Player problem - opinions ....

[incrdbil]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

 

The GM is considering just not inviting him back because he hates meta-gamers who act on what they know, not on what their PC's know. I don't know what to think. I almost wonder if he was just bored and didn't want to play. I just don't understand.

 

 

 

Here is an insight. Your character was pretty much everything his character wasn't. This could eventually develop to a well played rivalry/conflict, but seems it launched into immediate first session harassment. From his POV, you may have been seen as trying to make fun of him, make him fail his vows. Actually, from his POV, it may have no longer seemed an in character thing, but a 'our game is going to center around screwing the paladin'. This is pretty common in D&D, maybe this guy has had the experience where GM's assume lawful good is lawful stupid, and spend about every game trying to screw over the character with impossible moral dilemmas from the GM's warped view of the alignment straight jacket.

 

Here's the kicker.

 

The GM rolls Seduction, and the Paladin just lapsed his vow.

 

In all examples of games that explode due to conflict, this seems to pop up a lot. I don't think much of GM's who do this, and I'm pretty certain it happened because the victim was the new guy and the GM decided to let your character get away with their trick out of favoritism. Thats pretty blunt, but does your game reguallry feature PC's being forced to surrendur due to persuasion rolls? Whatever the motivation, its lousy GM'ing. Using a NPC skill interaction roll to force a PC action is pretty lame, but in direct contradiction to a stated personality trait thats tied into psych limits and character concepts the very first game goes beyond poor game mastering.

 

Why does the GM think he has to worry about inviting the guy back? He's given him a great reason not to want to come back.

 

His reaction was over the top, there was some definite anger. He should have stopped the game, and asked you all person to person what was going on, and expressed that this wasn't what he wanted. There's no doubt the conflict wasn't maturely handled, its what I would call an angry reaction from a player who never plans to come back, and decided to respond in a game-wrecking tantrum.

 

To be honest, this very 'strict' playing could be a dodge against role playing--I've seen this sort of thing where the devout Paladin bit is just a way to 'role play' without interacting. "I pray, I worship I kill". Maybe he was meaning to play an over-enthusiastic paladin just going out into the world, but either way, whatever little character concept he had, sure didn't get any respect in this introduction. We don't know if there was any talk about what kind of characters were to be expected; it seems that this character was expected to take everything the PC's did because PC's are different, and he's not supposed to be as offended about PC actions as he would be about NPC actions. Maybe he is a horrible role-player and you won't miss him, but maybe he wasn't, and could have developed into a better one, if the first session didnt make him a fall guy for set ups.

 

As for out of character knowledge, maybe he relied on the meta-game knowledge. But given that their was a party going on, he knew who organized it, the character who sent the woman was a known womanizer and had been targeting the paladin the entire time--its not that much of a deductive leap. The GM's adamant insistent it was metagame knowledge (even if it really was) may just have reinforced the guys belief it was him against the rest of the group by saying there's no way he could have associated the two.

 

Attacking and killing you, then committing suicide--thats just silly, and it wasn't role playing anymore, this was a person to person conflict being expressed in game self destruction. Players should talk about problems before resorting to such actions, but the fault, from the limited information, doesn't lay only on one side in this case.

 

As things are, the damage is done, but talking to the player and trying to figure out what he was thinking might help in the future about expectations and treatment of others when you bring others into your playing circle.

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

However' date=' there's the fact that the GM (from the account given) has the woman roll Seduction, and [i']poof[/i] his paladin has broken his vow. And one of the common bits of GM advice you hear is you have to be cautious about using social skills against PCs, because nobody likes control of their character taken away.

 

Even in The Dying Earth this paladin would get a Rebuff roll to counter the woman's Persuasion seduction, and at that point it's still his choice of how to act on that.

 

In the DERPG he would have to go through with it (no second chances to change his mind), but with the way each roll must be played out, he could have potentially allowed the woman her Illustrious Success on the seduction roll (how the hell did she get a natural 6 versus a paladin, by the way? Oh well, I suppose she doesn't get a penalty for her seductions because she isn't impaired), and felt the surge of lust for that, maybe acted on it; but his following Rebuff roll (this would have granted a Bonus, since his vow of chastity makes it easier for him to resist seduction) would have allowed him to stop and withdraw.

[incrdbil]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

If the chastity vow was that fragile, why should the Mercy & Forgiveness vow be made of sterner stuff? Did he have any psychological limitations related to mercy and forgiveness? he did have one related to chastity and it seems that was readily overcome.

 

Yep--if the chastity vow can fall from the first strumpet to show up with a come hither look, then I am not suprised the mercy aspect went to the wayside witht the first instance of furious anger at being set up.

 

 

Again, I hope it works out. I don't get a good vibe for that, however, if the rest of the group has already decided that the "problem" was that this player is a poor/inexperienced role player, and that his decision of how to role play his character was inappropriate, but everyone else's actions were OK.

 

I have to agree. I pretty much fault the GM for letting the situation develop, then the other characters afterwards.

 

Mistakes happen, people screw up. Maybe everyone can give each other a second chance, and do a restart, building upon these lessons to make a better start, and even better game. Try to get something good to come of it.

[SirWilliam]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Just so we're clear on a couple of points:

 

#1 I was not "hazing" him by any stretch of the imagination. I was playing in-character, and I've related about 20 minutes of a 4+ hour session. So a lot of this lacks context.

 

#2 If I thought any of your in-character rationalizations had crossed his mind for even a second, I would actually be impressed with his RP'ing. Having been there and seen it happen I can tell you that IMO it had nothing to do with RP'ing. I work with one of his family members (actually Ran and I both do) and she'll be the first one to say he's got a short fuse and a bad temper. I guess I never realized how short and how bad until yesterday.

 

#3 IMO, no Paladin, would cut down an unarmed person no matter what they had done. That's what that Code of Honor (Total) is all about. (Please note that the vow that you've been hotly debating was a moderate)

 

Now at this point I'm just kick back and see what he has to say in response to my e-mail.

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

It also sounds like the two characters weren't very compatible' date=' and it would have been appropriate for the GM to make some suggestions as to common PC attitudes. Even without matters of seduction and murder, these hardly sound like two people likely to work together for many years and become fast friends.[/quote']

 

This brings up an interesting point:

 

They have been friends for years, and during that time, in order to become (much less remain) so, the trickster must have learned that there are certain things you do not do to the paladin. I think the player and GM saw this as "the paladin makes an exception for his friend, and loosens up", therefore it wasn't a mean prank but just normal interaction between friends.

 

The player of the paladin, on the other hand, saw it as "the rogue learns how to behave if he wants to keep the paladin as a friend". According to that version of their history together, the rogue would have long since learned to leave the paladin be.

 

It would be very in-character to decide that the rogue was, say, a doppelganger, because he was all of a sudden acting uncharacteristically; but it seems more like a "You led me on all those years, pretending to be my friend, just to betray me in a moment of weakness!".

[incrdbil]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

#3 IMO, no Paladin, would cut down an unarmed person no matter what they had done. That's what that Code of Honor (Total) is all about. (Please note that the vow that you've been hotly debating was a moderate)

 

I'm not saying his character killing you was good roleplaying. It was a reaction to the abuse heaped upon his character in his first session by you and the GM.

 

Again, he was a newbie to your group, you know he has a short temper, so you decide the best way to work him in is through fart jokes? Then the GM has him violate what was to him an important concept of his character through the ever lame NPC skill roll?

 

That's a recipe for conflict.

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I have a concern when the personalities of the characters involved (whether established by background' date=' by disadvantages or by consistency of play) are overridden by these skills. [/quote']

 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hugh Neilson again."

 

Absolutely agreed - the roleplayed personality of a character should be just as strong, in some cases, and even stronger (in others) than the mechanistic personality.

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

You can't seduce the unwilling. Rape is not a word that applies to this situation.

 

Wait. The paladin had a vow of chastity and you don't consider him unwilling?!?

 

How in the world can you even justify rolling Seduction, then?

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

No' date=' I'm saying that reducing this to a pair of die rolls was no different from slipping him a Roofie. This was rape.[/quote']

 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to McCoy again."

 

That's what I thought you said. The character not only didn't want to have sex, but actively wanted to not have sex, and temporarily changing what he wants doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

 

It's kind of like the "That wasn't rape, she had an orgasm!" argument. "It couldn't be rape if their body was responding, obviously they wanted it!"

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

* The paladin was aligned with the God of GOOD. Which involves things like mercy' date=' forgiveness and helping people. Murdering an unarmed man would go just a bit counter to those tenets no matter what he did.[/quote']

 

So if you're confronting the evil mastermind in his lair, and he battles you, inflicting many wounds, and then suddenly throws away his weapon, you're not allowed to kill him? That sounds like "mercy".

 

But your definition of "unarmed" seems to be a little lacking. What if the evil mastermind had never held a weapon in his life, but did give the orders that led to an entire village being wiped out?

 

I think the biggest problem is that we were expecting him to be a more experienced player than he is. He told us that he'd RPG'ed before and I took it at that. I think that may have been more along the lines of Bob and Dave from KoDT than RP'ing because he surely didn't seem be much into his "role".

 

On the contrary, the deepest roleplayers are those who emulate the innermost thoughts and feelings of the character, not just their behaviors. On the outside they may not appear to be very involved, but that's just because their focus is on something the rest of the group can't directly observe.

 

Honestly I don't really care if my character lives or dies. There's an infinite number of characters out there but from a player dynamic this is concerning to me. Just wanted to get that out there that I'm not upset or anything about what happened to my character.

 

Sounds like you're the one who isn't very involved, roleplaying-wise. Small wonder you have such difficulty comprehending how another player could actually care about their own character.

 

If' date=' by some twisted logic, he thought that that was appropriate behavior then we'll have to educate him.[/quote']

 

I personally hope he never plays with you again, considering your attitude toward him. Players like that should never be "educated" into ditching their honorable values.

 

I think it's possible his gaming experience with MMORPG's (WoW and DDO) may be doing him a disservice in the much looser world of regular RPG's.

 

I don't know where your gaming experience came from, but I'm certainly less than impressed with the disservice it's done you. Not all RPG's are, as you put it, "looser".

[SirWilliam]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

On the contrary, the deepest roleplayers are those who emulate the innermost thoughts and feelings of the character, not just their behaviors. On the outside they may not appear to be very involved, but that's just because their focus is on something the rest of the group can't directly observe.

 

 

 

Sounds like you're the one who isn't very involved, roleplaying-wise. Small wonder you have such difficulty comprehending how another player could actually care about their own character.

 

 

 

 

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. You're right in one aspect though. I don't care about my PC's at least not in the sense that I'm emotionally attached to them. I care that their backstory is well developed, I care that they are behaviorly and conceptually consistent. But being emotionally attached to them? No, I reserve that for things that matter. A PC is like a shirt that I put on for the gaming session. If the shirt gets ruined I get a new one. I don't mourn the old one. I'll grant you that I used to "care" more, but since getting married and having kids nothing that happens "in game" really has much impact on me. I don't think that makes me a bad role-player, but maybe it does by your standards. Regardless that's not really pertinent to the conversation.

 

FWIW I think incrdbl had it right when he said this:

To be honest, this very 'strict' playing could be a dodge against role playing--I've seen this sort of thing where the devout Paladin bit is just a way to 'role play' without interacting. "I pray, I worship I kill".

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

If the chastity vow was that fragile' date=' why should the Mercy & Forgiveness vow be made of sterner stuff? Did he have any psychological limitations related to mercy and forgiveness? he did have one related to chastity and it seems that was readily overcome.[/quote']

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hugh Neilson again."

#48

[Enforcer84]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. But it sounds as if Thrudd did not have any say in how his character reacted to the woman who was trying to seduce him and that he basically was forced to break his vow of chastity based on a die roll. If that is true, I think the GM handled the situation badly. If my character were forced to do something completely out of character based on a die roll, I would be upset. For another character this might not have been a big deal. But if the character is serious enough about his vow of chastity to take a disadvantage for it, he shouldn't be forced to drop his pants everytime some hottie gets a lucky die roll. He should have some say in how his character reacts to the situation. Isn't that how roleplaying is supposed to work?

 

Also, there are other possible outcomes to a successful seduction roll than to make the paladin get naked with a woman of ill repute. For example, he could have succumbed to a passionate kiss before pushing her away and fleeing a compromising situation.

 

I don't really think you did anything wrong. It sounds like something that would fit with your character's personality.

 

Regarding his reaction, I think there were much better ways to handle it, especially considering his character wouldn't have known that your character was involved. I think murdering an old friend because of his moral failure was even more out of character than breaking his vow of chastity. It would have been more appropriate if he had role played out his grief and attempted to do penance like you suggested. Oh well. At least he took his character's vows seriously. Maybe you should give him some credit for that.

 

Anyway that's my 2 cents.

So rolls only apply to others, not him?

 

Edit: Apparently so. Thanks for the Quote from h5 JmOz Took the air right outta that argument.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

#1 I was not "hazing" him by any stretch of the imagination. I was playing in-character

 

Just as a note, the two are not mutually exclusive by any stretch. I can certainly design a character who is a jerk. Would the game somehow be "better" if, instead of a Paladin, the player brought in a brutal barbarian, and filled out his Disad list with a DNPC: Gorgeous Little Sister; (Over)protective of little Sister and Berserk: Little Sister Dishonoured? Your womanizer would surely have hit on her - it's in character, after all.

 

Designing a character whose standard operating procedures are likely to annoy the other players/characters is risky business. I've played characters who can be annoying in their way, but they need to have some serious redeeming qualities to make them WORTHY of ongoing inclusion in the adventuring group. What contributions to the success of the group, and/or the Paladin's mission, did your character make, or demonstrate a capacity to make?

 

#2 If I thought any of your in-character rationalizations had crossed his mind for even a second' date=' I would actually be impressed with his RP'ing. Having been there and seen it happen I can tell you that IMO it had nothing to do with RP'ing. I work with one of his family members (actually Ran and I both do) and she'll be the first one to say he's got a short fuse and a bad temper. I guess I never realized how short and how bad until yesterday.[/quote']

 

Well, if you're confident in your telepathy, I guess you know what he was thnking after all. Given you knew he has a short fuse and a bad temper, what were you thinking to prod him like you did?

 

#3 IMO' date=' no Paladin, would cut down an unarmed person no matter what they had done. That's what that Code of Honor (Total) is all about. (Please note that the vow that you've been hotly debating was a moderate)[/quote']

 

No one is arguing that killing your character was a moment of fine role playing that should be sung in ballads. It is, however, not so clearly out of character as you seem to believe. Paladins fight evil. They kill. Your actions, by the way, caused the Paladin to be dishonoured. Perhaps, in his eyes, this breach justified another breach of his code. Just screaming "I'm unarmed so you can't puinish me" wouldn't save you from any Paladin (or other Good character) I've ever played or GM'd.

 

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the Paladin's player is wholly in the right, or that you are wholly in the wrong. I am saying that there is plenty of blame to go around, and I don't see you, or your GM, having any claim to the moral high ground.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

The Paladin killed an unarmed man, and himself over a moderate limitation? No that seems a stretch. Of Course I wasn't there, don't have the character sheets in front of me, don't know what the GM did or ruled, but it seems like overkill to me.

 

Edit: Add incoherant rambling, let simmer.

 

If the player was having a big issue with this then he should have told the GM; and perhaps he should have discussed what a common, modeate disadvantage was like. It sounds like Sir William was goading him, to be sure, but he seemed to be playing it straight. They were longtime friends, he was a party boy, sent a girl to his buddy who was stuffy. I agree with who ever said that the GM should have simply laid it at the Paladin's feet, saying "You are sorely tempted, she's very alluring, your will is weakening, actions?" But to charge in and slay an unarmed man who was your friend for several years is out there unless he had an enraged, or similar irrational disadvantage. He might not want to be friends with the jerk anymore as the guy obviously doesn't respect his religious views; maybe even challenged him to a duel, but to murder him? No That was wrong.

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

And this is JMO' date=' but nothing that happens around a gaming table is even remotely close to rape. That particular violation maybe role-played, but not in any game I'll be involved in past the first suggestion that it's being considered. Seduction is about temptation. Sometimes you succumb to temptation and when you do it's your responsibility, not the person who tempted you. [/quote']

Did the Player, or his character, succumb to temtation, or did a couple of die rolls lead to the GM FORCING the character to act as if he succumbed?

 

If the player agreed that his character was turned on and going to break his vow and lose his virginity with a harlot, then yes, he definitely overracted and we owe you an apology. You haven't mentioned anything to make me think the Player consented, so I will continue to call this rape.

 

AS far as character knowledge, let's look at what the character did know. (1) this is a professional sex worker (2) it is highly unlikely that she's giving it away for free (3) she was hired for the evening by someone in the building. Unless you are taking the position Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid, not that difficult to connect the dots. Did he get an INT roll since apparently in your game the dice trump role playing?

 

Now at this point I'm just kick back and see what he has to say in response to my e-mail.

If it were me, if you got any respons it would be an invitation to attempt procreation in isolation. Forget what I said about him being a better man than me if he ever gamed with you again, he's a better man than me that he did so the first time!

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I'm not sayin' he didn't kill her - I'm sayin' I understand.

 

My point here isn't that what Thrudd did was wrong, my point is that he was clearly provoked in a violation of the social contract (see my original post on the topic). I cross-referenced McCoy's comment about rape as part of my own; using rape as a violation of trust, this player's trust was clearly violated at the table. I'm passionate about defending the Paladin, not just because I'm passionate about Paladins, but because poor behavior at the table is something I've been both exposed too, and guilty of.

[KA.]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

So, if Thrudd's player does decide to come back, what role would you and the GM prefer to see him in?

Court Jester?

Village Idiot?

Whipping Boy?

 

I am amazed that you are not able to see his position.

You and the GM play together regularly.

He is a newcomer.

The first night of a new game 'random circumstances' just 'happen to align' that his character is humiliated and dishonored, and he reacts to this poorly because he is a 'bad roleplayer'.

 

I am not saying that you and the GM set out to do this, but you can't see how it would look that way to the new player?

 

During this lengthy session, how many times did your 'womanizer' character find out he was romancing a man in drag?

How many times did he have to go to the Healer to have a venereal disease cured?

How many times did he wake up to find that the woman he spent the night with had stolen his purse?

 

In other words, how many times was the egg on your face, rather than the new guy's?

 

I think that one main problem here is that it sounds like you and the GM were not serious about the campaign to start with. You were just doing a one-off to relieve your boredom until you got your regular campaign back on track.

 

Which means you didn't approach it seriously.

 

The new player did.

 

If you had told him that you were playing "The Three Stooges go Medieval" he might have done just fine.

 

As far as all the complaints about Metagaming, etc.

 

Will you please fill in the backstory that explains how you and the Paladin are 'longtime friends' when you behave this way toward him?

 

The only possibilities are:

 

1) The 'Paladin' is one in name only. He is actually just as much of a rogue as your character and merely uses his 'holiness' as a front.

But in that case he wouldn't have the Psych Lims that he does.

 

2) The Paladin only tolerates your character because he believes that you are going to be the key to some great evil, and that the only way he can stop it is to stay near you and be the butt of your jokes.

But that is a little indirect for a Paladin and doesn't make much sense.

 

3) While your character may seem to enjoy wine and women, the Paladin believes, perhaps mistakenly, that he is basically good and would never really do anything to harm anyone.

That one makes some sense, and could provide for a friendship in which he intended to 'turn you around', and help you 'see the light'.

 

However, sending a woman to seduce a man who has taken a vow of chastity, crosses the line into evil.

Which could quickly change his opinion of your character.

More than that, if he has been hanging around with your character for 'years' then this is hardly the first time a woman has batted her eyes at him, unless he is disfigured.

Which means that, in game, his character could have easily thought that the woman used some type of evil magic, or was perhaps, demonic herself.

Now sending a Succubus to seduce a friend of many years to cause him to break his Holy Vows is something that seems to cry out for vengeance.

That act is nearly unspeakable.

Finding out that his so called 'friend' was actually in league with the darkest evil, and finding himself no longer in a state of grace, he lost control of himself and killed your character. Then, in pennance, took his own life.

 

Do I think all that was going through the Player's mind at the time?

No way!

 

I am just saying that there is a possible in-game explanation.

 

What I think happened is no doubt what he thought happened. You and the GM made a joke out of his character and a joke out of the game, so he delivered his own punchline.

 

It isn't like he physically attacked anyone, or tore up the furniture, he just gave you both a dose of your own medicine.

If you were going to ignore the social contract and have your fun at his expense, then he was going to do the same.

You can call it 'Metagaming' or "Poor Roleplaying' or whatever else you want.

But basically he just refused to be your punching bag.

Maybe he does have a bad temper.

Or, perhaps you should choose a more malleable victim, err 'new player', for your next session.

 

KA.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

My point here isn't that what Thrudd did was wrong' date=' my point is that he was clearly provoked in a violation of the social contract (see my original post on the topic). I cross-referenced McCoy's comment about rape as part of my own; using rape as a violation of trust, this player's trust was clearly violated at the table. I'm passionate about defending the Paladin, not just because I'm passionate about Paladins, but because poor behavior at the table is something I've been both exposed too, and guilty of.[/quote']

Clearly violated? Again, we weren't there. We don't know how the GM did any of this, I mean if they tied the guy up and forced him to watch an action figure reenactment of The Seduction of Sir Thrudd; okay, you got me. But I've had my character stomped on but never tried to kill a PC because of it. If he was getting so angry, he should have taken it up with the GM.

 

I'm not saying that the regular guys weren't giving the new guy hell, and if that's the case I can see them having trouble finding new blood in the future, but if the guy was just playing along and having a good time then broke out the pipe and leveled Colnel Mustard in the Study, took the permanent nap himeslf and said "Hey look at the time, I gotta go." then perhaps he is the problem. It could have very well just been a lack of communication and expectations, or it could have been a clash of styles, or just a circle of jerkishness.

 

I wasn't there, I'm not going to throw down chastisement on either party because of it. I think they need to talk with the guy and clear the air. If he wants to play and they want to try agin, cool.

[JmOz]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Wait' date=' isn't that the WHOLE POINT of seduction? To lure, or entice one away from their chosen duty with false promises & hopes? That's the whole point - that's why it's [i']seduction[/i] and not, say, a logical argument. "Let's go have sex." "Sorry, can't, vow of chastity." "Aw, nertz!"

 

See the difference? Guy got one roll to defend himself against said PRE attack, fails it, and he winds up in the sack, despite his vow? And that isn't rape?

 

It's really funny (actualy sad would be a better word for it) when you actually READ the Seduction skill

 

This Interaction skill is the ability to gain others' trust (and perhaps even friendship) by offering companionship or favors. Despite it's name, it has less to do with sexuality than with making friends or getting on another character's goodside.

...

 

This skill is only for use on NPC's a player should have more control over his characters actions. The GM may rule that Seduction can be used on a PC when it fits his disadvantages or personality

 

I bolded what I thought was important

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I'll grant you that I used to "care" more' date=' but since getting married and having kids nothing that happens "in game" really has much impact on me.[/quote']

 

Please at least retain some respect for those of us that still do, though. If this is what the player in question was doing, would it truly be appropriate to "educate" him out of that?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

So... I was right AND wrong? COOL! Seduction is not for PCs. I can handle that. In which case the GM is dead wrong. Did dude have a short temper? Yep. Was his fun & trust violated? Yep!

[Jhereg]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Seduction is not for PCs.

 

That's what I said 58 posts ago. I demand recognition! (or is that 'attention'? Same dif.)

[Curufea]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

In general it is best to NEVER make a roll that can be roleplayed.

If the PC wants to smart talk their way out of a situation - let them. If they don't want to, use a roll. At worst give a modifier to the roll based on how well they roleplay it.

And in general NEVER make a roll that effects the personality of the PC. What a PC does is what the player thinks they should do. If you want to take of a PC, you are turning them into an NPC and you may as well not have any of your friends round at all, just write a story and roll dice all by yourself.

If the player can't roleplay horror, lust or any other reaction to events that would seem reasonable - that's up to them. Unless it is an important plot element and the story can't go ahead without them making a given reaction - don't force them. Haven't you guys learnt eanything from roleplaying? Or is it all still, kill the monster, grab the treasure, get another penis extension?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

In general it is best to NEVER make a roll that can be roleplayed.

If the PC wants to smart talk their way out of a situation - let them. If they don't want to, use a roll. At worst give a modifier to the roll based on how well they roleplay it.

 

There are problems with this approach as well. Who should have the better chance of succeeding in an interaction situation in our fantasy game:

 

(a) The character who has spent 1/3 of his character points on PRE, COM and interaction skills and levels, but whose player is painfully shy and inarticulate?

 

( The character who spent no points whatsoever on abilities that aid him in social situations, but whose player is a good speechmaker, and very articulate?

 

Note that character ( spend all his points on combat-related abilities and is terrific in combat. His player is clumsy and feeble. Character (a) has limited combat abilities, but his player is an olympic-class fencer. If we're going to give character ( an advantage in social situations because his player is charismatic, does character (a) get a bonus in combat situations given his player's talents in this area? Part of the allure of an RPG is the ability to play a character very different from ourselves.

 

And in general NEVER make a roll that effects the personality of the PC. What a PC does is what the player thinks they should do. If you want to take of a PC' date=' you are turning them into an NPC and you may as well not have any of your friends round at all, just write a story and roll dice all by yourself.[/quote']

 

I agree with this only if it extends to major NPC's. To say "PC's are immune to interaction skills, PRE attacks (move up the chain to Mind Control, maybe?) but they can use these against similar characters who aren't PC's" gives a special "PC bonus". If we make it a "mook rule", it's fair across the board.

 

I do, however, agree that the results should be modified depending on the character's personality. That modification could reasonably extend to a complete immunity to certain interaction attempts, which should have been the case, IMO, with our chaste Paladin. As well, it's preferable, IMO, to tell the player what has occured and let them role play the effects within the bounds of the character's personality.

 

However, there are limits. It's also fair game to identify instances where you believe they are not playing in accordance with their established personalities, and especially psychological limitations (eg "your character with the Total Commitment code vs killing is about to fire a full-power blast at a 7 year old girl?"). And don't try to tell me, for example, that your character who took a Total Psych "fearless" should be immune to all PRE attacks because he's fearless. You want that effect - pay for extra PRE or EGO, defensive only.