When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[Hitokiri]

2 quick comments:

1) This seems to be more of an issue of player/player GM/player dynamics than any type of roleplaying vs. metagaming situation. I tried to make that clear in my earlier post, but am pretty sure I failed. In case I wasn't clear earlier, this is a case where the GM needs to step back and make a decision on group dynamics, regardless of the specific circumstances that are currently occuring in the game. Any other solution is likely to be a patch to the situation rather than a long term fix, and will likely result in similar arguments arising again and again (at least, from what has been described of the situation, it's hard to get a good read on it without actually being there).

2) comparing D&D to uno or MtG is poorly done. The former two involve direct play competition, the object of the game is to advance yourself at other players expense. I should hope that this is not the case in the games I run (well, there may have been a time or two when it was the stated purposes to pit one PC against another, but that tends to be the exception to the rule, not the norm).

 

[D+1]

I know that it is tempting to fall back on a good old chestnut like roleplaying versus metagame knowledge and the appropriateness of either approach. But I think it is a mistake to view the person with whom Hannibal is having the dispute as a representative of the "roleplay" school or Hannibal as a representative of the "metagame" school.

I don't think he is representative of proper roleplaying. A proper roleplayer would never have NEEDED to start a meta-game beef. He'd have simply roleplayed his way through the situation after pointing out that is WAS a roleplaying issue. He'd have voiced his CHARACTER'S opinion on the matter and then handled it in-game if it didn't go his way - AFTER considering as a player, how an extreme reaction would be handled by the other PLAYERS at the table. Would it be worth it to REFUSE to compromise if someone DID have meta-game considerations they wanted to be taken into account? Wouldn't it be a BETTER display of roleplaying superiority to handle it entirely in-character when others are (in your opinion) meta-gaming the situation?

A person from the "roleplay" school would never declare that if the player of the deceased character rolled-up a new character instead of being resurrected that whoever that character turned out to be should not be admitted to the party.

Q.E.D. By insisting on own roleplaying superiority he's only showing that he hasn't roleplayed the situation at all, but is actually meta-gaming in order to accomodate his pre-concieved and "unalterable" roleplaying solution.

Despite the thread's title, this is not actually a debate about whether role playing should get in the way of people's enjoyment. This thread is about trying to explain to a GM that he needs to find an alternative to nationalizing people's characters when he doesn't like their decisions.

And about explaining to characters that roleplaying in the context of a GAME like D&D means accomodating meta-game issues, or at least taking them into consideration.

 

[fusangite]

Huh? Did you mean rationalizing, or am I completely not understanding what you're talking about? I don't see how making the characters into citizens does anything.

For a guy who knows Marx better than I do, I assumed my meaning would be obvious. But for those not conversant with the day to day practices of a good socialist state, I mean nationalize as in the PC being seized by the state and used for its own purposes/agenda.

I was sort of attempting to make a joke by comparing the GM to the favourite American bugbear: big government.

 

[the Jester]

Hannibal, in a similar circumstance would you still force the pc to rez the pc if their characters had a strong dislike of each other? What if the npc was the surviving pc's wife or husband or child? How about if both conditions were met? If so, how would you justify it in game? If not, where do you draw the line between making them favor pcs and not favor pcs?

In a similar vein, what do you do for treasure division? If there's a sweet item both a party npc and a pc can use, who gets it? Do pcs still get preferential treatment?

Honestly, I'm trying to feel out how far your philosophy on this extends. I'm guessing you have a pretty low-fatality game or this prolly wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[fusangite]

And about explaining to characters that roleplaying in the context of a GAME like D&D means accomodating meta-game issues, or at least taking them into consideration.

(a) The guy's player is not reading this thread so you're not actually explaining anything to him.
(b) That's your style of play. It also happens to be mine but there are plenty of people who have fun who don't take those things into consideration. They just have a slightly different kind of fun than we do. Just because we need these things taken into consideration does not mean everyone does.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

comparing D&D to uno or MtG is poorly done. The former two involve direct play competition, the object of the game is to advance yourself at other players expense. I should hope that this is not the case in the games I run (well, there may have been a time or two when it was the stated purposes to pit one PC against another, but that tends to be the exception to the rule, not the norm).

In terms of goals, play styles and player etiquette, I agree with you.

In terms of the touchiness of the participants, I don't see the difference. I've had the misfortune to encounter sore losers who can't tolerate losing a game of Magic. I wager those same players would whine if their PCs died in D&D. The reverse is also likely to be true - a player who lets the death of his PC (or in this case, the non- or delayed resurrection of his PC) end a friendship is liable to complain because his Magic opponent "plays too many rares" or his Uno opponent "didn't let him go out."

Immaturity makes no distinction between competitive and non-competitive.

Despite the thread's title, this is not actually a debate about whether role playing should get in the way of people's enjoyment. This thread is about trying to explain to a GM that he needs to find an alternative to nationalizing people's characters when he doesn't like their decisions.

Agreed.

This is really the central point.

And about explaining to characters that roleplaying in the context of a GAME like D&D means accomodating meta-game issues, or at least taking them into consideration.

Metagame issues like... the assumed and hardly predicatable opinion of the dead PC's player?

The only metagame issues Hannibal stated were, in chronological order:

1. The GM set up a situation where PC (and NPC) death were possible and only one spell could reverse the effect - even though he believes that his players are immature enough to break up their friendship over a PC staying dead.

2. One player was mad that a PC would get precedence over the NPC because he considered it poor roleplaying.

3. The GM told this player what the player's PC had to do, and arguably what the PC had to think.

4. The player then threatened to decline entry to a future PC introduced by the player of the dead PC, apparently in an angry response to the GM - the other player is apparently still an unwitting bystander in this mess.

5. The GM refuses to budge to metagame solutions offered in this thread that would fix the problem.

From where I'm sitting, the player's initial reaction was understandable, if not downright correct. He later got mad at the GM for contravening his authority over his own PC and for ruling against him and decided to take it out on the other player, which is foolish, hypocritical and wrong.

However, all of this took place in an apparently quite heated discussion between the GM and the player outside the usual game time. I say that because the other players apparently weren't present.

Consider the motives here. Why would player R (the alleged roleplayer) metagame except in anger? He's apparently not mad at poor player P (of the dead PC), but at the GM, although in the heat of passion he stated a different intent.

Neither Player R nor Player P have posted (as far as we know), although several people have asked the GM to solicit them to do so.

Is player R a good roleplayer under better circumstances? I don't know.

All I know is that the events related by the GM indicate that said luminary had many chances to head off this problem and now has several methods to solve it, and he has latched upon the worst possible one. All I know is that the motives related by the GM indicate that he is as or more petty, stubborn and overreactive as player R, and that's from his own words.

It's not about metagaming, it's not about roleplaying, it's about players and GMs who are either very young or on the verge of a major breakdown in their gaming group - the latter whether they solve this individual issue or not.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

One more thing, this to Hannibal:

What would you have done if two PCs died?

 

[Arnwyn]

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?

They resurrect whoever the scroll owner/spellcaster decides they resurrect, of course.

Now, was that hard?

 

[Desdichado]

For a guy who knows Marx better than I do, I assumed my meaning would be obvious. But for those not conversant with the day to day practices of a good socialist state, I mean nationalize as in the PC being seized by the state and used for its own purposes/agenda.

I was sort of attempting to make a joke by comparing the GM to the favourite American bugbear: big government.

Check, gotcha. Of course, when you have to explain a joke, it's already too late...

And I'm not really a Marxist scholar, I just happened to recall that quote being attributed to him...

 

[Numion]

One more thing, this to Hannibal:

What would you have done if two PCs died?

But then there would be no NPC vs. PC interests, making the question uninteresting, to me at least.