Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5345240" data-attributes="member: 18280">It's&nbsp; far, far better, IMHO, to say, &quot;I won't get on the plane&quot; and let the other players decided to knock him out and put him on the plane comically, or some such, to avoid the 'blocking' described above by Janx.&nbsp; Or to just leave him there, and have him play a stand-in for a while.IOW, not being willing to fly is a problem, which the characters/players must seek a solution for.&nbsp; The introduction of problems (including subplots!) is not &quot;blocking&quot; and it is not anatehma to good role-playing.Nor is it problematic that the character attempts to avoid the other PCs' comic solution.&nbsp; Only if the player is offended by the other players trying to solve the problem and/or attempts to prevent them from using role-playing or the game mechanics to do so, is there any real problem or &quot;blocking&quot; going on.Otherwise, we get into territory where the DM including a locked door in an adventure becomes &quot;blocking&quot; or &quot;bad DMing&quot;.....Or a player who refuses to agree to jump with his party into the Green Devil Mouth in the Tomb of Horrors becomes accused of &quot;blocking&quot; or &quot;role-playing wrong&quot;.No thank you.If it is mandatory that each player must go along with whatever foolishness the group decides (and I have seen metric tonnes of foolish decisions over the years), or with whatever decision the GM wants them to make, one wonders why any player need actually show up at all!To both make the player/character deal with the consequences of the decision, while at the same time denying the agency to make that decision, is antithethical to the function of &quot;fair play&quot;.IMHO, anyway.&nbsp; YMMV.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5345240, member: 18280"] It's far, far better, IMHO, to say, "I won't get on the plane" and let the other players decided to knock him out and put him on the plane comically, or some such, to avoid the 'blocking' described above by Janx. Or to just leave him there, and have him play a stand-in for a while. IOW, not being willing to fly is a problem, which the characters/players must seek a solution for. The introduction of problems (including subplots!) is not "blocking" and it is not anatehma to good role-playing. Nor is it problematic that the character attempts to avoid the other PCs' comic solution. Only if the [B][I]player[/I][/B] is offended by the other players trying to solve the problem and/or attempts to prevent them from using role-playing or the game mechanics to do so, is there any real problem or "blocking" going on. Otherwise, we get into territory where the DM including a locked door in an adventure becomes "blocking" or "bad DMing".....Or a player who refuses to agree to jump with his party into the Green Devil Mouth in the Tomb of Horrors becomes accused of "blocking" or "role-playing wrong". No thank you. If it is mandatory that each player must go along with whatever foolishness the group decides (and I have seen metric tonnes of foolish decisions over the years), or with whatever decision the GM wants them to make, one wonders why any player need actually show up at all! To both make the player/character deal with the consequences of the decision, while at the same time denying the agency to make that decision, is antithethical to the function of "fair play". IMHO, anyway. YMMV. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification