When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[Bagpuss]

So you true roleplayers out there, do they resurrect the PC or NPC?
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?

Geez I love these boards!
Hannibal King

Sorry but why does this effect you as the DM? It's not your character that's dead.

Surely this is an issue between one player who's character would logically prefer the NPC who he is more attacted to resurrected. And another player who character is dead and would probably (although we don't actually know his opinion) what his character resurrected.

Why does this effect you at all?

A single scroll of Resurrection is available at the local church.

Is an NPC cleric in charge of that scroll? If so its the clerics opinion that matters more than any of the players, your first opportunity to use Roleplay to influence the result towards resurrecting the PC.

If not I take it the party cleric is casting the spell, so surely his opinion matters more than either player, and arn't they (either cleric) likely to pick whichever dead character is more closely aligned with their deities wishes?

Perhaps the cleric, if in doubt should cast an "Augury" to discover which his god would prefer to see raised, another roleplay opportunity to influence the result in favour of the PC.

There are plenty of opportunities to come up with a roleplaying solution that will keep both players happy.

 

[Bagpuss]

Adventurer groups recognize PCs - they always accept a PC before an NPC (no NPC can reserve the 4th (or how many players are in the gaming group) spot in a group by happening to the right tavern just before the 'real' PC)

Thats just how the game works. NPCs and PCs were not created equal. To pretend otherwise, and to shaft a character a real flesh'n'blood player has spent time to create, on that basis is just lame, IMO.

That's certainly one way to play the game, but not necessarily the right way or the only way.

 

[Belen]

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

Well....bull. A GM can only take moderation so far. If you start doing everything in your power to keep the campaign running, then you will no longer have fun. Players have to take some responsibility for the game as well. If you have to go above and beyond to keep the game going, then maybe it should be taken off life support.

 

[diaglo]

Woe..hold the fort guys! I just read Reincarnate in the PHB. It seems creatures turned into undead cannot be reincarnated! Guess what?! Both the PC and NPC were turned into undead and are currently still in that state.

they are both undead? i'm not following.



unless you mean the party left them to roam around as undead. and now they are trying to decide which one to destroy and then raise back to life?
edit: okay... finally got my head wrapped around this. they died. became undead. and then were destroyed by the party. and now they are trying to decide which to rezz. as reincarn won't work on either... and neither will raise dead...


in which case, there are several factors to take into account as a PC...

which of the two would most be of use to the party in the current environment. sure the NPC may be your friend... but if the other guy will help keep you alive... some sacrifices have to be made... so raise the PC instead.

but if the PC is no more useful than the NPC. ... well your friend should be brought back first and foremost. he was your friend... so raise the NPC.

 

[Numion]

Well....bull. A GM can only take moderation so far. If you start doing everything in your power to keep the campaign running, then you will no longer have fun. Players have to take some responsibility for the game as well. If you have to go above and beyond to keep the game going, then maybe it should be taken off life support.

Didn't sound like his game was on life support.

But for whatever reason one player wants to do something that results in another player losing his character. It's that simple. Does the game suffer more from the first player not getting to keep player 2 from playing his character, or does it suffer more from player 2 not getting to play his character? (If that made any sense..)

Both choices have consequences in the future. Player 2, whose resurrection was given to a PC by choice of one player, can always make another character. Is he prone to doing grudge characters? Will that help the campaign? And really, if you argue that a PCs free will is untouchable by the DM, so should one also be free to create a character with a grudge towards one of the previous PCs.

Player 1, if he does not get the NPC back he likes, is down one NPC. I just don't see this as a nearly as big thing as a PC. But then again, I usually have an idea for a backup PC ready incase my PC dies, so I'm not too attached to them either.

 

[RSKennan]

As that has been my experience, I can't imagine choosing an NPC over a PC. It'd be tantamount to choosing "High Drama" over my friend. (And poor "High Drama" at that, since I've never witnessed a D&D game with a story or roleplaying worthy of that title. Fun? Sure. But not good enough for pretentiousness.)

Obviously, others have different views.

I guess I don't see the pretention. There are definitely rpgs that are pretentious, but D&D doesn't lend itself to it any more than a decent fantasy novel does.

Let's say you were making an action movie with some (wealthy ) friends- say a cop buddy movie. Would it be kosher to decide while writing the script that the older cop's partner didn't die in the beginning because you didn't want to step on toes? (There's an Eberron campaign setup for you, BTW) I know, I know most games would handle this kind of thing "off screen", but if the situation arose in the course of play -as a happy accident a la Bob Ross- would it make sense to use power external to the characters to prevent it? That's just Deus Ex Machina. It's ok if you want the only in-game conflict to be combat of course.

Sure, if not everyone understands how the campaign is going to play out it's not fair to spring something like that on a player (either as GM or another player), but if everyone agrees-and I mean everyone- ahead of time it's a lot of fun.

I also agree with the people who are saying that the GM in such a situation should step back and let the players resolve it.

 

[Belen]

Woe..hold the fort guys! I just read Reincarnate in the PHB. It seems creatures turned into undead cannot be reincarnated! Guess what?! Both the PC and NPC were turned into undead and are currently still in that state.

So the party has the 15k+ the scroll will cost? That seems like a ton of dough for a party that cannot cast raise dead.

 

[RSKennan]

I agree. The basis of D&D is four characters, however incompatible, adventuring together. When one dies, a character with similar competence is shortly introduced and accepted to the group. That already sets the premise that PCs are more special than NPCs, because:

That's not a premise I subscribe to.

Thats just how the game works. NPCs and PCs were not created equal. To pretend otherwise, and to shaft a character a real flesh'n'blood player has spent time to create, on that basis is just lame, IMO.

But if you want the PCs to behave as if NPCs aren't 100% expendable, it helps if the world treats them as valuable. Is it ok for your PCs to kill every shopkeeper rather than buying things?

 

[Desdichado]

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

Just because Spock "stole" the quote doesn't mean it's his. That's a Karl Marx tagline.

 

[swrushing]

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

Actually...

the way i see it, that is a symptom.

the "problem" to me seems to be...

you don't like the player's decisions for his character.
you don't like the way he roleplays.
you don't like his style of gaming.
you don't like the characters he runs, even the ones he has run before now.
its not stated but it seems like you don't like him much, maybe if only right now.
and you are not willing to let him just play his character.

if you as Gm are not willing to accept the potential consequences, don't kill PCs. One consequence of killing a PC in your game is that that character MIGHT not be around. before you kill a PC you ought to be ready to accept that consequence.

moreover, if you as Gm are willing to kill two characters, in a situation where there are not two guaranteed ress's, and where the guy who decisions you don't like, whose characters you don't like, all of whom you "see" as antisocial, whose style you don't like, is THE GUY in control of the use of these options, you should not be getting mad at the player and fussing at him when he makes decisions you don't prefer.

you would be better served to not kill PCs at all, or to only kill them when NPC resses are available, if you are unwilling to let the obvious potential consequences of killing them occur.

An old gaming adage goes like this "Don't call for a die roll unless you are willing to accept each potential result."

maybe a more specific version would help you "Don't kill characters if you aren't willing to have them be dead."

kick the player from the group, take his character so it can be run by you and "act right", and let that player find a group who is more in line with his style of gaming. he will be better off for it and you won't have to be troubled by players so unreasonable as to think they should run their own characters.

BTW, it would be great if the problem guy would post here. I mean, obviously you have a problem with him and so far all we got is the one side, which is painting him pretty one sided. i for one usually prefer to both sides of a coin before commenting on the unseen side.