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

[Raven Crowking]

Again, in order to determine whether or not "I'm uncomfortable" is reason to stop, do you agree that we need to consider the context? Why does that need what you would consider "a proper argument" to answer? You either think the context important, or not.

If the context is important, then we agree on the larger issue -- do I need to consider the context?

If the context is not important, AFAICT there is no twisting going on. Unwillingness to consider the importance of context is and was, AFAICT, a major factor involved with the anti-D&D movement. I.e., "It contains spells, which makes me uncomfortable" united with an unwillingness to consider, or to consider important, the context of those spells. Etc., etc.

I have had the dubious pleasure of engaging in those arguments in the 1980's. IME, the arguments being made here mirror them very, very closely. YMMV, and YEMV.

Now, in deference to the site, and to its fine moderators, I am going to do my utter best to tone down the conversation (from my end). But the point remains outstanding: The anti-D&D movement doesn't limit its social circle at their door; they are concerned with the larger community. The guy playing the secret admirer doesn't extend the other player's decision-making ability to that secret admirer character; he limits it to that player's own character. Neither of these limitations or extensions is inherently more valid than the other. IOW, while I agree that you dismissed the point upthread, I disagree that your dismissal was a rational one.



RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Give me an example where Person A does something to Person B, Person B states they are uncomfortable, and Person A is in the right in not backing off.

Until you do, you are babbling and bringing up unrelated instances.

 

[Edvamp]

Earlier in the thread one of the focuses of debate between people was whether or not a particular game element was inherent to the game. Quite a few people on both sides immediately realized that player #2 could be shown to be 'in the wrong' if they could show that the objection was to something that people generally accepted as being an inherent part of D&D.

I think it is easier than that. Depending on context you can create situations where Player 1 is wrong, Player 2 is wrong, neither are wrong and both are wrong, with the information we have on hand. I do think that with what we do know about this situation my opinion is that this particular fictional group did not have an existing rule about PC on PC romance. The situation probably had never come up so Player 1 might have wanted to try it out.

See, the problem with attempting to prove that romance is or isn't inherently part of the game is that whatever is inherently part of the game is entirely an opinion.*

Completely agreed.

Everyone I think agreed that if the table had some existing rule permitting or excluding a form of play, then the table rule trumped someone's feelings of discomfort. That is to say, everyone in this thread has already agreed that in some cases the game is more important than making a friend comfortable. This isn't even a point of contriversy. It's something no one in the thread objected to earlier. Really however, it's unfair to say that anyone said, "the game is more important than a friend." What we all agreed to is (more or less) "Sometimes the needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few or the one."**

Well, if a group decides in advance to restrict certain elements, say a group with Christian gamers deciding not to including demon summoning, for example, wouldn't that be an example of restricting game elements because making the Christian players comfortable was deemed more important? To be clear, I am not saying such a rule would be wrong, just showing that establishing rules in advance doesn't mean making the game more important than making a friend comfortable. It could mean the exact opposite.

Now people are saying things like, "People outside the social circle don't get a say in what's going on inside the social circle. However, once inside my social circle then if they object to what is going on then we have to stop whatever we are doing." But we don't need to go as far a field as 'Jack Chick' to show that 'the social circle' in the example is being defined circularly, "And by social circle, I mean those people that I play with, who I've previously defined as only making objections I'm sympathetic to". We only have to go back into the thread to read those same people coming up with exceptions where they weren't sympathetic to player #2's objections and that - in their opinion - those objections weren't like the objection 'Your PC on PC romance is making me uncomfortable."

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but one thing I responded to in this regard was a comment by ProfessorCirno where he stated:

In every other social situation in the world, someone saying "I'm not comfortable" is the giant neon sign of "Ok, time to stop."

Now I took 'every other social situation in the world' to mean any kind of social interaction between two or more people, not just the social circle of you and your friends and not just the social circle of your gaming group. So that would include parties, restaurants, people on a bus, family, internet forums, places of employment, etc. I was just trying to show that there could be social situations where someone expressing discomfort does not automatically mean time to stop. Assigning absolutes to such a wide range of activities involving people makes me, for lack of a better word, uncomfortable.

What I did not mean to imply was that someone's feelings should be considered less important just because you game with them, and I hope I did not give that impression.

 

[the Jester]

I get that's what you are saying. I just... I honestly, truly find it a self-defeating statement.

Kicking a friend out of a game is a ready way to hurt a friendship. You have said that it is something you are willing to do if you feel the friend isn't a good fit for the game, if they ask something like avoiding any intense interaction with spiders. That seems like you are willing to risk their friendship in order to preserve your right to use spiders in your game.

Aargh.

First of all, kicking a friend out of a game that they will not be comfortable playing is probably a good way to continue a friendship. Rather than "force" him or her to deal with spiders (or what have you, pick an example) or "force" me to limit my game, why not acknowledge that it's better to hang out at the movies, the park, over beers and dinner, etc. without gaming together?

Secondly, I have not been saying I'd kick the guy with issues out of my table, I've been saying he wouldn't be there in the first place. Pre-selection to avoid trouble is better than making someone compromise their fun to smooth stuff over.

Are you saying that anyone that wants in a given campaign should be allowed to join? Don't you think there's something to be said for picking your players? Are you really arguing that I can't be friends with someone if I don't game with them? Or that I can't be friends with someone after I've said, "Sorry, you don't seem to have the same expectations as the rest of the group- I don't think you're a good fit for the table"? Because, swear to juice, I can be friends with you without gaming with you. Heck, I have a ton of non-gaming friends, just as I have some friends that don't drink. So do I invite them out for a night drinking? No. Does that mean they aren't my friends? Of course not. It just means that I hang out with a given person when it is appropriate to do so, not indiscriminately.

 

[Rel]

So yeah it pretty much looks like positions are becoming more entrenched, arguments are going further and further afield and people are getting compared to Jack Chick. That's the textbook definition of a thread that needs closing.