When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[Bagpuss]

What does the player of the dead character think? Surely his opinion is important.

I've had a GM try to "raise dead" my character, so as not to ruin "my enjoyment" even though the character had openly insulted the God of the party cleric moments before his death. Plus we were playing in a viking culture and my character had just died in battle sword in hand. My character was very happy to be dead and living it up in the Halls of Vallhala, yet the GM kept trying to persuade me to be raise for my own good.

In the situation you mentioned I'ld be happy with the reserrection spell.

 

[Flyspeck23]

IMHO, this isn't about "PCs are special" vs "PCs aren't special".

The player's opinion on the other player's character (if a new one) not being accepted into the party would be the last straw for me.

As we can't know all the facts (seeing that it's only one side of the story) it's hard to make judgmend calls based on it. But the situation as presented here clearly points to the player as a spoiled brat. In no way is this good roleplaying - *role* perhaps, but *playing* (as in: fun for all involved)?

Anyway, this is best handled outside of the game. Take the player aside and talk about it. Maybe as a group, or maybe as DM and player.

If the 'roleplayer' then acts in a childish manner against the other player I am quiting DMing until 4th edition comes out.

I sure hope you're joking. You are joking, right?
Kick the offending player out of your game if you must, but don't let him win

 

[James Heard]

If the player that wants to take issue with the different way of being raised wants a consideration because of a metagame issue personally I'd require a metagaming tithe to sway me - that player can forgoe his treasure shares to me and my drinking buddy for 3 adventures of something. What? That wouldn't work? Then why should any other metagaming consideration take precedence over the will of a player?

Players should never be required to metagame to appease the GM, nor should the GM ever insist upon a course of action a player is opposed to that wasn't clearly outlined beforehand in the game. If you clearly state at the beginning of your games: "We aren't gonna roleplay, this is just to level up characters and roll dice to show off strategic fighting simulations. Players are the most important concern of the game, above characters and plot" then I might agree with the concern. Most people never spell things like that out though (kudos if you had the forethought to do so). Whether or not he's being a weenie about it personality-wise is irrelevant if you're considering whether or not he's "right" or not. If he's a weenie that's a completely different issue about "do I have to play with weenies."

 

[Flyspeck23]

Situations like these are the main reason I don't put NPCs in the PCs party (seeing that I run a bigger-than-average group most of the time, that's pretty easy to say ).

Players should never be required to metagame to appease the GM, nor should the GM ever insist upon a course of action a player is opposed to that wasn't clearly outlined beforehand in the game. If you clearly state at the beginning of your games: "We aren't gonna roleplay, this is just to level up characters and roll dice to show off strategic fighting simulations. Players are the most important concern of the game, above characters and plot" then I might agree with the concern. Most people never spell things like that out though (kudos if you had the forethought to do so). Whether or not he's being a weenie about it personality-wise is irrelevant if you're considering whether or not he's "right" or not. If he's a weenie that's a completely different issue about "do I have to play with weenies."

As pointed out by HK, the in-game reason for ressurecting the NPC and reincarnate the PC are vague at best, and the rest of the party might think of it differently (again, not metagame-wise). On a later occasion the player already showed that he's prone of metagame-thinking too (and his initial decision might well be based on metagame thinking too...), so why are you defending his decision that way?

Btw, IMHO players are the most important aspect of the game, or otherwise there's just the DM. That doesn't mean that such games are "just to level up characters and roll dice to show off strategic fighting simulations", mind you.

 

[S'mon]

If you don't want to spoil the enjoyment of the player w dead PC, have him reincarnate as human (or whatever race he was to start with). You're the GM, you have the power of fiat. Don't force players to do things they don't want to. Being able to make choices like that - to choose to raise the NPC - without GM veto is highly valued by most players.

 

[hong]

I loathe the "PC's have signs on their forehead" basis of decision making. It strikes me as bad form that ruins any semblance of world immersion. If this became rampant I'm sure I'd lose interest I'm afraid.

You should play Exalted. In that game, not only does every PC have an (in-game) aura that only they can see, when they get pissed off, EVERYONE can see it.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

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'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.

Ditto everything Corsair said.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Depends on what the rest of the party and the dead player feel.

Roleplaying does sometimes get in the way of the game, but as it's a part of the game, to blatantly ignore campaign history in favor of the characters can provide other issues. If the players feel that strongly about it, just have two raise dead spells available. Problem solved.

 

[cmanos]

This is one of the many reasons I don't run NPC's with my player parties. Another reason is it becomes too easy for the NPC to become the DM's 'character' and way too easy to be tempted to give him good stuff...

 

[Al]

There exists the conundrum of what I call "constructive metagaming". This is the dilemma of where pursuing the goals and intentions of the PCs mean that the game goes badly awry. For example, in the group where I play, we were deeply suspicious of a new PC replacing the player's old dead one. Whilst it may have been the case that the PCs would not let him into the group, "constructive metagaming" meant that we did. Otherwise, he'd have to discard his character and make a new one, missing out on most of the session. Conversely, "constructive metagaming" can apply to important plotlines and so forth. If the DM makes an accidental blunder that would ruin the whole adventure, or campaign, the players can "constructively metagame" to ignore it, even if the PCs would pick up on the error.

But this isn't "constructive metagaming" at all. PC deaths happen, and tough. Whining that you don't get a resurrection is childish, and he can simply accept the reincarnation or roll up a new character. Before raising the dead is a viable solution, does the DM deliberately pull his punches to never get a PC death, on the theory that it might ruin the fun of the dead character? No. If anything, the players have *more* fun due to the suspension of disbelief and the adrenaline rush of combat where the PC could actually die. If there is never a PC death, or if there exists the "revolving-door" approach to combat, it loses part of its excitement.

There is "constructive metagaming", and there is moaning because something bad happened to your character. The DM should occasionally hint at the former, but only when the situation absolutely calls for it, but should rebuff the latter.