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

[Hussar]

For example, if I have two colleagues at work who in a private conversation good naturedly rib each other about their personal appearance, or even touchy things like race or gender, if I overhear that, what real grounds do I have for taking offense at comments not directed at me and which the parties in the conversation thought amusing. I'm asserting a right to be offended that I don't actually have. No real harm came to me. The people I observed were clearly tolerant of each other, what grounds do I have for injecting my intolerance? Granted, this is not a clear cut bright line sort of thing, but that is exactly my point

Harrassment laws would like to have a word with you.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I consider two possible scenarios:
Scenario One: Five people all sitting around the table playing an RPG. Although they would like to individually enjoy themselves, these five have all decided that every time a conflict of interests arises, they will all defer to the enjoyment of others. In other words, each of the five is trying to guess what everyone else wants and provide it for them.
Scenario Two: Five people all sitting around the table playing an RPG. Although they would like the other group members to enjoy themselves, these five have all decided that every time a conflict of interests arises, they are going to assert their own preference. In other words, each of the give is trying to enjoy themselves as best they can, even if the others are unsuccessful in doing so.

The gaming table is not a Prisoner's Dilemma. When decision points arise no one is splitting the group up, locking you in separate rooms, and demanding that you make you decision without input from the rest of the group.

By playing a game you are already engaged in a social activity.

Talk to each other.

 

[pawsplay]

People keep trying to make this apply in all cases, coming up with scenario after scenario where it might not be true and pointing, "See! It's unreasonable to listen to Player 2 here, so, we should never listen to Player 2."

People who? You responded to my post, yet I have not advocating ignoring Player 2, or anyone else.

No. If a player at the table has honestly drawn the line at some behavior, you have two choices and only two choices.

You can choose to ignore their concerns or you can respect their concerns.

The problem with this proposition, is that while undoubtedly true, it does not tell you what to do. Essentially everyone has agreed to respect their concerns, but not everyone agrees on how the situation should be handled.

Again, I don't play with people who would willingly put their own fun ahead of anyone else at the table.

Not even someone, let's call them Player 3, who is just rarely happy with anything you do? Someone who complains and insists people accomodate their sensitivities? Because me, if I were playing with a jerk, I would kick them out of my game. You seem to be saying you wouldn't do that, because that would be putting your fun ahead of theirs. If you can clarify why that's not true, let me know.

So, according to you, Player 2 should put up with Player 1's behavior, because they should put Player 1's fun first. But Player 1 should modify their behavior, because they should put Player 2's fun first. So, in conclusion...

if Player 1 does something Player 2 objects to, Player 2 should say nothing and Player 1 should halt the behavior. I kind of see a logical problem there, but maybe you can help me out.

Really, this comes down to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The prerequisite, which many people miss, is that you must treat yourself with respect. It doesn't say to do BETTER unto others than you would do unto yourself, because frankly, that leads to an inconsistent position, as explored above, and in the end benefits no one, which is the opposite of benefitting everyone.

A truly, radically ethical person who believed in altruism would put their fun EXACTLY EQUAL to the fun of every other person in the group. Yes?

 

[pawsplay]

The gaming table is not a Prisoner's Dilemma. When decision points arise no one is splitting the group up, locking you in separate rooms, and demanding that you make you decision without input from the rest of the group.

By playing a game you are already engaged in a social activity.

Talk to each other.

I am a big fan of talking. Five people not communicating their own personal interests is indeed a prisoner's dilemma, as they are all prisoners of a perverse system. Feel free to read my previous posts in this thread, in which I repeatedly explain that the ideal situation is for everyone to talk about the issue and come to a consensus.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"My character wouldn't do that!"

The five words that make every GM's blood run cold. It could be an unbitten adventure hook, a intriguing story twist, or simply a refusal to except the majority vote on which hall to turn down. What we have here is a power-struggle between player and GM, using the only narrative tool a player has; control of his character, to utterly stop any forward momentum the GM may have.

How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?

I've never had a player say that to me because I've never told a player what his character was doing- its his or her PC, after all. I set up the environment and ask the players what they're going to do.

Even when the campaign dictates that a PC is mind-controlled or has been replaced by a doppelganger or some such, I don't run the player's PC. Instead, I talk to the player whose PC has been affected. I then tell them to play the PC with this in mind.

 

[pawsplay]

I harness Fritz Perls, gestalt psychotherapist, to articulate some ideas relevant to gaming:

I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.

 

[Lanefan]

.... And, as I've said several times - if one player's issue with a campaign is an irreconcilable one, the burden will likely be on them to leave the game. If a game is up-front designed for an evil party to do terrible things, and will deal with mature themes and content, then someone who will be disturbed by that behavior shouldn't be playing the game.

Yet to go back to my original example, one PC having a crush on another PC does not come under any of "evil"*, "terrible things", or "mature themes and content". Or, dare I suggest that if it does there's a bigger problem rearing its head.

* - assuming for this purpose that both PCs are non-evil

Like I said, the line can fall in various places. Each group needs to find out for themselves where it lies. And when conflict comes up between two different players, there is no guarantee of who will be in the right. But when they activity is initiated by one player, and involves another player against their will or desire, I'd say the burden is on the first player to back down.

Perhaps, thoguh I'd say the second player also needs to ask the mirror why such a simple thing makes him-her so uncomfortable. Maybe there'll be a legitimate answer, and that's fair enough. But far too often there won't be...
[

Really, this comes down to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Absolutely. If I'm giving out a bad time in the game I always expect to get it back, or worse - and usually do.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps, thoguh I'd say the second player also needs to ask the mirror why such a simple thing makes him-her so uncomfortable. Maybe there'll be a legitimate answer, and that's fair enough. But far too often there won't be...

Legitimate to who? To Player 1? To Player 2? How do you judge "legitmacy"?

The player has complained to you, that what you are doing is making him/her uncomfortable. Not that the campaign is bad, or that you are bad or anything else. The player has complained about this specific element.

Your response is to tell him to go "ask the mirror"?

I already posted why I wouldn't want to engage in this. I have zero interest in playing out romance in an RPG. It's not something I would enjoy. I don't like romance fiction and playing it out in a game would make me very uncomfortable.

Now I need more reason than that to make you stop?

If we were playing in a romance campaign, then fine, I'm to blame. No question. If you had asked first and I said ok, then, again, I'm totally to blame. Got no issues there.

But, you dumped this on me (or rather Player 1 dumped this on Player 2) without any consultation. Player 2 says no thanks.

Why is this even an issue?

Note, if you then turned to Player 3 and asked if it was ok, and Player 3 said fine, then, sure, I'd have no problem with Player 2 sitting down and being quiet. In game romance is not a terrible thing and it's probably not something that will make people uncomfortable to watch.

At least, it wouldn't bother me. If you want to engage in a PC romance with another PC, and that PC is ammenable, go for it. I'd have a lot less sympathy for Player 2 for trying to stop two other players. Again, within reason. There are certain topics that might be difficult - politics, abuse, that sort of thing.

But, if a player does not want to engage with you on something you have brought to the table then that should always be the end of the story.

 

[pawsplay]

But, if a player does not want to engage with you on something you have brought to the table then that should always be the end of the story.

Why? And I'm not going to buy "respect," since you do not have a monopoly on that quality. Why isn't it the beginning? Why does it mean drop it, rather than the player dropping out? You keep stating this as if it were a natural law, and your reasoning is simply not clear to me. Help me out here.

 

[Hussar]

Why? And I'm not going to buy "respect," since you do not have a monopoly on that quality. Why isn't it the beginning? Why does it mean drop it, rather than the player dropping out? You keep stating this as if it were a natural law, and your reasoning is simply not clear to me. Help me out here.

Because you are the one changing the game. You are the one who has changed the gaming environment, not the other person. The other person hasn't done anything. He's sitting there, minding his own business and it's your actions which are causing him to be uncomfortable.

Sure, it should be talked out. And 99 times out of a 100, some compromise will be reached and everyone is happy. That's the way it should work.

But, in that one other time, when there can be no compromise, it's the person who's actively making the other person uncomfortable that has to give way.

Driving someone from a gaming table because I refuse to amend some new idea I bring to the table is bad play, IMO.

Or, put it another way. If you didn't bring this new element to the game, everyone would be happy. Your happiness likely doesn't depend on this new idea. You think it's a good idea and something you'd like to try. Great. But, that, in no way obligates anyone to accept that new idea.

The new idea is causing problems. Since it's a new idea, it's not something that is required for what we are doing. Therefore, it's better to drop the new idea than kick someone out of the game for not accepting it.