Roleplaying and whether to do it - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Roleplaying and whether to do it

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Aug 01, 2003 18:07:36 There's something that's been troubling me for a while, and I thought I'd just share with you all some answers I've come up with to this very common problem.

When is roleplaying too much?

I've been roleplaying for five or six years now, with the same intensive group. We've tried something like ten different systems, we've gamed with miniatures and without (I've even created my own miniatures line to try to keep interest up), we've introduced and removed members to the group and we've each gone through every single conceivable character class and type (within our own gender, as that was an initial house rule to promote roleplaying) in our travels.

Throughout, we've always had the ethos that too much roleplay was never enough; entire games have been spent in witty banter with the baker in the village, or discussing the fine points of the mail riveting in the fighter's new armour, or organizing the bard's town square concert for a single Perform check for 5 gold pieces. We've yet to have a monster who couldn't tell us a little about his family, his eating habits, his motivation and perhaps which piece of poetry he'd take if put into a zoo on a desert island. Sessions have taken place in which the DM was so entirely redundant that he went into another room to play Neverwinter Nights until they left their room at the inn, which they didn't, even by close of play - being too excited about discussing the new revelations in the sorceror's advancement.

Many of you are probably reading this and asking yourself, 'What's the problem? If I could get my players that involved and keep my game detail that high I'd be rapt. That's exactly what I want!' Well, there is a problem, and it's probably quite evident to some of you old hands...

When 99% of a party's emotional embroilments are with other party members, they must necessarily encompass the whole emotional spectrum with them. Thus, beyond fellowship and camaraderie, beyond admiration or teamwork, we have contempt and neglect, intentional derision, backstabbing, plan sabotaging and even intentional player kills, once the situation gets to a point where these kill happy adventurers can see no other solution.

One of our players has killed 9 other player characters in the course of our adventures. Is he the worst roleplayer? Or doing it to ruin the game? No, he's one of the best. His exploits are legend everywhere he goes, his characters are memorable and unique and he is thoroughly involved in the game world. And there's the problem. We like to assume that there's an artificial reality split - that even though we carry swords and draw them at the twitch of an eyelash, even though we happily mutilate and intimidate every single monster around us and quite a few of the NPCs, we still have a total non agression pact with the party members around us, many of whom may be exactly the same class and even less endearing than the poor fellow who we're currently bending backwards over the bar. This reality split is in no way ever enforced within the game system, it's simply something that most parties assume must exist for the sake of enjoyment. After all, you don't want to have to tie up the rogue every single time you go to sleep, do you? Or spend all of your magical shielding against your own mage because he's practicing his fireballs somewhere near where you're chopping wood?

We're a long way down this slippery slope, and I'm putting in some desperation measures to try to pull us out before the DM becomes entirely redundant and every session becomes a well researched and played character duel. Firstly, roleplaying is completely outlawed. That is, any conversation between two players which does not involve external objects or character and is not directly related to decision making is banned, to be penalized by loud hooting from the DM. Secondly, models are mandatory - you must have a completely appropriate figure, correctly dressed and equipped and you must keep your hand on it at all times. It must tip both left and right every time it moves a five foot step, when you sit down it must be leant backwards onto Blu-Tac so that the appropriate amount of torso shows above the table and when your character fights you must make swishing and clanging noises, as well as dancing it around for six seconds per round. Thirdly, the DM's characters are restricted to the 100 basic words of vocabulary within the English language and must be taken without modification from the suggested NPCs within the DMG.

Hopefully with these somewhat drastic measures we can yet save our group from a lifetime of ever more involving roleplaying, and resurrect the simple and wholesome fantasy setting of Dungeons and Dragons.
#2
Ertai_Planeswalker
Aug 02, 2003 16:51:07 I really don't know what to say about this... Our group is more roll-playing, not as in just combat, but combat is mostly not resolved in a very cinematic way. We've had our inner party differences too. We had two pc's getting kids... nothing worse than parental bickering in your party! 'Your kid broke my wand of fireballs!' 'You should not be leaving it lying around then!' etc.

But what you're describing is my D&D utopia. I mean, our group has it's differences every now and then, but we also realize that it's best not to have any grudges with the person watching your back in life endangering locales and battles...
#3
the_ultimate_dragongod
Aug 07, 2003 8:07:28 o…k… Sounds like you’re someone who wants to change your group’s playing style to fit your liking, even if they don’t like it. Maybe that’s fine. If you’re rulings weren’t so harsh, then I would be able to empathize with your point of view. I think you’re just trying to get the group back on track, but it seems to have been like this for a long time, and I don’t think you’ll change them back very willingly. You might even cause the spite of some players with those outlandish rules. The other option here is that you’re someone who believes that d&d should be played a certain way, there is a ‘true d&d’ opposed to a ‘false d&d.’ Well, there is a true way to play d&d, and it is up to every player to decide how that is. It cannot be any sort of arbitration by WOTC, TSR or the DM for that manner.

I’m necessarily saying that you’re wrong in doing this, it just seems like you’re using your position as the DM (I believe you’re the DM, because you are making rules that only the DM can decide and enforce) to mold the other players in the image you would like them to be. Maybe you were influenced by the overwhelming surge of action RPG D&D games that have appeared recently. I have no idea.

Besides, I've never heard of someone who thought the group was roleplaying TOO much. To most people, there is never too much roleplaying. What you're describing is something mythical, akin to Golconda for vampires, where a group roleplays without you leading them by the nose or roleplaying for them.

Thankfully, I am blessed with a group that is good at both roleplaying and taking action (dice rolling, casting, combat, etc.). (No, I'm not talking about Alex, Bryan, Chad and Adam, I'm talking about Chad R, Bret, Adam (same guy) and Nelson). But, after all, this is an RPG. It stands for Roleplaying Game. That's what we're all here for.
#4
zombiegleemax
Aug 08, 2003 1:20:53 Two PCs having kids sounds like great fun - I'm afraid within the average group they might get left behind like the Druid's second level Animal Companion, but it sounds like an excellent embellishment on the normal party dynamic and motivations.

Dragongod, thankyou for your opinions about my personality. I cannot of course be particularly objective when the subject under discussion is myself, but I'm fairly sure I'm neither trying to change my group's style (whether or not their needs are already being met) nor a person who believes in a 'True D&D'. I'm not campaigning for anything. I am the usual DM of our group and also a player, and all our problems are addressed with discussion - not necessarily solved, but that's the nature of politics. Play as you will. I was actually asking whether anyone else has met with these same problems and found solutions to them. Within the vast spectrum of D&D groups among these boards I have found firm devotees of Hack'n'Slash, believers in Min/Maxing, afficionadoes of political intrigue and roleplaying even to the detriment of the mechanical system and a million degrees in between.

I had rather hoped that someone might share their experiences regarding this strange separation - or their experiences playing a longsword carrying guided missile who somehow never kills any character guided by a human sitting at the same table.

Dragongod, just as a postscript: You have now heard of one. Possibly there are more. Probably if you read the posts devoted to maximising your character's damage potential as a Large character with a Spiked Chain you will find them.
#5
zombiegleemax
Aug 09, 2003 19:11:16 Well, in our group, if I ever have a problem with the group and infighting, I just have them come across some ungodly powerful item/deity/critter that casts a bizzare enchantment on them that can only be removed by a 30th level spellcaster in a ritual that takes 12 years to cast and deals 999d6 backlash damage upon casting on them. It links their spirits, making it so that if one PC dies, the rest of the party has something REALLY bad happen. I know it sounds like DM railroading, but I have had to use it... once. Now, another strategy is to make it so that when you are starting out a fresh campaign, that you say "We're going for a generally good/neutral/evil party." This allows the PCs to create like-minded characters. It works for us, usually. Finally, remember that if he's killing off characters that support him, the PC is killing off those that can back him up in his weak areas. Throw villains/monsters/traps at him that focus on his weaknesses. Determining those weaknesses, however, is up to you.
#6
the_ultimate_dragongod
Aug 12, 2003 6:54:03 Ok. But what does maximizing damage potential have to do with roleplaying?
#7
jagyr_ebonwood_02
Aug 12, 2003 15:28:58 I thought this essay was an excellent piece of satire. I loved the zing at the end with the "house rules" that abolish roleplaying. Good job!

Wait...you mean this is serious? Well...

I guess that some people (myself included) have trouble understanding ShadowCat's point of view simply because we're not overloaded with roleplaying.

However, I question the "quality" of your players if, as you imply, all their roleplaying ends in killing each other...
#8
zombiegleemax
Aug 12, 2003 19:35:27 I must say that countering player aggression and in-fighting by applying DM aggression and in-fighting doesn't sound like a step I would very willingly take.

I can see that it would be effective - in the same way as a 'The next player who kills any of his party is out of the group' ultimatum would be, but it doesn't really answer the question of why it is okay to kill Throg the level 5 barbarian who is played by the DM while it is not okay to kill his brother Thurg who is played by a character.

Out of interest, does the rest of the world obey the same rules as your party? Mages who don't manipulat their own close team, thieves who don't steal from them etc.
#9
tharkos_dup
Aug 13, 2003 4:21:48 Be careful what you ask for .... because you have to motivate ALL of your players to agree with any "change" in style.

In our group there is one player who is VERY interested in combat and if we dont have our "fight for the day" he is bored most of the time. Several others like to do intensive roleplaying though, like your group is doing, and that tends to slow down the "main plot" and can make the evening pretty boring if people dont take part in it.

So I would advise you to do everything in small steps to keep the fun alive for all players.
#10
zombiegleemax
Aug 13, 2003 16:17:18 I like the no talking between pcs rule but for god's sake, let the npcs talk!
#11
zombiegleemax
Sep 02, 2003 22:58:54 If your group really likes to roleplay let them roleplay.
Having said that, I was in a group somewhat akin to yours a few years back and by the end of a few weeks of all talk and no fight I was ready to start killing things, including the other players out of sheer boredom, and I like roleplaying!

It sounds to me like you have 2 issues to deal with, that dovetail into one another:
1) You aren't actively guiding things.
2) There are no logical consequences to peoples actions.

There was a game out there at one point called Paranoia, where the goal was, essentially, to kill the other players since they were all commie traitors. Our GM could put us in a room, walk away from the table and two hours later all of our characters would have killed each other off. Well in the absence of any overriding plot, of course we came up with a way to entertain ourselves.

If your players are actively dealing with each other great, but long before you get up to leave the table to go play the computer, you should be interrupting their chatter with a cliched stranger barging into the tavern looking for help, or a relative in trouble, or something that requires their immediate attention and action. So do they talk about helping or do they actually go out and help?

Also, why do all of your monsters stop to chat? Why aren't they whacking at the party? Or chatting up the party as a way to stall the PC's until the villians plans come to fruition. (I had a DM who used that ploy to keep us busy while the Drow invaded the town that was our base of operations.)

Finally, I've DM'd campaigns where players were knocking one another off as well. Pulling off one murder should be hard enough, but 9? And if your characters like to roleplay as much as you say, don't they have NPC friends and relatives who wonder how they died?

In one of my campaigns I had a similar problem that was getting out of hand, until the local hero, a high level paladin, stepped in, and started an investigation into the murders, scaring the player straight. If that doesn't work, run a murder trial, something most heavy roleplaying groups love anyway. Then, if the character flubs up the trial send him to jail and have him make a new character.

Or, you could have a powerful wizard, with a headache, put the entire world under a massive silence spell until someone retrieves the long lost, legendary bottle of asprin for him. Then force your players to mime all their actions until the quest was completed. It may not solve your problem, but it would probably be amusing.
#12
zombiegleemax
Sep 12, 2003 8:26:20 Know watcha mean. In my group, however, they try to kill each other over things like "Aw, man, you just threw up on my shoes because you´re drunk! God damn it! YOU ARE DEAD! -bash-"

I have the problem that LACK of roleplaying and only caring about "getting a new chainmail" or "getting those 200 000 copper pieces" has priority over good roleplay. To be more precise, my problem is that my group is at the opposite end of the line. And believe you me, it´s worse.

As a matter of fact, the only thing that will solve such a dispute is, to simply tell them "you can´t do that. I won´t allow it." And then, it´s end of discussion. Tell them every possible lame excuse you can figure out and, if thats not enough, still do not give in. NEVER ALLOW PK! FORCE them to co-operate. Because, what they are doing by killing other PC´s are, in fact, deliberately robbing the other player, and the DM, and other players in the group, enjoyment of the game.
#13
zombiegleemax
Sep 13, 2003 22:34:27 Let me start by saying that I'm not a DM; I'm a player in a group with a strict ban on PKs. But I don't think that killing other players cannot be banned outright. Of course, it shouldn't be quite as easy as just killing any NPC. Here's my solutions:

1) Levy a heavy penalty (in XP maybe) for killing another player. This is best against unruly parties that kill each other over mere trifles; they can still PK if they think it follows the strictest rules of roleplaying, but it will make them think twice about killing just for the heck of it.

2) Organize a form of special meeting that a player must do before killing a fellow player. Swamp them down in bureaucracy so as to make decapitating the halfling bard much less interesting than focusing on disemboweling the evil wizard.
#14
zombiegleemax
Sep 15, 2003 19:24:26 I disagree with you on the point of PK's. Some edgier characters should be allowed to kill another player if pushed too far. However, PKing shouldn't just come easy. Either levy a high penalty in XP for attempting to kill a fellow PC, or create some additional bureaucracy (e.g. a form, a meeting) to make killing a fellow player a much less enjoyable experience.
#15
zombiegleemax
Sep 16, 2003 14:06:44
Originally posted by ShadowCat
Secondly, models are mandatory - you must have a completely appropriate figure, correctly dressed and equipped and you must keep your hand on it at all times. It must tip both left and right every time it moves a five foot step, when you sit down it must be leant backwards onto Blu-Tac so that the appropriate amount of torso shows above the table and when your character fights you must make swishing and clanging noises, as well as dancing it around for six seconds per round.

THIS seems, to me, to point this out as being obvious satire. Come on guys. He's adding a thread of truth to his satire, to make it more believable.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Aug 01, 2003 18:07:36	There's something that's been troubling me for a while, and I thought I'd just share with you all some answers I've come up with to this very common problem. When is roleplaying too much? I've been roleplaying for five or six years now, with the same intensive group. We've tried something like ten different systems, we've gamed with miniatures and without (I've even created my own miniatures line to try to keep interest up), we've introduced and removed members to the group and we've each gone through every single conceivable character class and type (within our own gender, as that was an initial house rule to promote roleplaying) in our travels. Throughout, we've always had the ethos that too much roleplay was never enough; entire games have been spent in witty banter with the baker in the village, or discussing the fine points of the mail riveting in the fighter's new armour, or organizing the bard's town square concert for a single Perform check for 5 gold pieces. We've yet to have a monster who couldn't tell us a little about his family, his eating habits, his motivation and perhaps which piece of poetry he'd take if put into a zoo on a desert island. Sessions have taken place in which the DM was so entirely redundant that he went into another room to play Neverwinter Nights until they left their room at the inn, which they didn't, even by close of play - being too excited about discussing the new revelations in the sorceror's advancement. Many of you are probably reading this and asking yourself, 'What's the problem? If I could get my players that involved and keep my game detail that high I'd be rapt. That's exactly what I want!' Well, there is a problem, and it's probably quite evident to some of you old hands... When 99% of a party's emotional embroilments are with other party members, they must necessarily encompass the whole emotional spectrum with them. Thus, beyond fellowship and camaraderie, beyond admiration or teamwork, we have contempt and neglect, intentional derision, backstabbing, plan sabotaging and even intentional player kills, once the situation gets to a point where these kill happy adventurers can see no other solution. One of our players has killed 9 other player characters in the course of our adventures. Is he the worst roleplayer? Or doing it to ruin the game? No, he's one of the best. His exploits are legend everywhere he goes, his characters are memorable and unique and he is thoroughly involved in the game world. And there's the problem. We like to assume that there's an artificial reality split - that even though we carry swords and draw them at the twitch of an eyelash, even though we happily mutilate and intimidate every single monster around us and quite a few of the NPCs, we still have a total non agression pact with the party members around us, many of whom may be exactly the same class and even less endearing than the poor fellow who we're currently bending backwards over the bar. This reality split is in no way ever enforced within the game system, it's simply something that most parties assume must exist for the sake of enjoyment. After all, you don't want to have to tie up the rogue every single time you go to sleep, do you? Or spend all of your magical shielding against your own mage because he's practicing his fireballs somewhere near where you're chopping wood? We're a long way down this slippery slope, and I'm putting in some desperation measures to try to pull us out before the DM becomes entirely redundant and every session becomes a well researched and played character duel. Firstly, roleplaying is completely outlawed. That is, any conversation between two players which does not involve external objects or character and is not directly related to decision making is banned, to be penalized by loud hooting from the DM. Secondly, models are mandatory - you must have a completely appropriate figure, correctly dressed and equipped and you must keep your hand on it at all times. It must tip both left and right every time it moves a five foot step, when you sit down it must be leant backwards onto Blu-Tac so that the appropriate amount of torso shows above the table and when your character fights you must make swishing and clanging noises, as well as dancing it around for six seconds per round. Thirdly, the DM's characters are restricted to the 100 basic words of vocabulary within the English language and must be taken without modification from the suggested NPCs within the DMG. Hopefully with these somewhat drastic measures we can yet save our group from a lifetime of ever more involving roleplaying, and resurrect the simple and wholesome fantasy setting of Dungeons and Dragons.
#2 Ertai_Planeswalker Aug 02, 2003 16:51:07	I really don't know what to say about this... Our group is more roll-playing, not as in just combat, but combat is mostly not resolved in a very cinematic way. We've had our inner party differences too. We had two pc's getting kids... nothing worse than parental bickering in your party! 'Your kid broke my wand of fireballs!' 'You should not be leaving it lying around then!' etc. But what you're describing is my D&D utopia. I mean, our group has it's differences every now and then, but we also realize that it's best not to have any grudges with the person watching your back in life endangering locales and battles...
#3 the_ultimate_dragongod Aug 07, 2003 8:07:28	o…k… Sounds like you’re someone who wants to change your group’s playing style to fit your liking, even if they don’t like it. Maybe that’s fine. If you’re rulings weren’t so harsh, then I would be able to empathize with your point of view. I think you’re just trying to get the group back on track, but it seems to have been like this for a long time, and I don’t think you’ll change them back very willingly. You might even cause the spite of some players with those outlandish rules. The other option here is that you’re someone who believes that d&d should be played a certain way, there is a ‘true d&d’ opposed to a ‘false d&d.’ Well, there is a true way to play d&d, and it is up to every player to decide how that is. It cannot be any sort of arbitration by WOTC, TSR or the DM for that manner. I’m necessarily saying that you’re wrong in doing this, it just seems like you’re using your position as the DM (I believe you’re the DM, because you are making rules that only the DM can decide and enforce) to mold the other players in the image you would like them to be. Maybe you were influenced by the overwhelming surge of action RPG D&D games that have appeared recently. I have no idea. Besides, I've never heard of someone who thought the group was roleplaying TOO much. To most people, there is never too much roleplaying. What you're describing is something mythical, akin to Golconda for vampires, where a group roleplays without you leading them by the nose or roleplaying for them. Thankfully, I am blessed with a group that is good at both roleplaying and taking action (dice rolling, casting, combat, etc.). (No, I'm not talking about Alex, Bryan, Chad and Adam, I'm talking about Chad R, Bret, Adam (same guy) and Nelson). But, after all, this is an RPG. It stands for Roleplaying Game. That's what we're all here for.
#4 zombiegleemax Aug 08, 2003 1:20:53	Two PCs having kids sounds like great fun - I'm afraid within the average group they might get left behind like the Druid's second level Animal Companion, but it sounds like an excellent embellishment on the normal party dynamic and motivations. Dragongod, thankyou for your opinions about my personality. I cannot of course be particularly objective when the subject under discussion is myself, but I'm fairly sure I'm neither trying to change my group's style (whether or not their needs are already being met) nor a person who believes in a 'True D&D'. I'm not campaigning for anything. I am the usual DM of our group and also a player, and all our problems are addressed with discussion - not necessarily solved, but that's the nature of politics. Play as you will. I was actually asking whether anyone else has met with these same problems and found solutions to them. Within the vast spectrum of D&D groups among these boards I have found firm devotees of Hack'n'Slash, believers in Min/Maxing, afficionadoes of political intrigue and roleplaying even to the detriment of the mechanical system and a million degrees in between. I had rather hoped that someone might share their experiences regarding this strange separation - or their experiences playing a longsword carrying guided missile who somehow never kills any character guided by a human sitting at the same table. Dragongod, just as a postscript: You have now heard of one. Possibly there are more. Probably if you read the posts devoted to maximising your character's damage potential as a Large character with a Spiked Chain you will find them.
#5 zombiegleemax Aug 09, 2003 19:11:16	Well, in our group, if I ever have a problem with the group and infighting, I just have them come across some ungodly powerful item/deity/critter that casts a bizzare enchantment on them that can only be removed by a 30th level spellcaster in a ritual that takes 12 years to cast and deals 999d6 backlash damage upon casting on them. It links their spirits, making it so that if one PC dies, the rest of the party has something REALLY bad happen. I know it sounds like DM railroading, but I have had to use it... once. Now, another strategy is to make it so that when you are starting out a fresh campaign, that you say "We're going for a generally good/neutral/evil party." This allows the PCs to create like-minded characters. It works for us, usually. Finally, remember that if he's killing off characters that support him, the PC is killing off those that can back him up in his weak areas. Throw villains/monsters/traps at him that focus on his weaknesses. Determining those weaknesses, however, is up to you.
#6 the_ultimate_dragongod Aug 12, 2003 6:54:03	Ok. But what does maximizing damage potential have to do with roleplaying?
#7 jagyr_ebonwood_02 Aug 12, 2003 15:28:58	I thought this essay was an excellent piece of satire. I loved the zing at the end with the "house rules" that abolish roleplaying. Good job! Wait...you mean this is serious? Well... I guess that some people (myself included) have trouble understanding ShadowCat's point of view simply because we're not overloaded with roleplaying. However, I question the "quality" of your players if, as you imply, all their roleplaying ends in killing each other...
#8 zombiegleemax Aug 12, 2003 19:35:27	I must say that countering player aggression and in-fighting by applying DM aggression and in-fighting doesn't sound like a step I would very willingly take. I can see that it would be effective - in the same way as a 'The next player who kills any of his party is out of the group' ultimatum would be, but it doesn't really answer the question of why it is okay to kill Throg the level 5 barbarian who is played by the DM while it is not okay to kill his brother Thurg who is played by a character. Out of interest, does the rest of the world obey the same rules as your party? Mages who don't manipulat their own close team, thieves who don't steal from them etc.
#9 tharkos_dup Aug 13, 2003 4:21:48	Be careful what you ask for .... because you have to motivate ALL of your players to agree with any "change" in style. In our group there is one player who is VERY interested in combat and if we dont have our "fight for the day" he is bored most of the time. Several others like to do intensive roleplaying though, like your group is doing, and that tends to slow down the "main plot" and can make the evening pretty boring if people dont take part in it. So I would advise you to do everything in small steps to keep the fun alive for all players.
#10 zombiegleemax Aug 13, 2003 16:17:18	I like the no talking between pcs rule but for god's sake, let the npcs talk!
#11 zombiegleemax Sep 02, 2003 22:58:54	If your group really likes to roleplay let them roleplay. Having said that, I was in a group somewhat akin to yours a few years back and by the end of a few weeks of all talk and no fight I was ready to start killing things, including the other players out of sheer boredom, and I like roleplaying! It sounds to me like you have 2 issues to deal with, that dovetail into one another: 1) You aren't actively guiding things. 2) There are no logical consequences to peoples actions. There was a game out there at one point called Paranoia, where the goal was, essentially, to kill the other players since they were all commie traitors. Our GM could put us in a room, walk away from the table and two hours later all of our characters would have killed each other off. Well in the absence of any overriding plot, of course we came up with a way to entertain ourselves. If your players are actively dealing with each other great, but long before you get up to leave the table to go play the computer, you should be interrupting their chatter with a cliched stranger barging into the tavern looking for help, or a relative in trouble, or something that requires their immediate attention and action. So do they talk about helping or do they actually go out and help? Also, why do all of your monsters stop to chat? Why aren't they whacking at the party? Or chatting up the party as a way to stall the PC's until the villians plans come to fruition. (I had a DM who used that ploy to keep us busy while the Drow invaded the town that was our base of operations.) Finally, I've DM'd campaigns where players were knocking one another off as well. Pulling off one murder should be hard enough, but 9? And if your characters like to roleplay as much as you say, don't they have NPC friends and relatives who wonder how they died? In one of my campaigns I had a similar problem that was getting out of hand, until the local hero, a high level paladin, stepped in, and started an investigation into the murders, scaring the player straight. If that doesn't work, run a murder trial, something most heavy roleplaying groups love anyway. Then, if the character flubs up the trial send him to jail and have him make a new character. Or, you could have a powerful wizard, with a headache, put the entire world under a massive silence spell until someone retrieves the long lost, legendary bottle of asprin for him. Then force your players to mime all their actions until the quest was completed. It may not solve your problem, but it would probably be amusing.
#12 zombiegleemax Sep 12, 2003 8:26:20	Know watcha mean. In my group, however, they try to kill each other over things like "Aw, man, you just threw up on my shoes because you´re drunk! God damn it! YOU ARE DEAD! -bash-" I have the problem that LACK of roleplaying and only caring about "getting a new chainmail" or "getting those 200 000 copper pieces" has priority over good roleplay. To be more precise, my problem is that my group is at the opposite end of the line. And believe you me, it´s worse. As a matter of fact, the only thing that will solve such a dispute is, to simply tell them "you can´t do that. I won´t allow it." And then, it´s end of discussion. Tell them every possible lame excuse you can figure out and, if thats not enough, still do not give in. NEVER ALLOW PK! FORCE them to co-operate. Because, what they are doing by killing other PC´s are, in fact, deliberately robbing the other player, and the DM, and other players in the group, enjoyment of the game.
#13 zombiegleemax Sep 13, 2003 22:34:27	Let me start by saying that I'm not a DM; I'm a player in a group with a strict ban on PKs. But I don't think that killing other players cannot be banned outright. Of course, it shouldn't be quite as easy as just killing any NPC. Here's my solutions: 1) Levy a heavy penalty (in XP maybe) for killing another player. This is best against unruly parties that kill each other over mere trifles; they can still PK if they think it follows the strictest rules of roleplaying, but it will make them think twice about killing just for the heck of it. 2) Organize a form of special meeting that a player must do before killing a fellow player. Swamp them down in bureaucracy so as to make decapitating the halfling bard much less interesting than focusing on disemboweling the evil wizard.
#14 zombiegleemax Sep 15, 2003 19:24:26	I disagree with you on the point of PK's. Some edgier characters should be allowed to kill another player if pushed too far. However, PKing shouldn't just come easy. Either levy a high penalty in XP for attempting to kill a fellow PC, or create some additional bureaucracy (e.g. a form, a meeting) to make killing a fellow player a much less enjoyable experience.
#15 zombiegleemax Sep 16, 2003 14:06:44	Originally posted by ShadowCat Secondly, models are mandatory - you must have a completely appropriate figure, correctly dressed and equipped and you must keep your hand on it at all times. It must tip both left and right every time it moves a five foot step, when you sit down it must be leant backwards onto Blu-Tac so that the appropriate amount of torso shows above the table and when your character fights you must make swishing and clanging noises, as well as dancing it around for six seconds per round. THIS seems, to me, to point this out as being obvious satire. Come on guys. He's adding a thread of truth to his satire, to make it more believable.