When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[Belen]

I argued that I won't spoil the player's enjoyment for the sake of an NPC. He argued that it would be the true roleplaying way to handle it. My reply was to hell with that! I won't allow roleplaying to ruin a player's enjoyment. His arguement now is that this is ruining his enjoyment of the game. And that we (the rest of the group) are a bunch of metagamers who don't have a clue about the true roleplaying way.

So, thoughts? Is he acting like a spoilt brat and not considering the feelings of others? Is he due for a reality check as this is just a game ? Or is he right, should true roleplaying over-ride the meta-portion of gaming when the players are involved?

To the moderators, if this starts a flame war, I apologize, it's was not my intention.
Thanks
Hannibal King

You need not make RP sound dirty. I actually agree with both sides of the argument. It is awesome that you have a player who wants to stick up for his friend. You should not force that player to agree with your decision on the basis of PC versus NPC game terms.

You could have easily found an in character reason that the NPC would not want to come back. A simple speak with dead or other divination could have provided you with a story reason that the NPC did not want to come back. Maybe he met his family in the afterlife etc.

Now you're at the point where the player will think that anything you do is "game" related and you have lost the trust of that player.

In my opinion, you should gather the characters together and have the player in question make an impassioned plea for his friend. See if he cannot convince them of his case.

Personally, I think you're both wrong.

 

[Doug McCrae]

PCs shouldn't be able to expect resurrection, anyway, or else there's no fear of dying.

Sure there is. The fear of losing resources - money and possibly xp.

 

[fusangite]

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.

I guess I have trouble with this either-or situation here. I sincerely doubt that a good experienced player could not come up with an in-game justification for resurrecting the PC. Right now, seniority is being used as the basis for bringing back the NPC; but seniority is one of a myriad of factors in making a decision like this.

I think, also, people have this idea that their characters are fully knowable and discoverable by them so I'm generally pretty unimpressed when players "know" exactly how their characters would think in a situation and cannot conceive of them thinking in another way. Maybe seniority really matters to this character but surely he has other values he can bring to bear on this situation that will not potentially endanger the gaming group's social dynamic.

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.

Yes. But I get the sense that your playing style sees this as par for the course; it sounds like this is not the case with the person whose character died. If the campaign were composed of players like you, I'm sure that this would not even have been brought to this forum.

As you yourself concede the good of the group social dynamic always has a bearing on in-character decisions. New PCs are mysteriously trusted and included with ease, etc. People always balance "realism" and the good of the gaming group when they play. Otherwise, a lot of adventures and plot hooks would be left unfollowed and a lot more new PCs would be treated with suspicion.

Now maybe your gaming group has collectively decided that it only wants people who are not going to have a problem if their characters die and they have to roll up a new one. If so, I commend you; it frees you guys up to do some interesting kinds of play that, sadly, none of my gaming groups have really enabled. But it sounds to me as though this is not the chosen style of the gaming group under discussion in this thread. As such, accommodations must be made.

 

[WayneLigon]

...the NPC has been in the party for a whole month of downtime longer in which only the argumentive player interacted with him...

OK, now that's an entirely different scenario. Originally, I'd have said it was perfectly reasonable for him to say what he did (given the information at the time).

If I were in that situation and I could for some reason justify it, I'd normally say 'ressurect the PC'. If I couldn't justify it, if the NPC had been a long-time friend not only of my character but of the entire group and we'd just met the PC (and assuming the PC didn't have a skill or something that we desperately needed) then the PC would just have to take his chances with Reincarnate. Nothing else would really make sense for the characters.

With the additional info, though, it seems like he's being a footstool just because he can.

 

[swrushing]

1. When in my games the NPCs have become so liked that the players characters will treat them as equals and such, i consider that a good thing. its a lot better than the reverse, where NPC stands for "info or resource point" instead of character at all. By telling them "your character has to put PCs first" you turn NPCs into IRPs, or take a long step that way.

2. Put me also on the side of "when a Gm tells a player what his character has to do, its bad." Obviously exceptions like command spells and dominate are fine. I wont do this as Gm because at that point i AM telling the player "you are no longer running that character in my game. i am." The only time i WILL do that is when i am removing the player from my game as in "you need to find another game." i have only had to do that once.

3. When a character dies, his player has only the expectations that have been established in game to be ressurected. has he, in game and in character, made friends and established good relations with people who can bring him back? if so, there is no problem. if not, why isn't he being told "well, you did not do this or that and thats why?" if you let "i am a PC" be the criteria for "people in game must do nice things for me" you really remove a strong INCENTIVE for acting like a character, making friends and contacts and so forth. Thats IMX not usually a good thing.

From the initial post, and realizing how "not happy" i would be as soon as a GM pulled me aside and told me i had to do this or that... as opposed to, for instance, asking me if i (to help the story along) would want to play along and so forth... my recommendation is as follows.

The player with the character being told what to do should hand his character to the GM with NPC written on it and should go find another game where people's ideas as to "is an npc to be treated like a character or not" are more in line with his. if he cannot get into an existing one, he should start one up. The Gm here, having now the guy as an NPC, can run him as he sees fit.

life's too short for the unnecessary drama which can be resolved by just matching up games with people who want to play in them.

I still don't get or understand one thing... is the BAD PLAYER EVIL ROLEPLAYING GUY's character the one who is casting the spells for ressie?

Also, as an aside, remember that ressie and reinc are iirc OPTIONAL. its possible the NPC or the PC may refuse to come back. i have had that happen and also made the choice myself. "lived a good life, died well, sitting in my version of heaven... come back? Oh heck no." is a valid answer, if its "in character" of course... ooops there's that EVIL "roleplaying" thing creeping into our wargame again.

HK: have you considered startring your games requiring all the player's character to be family, so that they will all have good reason to follow your "treat PCs special" mandates? i mean, you clearly don't have a problem restricting player choices for their characters, and this might start the game out putting the "good metagamers" and "evil roleplayers" both on the same page.

Just a thought of a way to get your intentions out in the open up front and keep everyone in line.

 

[Janx]

At least there's a few posts in here that get the point.

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

For the rest of you, I wouldn't judge how the other player is reacting, given that the DM in question disagrees with him and is presenting the story to us. That's not an impartial tale.

What we do know, from the DM, is that he wants the party to use the spells in a certain way. And that's fine for him to want that, but he doesn't get to choose it, unless he has another NPC run in, and cast the spells in the manner he wants them. And that would seem to be an illogical act in the game.

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.

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."

Janx

 

[fusangite]

Having just re-read Hannibal's follow-up information, I'm a little baffled here.

If the difficult player has declared that he will not allow the player's new character to join the party, without actually knowing who this individual will be, who is the bigger "metagamer"? It sounds to me like neither side in this argument can claim some kind of "true roleplay" justification.

That stated, a few other problems have emerged here and I'm hoping you could answer a couple of questions Hannibal:
1. Why is there a regular NPC party member?
2. What is the actual social relationship between the two players on whom this dispute centres?
3. How are the reincarnate and resurrection spells stored? Are they both on scrolls? What is the class and level of the player who is being difficult?

The player with the character being told what to do should hand his character to the GM with NPC written on it and should go find another game where people's ideas as to "is an npc to be treated like a character or not" are more in line with his. if he cannot get into an existing one, he should start one up. The Gm here, having now the guy as an NPC, can run him as he sees fit.

life's too short for the unnecessary drama which can be resolved by just matching up games with people who want to play in them.

I'm inclined to agree with you swrushing, even though we consider the opposite people to be in the right. I just don't see how I could fit someone into my group who tried to use in-game justifications to limit who showed up to play each week.

HK: have you considered startring your games requiring all the player's character to be family, so that they will all have good reason to follow your "treat PCs special" mandates?

I think your family must be more functional and civil than mine -- I don't think being blood relatives would necessarily help this.

 

[JoeBlank]

Put me in the column that is completely against the DM telling the players what their characters must do.

However, the DM is in the position of being able to reward those who make the game flow better, and make it more enjoyable for everyone.

So I would let the living PCs make the decision, in character, but I would also ask the player of the dead PC how he feels about the reincarnation. If he is cool with it, or goes along with it to help the game and not make waves, I would consider rewarding him by letter him pick the result of the reincarnation. If that goes too far, you could let him roll twice and pick, or do the he rolls and you roll and he gets to pick thing.

Everyone should be happy, the "roleplayer" gets to have his PC act appropriately, and the player of the dead PC comes out okay.

As far as saying ahead of time that he would not allow a completely new PC into the group, this is where I could talk to the player. I would explain that I won't make his PC do anything, but that the players have to be willing to make certain concessions to make the game fun for everyone. Sure, it might not be in character to allow some stranger to join the group, but in cases where resurrection-type magic is unavailable this is usually the only choice. The guy needs to be willing to compromise somewhat, or he would not be welcome at the gaming table.

I like the "constructive metagaming" explanation. Whenever possible, the PCs should act in character, but they should try to find in character reasons to make the game fun for all the players.

A little off topic, but in one of our games we had a new player join a while back, and my sorcerer did not trust him at first. When we were scouting (outside the Banewarrens) my gnome cast a charm person on him. He made the save, and did not know the source of the spell, but when he spotted someone in the distance he assumed it was a hostile spellcaster, plugged him with an arrow. Turned out the guy was just a bum, at most. Whoops.

Same player, new character last session, creeping up on our group, so my PC, same gnome, casts charm monster on him. Now I have his new PC charmed for 11 days, gives the PCs a good amount of time to judge his character and determine whether they should trust him once the charm wears off.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm all for treating NPCs like real people and ignoring the "PC glow", but the more I hear it sounds like the one player just has an axe to grind. This doesn't sound to me like a case of "role playing"; it sounds like a player with an agenda.

Anyways, I'd let the players decide for themselves without DM intervention.

 

[Aristotle]

If the living characters are paying for, or casting themselves, the spells necessary to bring back their fallen allies 'in character'... then you have to expect their decision on who to use the spell on to be 'in character' as well. You should respect the player's decisions he or she has made for a character just as you would the decisions that player makes as to what spells to memorize, what opponent to attack, or whatever else...

Sure, raising the other player character is the easiest thing to do for the game, but sometimes the decisions made in a game mean you have to go about things the hard way. I think the other player should try to understand this. If the PC is relatively new and unknown to the living players and the NPC is a tried and true friend who has saved their lives in the past it would be a crime (IMHO) not to raise the NPC.

This is one of the trials of a DM. Rather than arguing with the player of the living character you should be talking to the player of the dead one. If you, as the DM, feel they have gotten a raw deal and deserve a second chance. Ask him or her if they mind making a new character. If they tell you they do and that they want to go on playing their current character, and you feel the current situation warrants allowing the player to keep the character even though it died, then fudge a die roll or come up with some semi-inventive way to allow that character to be restored by other means.