When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[Desdichado]

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?

You're both acting like spoiled brats for getting into a snit over it. From an ingame standpoint, the existing (living) PCs should decide together. From an out of game perspective, the players of the characters, obviously including the dead PC, should have a say.

Either way, I don't see why you're sticking your opinion in as DM; it's none of your business.

 

[diaglo]

i'm with the roleplayer.

i'd rezz the NPC. and reincarn the PC.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I always have a tough time with decisions involving RPing versus the sake of the game.

 

[James Heard]

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.

It doesn't matter whether or not the player's reasons are vague from the standpoint of the GM or not, it's irrelevant to the discussion on whether or not the GM should somehow intercede in the decision-making process of something that's essentially elemental to the player's side of the table. If the GM starts interceding on the behalf of a player for this allocation of resources then it's essentially the same as if the GM starts deciding how the players spend their money, or divide treasure, or pick their feats. It's never a good idea.

Once the decision is made, however, there comes the role of the GM in picking and choosing the players he allows in his game, smoothing over ruffled feathers, making sure that incidents such as this aren't arbitrary the next time by outlining a clear course of required action ("Players are expected to kowtow to the demands of other players, and heal and raise each other despite any consideration to the contrary. This is for the good of the group.") and basically figuring out what becomes of such an incident once it's already happened. It's never a good idea to railroad players except in the clearest and most consensus agreed upon circumstances ("Well if no one can think up any good reasons that your characters would be adventuring together then can I decide for you? Okay? Good."), and this is basically a "is it ok to railroad the player" issue. It isn't. It might be a "kick a player out because he's a jerk" issue, but like I said - that's a separate issue and I think it's worthwhile making sure that you show and explain that they're separate issues for the future of generating confidence in the clarity of your decision-making processes for the game.

As a compromise I'd probably end up leaning on the rest of the group, as players, to enforce what I wanted to happen. "Look guys, this is a bad idea. See if you all can't figure out a reasonable way to make this happen this way, ok?" It doesn't force an adversarial relationship with the GM and the player, and players twist each other's arms all the time - it's one of the fun things about being a player as opposed to a GM.

 

[fusangite]

I thought I would go through Hannibal's posts and sort out what all we know about what is going on.

First off, let me clarify: under no circumstances can/should a GM force a player to make a particular decision. Hannibal, you absolutely cannot force this difficult player to make the decision you want him to. However,

current party has 4 player characters and 1 NPC. The NPC has been in the party longer than two of the player characters (one died several sessions ago, the other changed character).

So, there are two "senior" PCs, an NPC and two "junior" PCs.

the party has the option of resurrecting one of the dead and reincarnating the other.

What are these "current conditions"? If these conditions are established by magic items in the party's possession, I have to wonder why you, as GM set things up to be this way.

Now as DM, I belive the players character should be raised and the NPC should risk the reincarnation spell.

I think this is a tacky use for an NPC. Making an NPC the voice of the GM, pushing the party to behave in a particular way is bad form, in my opinion.

One of the players of one the older player characters feels that the NPC should recieve the resurrection and the newer player character should risk the reincarnation cause he is has been around longer and is a friend of the older player character.

the NPC has been in the party for a whole month of downtime longer in which only the argumentive player interacted with him, as for the rest of the player characters they have adventured with the NPC for the same amount of time as the newer PC.

No MoogleEmpMog, the NPC is a drinking buddy he rescued from slavers,

Is this PC the one who controls the magic items or whatever it is that will be used to effect this? If not, why is his opinion more important than those of the other players?

So, in favour of the NPC, there isn't actually seniority, just a friendship with one of the PCs. What are the possible reasons in favour of resurrecting the PC? The more in-game justifications there are for doing so, the less conflict there will be between a roleplay agenda and a metagame agenda.

Also, what are the opinions of the other two living PCs? It seems to me that if there is going to be a disagreement over what the party does, it should be fought out between the three surviving PCs and not between the GM and the player.

I argued that I won't spoil the player's enjoyment for the sake of an NPC.

From this I take it that either
(a) the player with whom you are having the dispute has the power to unilaterally decide who benefits from the spells; or
(b) the player with whom you are having the dispute somehow convinced the other two PCs that he was in the right.
Could you clarify which please?

He argued that it would be the true roleplaying way to handle it.

Only if there is no reasonable in-game justification for choosing the PC over the NPC.

I won't allow roleplaying to ruin a player's enjoyment.

Did the player of the dead character make it clear that this would be the case?

The other day this same player said if the player whose character died rolls up another character his PC will not let the new guy into the party,

Well, this sort of kills the argument that either side is in favour of role-playing.

It's not like there is no option for both characters to be brought back to life. It's just that I feel the player character should be given the benefit of the doubt with the ressurect and the NPC can risk the reincarnate. Considering I am playing the NPC I am sure I could react better to be returned in Troglodyte form!

Hannibal, while you are coming off better than your player, you are not coming off much better. In the above text, you come off as a control freak who gave his players a choice only because he expected them to make a particular decision. When you give players choices, you have to deal with the possibility that they will not choose what you want them to. Also, I'm concerned about a GM who keeps an NPC under his control as a member of a party -- it strikes me as a quite a controlling move. And where exactly do you get off making the assumption that you can do a better job of roleplaying a reincarnated character than your player can?

If the dead PC accepts the chance with reincarnate fine, but if he is not happy with it (and he is more likely to play along for the sake of the group) and the other player demands that the group resurrects the NPC instead, I am going to let the PC be resurrected.

Well, I'll switch sides to that of the anti-social idiot if you do that. As GM who cannot allow his players free will is not a GM because once he does this, the players are no longer players -- they are bystanders.

But I remain really unclear on the game mechanics here. Who has the item/ability to do this resurrection? Your text here implies that "the group" does. But there is no mechanic in D&D for "the group" to do anything when it comes to magic. Who is the PC with the power?

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

Perhaps you should take a break from DMing if you cannot handle your players having free will. Furthermore, I'm disturbed that you seem to think that 4E will remove that pesky free will that players have somehow held onto.

I played with children when I was 5, I don't have time for this sort of behaviour. As DM it's our responsibility to make sure the game is fun for all.

You better set your sights a little lower with this group. It sounds like there is absolutely no possible way everyone can walk out of this happy, even if your annoying player backs down.

Having always be against true roleplaying (and all my players know this),

You're playing a role playing game. How can you be against roleplaying? Not that there is any need to worry -- it doesn't sound like any of your players believe in it.

 

[ForceUser]

I'm with Piratecat on this one. A group is supposed to be a bunch of friends having a good time together, in which case it doesn't matter which character, the PC or the NPC, gets raised, as long as the group at large is happy with the choice they've made for whatever reason, role-playing or otherwise.

The DM should stay out of it and let his players decide for themselves. This is a crucial time to remain an impartial observer.

 

[Conaill]

Lots of good replies already, so let me try and keep it short...

- There definitely seems to be a personality issue between you and this player. Don't blame it all on "roleplaying"! There's plenty of us "roleplayers" who might prefer to ressurect the NPC, but would attempt to work with it in such a way that everyone is enjoying the game (e.g. pay for or offer his services to pay for a second ressurrection, take a vote on it, consult the gods first, etc...)

- Don't dictate what choices the PC's can make! If the PC's in-game decide the NPC should be ressurrected, it is not your job to decide what they can or cannot do!

- Remember, you can always have the NPC's soul refuse to come back. Valhalla was mentioned before. There's plenty of religions where righteous souls enter a state of eternal bliss, from which they would most likely not want to depart again. NPC declines to be ressurrected... PC can be ressurrected instead.

- If it comes down to it, you can always reincarnate the dead PC into a form he would enjoy better than being simply resurrected. Fudge the die, or perhaps even better: invoke divine intervention! Hey, these are heroes, right? Gods have been known to play favorites, especially when you call directly upon their help, as in the case of a reincarnation spell...

 

[wocky]

Getting together with friends, laughs over pizza, beer money... all part of the metagame. I hold these sacred over any story the DM is pulling out of his rear any given session. There's no way story should be held over enjoyment, as I see it.

 

[Arnwyn]

I would let the players decide for themselves. The only character you portray who could have any input (the NPC) is dead. It's the players' decision and the DM has no part in it, unless the spells are being provided by a source under your control - in that case, that source needs to have some reason to want the PC back more than the NPC.

Bingo. As many others have said, let the players decide for themselves. There are some places that the DM's nose doesn't belong. Unless they're a bunch of mindless automatons needing their hands held every step of the way, I'm sure that the players have the minimum amount of combined brains and social skills to be able to work this out among themselves.

Don't they?

Which doesn't make your complaining player less of a git.

Bingo here, too.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Rule 1. The game exists for _everyone_ to have fun

I don't honestly believe that taking rule 1 into account when roleplaying a character can seriously cripple an individuals enjoyment of the game. So - when all else is equal, choose the option that lets everyone have the most fun.

That means - if the DM has replaced you with a doppleganger, and you've got the option of taking the mystical doohickey and fleeing (risking capture), or CdGing the entire party in their sleep (risking waking them), you should always take the doohickey and flee.

If the DM fumbles his "party meets a new PC" roll, and you end up attacking the new PC, you've got the option of killing the new PC, or subduing and then questioning the new PC. Guess which you should do?

Roleplaying is a cooperative thing. You are not the star. The excuse "he should be treated like any NPC in the world" is step towards having the DM tell you that you all live to the grand-old age of 105, and never ever see a monster or earn more than a gold piece a week. PC's ARE special.