Players, GMs, and "My character"...

[Celebrim]

The "I'm not comfortable with your PC being in love with my PC, stop/retcon it" position is "as far into the wrong as they can be" and "twisted and sick"?

No.

My feelings are more valid than your feelings is the beginning of something wrong. It gets 'as far into the wrong as they can be' when that tilt in to wrongness twists their perceptions, so that things start coming around backwards. For example, they start defining tolerance as not their own ability to live with the decisions of others, but other peoples ability to live with them. They start defining respect not as the condition of them treating other people compassionately, but of other people acquiesing to their demands. And so forth. They start demanding a unilateral relationship while believing that they now hold the moral high ground. They think that by going passive aggressive that they've absolved themselves, and woe betide anyone who dares to tresspass on their feelings - nevermind what anyone else feels.

Things moved past the, "I hate to squelsh everyone's fun, but I'm not comfortable with this line of play, can we tone it down or change it", when they became, "I won't comprimise at all and my feelings will trump the wishes of everyone else at the table." Stop looking at this one example in particular and look at the general case. There is no evil a person will not do when they tell themselves that they have been wronged.

Ultimately what I think we are moving toward in this argument where player A is wholly in the wrong and player B fully justified, is an argument that attempts to justify the same disrespect for others player A potentially has provided you only manifest it in a reactive or proactive way instead of an active one. But that isn't really consensual play, because its unilateral in how it views the flow of authority. You end up consigning the game to the hands of the person most easily offend and who most quickly becomes indignant, and telling them that they are morally justified in doing so.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, this post above pretty much answered my question.

In your opinion, anyone who has any problems with anyone else's ideas has to either suck it up or leave.

Good luck with that.

Ultimately what I think we are moving toward in this argument where player A is wholly in the wrong and player B fully justified, is an argument that attempts to justify the same disrespect for others player A potentially has provided you only manifest it in a reactive or proactive way instead of an active one. But that isn't really consensual play, because its unilateral in how it views the flow of authority. You end up consigning the game to the hands of the person most easily offend and who most quickly becomes indignant, and telling them that they are morally justified in doing so.

How is the second person not 100% morally justified here? He's being made uncomfortable by something someone else is doing TO HIM.

Now, if he was trying to nix something someone was doing to someone else? I could see that being a problem. But, he's not. He's on the receiving end of actions from someone else that he does not want.

In what way is he not justified in saying, "No thank you."?

 

[pawsplay]

Hussar, rather than deal with extremes, I am curious if you will accept a proposition. Would you accept that someone who joins a game but rejects a number of plausible scenarios by their own personal preference is not at least, say, 2% responsible, for their own offense?

 

[thedungeondelver]

Five words that never bothered me as a DM.

"My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.

Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.

"You must spread some experience points around yadda yadda"

Anyway. This, what you said, a thousand times over, is the only right answer to the question.

If what the characters are doing is getting in the way of the story you're trying to tell, then you're not a DM, you're Garrison Keillor after a transporter accident involving a remaindered stack of Dragonlance novels.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, rather than deal with extremes, I am curious if you will accept a proposition. Would you accept that someone who joins a game but rejects a number of plausible scenarios by their own personal preference is not at least, say, 2% responsible, for their own offense?

How is that not an extreme in itself though Pawsplay? I haven't exactly brought up an extreme example. The Player 2 in the example is not rejecting a "number of scenarios", he or she is rejecting exactly one scenario.

Yes, if I sit down at a table and then reject a number of perfectly reasonable scenarios, then of course I would be to blame. I'm obviously at the wrong table. But that's a totally separate issue, and, really, your example just clouds things.

Player 2 is not being unreasonable here. A scenario that involved his character was dumped onto him without any consultation beforehand by another player. By the DM, I'm probably more willing to cut some slack, because there are all sorts of mitigating factors. But this was done by another player.

Player 2 didn't blow a gasket. He didn't freak out. He turned to player 1 and said, "Stop that, I don't like that."

And apparently, at some tables, that's not allowed. At some tables the only option that Player 2 has is to either put up and shut up or leave.

I tend to be a tad more respectful of other people's wishes. If something about my character is making someone else outright uncomfortable (not a simple dislike of the concept, but outright unhappy) it's up to me to fix that. It's certainly not the right response to completely ignore any complaints and kill someone else's character.

So, yes, it could easily be possible that Player 2 is in the wrong here. If Player 1 included Player 3 in his background and completely ignored Player 2, then Player 2 doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Within reason.

Actually, that brings up another thought. What about the rest of the group? Say two players want to engage in graphic, hardcore pornographic descriptions of BDSM during the game. Are the other players entitled to say anything? Can the other players tell them to cut it out, that the two players are making them uncomfortable?

IMO, yes. If you have exceeded the comfort level of anyone at the table, it's on you to back off.

But then, I don't presume that everyone at the table is out to sabotage the game. In my mind, someone's only going to complain when it ACTUALLY bothers them. Most players are pretty reasonable people and I make a point of not playing with those who have no respect for other people.

Someone who comes to a D&D game and then complains about the violence is being unreasonable. It's D&D, of course it's violent. However, complaining that someone's behavior specifically targeting you is making you uncomfortable should not result in you being ejected from the table.

---------------

Just to recap.

So long as everyone is being reasonable, then I got no beefs at all.

However, the reaction in this case was to blow off Player 2's concerns and kill his character.

Celebrim is claiming that this is perfectly reasonable behavior on the part of Player 1 and Player 2 should not have complained in the first place.

I disagree.

 

[pawsplay]

Let's say you're playing soccer. Player 2 is tired of getting kicked in the shins. It is entirely reasonable to not want to get kicked in the shins, and they are justified in expecting that others try not to kick them in the shins. But it is reasonable to play soccer and blame other people when you get kicked in the shins? If you play soccer, getting kicked in the shins happens. Some players are dirty, others are pretty clean, but either way... kicks to the shins are gonna happen.

Does Player 2 have a reasonable presumption that in an RPG, other players are not going to have their PCs do things typical of characters in fantasy stories that might bother them personally?

Imagine you are running a supers RPG. Player 1 spends some points on a teenaged sidekick. Player 2 says, "Look, I understand it's part of the genre and all, but I am really uncomfortable with the idea of child endangerment. I don't think it's an appropriate part of what should be light entertainment. No teenage sidekicks." Is Player 2 being reasonable? I think so. Some people object to depictions of rape, torture, drug use... I think child endangerment is fair game. I mean, Robin getting turned into hamburger by the Joker is pretty disturbing, isn't it? But is it reasonable to expect that Player 1 is just supposed to drop the issue? When Player 2 joins a supers game, aren't they tacitly accepting the risk they may have to deal with the issue of teenage sidekicks?

So... back to the scenario at hand. I think Player 1 may be out of bounds, socially, if they insist on romance or some other scenario Player 2 doesn't like. That's problematic. But from a GM standpoint, I think Player 2 is somewhat problematic. Asking someone to "suck it up" isn't necessarily fair or respectful to their feelings. But I think sometimes people are asked to deal with things. Frankly, both are potentially problem players. I would expect them to resolve the issue together, then if need be with the mediation of the group, and finally, the issue would be resolved, if need be, by one backing down or one of them leaving.

IMO, yes. If you have exceeded the comfort level of anyone at the table, it's on you to back off.

I believe that RPGs, being voluntary activity, should allow people to form and seek groups that fulfill their ideal play experience. That means that not every player is meant to play with every group in every game.

If I don't like peanut sauce, that doesn't mean my friends are never allowed to go out for Thai food. It means, sometimes they may go out without me.

However, complaining that someone's behavior specifically targeting you is making you uncomfortable should not result in you being ejected from the table.

Being given the option to take it or leave it just not the same as being ejected. If I want to go out for margaritas with my friends, the non-drinking friend is not being "ejected," he is choosing not to participate in an activity that is inappropriate for himself.

 

[Hussar]

But, Pawsplay, you keep changing the scenario.

Imagine you are running a supers RPG. Player 1 spends some points on a teenaged sidekick. Player 2 says, "Look, I understand it's part of the genre and all, but I am really uncomfortable with the idea of child endangerment. I don't think it's an appropriate part of what should be light entertainment. No teenage sidekicks." Is Player 2 being reasonable? I think so. Some people object to depictions of rape, torture, drug use... I think child endangerment is fair game. I mean, Robin getting turned into hamburger by the Joker is pretty disturbing, isn't it? But is it reasonable to expect that Player 1 is just supposed to drop the issue? When Player 2 joins a supers game, aren't they tacitly accepting the risk they may have to deal with the issue of teenage sidekicks?

Now, let's make this more analogous to what we're talking about. If player 1 wants to be Player 2's child sidekick, can Player 2 complain and say no?

Nothing in this thread has talked about what one person is doing on their own. It's entirely about what happens when one player decides unilaterally to include another player in some concept without that second player's concent or even knowledge.

Let's look at your last example:

Being given the option to take it or leave it just not the same as being ejected. If I want to go out for margaritas with my friends, the non-drinking friend is not being "ejected," he is choosing not to participate in an activity that is inappropriate for himself.

Now, is it okay for the friends to hold the person down and pour margaritas down his throat? is it okay to force someone to drink when they don't want to? Is it okay to openly mock someone for not drinking?

Because that's what's going on here. Lanefan's example has Player 1 KILLING Player 2's character because Player 2 refused to "drink margaritas".

In the workplace, this behavior would get me charged with harassment and probably fired. In a social situation, most people would call me an and rightfully so.

But, "My character would do that" is being used as an excuse to force something onto another player even after that player has said no.

It's not that a player is doing something that takes another player out of his or her comfort zone. That might be okay. It's that the second player has outright said, "This makes me very uncomfortable, please stop doing it TO ME"

Not, "Please stop doing it entirely."

 

[pawsplay]

But, Pawsplay, you keep changing the scenario.

That's not my intention. I'm trying to reply to a variety of issues that have been put forward. The purpose of the analogies in my last post is to step through my viewpoint on several specific issues that provide a foundation for what I have to say about the scenario.

Now, let's make this more analogous to what we're talking about. If player 1 wants to be Player 2's child sidekick, can Player 2 complain and say no?

Obviously. In fact, unless the game is predicated on player's having wide authorial control, I would say that Player 2 can absolutely veto that suggestion.

Nothing in this thread has talked about what one person is doing on their own. It's entirely about what happens when one player decides unilaterally to include another player in some concept without that second player's concent or even knowledge.

Let's look at your last example:

Now, is it okay for the friends to hold the person down and pour margaritas down his throat? is it okay to force someone to drink when they don't want to?

No, that's not okay.

Is it okay to openly mock someone for not drinking?

Here we are getting into a gray area. Are we in a bar? What style of mockery? What relationship do we have with this person being mocked?

Because that's what's going on here. Lanefan's example has Player 1 KILLING Player 2's character because Player 2 refused to "drink margaritas".

I already identified Player 1 as a problem player. Is that not sufficient condemnation?

In the workplace, this behavior would get me charged with harassment and probably fired. In a social situation, most people would call me an and rightfully so.

But, "My character would do that" is being used as an excuse to force something onto another player even after that player has said no.

Keep in mind, however, that we are talking about virtual force. In a typical RPG campaign, the GM is allowed and perhaps even encouraged to attempt to kill the PCs, manipulate them, poison them, and so forth.

It's not that a player is doing something that takes another player out of his or her comfort zone. That might be okay. It's that the second player has outright said, "This makes me very uncomfortable, please stop doing it TO ME"

And that could still be an unreasonable expectation, even if it is reasonable to ask them not to do it. Again, Player 2 has the right to be uncomfortable, but that doesn't trump the social covenant of role-playing.

Not, "Please stop doing it entirely."

Well, isn't it? "Even though your character would do that, I am insisting you play your character differently." You may view that as an excuse or pretext, but it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the player views things in those terms. Even if they recognize they are being rude, they may feel somewhat entitled. And even though I might condemn their behavior, in some cases I might agree they are, essentially, correct. Just as Player 2 might be entirely justified in their objections, while not automatically justified in insisting the group accomodate their preferences.

Some abstract rationing of rights certainly doesn't absolve the parties from the responsibility to make positive, productive choices. People can and do work together that have differences of opinion and differences in pesonal preference.

 

[Lanefan]

Because that's what's going on here. Lanefan's example has Player 1 KILLING Player 2's character because Player 2 refused to "drink margaritas".

Just to clarify, killing the defending character would not be the automatic result; merely the most extreme of many possibilities one of which is the equal in reverse: the instigator is killed by the defender.

Lan-"2 minutes for instigating"-efan

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim is claiming that this is perfectly reasonable behavior on the part of Player 1 and Player 2 should not have complained in the first place.

This thread is getting less interesting as it goes, but just for the record I'm not claiming that nor is there any thing you can quote by me which would indicate I'm claiming that.

I've actually taken a largely agnostic stance to which of these two theoretical players is in the wrong, as I think it could go either way and depends entirely on how you fill in the details. Personally, I'm not impressed with the summary of either players response and I'm empathetic to the concerns of both players. As I have said from the beginning, the mature response to a situation like this is going to involve comprimise and understanding on both sides - and so, it's going to be the player who shows the least understanding of the other player and the least williness to comprimise that I'm going to see as the 'problem player' here.

This thread started with a discussion of conflict between the player and the DM concerning who had to the right to play the PC. We started out discussing, "My character wouldn't do that.", as if it was only addressed to the DM. But, we aren't off topic. We are now discussing that phrase used between two players. Fundamentally, we are still engaged in a discussion of who has authority over the player's character. In the scenario that is being used as emblematic, both players are telling the other player, "My character wouldn't do that." The problimatic behavior is that player #1 is trying to enlist another player in a line of play they feel uncomfortable in, while player #2 is responding by OOC dictating to player #1 how they should play their character. But fundamentally on both sides, the question is how much control can one player have over the entire group.

I think that for the most part, people have looked at this scenario idealisticly and chosen sides and said essentially, that one player has complete authority over the rest of the group. Some people in the thread have sympathized with player #1. They've taken the position that each player has full say over how they play their character without interferance from anyone else at the table whether player or DM. They've asserted 'fundamental rights' as the basis of play, and to a certain extent I think that this is correct on an ideological level. A player is fully in his rights to play his character how he sees fit and is right to expect that in character decisions should not cause other mature players to erupt in out of character outbursts. Other readers have empathized with the feelings of the second player, and so asserted that all play should be fundamentally consensual and that no player should be required to play out anything that they really don't enjoy. And, they are also right in as far as that goes.

Everyone in this thread is in agreement that if the players behave correctly, this problem will never come up, but what people haven't I think picked up enough on is that by this point in the scenario neither player has behaved perfectly correctly and so the game has come to the point where statements about the guiding principles of the game which aren't in contridiction when players are acting wisely are now in direct conflcit. To resolve the knot of difficulty that the players have put the game in by virtue of not a priori playing in a 'compassionate' manner, the players are going to have to first restore that missing empathy - not hone cold legalism into weapons to beat each other with. If one side doesn't comprimise 100%, then some other sort of comprimise is going to be needed and crucially, neither side is being reasonable when it demands the other side just simply give up and let the other player have their way.

There is alot more than can be said on this, but I'm not sure I'm going to find the time to say it. I did want to make one last attempt to ensure that effigies and scarecrows of me talking with some other posters voice didn't get the last say on this matter. I think it should be completely clear from a reading of this thread that I'm not saying what many have accused me of saying, but if it isn't clear by this point, then all I can say is that understanding is a two way street and not all of the burden lies on my ability to write.