When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[RSKennan]

The True Roleplaying Way can kiss my unwashed backside. It has no place in D&D and I've seen it cause as many problems in game - just like this one - as any alignment debacle or munchkin/powergaming ABSENCE of roleplaying. If the player is that keen on it he should be studying Method Acting and working on Broadway or in Hollywood, not PLAYING at the dining room table. D&D is a GAME, not a test of one's theatrical purity and commitment.

Find out how deep his commitment is, because it actually sounds pretty shallow. If his CHARACTER feels so deeply on the subject why is the PLAYER crying "metagaming" and his own character not reflexively volunteering to pay for or find another resurrection and thus ensuring what the player wants so desperately anyway? How is this player the Righteous Judge of the motivations of other players if not their characters? How is this player able to argue that The Trule Roleplaying Way honestly takes precedence over OTHER PLAYERS enjoyment of the game? You can bet that if it were HIS character lying on a cold slab and everyone else at the table were telling him, "We don't give a flying monkey about what you want. We like the NPC better, and besides he's been around longer than your character - therefore YOU JUST DON"T RATE OUR COMPASSION," that he'd be singing a very different tune.

This player is just looking to demonstrate his superiority as a roleplayer by trying to prove that everyone else isn't as STUPIDLY over-dedicated to it as he is.

I won't comment on the rest of your posts but all I have to say is...man... We're playing two different games or in alternate realities or something.

I'll also thank you for calling a large segment of the gaming population stupid, even though you were hopefully exaggerating your opinion. Good day, chief. Have fun with that.

 

[fanboy2000]

I think we've lost sight of the original post.

I would like to point out that all that has happned is that two poeple, a DM and and a player, got into an argument about a situation that came up in-game. So far the situation has not been resolved and, as far as anyone knows, no one else in the game is aware of the argument.

Hannibal hasn't forced a player to do anything. So far, the argument is 100% acadmeic.

What would you have done if two PCs died?

He hasn't done anything about the one PC who has died!

Here's an idea, why don't we wait untill he's actually handled the situation in-game before we pronounce him a horible DM who forces his will on poor unsuspecting roleplayers.

And yes, I realize that you haven't pronounced judgement yet, but you keep asking the question like the answer will prove him a bad DM.

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.

So far, he hasn't dictated any PC's actions. Game sessions are ful of surprises; I wouldn't be suprised if this became a non-issue on Sunday.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

All I have to say is, "Blackleaf, NOOOOOOO!"

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Desdichado]

All I have to say is, "Blackleaf, NOOOOOOO!"

And that's all I have to say about that.

Probably the most succinct and pertinent post in the entire thread.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

And yes, I realize that you haven't pronounced judgement yet, but you keep asking the question like the answer will prove him a bad DM.

Not at all! I'm just very curious, since he's set up this situation, presumably without intending to, where one character will have to stay dead - at least for a while - and he seems to believe that a PC staying dead means a miserable, if not downright furious, player.

The potential player vs. player conflict if one PC lives and the other does not seems like it would be even worse.

Obviously, Hannibal could still fix the problems with his campaign. There's a good chance he will, or that neither player will be terribly upset and everything will be hunky-dory. However, the attitude he's shown so far (openly hostile to one player, willing to take over a character and derisive toward other suggested solutions) leads me to believe that he decided on a course of action and came here expecting to have it reinforced.

Hopefully, I'm wrong.

 

[fusangite]

So far, he hasn't dictated any PC's actions. Game sessions are ful of surprises; I wouldn't be suprised if this became a non-issue on Sunday.

I'm fully aware of that. That's why I'm still trying to persuade him not to.

 

[Piratecat]

All I have to say is, "Blackleaf, NOOOOOOO!"

And that's all I have to say about that.

Marcie, get out of here. YOU'RE DEAD! You don't exist any more.

 

[fanboy2000]

I'm fully aware of that. That's why I'm still trying to persuade him not to.

And I don't think you need to anymore. His origanal post has all the earmarks of a guy who's just had an argument with a friend and is fed up with a few of his shenanigans.

Also, I think his original point is valid. Sometimes roleplaying does get in the way of a good game. That's why I (and many others) don't allow evil PCs. I've seen games where people keep creating characters that are anit-social loners who have no desire to stay together as a group. Why? What's the point of playing a game that assumes a group of about 4 people and adjudicates challenges accordingly, with a group of people, and creating a loner character? I can see where someone may enjoy roleplaying that, but I don't se why someone would want play with that person in their group.

And, as others have said, sometimes you need to meta-game. It is a game, and it behooves to not forget that lest we wind up like the charactes in a Jack Chick tract.

The potential player vs. player conflict if one PC lives and the other does not seems like it would be even worse.

Hmmmmm.... It does seem like that doesn't it? I don't think it would be worse because if two players characters had died, then I don't think there would have been an argument, and ther would not have been a post.

However, the attitude he's shown so far (openly hostile to one player, willing to take over a character and derisive toward other suggested solutions) leads me to believe that he decided on a course of action and came here expecting to have it reinforced.

I think he was honestly bringing up the subject of roleplaying vs metagameing. Look over the first couple of posts he made and you can see he's not asking for DMing advice. However, a roleplaying vs metagaming debate is so old that people have created this strawman of an evil DM who's forcing his will on one or more player characters because it's far more interesting. Look at the past 50 posts or so. Does it seem to you that people are comenting on the orginal subject, given the first post? Or does it seem like their comenting on something that onl exists in their minds?

 

[fusangite]

Fanboy, your post mystifies me.

And I don't think you need to anymore. His origanal post has all the earmarks of a guy who's just had an argument with a friend and is fed up with a few of his shenanigans.

Agreed. That's why I expressed sympathy with him immediately after said post and said the he was very much in the right but that it would still be inappropriate for him to nationalize the offending PC.

You then go on to give an eloquent defense for the style of D&D play that I prefer -- where people don't inconvenience others and then hide behind the defense of "role playing." If you had actually read any of my posts, it would be abundantly clear to you that all the statements you make about metagaming are ones I myself have already made in this thread.

I think he was honestly bringing up the subject of roleplaying vs metagameing.

Yes. But the particular situation he was describing turned out not to be an example of it. [/QUOTE]

Look over the first couple of posts he made and you can see he's not asking for DMing advice.

Are you a member of an alternate ENWorld where the original poster who starts a thread gets to control the direction the thread takes? He started the thread looking for a bunch of DMs to pat him on the back and give him encouragement for his proposed solution. We did the first thing but not the second. We offered him our support in dealing with an obviously obnoxious behaviour but could not offer him support for his proposed solution to the problem-- so, we did the next best thing: we proposed constructive solutions.

However, a roleplaying vs metagaming debate is so old that people have created this strawman of an evil DM who's forcing his will on one or more player characters because it's far more interesting.

Fortunately we don't need that because we have a real live DM and not a straw-built version:

I argued that I won't spoil the player's enjoyment for the sake of an NPC. He argued that it would be the true roleplaying way to handle it. My reply was to hell with that! I won't allow roleplaying to ruin a player's enjoyment.

reanjr this hasn't gone up against the group yet. We're playing on Sunday so I'll see what happens. 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.

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

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.

Look at the past 50 posts or so. Does it seem to you that people are comenting on the orginal subject, given the first post?

No. It seems like they are commenting on the GM's subsequent answers. That's the way internet forums normally work.

 

[Hannibal King]

And I don't think you need to anymore. His origanal post has all the earmarks of a guy who's just had an argument with a friend and is fed up with a few of his shenanigans.

Exactly fanboy2000, I am getting sick of these anti social characters who don't seem to get along with the rest of the group in a group game! Honestly he is a Ok guy, just sometimes he takes the rping to far. Reminds me of the blooper at the end of Liar Liar where the prosecutor lady calls Jim Carrey an "overactor!"

Also, I think his original point is valid. Sometimes roleplaying does get in the way of a good game. That's why I (and many others) don't allow evil PCs. I've seen games where people keep creating characters that are anit-social loners who have no desire to stay together as a group. Why? What's the point of playing a game that assumes a group of about 4 people and adjudicates challenges accordingly, with a group of people, and creating a loner character? I can see where someone may enjoy roleplaying that, but I don't se why someone would want play with that person in their group.

Once again I agree 100%. Player who would put the RPing over thier friends for ANY reason...well with friends like them...well you know the rest.

Hmmmmm.... It does seem like that doesn't it? I don't think it would be worse because if two players characters had died, then I don't think there would have been an argument, and ther would not have been a post.

Correct again. There would be no post and no interesting, IMHO, discussion on PCs and NPCs. Frankly the situation will resolve itself on the weekend. I posted the thread right after said player he wanted to raise the NPC and I thought it would make an interesing (read: HOT) thread.

I think he was honestly bringing up the subject of roleplaying vs metagameing. Look over the first couple of posts he made and you can see he's not asking for DMing advice.

Give the man a cigar! I was never asking for DM advice to fix the problem so to the poster (I cannot recall) who suggested I should always plan for contigency in every event in an adventure - are you saying I should make sure the module with a Medusa has a scroll of stone to flesh? The Red Dragon modules has potions of fire resistance? The Vampire modules have plenty of scrolls of restoration? C'mon that's just dumb.

Oh and in my game I use a modified speak with dead that allows communication with spirits that have not moved on. I don't know of any spell that would allow you to talk to a dead player character ie the player himself? So how the heck would you know he wanted to be brought back?!

As I said guys this will be fixed on the weekend and everyone will live happily ever after so thanks everyone, you've been a great audience!