Reminding other players to RP

[Mastikator]

Is it OK for one player to tell another player how to roleplay his character, or more specifically, remind the player of the personality traits.

Let me give an example to illustrate.
Player Joe is playing a rogue, player Jessy is playing a paladin.
Jessy's paladin orders Joe's rogue to "can you sneak over there and kill that enemy while I create a diversion?". At this point, Joe says "woah, timeout, would a paladin really order an assassination?", Jessy says "hmm, good point, I take it back, I don't say that".
Note that Joe's rogue would've been ok with that tactic, but Joe doesn't think Jessy's paladin would.

My question boils down to, is it Joe's place to tell Jessy how to play his character?

[Xiander]

Is it OK for one player to tell another player how to roleplay his character, or more specifically, remind the player of the personality traits.

Let me give an example to illustrate.
Player Joe is playing a rogue, player Jessy is playing a paladin.
Jessy's paladin orders Joe's rogue to "can you sneak over there and kill that enemy while I create a diversion?". At this point, Joe says "woah, timeout, would a paladin really order an assassination?", Jessy says "hmm, good point, I take it back, I don't say that".
Note that Joe's rogue would've been ok with that tactic, but Joe doesn't think Jessy's paladin would.

My question boils down to, is it Joe's place to tell Jessy how to play his character?

Personally, i dislike the phrase "your character wouldn't do that!".

That said, i find it completely fair to point out facts to other players, granted that these are facts that player could or should have noticed himself. Basicly, "your character class requires you to live by a strict moral codex, are you going to risk breaking that?" is okay, "Your character is a nice guy who wouldn't ask me to kill people." is not.

[W3bDragon]

Is it OK for one player to tell another player how to roleplay his character, or more specifically, remind the player of the personality traits.

Sometimes people zone out. Sometimes people do stupid things. It happens. Having someone remind them that their character would or wouldn't do something is not only justified, it should also be appreciated. However, that responsibility should normally fall onto the DM. If a helpful player decides to chime in like in your example, then no harm done, mostly because its a very clear cut situation in your example.

However, there will be times when it won't be as clear. There will be times when the player will not take the advice given and proceed as he wishes. He should be allowed to do so without any pestering or arguing. Something along the lines of "Are you sure you know what you're doing? You do? Fine. Carry on." should be sufficient.

[Silus]

With the given situation, it would depend on the target I think. If the intended target was innocent? Yeah, the Pally would be out of line. But say the target is, say, a necromancer that is a known evil being? I think underhanded methods are ok so long as good and law is being upheld and evil is being punished. Case in point, Inquisitors and Grey Guard.

Depends on the situation with that sort of stuff, but with general things (Like if a character forgets they're playing a male/female) then I don't see it as a problem to remind them.

[Lady Serpentine]

Yeah, that sort of thing is going to be situational, not only with IC stuff but with varying conceptions of setting elements. If the DM has a different conception of something than the standard one, your gut interpretation may be off, and that'll be something you need to remember - being reminded that your character wouldn't do something when there's no reason in that specific game that they wouldn't could get quite annoying, and actually, if you decided to just give up and go along with it, prevent you from playing the character the way you'd intended to.

[Socratov]

first:

on the topic of palladins and their moral code: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34312 (listen to this man Peregrine, he is wise beyond WotC when it comes to palladins) refer to honerable combat. tl;dr: argue not about the code, but the rules of engagement and for a leader the effective use of troops (also, styaing alive)

second:

it's not ordering an assassination, the fight is allready going on. the palladin just used a tactic without hoggin the spotlight (avoiding pride), protecting partymembers (taking the hits), and staying alive (ordering someone to kill the mofo while said pally is taking the hits).

third:

on the subject of players tellin gother people how to run their character: this is a rather weak example. The discussion on metagaming is a debate rather not started since there is no definitive answer (meaning: a bit is ok, too much is destructive to the campaign, too little could yield a lot of problems). What transpired here is a friendly suggestion about the morality of the palladin. It is up to the palladin player to give a) notion to the suggestion, b) to act on it. We players are all humans and might forget a detail or mae a slight mistake. Otherwise players would need to rethink their steps 5 times per action or thought as not to do things spontaneously that woudl wreck their character (pally's especially due to their 'sensitive' alignment prerequisite)

fourth:

think about this, but then in the opposite direction.

fifth:

Palladins are not gods, they ar still mortals and while they are bound to a higher morality, they are still human(oid) and prone to judgemental errors, their gods know that and they accept these errors as long as they aren't that serious and moral abusive.

[pasko77]

Personally, i dislike the phrase "your character wouldn't do that!".

That said, i find it completely fair to point out facts to other players, granted that these are facts that player could or should have noticed himself. Basicly, "your character class requires you to live by a strict moral codex, are you going to risk breaking that?" is okay, "Your character is a nice guy who wouldn't ask me to kill people." is not.

It depends. If the character has behaved consistently until now, and the player has zoned out for a moment and entered "chess mode" (it happens) and forgets the moral/intellectual bias of the character, it is fair to remind them "ehi dude, I know this is a smart move, but you are actually roleplaying Krokk the retarded."

[Xiander]

It depends. If the character has behaved consistently until now, and the player has zoned out for a moment and entered "chess mode" (it happens) and forgets the moral/intellectual bias of the character, it is fair to remind them "ehi dude, I know this is a smart move, but you are actually roleplaying Krokk the retarded."

Sure, but I would always end that sentence in a question mark. I would not tell another player what to do, but i would ask him: "Does that action really fit your character?".

It seems most fair to let player play their own characters in stead of each others.

[valadil]

Could you remind him in character? "Um Mr. Paladin, didn't you lecture me about how sneaking was evil a couple weeks ago?" Or something to that effect.

[JellyPooga]

So long as the reminder is justified, there's nothing wrong with a little nudge, especially if the player is unfamiliar (for whatever reason) with the details of the realm of his particular character. However, making assumptions about someones character and saying "you wouldn't do that" is just annoying.

"Good" Example; If Jim is playing as a Cleric, but isn't intimately familiar with the intricacies of his churches politics within that setting and commits what would be a social gaff, I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to point out that as a Cleric of his faith, he would know that doing that's probably a bad idea.

"Bad" Example; Jims Barbarian is an outcaste noble of moderate intelligence who happens to have adopted an aggressive fighting style. It's not cool for someone to point out that he wouldn't have any etiquette "because he's a barbarian".

[Jay R]

I depends on way too many variables: the situation, the speaker, the listener, their relationship, how it's said, etc.

In a game of Champions a few years ago, somebody did something I thought unbecoming a superhero, and asked, "Can we be the good guys?"

It went over so well that it became a standard response to a plan we didn't like, used on me as often as anyone else.

But it's important to realize that everyone at the table had been role-playing friends for at least ten years, and the one I said it to had been in various role-playing games for over twenty. I don't recommend saying this to somebody you haven't kn own for years.

(Some time later, I wrote the "Silver Age Code" and the "Modern Age Code" as Disadvantages for the game, just to keep our hero archetypes straight.)

[Clawhound]

Agree.

D&D is a team sport. When the other players are speaking for the good of game or the good of the immersion, whether politely done or not, that is in the realm of good stuff. Its best when done with good grace, but not required.

Sometimes you argue in the team, too. That's not bad as long as you stick to the rules of good arguing.

I think that your example was great. The player said, "Time out." That indicated that he wanted to step out of game. He then asked a challenging question to a situation that broke immersion for him. I presume that he accepted whatever answer the paladin gave.

Where it's bad is when ego or disrespect come into play.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Personally, I like doing these "reminders" in-character.

Paladin: "Can you sneak over there and kill that enemy while I create a diversion?"

Rogue: "Sure thing, boss. Glad to see you're finally OK with how us 'low born' handle things. Now, do you want me to slit his throat before he sees me, or to do it the fun way?"

...now, if I'm the DM I will remind Players when they're doing something that looks OOC. Players do forget things sometimes and may not realize what they're doing at the moment. That said, the Player can go and do whatever he wants so long as I'm convinced he understands what he's doing