When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[Hannibal King]

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

Piratecat, surely you as a DM and all the other DMs here would step in if the PCs choices meant disharmony in the group or the end of the campaign?

This DM inpartialness is BS, a DM is a moderator meaning he, more than the other players, must do everything in his power to keep the campaign going. Sure if the group as a whole doesn't want to continue, fine end it, I'm OK with that, but if it's one player who doesn't like the way things are going it's basically like it or lump it.
As Mr Spock once said, "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one" or something to that effect. I am a firm believer in that.

Hannibal King

 

[Hannibal King]

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.

SMARTEST. COMMENT. EVER!

Hannibal King

 

[Hannibal King]

fusangite this all boils down to the problem player wanting to raise the NPC for 'realism' sake.

This may upset the dead PC player's (I don't know as yet, we are playing on Sunday). I would not be upset if the party chose to reincarnate the NPC since I am not 'attached' to him. It would upset me if the dead PCs player's fun is ruined because of the problem players desire for 'realism'. I know at least one of the other players would side with me, which leaves a fourth and final players opinion unknown for the moment.

As I said before the problem player thinks he is the best roleplaying in the galaxy and desires realistic games. In his opinion unless you roleplay all the way your a metagamer. What does this tell you about a player who places roleplaying over the rest of the groups enjoyment?

Frankly as I mentioned before all his characters are anti-social. ALL. OF. THEM. Maybe it's not his characters with the problem?

Hannibal King

 

[Psion]

"You look trustworthy! Join us on our quest!"

 

[fusangite]

fusangite this all boils down to the problem player wanting to raise the NPC for 'realism' sake.

No it doesn't. If realism were the motivation for your difficult player, he wouldn't have declared that he would refuse to let the player's new character join the party. No. He's just using "realism" as a justification for his bad behaviour.

This may upset the dead PC player's (I don't know as yet, we are playing on Sunday).

Can't you phone or e-mail him beforehand?

It would upset me if the dead PCs player's fun is ruined because of the problem players desire for 'realism'.

I would be upset too. However, the solution is not to deprive players of their free will.

I know at least one of the other players would side with me, which leaves a fourth and final players opinion unknown for the moment.

Look: this isn't a dispute between the GM and a player. This is a dispute amongst the players. You may hope that it is resolved in a way that minimizes player discomfort but that's not something you can unilaterally control.

And I still don't understand how the dispute is working at an operational level. Why won't you tell us how the resurrection and reincarnation are working here? Are they on scrolls? Are they spells someone knows? Or or are they working some other way? Which character controls when and how they are cast? The party, collectively, does not control this -- the individual with the capacity to use the spell or magic item does. So, it is really necessary for you to tell the details if you actually want our help.

Conaill has made some suggestions about ways you can deal with this issue without depriving people of the right to play their own character. Would any of these ideas work?

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a carte blanche endorsement for your plan to seize control of someone's character and make him do the opposite of what he wants to do, I think all your sympathy here will evaporate. Many of us agree with your assessment that this difficult player is being a jerk. But don't take this as an endorsement for you being a bigger jerk.

What does this tell you about a player who places roleplaying over the rest of the groups enjoyment?

It tells me a he's a jerk. Something on which I have already agreed with you. But just because someone is being a jerk doesn't entitle you to mind-control his character. There are lots of other possible solutions we could help you fashion if you would give us sufficient information about what is going on.

Frankly as I mentioned before all his characters are anti-social. ALL. OF. THEM. Maybe it's not his characters with the problem?

When did I suggest that this was the problem?

Now, if you think this guy should be thrown out of your game for insulting you and the other players last week, that I can see. He doesn't sound terribly fun to game with. Then you have swrushing's solution -- one that I too endorse as a last resort.

To recap: please switch into problem solving mode and out of bitching mode. Tell us how the spells would go into effect and who in the party has the capacity to use them. Then we can problem-solve.

 

[Desdichado]

As Mr Spock once said, "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one" or something to that effect. I am a firm believer in that.

Uh, that was Karl Marx who said that.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Uh, that was Karl Marx who said that.

Yeah. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Piratecat, surely you as a DM and all the other DMs here would step in if the PCs choices meant disharmony in the group or the end of the campaign?

Disharmony in the group? No. H e double hockey sticks no. If my group isn't experiencing some level of disharmony, I wonder why they're sick and wash my hands more often.

The end of the campaign?

Sorry, but that ain't how it works.

PC choices never end a campaign; PCs are fictional characters. They can no more end their campaign (which for them would be existential suicide, even if they did exist) than a novel's protagonist can decide to stop advancing the plot because, what the heck, he'd rather the writer not have to put his favorite character through a nasty bit.

Players can end a campaign, generally because they're immature brats who can't tolerate not getting everything they want. Now, your "1337 Roleplayer" may well be such a player; so, too, any player who would object to Mr. 1337 Roleplayer doing something perfectly reasonable, like having his PC favor the NPC his character knew rather than the PC he didn't.

GMs can also end a campaign. Usually, they do so by being petty control freaks with a desperate need to see their players play "the right way." Sometimes "the right way" is core-only never-roll-a-dice roleplay-uber-alles; sometimes it's the inverse.

This DM inpartialness is BS, a DM is a moderator meaning he, more than the other players, must do everything in his power to keep the campaign going. Sure if the group as a whole doesn't want to continue, fine end it, I'm OK with that, but if it's one player who doesn't like the way things are going it's basically like it or lump it.

No. He must do everything in his power to try to help everyone have a good time. That doesn't necessarily mean keeping the campaign going. If you've got four players and one of them doesn't like the way things are going, that's already 20%, counting yourself. You admit you don't know what a second player will want, or, frankly, what the dead player will want - you could be faced with a 60/40 split in favor of the player who would rather "lump it." And one of the players on that side is one of those on whose behalf you wish to exercise your (misinterpreted) DM's authority.

As Mr Spock once said, "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one" or something to that effect. I am a firm believer in that.

Mr. Spock, being logical, discovered that this pithy statement hardly encompasses ethics or logic; Captain Kirk would later demonstrate the (more accurate, since it's more conditional) inverse - "Sometimes, the needs of the few, or the one, outweigh the needs of the many."

 

[Driddle]

My wife and I had a problem meshing with the other members of a new group -- character-wise, that is. They had been playing for several sessions and already worked up some sort of understanding among characters, whereas we were introduced via the ever-cliche' tavern-and-battle scene. Although we had a shared goal to drive the rest of the adventure from that point on, various situations would come up where my character and my wife's character simply had no good reason to trust the others. And we acted it out accordingly, to the best of our chaotic-good and nuetral-good perspectives. Kept looking (hoping!) for an opportunity to give our trust with a legitimate in-game reason, but they sure the heck weren't helping, either.

Eh. You'll read into that what you will. But the point is that role-playing can be a pain when you're really into character without one foot in the real world.

 

[RSKennan]

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.

For many groups- the ones I like to play in included, the story that develops out of play *is* the source of enjoyment.

Mind you- I don't like plot in RPGs, but story is not plot. Story is found after the game. Which is more dramatic:

Eldric chose to make a difficult sacrifice for his long-time friend over an acquaintance...

or

For completely random reasons (from within the game world), Eldric turned his friend into a gnome to help some guy he just met.

It's about what you want from the game. In games I like to play in, the world is as real as possible. PCs are no more or less real than NPCs. Players get to step into the skins of certain people within the game world, while GMs get to step into the skins of others. Neither is more valid. In my favorite games, the players and GM fade back and the characters (PC and NPC) take over. I don't like to see the hands moving the pieces on the board. It ruins the mystique.

Outside of verisimilitude the goal is for the players to have as much success as possible, and for the PCs to be the center of the action- it's a story, but it's their story. This may sound contradictary, but it works for me.