-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...
- Thread starter Hannibal King
- Start date
Endur
First Post
No Arguments
I'm not sure that this is something a GM should argue about.
If you are gave a resurrection scroll to the party cleric, then the party cleric can decide who to resurrect.
If your NPC cleric is going to cast a resurrection spell, than the NPC Cleric can pick who is going to be resurrected.
Either way, there is no possibility of an argument between the role-player and the GM.
I'm not sure that this is something a GM should argue about.
If you are gave a resurrection scroll to the party cleric, then the party cleric can decide who to resurrect.
If your NPC cleric is going to cast a resurrection spell, than the NPC Cleric can pick who is going to be resurrected.
Either way, there is no possibility of an argument between the role-player and the GM.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
This is why I posted what I did.fusangite said:
1. He's already gotten the message.
2. This will most likely be a non-issue come game day. I mean really, how many times do you have to say "don't take control the player's character?"
I have read the whole thread, and I just don't think Hannibal going to have to interviene in the way so many people think so.
Of course, this may not ruin the player's enjoyment. The player of the dead PC hasn't had a chance to way in yet.
This statement doesn't take into effect the various things that come up during the course of play. One of which is the other players who are involved. Get a couple of cool head involved and things have a way working out.
LOL, that's just funny. No, I'm not. My point was that posters seem to be worying excessively that's he's going to just take over the PC. My point is the evidence just isn't there. I would like to point out that if the origanal poster asks for a thread to be closed, the mods will close the thread. (I've seen it happen.) So the oringal poster does have some say in the direction the thread takes.
We agree on a lot. I could save a lot of time by just saying I think your worring about one posible solution too much.
Hannibal King
First Post
fusangite said:
I never had any intention of taking control of a PC.
As I have said, and as fanyboy2000 has deduced, this will all blow over come game day as I will find a way to bring both characters back and possible get an adventure out of it.
Hannibal King
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Hannibal King said:
Or you can take the other approach:
Rocks fall, everybody dies.
The Auld Grump... I swear more gamers keep copies of Dark Dungeons around than anybody else....
Psychic Warrior
First Post
TheAuldGrump said:Or you can take the other approach:
Rocks fall, everybody dies.
The Auld Grump... I swear more gamers keep copies of Dark Dungeons around than anybody else....
Finally! A solution where everyone wins*!
*=wins in this case means loses.
Doctor Shaft
First Post
Fascinating thread.
Two things have become clear to me in this thread.
1.) Playstyles in D&D vary a great deal. I'm with the camp of "world-immersion". I still constantly play with a group, online, with my little monk character, in a world where if said NPC was a good ole buddy, and said PC was just some acquiantence, our player group would very likely raise the NPC over the PC.
There's a million ways to play D&D. You can all list your examples of "player is hindering me under the guise of roleplay," but this is all apples and oranges. We all respect different kinds of play. Personally, if I were the dead PC, I'd be totally cool with the other PC's decision (if we're just looking at the decision itself, not all the personal garbage on the side). Other people would say that ruins the fun. That's great... but at the end of the day you can't prove to me which is better except within your own microscosm. That's all there is to it. Keep your beer and chips, our group runs just fine and dandy playing the other way.
2.) There seems to be a running trend here on these forums concerning DM debacles. They always start like this:
"I did something, and then my players started making decisions. Suddenly, we all had conflicts with each other. Please tell me your opinions about how to play D&D, and maybe I'll get a majority concensus."
I'm going to admit freely, that I haven't ever DMed a session in my life, although I'd really love to. But it becomes painstakingly clear to me, as a player, that alot of DM's forget that D&D, and subsequently every other pen-and-paper game, gives players only mechanical rules! They don't give you social rules at all. And yet, the DM doesn't set these social rules up with the group before the start of the game (at least the DM's that post their social problems on these boards). The Player's Handbook tells me what to roll when I attack the evil bad-guys. But it doesn't tell me if I should raise my buddies PC over an NPC at all times. The DM, as moderator, needs to make sure we're all clear on those outside rules. If aren't, then it's just too easy for Timmy to get upset when Bobby metagames a situation, and Bobby to freak-out when Timmy roleplays in a way that eliminates Bobby from coming back.
The best way to keep your sessions from breaking into anarchy is setting up your list of ground-rules from the start of a campaign (I'm sure many of you already know this). When I play online, our group functions one way, and there are RULES posted on the forums at all times to support this. That way, when someone comes on with "The Controversial Paladin" "wink-wink", if the DM doesn't like it, he can point to the rules sign and respectfully inform the player that said paladin doesn't fit the mold, that this decision isn't so much DM power-hogging as much as it is an established, world-rule.
When I play with another group on a table-top, all of that "Character-Immersion" gets thrown out the window. So I've actually regularly played in both types of "Roleplaying-styles" at the same time. At the table-top, we meta-game for the sake of the PC's all the time. We fudge rolls regularly, we just group up because it's for the sake of grouping up, etc. Online, we play the whole mistrust angle, etc. But the big difference is that the expectations are always put on the table BEFORE the campaign starts.
It really sounds like HK's campaign had a small oversight in this department, as now you've got DM and player arguing, and who knows what the other players are thinking. Point is... if you can't point to a consistency in the world, or the playing-style expectations, how do you expect to fix any problems when there's mass disagreement?
And, while it's cool to discuss this on the forum, you'll NEVER get a real solution here. The only thing we can do is give you OUR gaming group's expectations. And, as can be seen, all of them are only as valid as the gaming groups allow them to be.
Bottom Line:
If it was already understood in the social rules, there'd be no issue. If I say "No enlargement spells" in the beginning, no one takes issue with it later. If I say "Character immersion" and people agree to play, then no one takes issue when I decide to ressurect a stupid tree over someone's beloved PC.
Set the expectations before you play.
Two things have become clear to me in this thread.
1.) Playstyles in D&D vary a great deal. I'm with the camp of "world-immersion". I still constantly play with a group, online, with my little monk character, in a world where if said NPC was a good ole buddy, and said PC was just some acquiantence, our player group would very likely raise the NPC over the PC.
There's a million ways to play D&D. You can all list your examples of "player is hindering me under the guise of roleplay," but this is all apples and oranges. We all respect different kinds of play. Personally, if I were the dead PC, I'd be totally cool with the other PC's decision (if we're just looking at the decision itself, not all the personal garbage on the side). Other people would say that ruins the fun. That's great... but at the end of the day you can't prove to me which is better except within your own microscosm. That's all there is to it. Keep your beer and chips, our group runs just fine and dandy playing the other way.
2.) There seems to be a running trend here on these forums concerning DM debacles. They always start like this:
"I did something, and then my players started making decisions. Suddenly, we all had conflicts with each other. Please tell me your opinions about how to play D&D, and maybe I'll get a majority concensus."
I'm going to admit freely, that I haven't ever DMed a session in my life, although I'd really love to. But it becomes painstakingly clear to me, as a player, that alot of DM's forget that D&D, and subsequently every other pen-and-paper game, gives players only mechanical rules! They don't give you social rules at all. And yet, the DM doesn't set these social rules up with the group before the start of the game (at least the DM's that post their social problems on these boards). The Player's Handbook tells me what to roll when I attack the evil bad-guys. But it doesn't tell me if I should raise my buddies PC over an NPC at all times. The DM, as moderator, needs to make sure we're all clear on those outside rules. If aren't, then it's just too easy for Timmy to get upset when Bobby metagames a situation, and Bobby to freak-out when Timmy roleplays in a way that eliminates Bobby from coming back.
The best way to keep your sessions from breaking into anarchy is setting up your list of ground-rules from the start of a campaign (I'm sure many of you already know this). When I play online, our group functions one way, and there are RULES posted on the forums at all times to support this. That way, when someone comes on with "The Controversial Paladin" "wink-wink", if the DM doesn't like it, he can point to the rules sign and respectfully inform the player that said paladin doesn't fit the mold, that this decision isn't so much DM power-hogging as much as it is an established, world-rule.
When I play with another group on a table-top, all of that "Character-Immersion" gets thrown out the window. So I've actually regularly played in both types of "Roleplaying-styles" at the same time. At the table-top, we meta-game for the sake of the PC's all the time. We fudge rolls regularly, we just group up because it's for the sake of grouping up, etc. Online, we play the whole mistrust angle, etc. But the big difference is that the expectations are always put on the table BEFORE the campaign starts.
It really sounds like HK's campaign had a small oversight in this department, as now you've got DM and player arguing, and who knows what the other players are thinking. Point is... if you can't point to a consistency in the world, or the playing-style expectations, how do you expect to fix any problems when there's mass disagreement?
And, while it's cool to discuss this on the forum, you'll NEVER get a real solution here. The only thing we can do is give you OUR gaming group's expectations. And, as can be seen, all of them are only as valid as the gaming groups allow them to be.
Bottom Line:
If it was already understood in the social rules, there'd be no issue. If I say "No enlargement spells" in the beginning, no one takes issue with it later. If I say "Character immersion" and people agree to play, then no one takes issue when I decide to ressurect a stupid tree over someone's beloved PC.
Set the expectations before you play.
Broken Druid
First Post
I consider myself a true role-player, but the whole point of the game is for everyone at the table to have fun. Bringing back someone from the dead is a large use of party resources, and therefor should be a party decision. I agree that the GM should stay out of the decision, but the majority of the party should decide which spell should be used for which character, if at all. And if the player campaigning for resurrecting the NPC is in the minority, let the cleric cast Gentle Repose and let him lug the body around until he can purchase the necessary ingredients.
Frankly, I would suppose that since the new PC is only a few sessions old, the player isn't probably all that attached, and might like to try a newer character. Didn't you say the player was new to the group? He should now have a better idea what play is like with this particular group and can now build a new character that would better fit in with the group's style of play.
As for your recalitrant player, tell him role-playing is all fine and well, but it is a game and a certain amount of metagaming is necessary to allow for smooth play. Does anyone really want to role-play colonitis in the woods, searching for the right kind of leaves to use as toilet paper? Or any of the other dull, drab and boring details attendant to life in a primitive world setting? It's all fine and well not to want to do the "you look trustworthy, join us" routine to introduce a new character, but to deliberately make the transition difficult is beyond being true to the game.
In the last resort, I'd like to remind the GM that he's playing the NPC. If his one player rides roughshod over all the other players and forces the resurrection of the NPC over the rest of the table's objections, the GM can simply have the NPC refuse to come back, either for racial reasons (dwarves don't generally hold with resurrection), religious beliefs or some other, personal reason. An excellent way to get across the point that majority decisions can be enforced by the GM.
Frankly, I would suppose that since the new PC is only a few sessions old, the player isn't probably all that attached, and might like to try a newer character. Didn't you say the player was new to the group? He should now have a better idea what play is like with this particular group and can now build a new character that would better fit in with the group's style of play.
As for your recalitrant player, tell him role-playing is all fine and well, but it is a game and a certain amount of metagaming is necessary to allow for smooth play. Does anyone really want to role-play colonitis in the woods, searching for the right kind of leaves to use as toilet paper? Or any of the other dull, drab and boring details attendant to life in a primitive world setting? It's all fine and well not to want to do the "you look trustworthy, join us" routine to introduce a new character, but to deliberately make the transition difficult is beyond being true to the game.
In the last resort, I'd like to remind the GM that he's playing the NPC. If his one player rides roughshod over all the other players and forces the resurrection of the NPC over the rest of the table's objections, the GM can simply have the NPC refuse to come back, either for racial reasons (dwarves don't generally hold with resurrection), religious beliefs or some other, personal reason. An excellent way to get across the point that majority decisions can be enforced by the GM.
Similar Threads
