Role playing to the detriment of the game

[El Mahdi]

Because the DM can change the world.

DM for president! DM for President! Because we need real change!

(I think I've been watching too much MSNBC)

 

[Umbran]

Sitting around and not participating isn't role-playing. It's the opposite.

Er, before we go too strongly down this path, there's something to ask - is the player not participating, or is the player just not having a solution come to mind?

Human beings are sometimes afflicted by "option lock" - the inability to make a choice, because there are too many options available and insufficient criteria to eliminate some - like the kid in a candy store, or a person in a restaurant who is given a menu with many things that look good, and they say, "I don't know what I want..."

This can strike players, too. The DM asks them to make up a character, but gives no other guidance (thinking that the player would prefer to make their own choices), but thereby leaving the player with no information on which is a good thing to go with.

Or, like here in the start of a campaign, the player that has very little information, setting, or framework in which to operate, has little context for proposing a solution.

 

[Walknot]

It doesn't matter if the DM's plans are laid to waste, or if a PCs personal zeitgeist is infringed upon--if we're coming to the table focused on the needs and enjoyments of our friends.

Selfishness ruins any social event.

Yea, true that.

Role playing can be a great psychic relief. Anti-social selfish jerk characters can be as over the top as you like, and fun for everybody in their excess.

But when I am tempted to use my PC as a free ticket to act-out against my actual issues IRL, gots to watch my friends don't get caught in the cross-fire. Just like you can make a realy cool fun world together, you can just as easily ruin it.

In fact, it actually happens a lot. Maybe it's the overcoming of this indefatiguable disfunction that makes the whole effort so interesting?

 

[billd91]

I am confused by this story and your statements. You claim metagaming is so horrible that you will not do it, but you expect the DM to wave his hands and get you back into the game after you make a bad decision. It seems like you are complaining about not being able to have your cake and eat it too. What am I not getting here?

In the jedi's defense, based on your understanding of the Force and the Star Wars movies, wouldn't you expect the dark jedi spirit to be tweaking off the jedi's force senses? I sure would. I wouldn't even roll for it, it would be an auto-success. I'm certainly not going to sit back and gloat about the jedi character's bad decision to stay back to guard the ship while I effect a TPK. That's not very genre-friendly.

 

[S'mon]

As a player, I would feel like I'm overstepping my bounds if I tell the DM what his NPC's or what his world is. I tell the DM who my character is. It's in his hands to get that character where he needs them.

I think this is a terrible approach. It's fine for you to put obstacles in front of the GM, but it's "overstepping your bounds" to help him out? Seems like you're actively detracting from the game for the GM, and by extension for the other players.

 

[S'mon]

I would only expect the DM to run my character for me if I had to run out to the store or something.

Otherwise I'd end that sentence with, 'so I take a bus and / or hitchhike, and arrive up the winding lane on foot, bone-tired and with my worldly possessions in a backpack. If anyone asks, I lie about it and say my parents dropped me off up the road, because I don't want to admit that I'm poor.'

That's playing a role. Not, 'I sit at home and do nothing.'

I don't want to have a story dictated me to me, and if I did, I'd be reading a novel or watching the television, not joining a *role-playing game.* I want to be *part of it.*

Sitting around and not participating isn't role-playing. It's the opposite.

Well said.

I think this refusing to have your brand new PC arrive at the start of the adventure example is completely different from having your established PC refuse to perform human sacrifice or other out of character acts in the middle of the adventure. It's refusing the entire premise of the game, or at least putting an extra unwanted load on the GM to spotlight your PC as he's forced to engineer some extra scene around your PC to get them in - the Wolverine Syndrome.


As GM, I have very limited brain processing capacity & energy. Running a large group especially I have very little to spare. I really hate players who demand a big extra chunk of that directed to them for no good reason. Some players seem to think I have infinite mental resources with which to attend them; I don't.

 

[S'mon]

You know, this thread is remarkably similar to a debate we have in educational circles all the time. "If a student is not learning, is it the student's fault for not being motivated, or is it the teacher's fault for not motivating the child." As a teacher and a DM, I do have my personal biases.

As an educator myself, I don't think apportioning blame is helpful. However, it is my job to motivate that student, and I am paid to do so. RPGs by contrast are an unpaid leisure activity, no one is paying me to motivate the difficult player.

 

[S'mon]

In the jedi's defense, based on your understanding of the Force and the Star Wars movies, wouldn't you expect the dark jedi spirit to be tweaking off the jedi's force senses? I sure would. I wouldn't even roll for it, it would be an auto-success. I'm certainly not going to sit back and gloat about the jedi character's bad decision to stay back to guard the ship while I effect a TPK. That's not very genre-friendly.

I certainly think the GM in that SW game sounded like a total jerk. Having the Jedi's senses not activate was bad, but auto-killing the PCs was worse.

If a player is giving you, the GM, a way to get the PC into the game - "Do I sense anything?" - I think the onus is on the GM to work with that to make the game fun for everyone. Only if the player is actively refusing to get involved and rejecting the GM's suggestions (including 'come up with a way, any way') is it the players' fault.

 

[Engilbrand]

When it comes to the girl from California:
The DM said, "Make a character and get them to this place."
The player created a character and then said, "I can't get her to that place."
This isn't a case where the DM should have just handwaved the whole thing. The player didn't follow the directions. Instead of California, pretend that the player made a character from a tiny tribe in Sub-Saharan Africa. If the power isn't flight, teleportation, or speed, and they didn't come up with an in-game reason for the character to get to the point, then that player did not follow character creation rules.
As one person said, it would have been great to have the character get a bus ticket or hitchhike and walk. That can create a ton of awesome little stories later. To make a poor person and just say, "I can't get there." is absolutely ridiculous. My response would be, "Fine. That's a good NPC for me for later. Now follow the damn directions and make someone who can actually get here."

 

[roguerouge]

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.

What, lone wolves can't hitchhike? Steal a car? Hop a freight train? Everyone has a bad day and this day was bad for that player.

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.

And then he shows up the DM. Bad behavior.

Crossing the line can be done if you don't escalate things and abide by party decisions.

For example, I've had my guy say he was going to punch a PC in the nose if he didn't stop playing keep-a-way with a magic item. He didn't stop. I punched him in the nose. He gave it up. I told him that I treated him like a man: I told him what I was going to do and let him choose what his behavior would be. Later, when his character got a bit of revenge, I didn't respond in kind. Problem done with, both players happy, end of story. When you trust your fellow players, you can do things like that and not worry about de-railing the campaign.

For another example, a PC, unbeknownst to us, multi-classed from paladin into binder. We had our suspicions, but they were confirmed when she made a bad pact and grew horns. My LG ranger argued that our mission to rescue some POWs should be aborted, because our friend was either possessed, cursed or ill. I argued it for a while, then agreed to wait until after the mission to deal with it.