When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[Numion]

That's not a premise I subscribe to.

Does it often happen in your games that an empty spot in the group is filled by an NPC and the players new character is shown the door, in case a PC dies and new member is wanted?

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?

Ah, I see, you didn't quite understand what I was saying. Of course, as a DM, it is the job to portray NPCs as realistic beings - to the point of there being in-game consequences for the actions which you described. The NPCs react as they value themselves, of course, and care about other NPCs and PCs and whatnot. But at the situation described by the threadstarter, a player is about to choose an NPC over PC. This will annoy the player of said PC - he loses the character he likes to play. I don't think that should be allowed any more than half of the group saying "We'll rather go adventuring with two NPCs instead of you, since you always make sub-par characters, the NPCs will be much more useful. In-game our characters just won't have more to do with your characters, until you make combat oriented ones.".

Why?

Just because this is a game you play with your friends. Decisions, in or out-of-game that result in the game not being enjoyed by you and your friends should be avoided. DM using his 'DM POWRZ' to avoid such situations (even fringing on a characters DM-given free will!) is not a perfect solution, but if one player enjoys the NPCs more than PCs, there aren't any better options.

 

[Piratecat]

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?

You already have disharmony in your group. Attempting to impose a DM dictate on what is essentially a PC decision would in my opinion make that harmony much worse.

I'd say, "You have two dead people and two ways of bringing them back to life. Your characters need to decide who they're bringing back how, if they're bringing anyone back at all. How you handle that is your choice." Then the group would probably have a discussion of it in character, everyone would vote, and the side that loses would gracefully concede. There's no overt metagaming in that; just like real people working out a difficult choice, the PCs would have to make a decision and stick with it.

For my game at least, the only way for this to become a campaign-breaker is for me to say "You have to resurrect the PC because that's the PC." I think that would really make a lot of players in my game angry.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

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.

Ok, suggestion, if you aren't willing to accept consequences of and take responsibility for kill PCs, don't kill PCs in your game.

Where the party is located there are no high level clerics available to cast Resurrection, as Raise Dead won't work either on undead PCs. A single scroll of Resurrection is available at the local church.

Was that established beforehand? is there a reason more cannot be located, possibly involving a quest on the PCs part? Why did you set this up as a problem in the first place if you believe this to be a problem?

Now the question is who should get the Resurrection since both PC and NPC have been spoken to with Speak with Dead, and both wish to return to the land of the living.

Why is the one pc is the decision seat? is he the only one who can cast the scroll spell?

Some of you have said why don't I just give them more access to Resurrection so both can benefit. You see that would be a meta-game ploy and it's clear to me that a lot of you don't agree with meta-gaming.

funny. In case you missed the distinction, some people are against a player metagaming to have his character do something "out of character" because of the PC/NPC distinction. Thats a little different than a Gm realizing HE created a problem FOR THE PLAYERS as opposed to a problem FOR THE CHARACTERS and deciding to alter his setting in a non-contradictory way so as to alleviate the problem, allowing an answer that doesn't involve someone being unhappy no matter what, he created in the first place.

That distinction may be lost, but it should not be.

You killed the two characters.
You set them in a place where only one could come back.
You seem happy to not alter your setup to provide other options.
you seem unwilling to let them make their decisions unbuffetted by your views.

are you sure its "the player" who is the problem?

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

Me, if i felt it was in character to ress the NPC, i would do so.

I would then begin looking for another ress source to bring back the other companion. leaving him dead is not an option i would accept, but fortunately, the res spells don't have stringent time limits. "The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level."

Whether bringing the dead character back is a "drop the adventure now" thing or a "after we finish the adventure" thing depends on a lot of info we do not have, like "how time sensitive is the adventure?" and "whats at risk if we delay?"

None of these would be vital enough for me as Gm to smack a player and tell him what he decides.

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?

Apparently you feel it is!

IE in your view, if this player decides to play his character, you feel its likely friendships will be at stake? So someone, you or the player whose character you killed, WILL be willing to lose a friendship over this? The player whose character you killed will be willing to end the friendship over this other play making decisions in game he doesn't like?

Why isn't the player whose character you killed expected to deal with the consequences of being killed by you and go with it and to NOT LET THE GAME WRECK HIS FRIENDSHIP? Why does that only apply to the "roleplayer"? heck, for that matter, why isn't the player of the PC you killed supposed to be mad and lose friendship with you, the guy who killed his PC, instead of the guy with the ress?

When the goblin drops Mj and the car full of innocents, if spidermans Gm told him "nope, you cannot save both" (as opposed to saying "with great effort both can be saved") would you blame spiderman for the death of whicever one he "let die", or would you blame goblin for their deaths?

Geez I love these boards!
Hannibal King

me too.

and again, if you can encourage your player to sign on and post and read your descriptions here and give us his side, i would *love* to hear his side of the story. like Emeril, i prefer my food, especially food for thought, to be flavored both sides, not just one sided.

 

[RSKennan]

Does it often happen in your games that an empty spot in the group is filled by an NPC and the players new character is shown the door, in case a PC dies and new member is wanted?

I don't really have empty slots. However many players I have- even one- is the party. Still, if a group sought backup that was meant to be equally capable to them (say they needed a fighter), that NPC would expect the same as a PC; not because he's a DMPC ; he's not. In my opinion, a character is a character is a character. If a new player came in and wanted to assume play using the NPC fighter, I might question it, but could see allowing it. I'd prefer to arrange things properly though; the NPC fighter could introduce the new PC....



*After NPC and PC greet each other with bearhugs- uncharacteristic for the grim NPC*


"This here's Bor; he and I fought together on the Skarakis front. This magnificent bastard's the guy you want with you when everyone else wants you dead." and then I'd try to find a way for the NPC to go away if he was no longer needed.

All that I'd ask for new characters joining a game in progress is that they be designed to fit in. What happens after that is to be helped along, but otherwise none of my business.

Ah, I see, you didn't quite understand what I was saying. Of course, as a DM, it is the job to portray NPCs as realistic beings - to the point of there being in-game consequences for the actions which you described. The NPCs react as they value themselves, of course, and care about other NPCs and PCs and whatnot. But at the situation described by the threadstarter, a player is about to choose an NPC over PC.

I think I understood you. I was just using hyperbole to point out that you can't have it both ways unless everyone is supending their disbelief like there's no tomorrow. If you see characters as game pieces that's fine (no insinuation intended), but if you want them to 'come to life' I think my way works.

We agree that NPCs should treat each other appropriately but we disagree about how PCs (and ultimately the game world) should act towards NPCs.

This will annoy the player of said PC - he loses the character he likes to play. I don't think that should be allowed any more than half of the group saying "We'll rather go adventuring with two NPCs instead of you, since you always make sub-par characters, the NPCs will be much more useful. In-game our characters just won't have more to do with your characters, until you make combat oriented ones.".

It won't annoy all players everywhere; and obviously the style of play depends on the group. I prefer to play with people who like that they have to earn their value to the game, not just waltz in and expect 'authoritah'. It's like how a new stepfather has to earn respect.

Why?

Just because this is a game you play with your friends. Decisions, in or out-of-game that result in the game not being enjoyed by you and your friends should be avoided. DM using his 'DM POWRZ' to avoid such situations (even fringing on a characters DM-given free will!) is not a perfect solution, but if one player enjoys the NPCs more than PCs, there aren't any better options.

The better option IMHO is to let the situation sort itself out. The DM doesn't have to be driving everything- I see him as a shaper. If he's not able to take his hand off the levers without the game falling apart, there are bigger problems than style of play. I prefer to set the world spinning and let its momentum and the actions of the PCs carry it.

People seem to look at the route I and others are talking about as if it's somehow less of a game; I think it's very much still a game, certainly not worse than the alternative. For me having a PC always win out over an NPC with the party is akin to cheating.

All this said, I empower PCs in other ways- they are the center of attention, I'm pretty generous with firepower, and most of the interesting things happen to them. I also try to find ways to soften blows that might cause them to lose their character in the first place.

They're the stars of the show, but they have to earn their plot immunity.

 

[Bonzi]

Some of you have said why don't I just give them more access to Resurrection so both can benefit. You see that would be a meta-game ploy and it's clear to me that a lot of you don't agree with meta-gaming.


Hannibal King

So you are willing to force a player's character to act in a manner the player doesn't agree with, but you are unwilling to have the church "find" a long lost second scroll of resurrection, provide a side quest to obtain or one of the other options that have been suggested throughout the thread?

 

[fusangite]

Gee... a thread where I find my opinion gradually drifting towards that of swrushing. What is the world coming to!?

Hannibal, I had really hoped that your answer to my questions would clarify things. Instead, not only have you not answered it, you are adding even more confusing information to the mix. Still, based on what I've been able to tease out of your posts, I think the following is going on:
1. There is a nearby church with a scroll of resurrection in it.
2. There is someone in the party who can use the scroll. This character is either a Bard or Rogue with his Use Magic Device skill maxed-out or a cleric who is not quite high enough level to cast Raise Dead -- I'm guessing 7th or 8th level.
3. There is a druid in the party who can cast Reincarnate -- so, for the sake of consistency I'm going to guess his level at 7th or 8th.
4. There are three surviving PCs right now. One is a druid of 7th level or so. One is probably a cleric of 7th level or so but might be a rogue or bard. The third is probably also around 7th level but we don't know his class.
5. The characters have recently been in a battle with one or more Mohrgs, Spectres, Vampires, Wights or Wraiths who slew two of the characters and caused them to become undead.

From this, we can conclude the following:
1. Only one of the dead characters is coming back from the dead through the use of the resurrection scroll.
2. The cleric, bard or rogue will be the one using the scroll. The druid will not.

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

If you really want everyone to be happy at all costs, I'm a little baffled as to why you didn't just give the church two such scrolls.

You see that would be a meta-game ploy and it's clear to me that a lot of you don't agree with meta-gaming.

But you obviously do. So what's the real reason? If you think that metagaming is fine and that harmony should be achieved at all costs -- to the point of mind-controlling a character, how can having two scrolls be wrong? Is it really your position that it is less offensive to take away someone's free will than to re-jig the equipment available at the local church?

One choice may affect a players feelings, the other effects the DM who doesn't give a rats backside about the NPC.

All choices will affect the players' feelings. It's just that you don't care about the feelings of the jerky difficult player. But he still has feelings and obviously, based on what little we know about him, the most hurtful thing you can do to him is deprive him of the right to roleplay his character. Isn't it interesting that this is your preferred solution?

Is realism in gaming worth friendships?

Is sticking it to a guy you find annoying worth wrecking your game?

Now, I think I can have something productive to say here if you will answer a couple more questions:
1. How many characters have the capacity to use the scroll?
2. Who plays these characters?

EDIT: Two things I forgot to add:
1. Having re-read swrushing's posts, I want to offer my wholehearted endorsement of everything he says in his last post.
2. Are there any NPCs who can use the scroll (e.g. church personnel)?

 

[fusangite]

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

Where did Marx say that? I know it's not in the manifesto and I don't recall running across it in Das Kapital -- which is odd because I was a bigger Star Trek fan when I read that than I am now. Any chance you are confusing this with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

 

[Hitokiri]

Gaming should be about having fun. That should be the bottom line in any decision you make as a GM, making the game fun for your players and yourself.

If the player who died really doesn't care whether or not he has to roll up a new PC, then definately let the NPC be ressed. You've already made it clear that if the other player is in any way coerced into resing the PC, he is going to be unhappy. The only real problem you have is if the player of the dead PC is really adamant about want to play his PC, in which case you are in something of a catch 22 situation. At that point, anything you do is likely to end up in hurt feelings, including "letting the players work it out" as many have suggested.

If this is the situation, I'd say you have some incompatable players, and it is time to seriously consider what type of game you are running or want to run, and possibly trim the excess. It takes a lot of tact to do this, so proceed with caution. Your gole is to get rid of the problem players without hurting their feelings and alienating them from any possible future games that are run more to their taste.

If the problem, on the other hand, is not between the players but with you and the players actions (in other words, the players agree on an action but you are the one saying no) then it may be time o find another group entirely. If they aren't playing the type of game you had envisioned, and you aren't enjoying it, then it's time to terminate the campaign.

 

[Al]

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.

Granted, but it seems to me as though that this isn't a simple case of that. If a PC refused to allow a new PC into the party, repeatedly ignored plot hooks and caused the campaign to grind to a halt through role-playing, then I would call for "constructive metagaming". This isn't the case. The player wants his dead PC resurrected, and he's going to throw a hissy-fit if that doesn't happen. Personally, I regard mandating your character to be resurrected as a condition of friendship as a little childish and more than a little petulant. Would you hold this supposed friendship as a tool for emotional blackmail, if, say a player wanted the DM not to have the PC killed? What about if he demands a more than fair share of the loot? What about insistence on a particular magic item? Or that the party do something his way? Using friendship as leverage to affect things in-game I find distinctly unsettling. So using the "friendship should triumph every time" argument can be a little dubious.

Rule 1. The game exists for _everyone_ to have fun

Absolutely. However, for everyone to have fun means that one player can't just hold out and make certainly unreasonable impositions upon the party. It's a question of what the PCs can be reasonably expected to do to ensure everyone has fun. Letting a character into the group through "constructive metagaming" is reasonable. Throwing limited party resources at a single PC because otherwise he'll whinge isn't.

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.

Right. So was Lenin .

Seriously, I don't think you should intervene in this situation. Having the PC raised is not critical to ensuring the campaign moves along, and heavy-handed intervention is likewise to inflame tempers one way or the other. Your best bet, as has been cleverly pointed out, is to put in a side-quest for a resurrection scroll or something. Better yet, have the (good?) NPC regret that he was ressed instead of the other guy and insist that they take the quest: subtle "constructive metagaming" by the DM without blatantly interfering with player (and PC) choice.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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... you created a completely untenable situation with apparently no thought as to the consequences, and now intend to bend to the rules, making an already unfortunate setup incredibly frustrating for all involved. Cute.

What would you have done if two PCs had died? Whose life would be destroyed by losing the character who they don't (or at least shouldn't) roleplay but for some reason they're desperately attached to?

Where the party is located there are no high level clerics available to cast Resurrection, as Raise Dead won't work either on undead PCs. A single scroll of Resurrection is available at the local church.

Imagine this - in some campaigns, there are no high-level clerics, period. Dead PCs stay dead. Period. This includes a goodly number of entire game systems, not to mention many D&D or d20 campaign worlds.

And once again, you created a situation that had the potential to cause even more harm than it has. Why, if all four PCs died and the NPC alone survived, you could have lost four friends forever. Great Scott!

Now the question is who should get the Resurrection since both PC and NPC have been spoken to with Speak with Dead, and both wish to return to the land of the living.

Lovely. The NPC, who last I checked you portray, wishes to return to the land of the living, thus destroying the one chance you had to escape from this fiasco of your own creation.

Some of you have said why don't I just give them more access to Resurrection so both can benefit. You see that would be a meta-game ploy and it's clear to me that a lot of you don't agree with meta-gaming.

Actually, that would be what any sensible GM who had your attitude toward PC death would have done in the first place. Again, if two PCs died, you'd have been out of luck and out at least one friend, since we all know a dead PC is a dead friendship. Right?

I don't have as serious a problem with metagaming as most, actually - as metagaming is traditionally understood. I'm more likely to explain away player knowledge of the Monster Manual than to demand my players try to unlearn what they have learned.

What I have a problem with is metagaming to make the PCs special and unique and oh-so-safe from harm. I'm as much a wargamer as a roleplayer, and expect a spiffy challenge with real consequences. The story and characters are gravy.

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.

Dead wrong.

One choice "may" affect a player's feelings (the dead PC's player); the other unambiguously will affect a player's feelings (your hated roleplayer). You have decided, without so much as consulting the former, to stick it to the latter because his style of play offends you.

Is realism in gaming worth friendships?

If your "friends" are really as immature and insecure as you think they are, then yes, it is, because life is too short to deal with a mob of whiny peons.