairn in search of power to stop some malicious fey, and became vastly outnumbered by monsters. The cairn told us to spill the girl's blood on the altar. My character was high mobility, and I wanted to try to flee to safety. When the other characters started picking out knives to use for the bloodletting, my character picked up the sinister girl and ran. This derailed the whole game. Eventually some facts were retconned by the DM to make it easier for my character to accept the bloodletting (there are monsters in every direction, it's just a drop of blood, the girl doesn't want to go with you), and I said okay, I didn't run after all. But the only reason the PCs had was "we might survive if we do this," which wasn't enough to change my mind.

So why do I do it? Probably because I want an avenue to show everyone the thought I put into my character, that she isn't identical to the 200 other characters I've played.

If I were to put the responsibility for dealing with this on the DM, I would suggest running some scenarios that the players can react to without affecting the flow of the adventure or something important to the whole party.

 

[Mallus]

Neither of the examples seemed particularly reticent.

Heh... they did to me.

"My character's family can't afford to send them across the country!" isn't something that the DM can't solve easily.

Note that so could the player, and that that no solution from the player was forthcoming. I got the impression they merely 'said no' and then waited for the DM to trot something else out. Of course, we are hearing only one account of these incidents.

Likewise, "That NPC was too rude to expect me to help him!" isn't a real problem. Both of these just rely on the DM to tweak their narrative a little bit. The Cali Girl shows up on scholarship. The sensitive PC gets recruited because there is more at stake than what the rude guy was telling them.

Sure. All fine solutions. But there does come a point where the DM simply doesn't have to time to keep brainstorming up reasons for a single player to participate in the the game. At that point its incumbent on that player to find their own reasons or go home.

The adventure, so to speak, has to COME GET THEM.

I disagree more-or-less completely. You're playing adventurers, go adventure. Why shouldn't the players meet the DM at least half way?

These are problems that a DM can easily solve, since the DM sets up the entire world.

Why should the DM have to? It's not only his job.

It's not unreasonable for a DM to say: "You're going into this dungeon. Tell me why your character would want to go in a dungeon."

This I agree with more-or-less completely. No, make that completely.

 

[Greg K]

I agree with KM and Dragonbait. There was nothing here that was out of line.

#1. Relevant hooks. As the DM, imo (and I am always the DM/GM), it is your responsability to sit down with the players and find out their characters' backgrounds and motivations.

#2-3. Derailing the adventure. If the other pc's can't convince the hold out, the player sits out the session. Or, perhaps, the DM throws in a few short cut scenes with the remaining PC and then supplies a situation to bring the PC back into the adventure. Worst case scenario, the player retires the character.

Ex1. I was playing a monk in a friends campaign. In his campaign world, there was an order of monks, who were very paladin like. Be an exemplar of good. Protect the helpless and down trodden. My character was from that order.
At one point, the party came to town in another country. People were on the gallows set to be executed. When member of the crowd were questioned, the party learned that these people had stolen bread, fruit, etc.
The rest of the party wanted to ignore the situation for the time being until they learned more about the country we were in. The party tried convincing my character to turn a blind eye and threatened to disavow my character if he got involved . However, it would not have been in character for the monk to stay idly by and let these people die for such a petty crime- the GM agreed (and the players agreed). I was prepared to retire my character.

We played out the rescue. Then, the DM focused on the group. Rather than have me retire the character, the GM threw occasionally threw out random news of a vigilante throughout the session. Occassionally he did a quick cut scene to have the monk rescue people from criminals (including one that was stage in attempt to capture the monk). However, most of the play focus was on the other PCs.

He brought my character back in by having him catching the attention of a local group of freedom fighters. They received word that the other PCs had attracted to much attention asking questions and were going to be ambushed.
One of the individuals that the monk had rescued alerted him and he arrived to disrupt the ambush and the party was back together.

Ex 2. I brought in a replacement character. The PCs were in another nation far from their homelands. My replacement character was from the local desert nation and worked with the PCs for the adventure. However, when the adventure concluded there was no reason for my PC to continue with the others to their homeland as he had family matters to deal with at home. So, I simply retired the character.

#4. A character going berserk out of grief-not a problem. Let the party deal with him. Maybe the party restrains the character or casts a spell if they think his behavior is harmful to them.
In my most recent supers campaign, one of the PCs shot a restrained captive in the head. Two characters turned in disbelief . Another player heard the shot and got word over the comlink as to what happened.
Quickly the two characters nearby used thier power to restrain him.
The offending player thought I would let his actions slide, because he was a PC. He was wrong and the others promptly turned his character to the authorities to stand trial. (I may or may not use a mind control scenario after talking to the offending player as the victim was a minion. I doubt it, but the possibility is there).

 

[Scribble]

I think the onus isn't on the DM or the Player, but both of them really.

If I'm runnign a game I present a hook. Players generally come up with reasons why they are in a certain location. If a player can't fathom a reason why his character would do soemthing I'll offer suggestions.

If I'm running a game and a player does something that's possibly detrimental to the others players, it's not a problem. It's an opportunity. If the other players roll with it, cool. If it's just annoying the other players I'd expect the offending player to either figure out a story reason why he stops, or deal wih the consequences.

Role Playing is a collabrative game.