When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[Kast]

I think it's a bad idea to get in the middle of PC matters. It always seems to upset at least one of the players. I think in this scenario, there must be more history to this group dynamic than your're telling us.

Anyway, as a solution, you could always grant the party a wish at some point on down the road that they could use to give the reincarnated PC back his old body (assuming he even wanted to go back).

 

[D+1]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds that insulting. Will I work with a player to include a new character in the party? Sure. But will I make an in-character decision for the sole purpose of appeasing a player? Nope. Maybe its just crazy talk, but some of us like playing believable and consistent characters. Sometimes that means making sacrifices, or doing something which would not be popular out of character.

Ah, but that really doesn't sound like the situation being presented. I'm getting the picture of a player who says "I've come to my conclusion on this and rather than even CONSIDER any alternative it is going to be my way or no way at all. Furthermore, anyone who fails to agree with me at this point or tries to convince me otherwise is clearly inferior because I am obviously infallible. Oh, and it is not a matter of my character then taking actions that would SUPPORT his in-character view, it is a matter of me as a player attempting to convince all the other players that they must accept my point of view for my character and no other. They must therefore have their characters conform to my characters view and comply with my wishes IN-game as well as meta-game. The spells must be awarded as *I* say. The player of the dead PC bears lesser consideration than my own sacred privelege to maintain roleplaying purity."

Now we are only getting one side of the story but there's certainly no mention of the player having said, "I'm sorry, but I simply can't find any REASONABLE way for my character to agree to this. Therefore my CHARACTER must disagree with the party's decision, though it would be STUPID of me to make this a meta-game issue as well as in-game. But it would be nice if the rest of you could come up with acceptible in-character reasons why my character could be convinced to go along with it because it's just not working for me. I think as a minimum result my character is going to PERSONALLY obtain a resurrection for his friend the NPC and perhaps harbor a little resentment toward the other PC's for THEIR decision - because THAT IS THE TRUE ROLEPLAYING WAY."

I've been on the receiving end of this situation before as well (losing a character, but having an NPC [the significant other of the party paladin] get raised instead of me). It happens. I'd rather have the other players act in such a way that they think their characters would act, and not fudging things to keep another player happy.

But we're not talking yet about "keeping the other player happy". We're talking about keeping THIS player happy - the one who seems to be willing to make no comprimise nor ROLEPLAY his way through the situation (despite his apparant conviciton in the True Roleplaying Way) but instead make it immediately an out-of-character beef with other players and the DM for not siding with his reflexive, unalterable conclusion. Yes, it happens that occasionally an NPC will need to be given some form of preference over a PC for the sake of roleplaying verisimilitude, but did the player even explore other possibilities much less ALL other possibilities? It surely doesn't sound like it or the OP would not have had the visceral oppositional reaction that he seems to have had.

 

[monkeyshines]

One choice may affect a players feelings, the other effects the DM who doesn't give a rats backside about the NPC.
Is realism in gaming worth friendships?

Why does it have to ruin friendships? I don't know any of my gaming friends who would take something in-game personally enough to get upset enough about it to have it ruin a real life friendship.

Besides, you've already stated you don't know if the player of the dead PC will even be bothered by this. Why get your undies in a bunch over something that might not even be an issue?

This is a player issue. If you want to control what the characters do, write a book, don't run a game. If this guy is really as much of a jerk as you're making him out to be, the pigeons will come home to roost on him someday.

 

[Desdichado]

According to Wikiquote its from The Criticism of the Gotha Program 1875
Not near a decent library to check with another source.

Hey, MM; in which entry did you read that? fusangite is making me doubt my memory; I'd like to check personally.

 

[Desdichado]

Ah, but that really doesn't sound like the situation being presented. I'm getting the picture of a player who says "I've come to my conclusion on this and rather than even CONSIDER any alternative it is going to be my way or no way at all. Furthermore, anyone who fails to agree with me at this point or tries to convince me otherwise is clearly inferior because I am obviously infallible. Oh, and it is not a matter of my character then taking actions that would SUPPORT his in-character view, it is a matter of me as a player attempting to convince all the other players that they must accept my point of view for my character and no other. They must therefore have their characters conform to my characters view and comply with my wishes IN-game as well as meta-game. The spells must be awarded as *I* say. The player of the dead PC bears lesser consideration than my own sacred privelege to maintain roleplaying purity."

Funny... I'm getting a picture of a DM who's reacting exactly that same way.

 

[D+1]

It is NOT the DM's business on how the party spends its resources.

Meaning:
The party has 2 dead people
The DM gave the party 1 Ressurection and 1 Reincarnation to use
The party decides how to use it, not the DM

THAT much is true. The DM can voice his own opinion, just as a casual observer, but should not wade in with those Spiked DM's Size 12's unless the player/PC decisions are in themselves going to cause unnecessary problems. Until then the DM does NOT get to interfere, only voice an opinion.

Now on the note of "roleplayers spoiling other people's fun" I think there's a line. Not differentiating between PC and NPC is generally good playing. Making a PC that's a jerk and tries to screw the other players is bad playing.

Which basically means that if you ARE differentiating between PC's and NPC's you exhibit good roleplaying.

Look, the game is not about the actions of the NPC's, it's about the actions of the PC's. Some PC's may die, some NPC's may occasionally have very important parts to play to the point where they need to take a certain precedence over the PC's, but PC's and NPC'S ARE DIFFERENT. Sometimes they need to be treated the same, sometimes - by sheer virtue of the fact that a PC is NOT an NPC - that character needs to be given special consideration. MORE consideration, not just equal or lesser. That doesn't mean that player/PC's desires will ALWAYS take precedence and that other factor are disregarded, but it does mean that PC's must ALWAYS take GREATER CONSIDERATION when being dealt with than dealing with NPC's. Failure to recognize this is not just poor roleplaying - it is being a poor PLAYER.

As pointed out by a few others, dead people got no rights. They're dead. They don't get to vote. If the story supports it they might be brought back. Otherwise, the default assumption by any player should be "time to roll up another."

True the dead PC gets no in-character vote but that doesn't mean the PLAYER IS DEAD. The player has EVERY BIT as much rights and priveleges as he has whether his character is dead, alive, being replaced, and regardless of the seniority of the player or his character. That is an immutable fact of D&D - unless someone is being a serious jerk on either side of the equation.

 

[fusangite]

Hey guys,

I know that it is tempting to fall back on a good old chestnut like roleplaying versus metagame knowledge and the appropriateness of either approach. But I think it is a mistake to view the person with whom Hannibal is having the dispute as a representative of the "roleplay" school or Hannibal as a representative of the "metagame" school.

A person from the "roleplay" school would never declare that if the player of the deceased character rolled-up a new character instead of being resurrected that whoever that character turned out to be should not be admitted to the party.

Similarly, a person from the "metagame" school would have taken one of the half-dozen or more potential solutions to this dilemma that have been offered here as alternatives to temporarily nationalizing the problem player's character.

Neither of these two basic, equally valid approaches is being represented in this situation.

Hannibal's proposed solution does not deserve the support of the metagamer faction here. I consider myself to be a member of this faction and I have zero patience with the idea of nationalizing a character when other, far less invasive solutions are available.

Despite the thread's title, this is not actually a debate about whether role playing should get in the way of people's enjoyment. This thread is about trying to explain to a GM that he needs to find an alternative to nationalizing people's characters when he doesn't like their decisions.

 

[D+1]

Have you read the entire thread, or are you just commenting on the original post? Because I can't imagine how you could come to this conclusion if it's the former.

Threads like this pop up and then grow RAPIDLY. Unless I notice that the original post is older than a day or so I really prefer to respond to the original post first, THEN read the thread so as to avoid coopting other peoples opinions as if it were my own initial opinion. Later, as I read the rest of the thread I will clarify, add, or rescind that initial opinion in the light of other peoples reactions or additional information is provided. Sometimes I'll edit the post and amend what I was saying (that is amend the substance of it rather than just fix spelling and clarify a certain point) but I try to avoid that.

So, it IS a direct response to that post - it's why I quoted that post and not other later posts. Points made in OTHER posts I generally respond to seperately. I suppose it can lead to confusion because people read MY first response only in light of all that may have already been said, but it is a far more honest means of discussion and debate because then I am forming and stating my OWN opinions without coopting (intentionally or not) other peoples opinions as they were mine. I can then CHANGE my opinion or add to it in light of later responses but the initial response really should be based on just the initial post.

In this case, I think the only thing I would/should have changed or added is that the DM doesn't get to tell the players how to run the affairs of their characters.

 

[D+1]

Funny... I'm getting a picture of a DM who's reacting exactly that same way.

I try to avoid speculating too much on the other side of the story simply because it IS speculation. If I do that I certainly try to remember to point out that I AM simply commention on speculation. Sometimes it's a little obvious that there IS another side to the story that needs to be heard because certain issues that repeatedly come up always do. In this case I've probably been at least a little over-focused on one side I admit, but this roleplaying purity stuff really pushes my buttons.

People use purity of roleplaying as an excuse for being a BAD roleplayer (or more accurately a bad PLAYER) quite often. It's like political correctness - you can't even question it without being effectively labelled as a disgusting, thoughtless, rabid opponent. "But I'm just being true to my character!" is the rallying cry of a WEAK roleplayer who is being caught acting like a jerk for no compelling reason. Nobody has the right to create a CE assassin and introduce it into a group of LG characters and then claim "But I was just roleplaying my character!" when it disrupts the entire game and gets players angry as their PC's drop dead from a poisoned blade. Same thing here. "My CHARACTER wants the resurrection to go to the NPC and if you disagree then you're a bad roleplayer, AND if you don't go along with me I'll refuse to accept the NEXT PC that comes along?"

The DM here is overstepping his bounds by "insisting" that the resurrection go to the PC, but it seems apparant that the player could expect no less a reaction if his attitude is anything like the way it's being presented to us.

 

[Desdichado]

Hannibal's proposed solution does not deserve the support of the metagamer faction here. I consider myself to be a member of this faction and I have zero patience with the idea of nationalizing a character when other, far less invasive solutions are available.

Despite the thread's title, this is not actually a debate about whether role playing should get in the way of people's enjoyment. This thread is about trying to explain to a GM that he needs to find an alternative to nationalizing people's characters when he doesn't like their decisions.

Huh? Did you mean rationalizing, or am I completely not understanding what you're talking about? I don't see how making the characters into citizens does anything.