Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1994036" data-attributes="member: 14140">1. When in my games the NPCs have become so liked that the players characters will treat them as equals and such, i consider that a good thing. its a lot better than the reverse, where NPC stands for &quot;info or resource point&quot; instead of character at all. By telling them &quot;your character has to put PCs first&quot; you turn NPCs into IRPs, or take a long step that way. 2. Put me also on the side of &quot;when a Gm tells a player what his character has to do, its bad.&quot; Obviously exceptions like command spells and dominate are fine. I wont do this as Gm because at that point i AM telling the player &quot;you are no longer running that character in my game.&nbsp; i am.&quot; The only time i WILL do that is when i am removing the player from my game as in &quot;you need to find another game.&quot; i have only had to do that once. 3. When a character dies, his player has only the expectations that have been established in game to be ressurected. has he, in game and in character, made friends and established good relations with people who can bring him back? if so, there is no problem. if not, why isn't he being told &quot;well, you did not do this or that and thats why?&quot; if you let &quot;i am a PC&quot; be the criteria for &quot;people in game must do nice things for me&quot; you really remove a strong INCENTIVE for acting like a character, making friends and contacts and so forth. Thats IMX not usually a good thing.From the initial post, and realizing how &quot;not happy&quot; i would be as soon as a GM pulled me aside and told me i had to do this or that... as opposed to, for instance, asking me if i (to help the story along) would want to play along and so forth... my recommendation is as follows.The player with the character being told what to do should hand his character to the GM with NPC written on it and should go find another game where people's ideas as to &quot;is an npc to be treated like a character or not&quot; are more in line with his. if he cannot get into an existing one, he should start one up. The Gm here, having now the guy as an NPC, can run him as he sees fit. life's too short for the unnecessary drama which can be resolved by just matching up games with people who want to play in them.I still don't get or understand one thing... is the BAD PLAYER EVIL ROLEPLAYING GUY's character the one who is casting the spells for ressie? Also, as an aside, remember that ressie and reinc are iirc OPTIONAL. its possible the NPC or the PC may refuse to come back. i have had that happen and also made the choice myself. &quot;lived a good life, died well, sitting in my version of heaven... come back? Oh heck no.&quot; is a valid answer, if its &quot;in character&quot; of course... ooops there's that EVIL &quot;roleplaying&quot; thing creeping into our wargame again.HK: have you considered startring your games requiring all the player's character to be family, so that they will all have good reason to follow your &quot;treat PCs special&quot; mandates? i mean, you clearly don't have a problem restricting player choices for their characters, and this might start the game out putting the &quot;good metagamers&quot; and &quot;evil roleplayers&quot; both on the same page.Just a thought of a way to get your intentions out in the open up front and keep everyone in line.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="swrushing, post: 1994036, member: 14140"] 1. When in my games the NPCs have become so liked that the players characters will treat them as equals and such, i consider that a good thing. its a lot better than the reverse, where NPC stands for "info or resource point" instead of character at all. By telling them "your character has to put PCs first" you turn NPCs into IRPs, or take a long step that way. 2. Put me also on the side of "when a Gm tells a player what his character has to do, its bad." Obviously exceptions like command spells and dominate are fine. I wont do this as Gm because at that point i AM telling the player "you are no longer running that character in my game. i am." The only time i WILL do that is when i am removing the player from my game as in "you need to find another game." i have only had to do that once. 3. When a character dies, his player has only the expectations that have been established in game to be ressurected. has he, in game and in character, made friends and established good relations with people who can bring him back? if so, there is no problem. if not, why isn't he being told "well, you did not do this or that and thats why?" if you let "i am a PC" be the criteria for "people in game must do nice things for me" you really remove a strong INCENTIVE for acting like a character, making friends and contacts and so forth. Thats IMX not usually a good thing. From the initial post, and realizing how "not happy" i would be as soon as a GM pulled me aside and told me i had to do this or that... as opposed to, for instance, asking me if i (to help the story along) would want to play along and so forth... my recommendation is as follows. The player with the character being told what to do should hand his character to the GM with NPC written on it and should go find another game where people's ideas as to "is an npc to be treated like a character or not" are more in line with his. if he cannot get into an existing one, he should start one up. The Gm here, having now the guy as an NPC, can run him as he sees fit. life's too short for the unnecessary drama which can be resolved by just matching up games with people who want to play in them. I still don't get or understand one thing... is the BAD PLAYER EVIL ROLEPLAYING GUY's character the one who is casting the spells for ressie? Also, as an aside, remember that ressie and reinc are iirc OPTIONAL. its possible the NPC or the PC may refuse to come back. i have had that happen and also made the choice myself. "lived a good life, died well, sitting in my version of heaven... come back? Oh heck no." is a valid answer, if its "in character" of course... ooops there's that EVIL "roleplaying" thing creeping into our wargame again. HK: have you considered startring your games requiring all the player's character to be family, so that they will all have good reason to follow your "treat PCs special" mandates? i mean, you clearly don't have a problem restricting player choices for their characters, and this might start the game out putting the "good metagamers" and "evil roleplayers" both on the same page. Just a thought of a way to get your intentions out in the open up front and keep everyone in line. [/QUOTE]

Verification