Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1994309" data-attributes="member: 7240">I thought I would go through Hannibal's posts and sort out what all we know about what is going on. First off, let me clarify: under no circumstances can/should a GM force a player to make a particular decision. Hannibal, you absolutely cannot force this difficult player to make the decision you want him to. However, So, there are two "senior" PCs, an NPC and two "junior" PCs. What are these "current conditions"? If these conditions are established by magic items in the party's possession, I have to wonder why you, as GM set things up to be this way. I think this is a tacky use for an NPC. Making an NPC the voice of the GM, pushing the party to behave in a particular way is bad form, in my opinion.Is this PC the one who controls the magic items or whatever it is that will be used to effect this? If not, why is his opinion more important than those of the other players? So, in favour of the NPC, there isn't actually seniority, just a friendship with one of the PCs. What are the possible reasons in favour of resurrecting the PC? The more in-game justifications there are for doing so, the less conflict there will be between a roleplay agenda and a metagame agenda. Also, what are the opinions of the other two living PCs? It seems to me that if there is going to be a disagreement over what the party does, it should be fought out between the three surviving PCs and not between the GM and the player. From this I take it that either(a) the player with whom you are having the dispute has the power to unilaterally decide who benefits from the spells; or(b) the player with whom you are having the dispute somehow convinced the other two PCs that he was in the right. Could you clarify which please?Only if there is no reasonable in-game justification for choosing the PC over the NPC.Did the player of the dead character make it clear that this would be the case?Well, this sort of kills the argument that either side is in favour of role-playing. Hannibal, while you are coming off better than your player, you are not coming off much better. In the above text, you come off as a control freak who gave his players a choice only because he expected them to make a particular decision. When you give players choices, you have to deal with the possibility that they will not choose what you want them to. Also, I'm concerned about a GM who keeps an NPC under his control as a member of a party -- it strikes me as a quite a controlling move. And where exactly do you get off making the assumption that you can do a better job of roleplaying a reincarnated character than your player can?Well, I'll switch sides to that of the anti-social idiot if you do that. As GM who cannot allow his players free will is not a GM because once he does this, the players are no longer players -- they are bystanders. But I remain really unclear on the game mechanics here. Who has the item/ability to do this resurrection? Your text here implies that "the group" does. But there is no mechanic in D&D for "the group" to do anything when it comes to magic. Who is the PC with the power?Perhaps you should take a break from DMing if you cannot handle your players having free will. Furthermore, I'm disturbed that you seem to think that 4E will remove that pesky free will that players have somehow held onto.You better set your sights a little lower with this group. It sounds like there is absolutely no possible way everyone can walk out of this happy, even if your annoying player backs down.You're playing a role playing game. How can you be against roleplaying? Not that there is any need to worry -- it doesn't sound like any of your players believe in it.</blockquote>

Verification