When "Roleplaying" rears its ugly head...

[RSKennan]

D+1,

Regarding 'roleplaying' as it ties to alignment- as someone who prefers that roleplaying is at least 50% of the gaming equation, I don't think alignment has much to do with it. I think that alignment can be a useful boundary, but many people want it to be a shield or use it as a crutch.

While there are currently mechanically sound reasons to keep alignment in my games (items etc), I'd never accept "but I was just playing my alignment!" as a get out of jail free card. For one thing, it's metagame.

Verisimilitude for me, demands that there be in-game consequences to in-game actions. The in-game characters have their own morality, and while they use words like good, evil and law, they have their own definitions of these and they don't have 9 easy boxes to climb inside.

Some worlds have explicit alignments built in, and only in those places IMHO, is it good roleplaying for a character to even bring them up. It's like a character talking about his AC or hit points to me in most cases.

I haven't been saying that the unknown player referrred to by the original poster was right- if he acted as he was portrayed he wouldn't be welcome at my table. It's like in politics how there are certain people who claim to speak for your interests but every time they're in the news you cringe.

 

[Ravellion]

I always have a tough time with decisions involving RPing versus the sake of the game.

Spot the quote:

"Do you have anyhting with spots?"
"Er... no."
"Oh. Well, you see, it's just that I'm... undecided about spots."
"I'm sorry we're going to have to miss out on that"



Rav

 

[frog]

Give the NPC to the Player that lost the character as his new character to play. That should stir things up a bit.

 

[Orius]

Ok thanks for the posts guys. I must say one thing if the dead PC was one who robbed from the PCs, lied to them, cheated them of treasure etc and he died. I would be all for letting the other players refuse to resurect the troublesome player character, but in this case, the NPC has been in the party for a whole month of downtime longer in which only the argumentive player interacted with him, as for the rest of the player characters they have adventured with the NPC for the same amount of time as the newer PC.

In which case, only this one PC has any sort of personal bond with the NPC. It's therefore not OOC for the other PCs to be less concerned about the NPC than the PC.

The other day this same player said if the player whose character died rolls up another character his PC will not let the new guy into the party, WTF?! Geez and we're supposed to be all friends outside the game too!

That's simply being unreasonable. Now who's metagaming? The party loses a comrade, so in character, why would the refuse a new one, especially if the campaign makes it important for a new character to join up. I tend to be irritated by the "real roleplayer" types, because there are times like this where they insist on getting their fun by playing their character to the hilt even if it wrecks the fun for everyone else.

Sorry at the end of the day its a game played by a group. Affecting other players enjoyment for the sake of something as childish as wanting the game world to be realistic is stupid. You want realism go live real life, leave those of us that play this game in peace.

I agree with you. Player have to take in the considerations of the other players when "role playing" or they start ruining everyone's fun.

 

[LogicsFate]

My apologies Im new

But having to wade through all these oppinions is killing me, dont ask what other people would do, they dont know you or your group the game is going to go on one way or the other, with or without that PC dont force someone to metagame, if he finds the most enjoyment out of acting based on how his character would then so be it.
After reading some of these post I find myself wondering how DMs are oblivious to the reasons their players complain so much, I've been on that side of the fence, if their complaining theres usually a reason,and sometimes that reason is you.

 

[Orius]

I am also tired of the players who create these lone wolf anti social characters who refuse to give their character any motivation for being with the party. And then claim that they are just role playing their character. They are not role playing they are simply being jerks.

Good role players don't make characters that won't fit into the party on purpose. Sure it sometimes happens as things develop in game but to make a paladin when everyone else is playing chaotic neutral types who take what they want is just asking for conflict from the start. That is just stupid and selfish.

It's a game and everybody needs to have fun to do that people need to work together to make the game fun.

I admit, I'm not the "Real Roleplayer" type. When I play either as a DM or player, I do some amount of RPing, but most of the time I prefer to get back to the game, because I'm the type of guy who likes lots of action in a game. I like fighting stuff and getting BTB death XPs.

Hmm, come to think of it, the game experiences I've enjoyed the most often combine the two — namely big fight scenes where the two sides are totally trash talking each other. And there've been times I've enjoyed pure RPing that involved... err no acquisition of XPs.

Still, I tend to have a somewhat negative kneejerk reaction to the "Real Roleplayer" types who go overboard with the overaction and selfishness, and then defend it all because they say they're role-playing. D&D, and probably most other RPGs, does require group participation. Making a character that doesn't work well in the group is just asking for trouble. Like making an evil character when you know there's a paladin in the party. Or making a hard assed paladin when the rest of the party's a bunch of chaotic types. Or my favorite bad example, the city-hating druid in an urban campaign.

Lone wolf types I think are also asking for trouble. I think players create them because it's an image thing, they think the anti-social loner is "cool" or something. Sometimes those characters can be, but if you're going to play the character like a selfish jerk, you're going to rub the other players the wrong way.

 

[Elf Witch]

I admit, I'm not the "Real Roleplayer" type. When I play either as a DM or player, I do some amount of RPing, but most of the time I prefer to get back to the game, because I'm the type of guy who likes lots of action in a game. I like fighting stuff and getting BTB death XPs.

Hmm, come to think of it, the game experiences I've enjoyed the most often combine the two — namely big fight scenes where the two sides are totally trash talking each other. And there've been times I've enjoyed pure RPing that involved... err no acquisition of XPs.

Still, I tend to have a somewhat negative kneejerk reaction to the "Real Roleplayer" types who go overboard with the overaction and selfishness, and then defend it all because they say they're role-playing. D&D, and probably most other RPGs, does require group participation. Making a character that doesn't work well in the group is just asking for trouble. Like making an evil character when you know there's a paladin in the party. Or making a hard assed paladin when the rest of the party's a bunch of chaotic types. Or my favorite bad example, the city-hating druid in an urban campaign.

Lone wolf types I think are also asking for trouble. I think players create them because it's an image thing, they think the anti-social loner is "cool" or something. Sometimes those characters can be, but if you're going to play the character like a selfish jerk, you're going to rub the other players the wrong way.

I played in a game where a player made a ranger who refused to go with the party when the action moved to the city. What a pain in the butt that was. I am a role player and I could not wrap my mind around why someone would make a character like that.

But to be fair I have been in games and had my fun ruined by players who only want to roll dice and kill things and get impatient and act up when there is role playing going on. Or by uber powergamers who can't understanad why everyone does not want to play that way.

My group is not made up of all heavy role players we have a mix but usually we all get along because we try and respect everyone else's fun. Sure we have issues sometimes because of the mix but we are still playing together after 5 years.

It simply comes down to the lessons we supposed to learn in Kindergaren you know like sharing, and playing nice.

 

[Orius]

But to be fair I have been in games and had my fun ruined by players who only want to roll dice and kill things and get impatient and act up when there is role playing going on. Or by uber powergamers who can't understanad why everyone does not want to play that way.

And by the same token, I've gotten a bit impatient with the roleplayers who want to get chatty with NPCs (or each other) when we got to go after and smack down the BBEG. Time is gps, you know? Games can get irritating when play styles start to clash.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And by the same token, I've gotten a bit impatient with the roleplayers who want to get chatty with NPCs (or each other) when we got to go after and smack down the BBEG. Time is gps, you know? Games can get irritating when play styles start to clash.

On the flip side I have seen more than one TPK because one or two players did not want to 'roleplay' how to handle things, and talked the party into charging to their deaths. When they had all the information they needed on how to handle things, but just didn't sit down and talk about it.

The Auld Grump, twice involving the same players, with the same two talking the others into a mass suicide.

 

[ForceUser]

On the flip side I have seen more than one TPK because one or two players did not want to 'roleplay' how to handle things, and talked the party into charging to their deaths. When they had all the information they needed on how to handle things, but just didn't sit down and talk about it.

The Auld Grump, twice involving the same players, with the same two talking the others into a mass suicide.

Indeed. And the RPing doesn't even have to involve talking to the opposition. In a (regretfully) short campaign I ran last year, the guy playing the party fighter convinced the other players that the best thing to do was charge the cave full of orcs...at 2nd level. Result--TPK. Perhaps if the group had roleplayed amongst themselves a bit before charging, they might have decided to do something more prudent, such as retreat. Since there was no communication among them, they simply followed the lead of the only player to voice an opinion, and off they went like lambs to the slaughter. In this instance, a bit of roleplaying could have saved them from a party wipe. And I have known many other instances when player gorups have talked themselves into and out of bad situations through roleplay.

While it's true that I am a simulationist gamer, and so are my friends in large part, I don't demand Academy Award-winning performances from my players. Each roleplays to their own ability; I only ask that they refrain from out-of-character conversation when something is afoot, and keep the metagame commentary to an absolute minimum, especially while in battle or when a player's character isn't in the scene.