Need some advice on player politics

[JDowling]

my initial response from the origonal post is that the one guy is jealous. Could be jealous b/c he wanted the guy/girl in the relationship. Could be jealous that he is single and wishes he wasn't. Could be jealous that his characters never have anyone special, w/e.

It's not like they have even planned to be a couple (or any possibility of it unless the dwarf is a homosexual, possibly a pedophile, *and* interested in inter-species shenanigans with humans).

To be bothered by that seems too petty to have a reasonable explaination, and lots (although certainly not all) of unreasonable responses are seated in emotional responses to things. The most likely emotional response that could lead to the desire to see the couple totally ignoring eachother - jealousy.

EDIT: and yeah, it would be annoying if someone always played the same character concept every single game. I'd find it more annoying to have another player say "You can't play X because I say so" though, he should at least tell me, "I'd prefer it if you'd not play X because you always freaking play X, just play something different for once". But still, if X is all I want to play, then X is all I want to play /shrug.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

We have gotten kicked out of one game for player behavior where we probably should have taken a cold shower. On the other head, the GM could ...

Best. Freudian. Slip. EVAR.

 

[TheEvil]

Best. Freudian. Slip. EVAR.

I don't know WHAT you are talking about Patryn. I don't see the text you wrote there! It says 'hand', just like is supposed to and always did!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't know WHAT you are talking about Patryn. I don't see the text you wrote there! It says 'hand', just like is supposed to and always did!

You know, just for that, I'm going to leave it unchanged in my quote!

Unless, of course, you want me to change it ...

 

[fusangite]

This is about the only condition under which I would completely approve of an in-game romance. And I think the uncle-nephew thing is a very polite accommodation the couple has made to this twit.

The fact is that the characters of couples tend to act in concert much of the time anyway with no in-game justification. This couple has been kind enough to provide creative in-game justification for this inevitability. Kudos to them.

 

[diaglo]

This is an assumption I make based on other assumptions, of course I don't know him well enough to say that he has a nasty personality, but many people seem to be missing something. The player has (Or will have) a problem with the couple playing uncle and nephew. Everyone is discussing the validity of objecting to romantic relationships but the relationship in question is now completely non-romantic. Obviously the problem is deeper than a distaste for romantic PC relationships, and when I try to empathize what kind of person would have a problem with any and all PC relationships all I can come up with is someone who wants control to the point of being completely unreasonable.

where did i mention romance between characters?


i too see it as a control issue.

the player upset by the relationship is seeing the joined players having a larger control of the game vs. the other individuals.

40% for the joined couple vs. 20% for the individuals.

 

[LadyDM]

Some of the posts wanted more info, so here goes.

Player 1 is the engaged male
Player 2 is his fiancée.
Player 3 is by his OWN admission an ass, not just in game situations, but in real life.
Players 4 & 5 are minors; one male and one female, non-couple.

Our little group started with players 1 & 3 about 6 months ago. Player 2 joined us about 2 months after that and players 4&5 joined us only a few weeks ago. When player 2 joined us, player 3 made it clear he was uncomfortable/concerned with 1 & 2 's relationship spilling over into the game. At first I thought we was just being himself, but I didn't want him to feel so uncomfortable and leave the game. Everything was OK and we played on. As the game progressed, I began to see player 1 change the way he played and began looking to player 2 for....stuff; info, encouragement, help, input on what to do; and he would TRY to alter his course of actions if he saw her in "trouble" but not the other players. (I tried to discourage this, and frequently he became upset at this) For example, while in an underground crypt, the party was attacked by wraiths. The battle was not going well for player 2 (bad die rolls) and player 1 put himself between the wraith and player 2 to protect her. (At this point in the game, their characters were not in any way related). But when player 5 was in the same danger, player 1 continued to protect player 2 and not go to his other companions aide.

After thinking about it for the past few days, and putting it down in writing above, my bottom line concern is that player 1 will continue to alter his style of play while player 2 is a member of the group. I do not want one player dictating the game atmosphere and I will talk with everyone to make it clear.

I don't want to tell players 1&2 they can't play, that's not fair to them. How do I "coach" player 1 to make his own decisions and act as an individual?

 

[TheEvil]

Okay, that helps clear things up a bit. I don't see it as making Player 3 any more reasonable, but it does look like there is a minor problem with the couple. Assuming the both Player 1 and Player 2 are relatively experienced players, I would probably talk to Player 2 about how you see Player 1's behavior. Explain your concerns and see if she agrees. If she does, ask if she will help guide his behavior. Since he is already looking to her for guidence, it would be pretty easy for her. He also might take it better if she suggests to him that his behavior is inconsistant then if you do. If she doesn't see his behavior as a problem, then you are a little more stuck. How long have the couple been together? If they are still relatively early along (first year or so), then his behavior will probably improve with time. Whether or not you or Player 3 are willing to wait is another story.

All I can think of for now, and it doesn't near cover the complicated nature of things, nor the vast potential for things to go wrong, so whatever you do, tread with care.

Good Luck!

 

[fusangite]

I don't want to tell players 1&2 they can't play, that's not fair to them. How do I "coach" player 1 to make his own decisions and act as an individual?

One of the decisions an individual can make is to defer to another individual. What you're really saying here is that you want this fellow's character to defer to your agenda instead of his fiancee's. That's undermining not reinforcing his individuality and free will.

Furthermore, you have to take into account the fact that there is always going to be a matrix of interaction between real world and in game relationships. That's why I really oppose playing out romance in game under almost all circumstances. I have never seen a couple play an RPG in which they treated eachother's PCs the same as they treated the other PCs, regardless of their in game relationship.

Let me ask you this: if these two were not a couple in real life but, for some exclusively in-game reason, character #1 began showing preferential treatment and greater intimacy with character #2, would it be more or less of a problem?

In my view, to make a party feel real, a character should like some PCs better than others and have different relationships with them. That adds realism to the game. If the characters all treat eachother the same, you're moving away from roleplaying and towards strategy gaming.

I really don't comprehend what the problem is here. Why can't two PCs have a more co-operative realtionship with one another? How does this hurt the play of the game? In fact, if you're a good GM, you can take advantage of the relationships to enrich the play of the game.

 

[diaglo]

I really don't comprehend what the problem is here.

i think you are glossing over what player 3 has said.

sure, characters can have likes and dislikes and all sorts of other interactions.

but i think it was said they do this all the time.

can you say drizzt clone? if it were done once. perhaps all could enjoy it. but repeated performances ... esp when the issue is control. would be a drag. and when player 3 admits to having a problem with it.

again how do you just gloss over it?