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

[Hussar]

Celebrim, your idea of "agnostic stance needs some work.

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,

I think I've made it very clear what my standards are and how I want to treat everyone. But if you insist you just can't comprimise then by all means leave and take your petty dictatorial emo self with you, because you will have left me no room for sympathy.

Don't expect your hangups to dictate the game that everyone else is here to play.

On the other hand, we have someone who is escallating some situation by responding to it with some OOC stance and special pleading and appeal to emotion.

Yeah, so in Hussar's example, who is that expect to get away with it because they have prefaced their stance with something designed to get the listener's empathy, and what exactly is it that they are trying to get away with?

No, I'm not attacking Hussar personally. I'm describing what I think about this hypothetical player's position, because I want to emphasize that the hypothetical player isn't mildly in the wrong by that point, or isn't merely being 'undiplomatic', is not excused on the grounds of their 'feelings', but has gotten as far into the wrong as they can be. It's twisted and sick position and it should be exposed as such before we find ourselves in that position and lest we comfort ourselves in the false belief that it is defensible and persuade ourselves to feel and act that way.

Ok, I think that's enough cherry picking.

So, exactly how are you not giving Player 1 free reign and not stepping all over Player 2? Your language condemns Player 2 in nearly every single post you've made in this thread. In almost every post you've made, Player 2 is out to squash any playstyle that doesn't agree with his, and uses pretty much every manipulative trick he can.

How is that not painting Player 2 as pretty much entirely in the wrong here?

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

Let's go back to Pawsplay's example here for a moment.

First off, a couple of assumptions:

1. Everyone at the table is mature. No one is intentionally being a dick.
2. Everyone at the table honestly believes what they are saying. They are not out to sabotage anything.

Now, the scenario was Player 1 in a superhero game decides to get a very young sidekick a la Batman. Player 2 objects because s/he doesn't feel comfortable with the child endangerment issues.

Ok, so, what happens next?

I would hope that both players sit down and discuss the issue. Perhaps a compromise can be made. Maybe the sidekick could be upped in age to say, 16 and everyone's groovy with that. I dunno, whatever works.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that a compromise can't be made. Both players are adamant in their positions.

At this point Player 1 has a choice. Which is more important? Playing his character concept or the enjoyment of everyone at the table?

To me, it's as simple as that. That's the entire issue right there. And for me, and anyone I would prefer to play with, they'll choose the enjoyment of everyone at the table every single time. There are ten billion character concepts out there and limiting off one because it's going to make someone at the table feel very uncomfortable seems a pretty easy choice to me.

Apparently, though, some people feel differently. Apparently, for some people, the enjoyment of other players is secondary to their own enjoyment of the game.

I don't play with people like that anymore, fortunately.

 

[Celebrim]

Ok, I think that's enough cherry picking.

Indeed.

Now, the scenario was Player 1 in a superhero game decides to get a very young sidekick a la Batman. Player 2 objects because s/he doesn't feel comfortable with the child endangerment issues.

Ok, so, what happens next?

They work it out.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that a compromise can't be made. Both players are adamant in their positions.

At this point Player 1 has a choice. Which is more important? Playing his character concept or the enjoyment of everyone at the table?

Yes, I agree.

However, that's equally true of Player 2. Player 2 now has a choice. Which is more important, his hangup about endangering an imaginary pre-teen in a comic book universe, or the enjoyment of everyone at the table? The responcibility goes both ways. You can cherry pick from my argument with you and you'll definately prove that I disagree with your assessment, but that doesn't in the slightest cover the whole of my stance - just highlight where I disagree with you.

If both players are adamant, they can't play together. That's what it means.

To me, it's as simple as that. That's the entire issue right there. And for me, and anyone I would prefer to play with, they'll choose the enjoyment of everyone at the table every single time.

Yes, but if that is true, then Player 2 must also comprimise. Because you insist that they should not need to comprimise, and because anyone I prefer to game with also will choose the enjoyment of everyone at the table every single time, you've pretty much stated that not only must I throw you out of the game, you must throw yourself out of the game.

Apparently, though, some people feel differently. Apparently, for some people, the enjoyment of other players is secondary to their own enjoyment of the game.

I don't play with people like that anymore, fortunately.

Yeah, well, look in the mirror and get back to me about that.

 

[Hussar]

But, why does Player 2 have to compromise? Player 1 is the one changing the situation, not Player 2. For some reason, this is always ignored.

Things are going fine, no problems. Someone changes the situation and I HAVE to compromise with the new situation? Why? I didn't do anything. You did. You brought this to the table. It's on you to sell this to the group, not to me to buy into it.

This has been my position from the start. Player 2 is minding his own business, no problems at all. Then someone else dumps this in his lap and he HAS to compromise? Umm, no.

It's up to the person who's making the changes to make sure that those changes are acceptable, not the person on the receiving end of the changes.

 

[Celebrim]

But, why does Player 2 have to compromise?

For the same reason player 1 has to comprimise. Because he's playing a consensual game as a part of a group of players.

Player 1 is the one changing the situation, not Player 2. For some reason, this is always ignored.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just acknowledging the right of the player to do so. Players don't need a license to 'change the situation'. You don't hold a vote at the beginning of every round where the player says, "Ok, am I allowed to do this? Do I have a right to influence the game world? Am I allowed to RP my character? Is this ok with you?" Players don't have to ask the DM that, and they certainly don't have to ask other players permission to do that. No one at the table has a veto over anyone else's choices.

Consider the reverse situation. Imagine that you don't have a right to 'change the situation'.

Someone changes the situation and I HAVE to compromise with the new situation? Why?

Because that's how you role-play. Someone throws something out there and you go with it. You don't throw a hissy fit, go OOC and get in someone's face over it. Yes, players have a responsibility to think before acting. They should try to respect other players boundaries. But basically we can shorten this down to 'Players should respect each other." Your argument comes down to, "Everyone should respect my wishes and desires, but I shouldn't have to respect their wishes and desires. My feelings are more important than their feelings."

As I keep saying, and as you refuse to hear, it has to be a two way street. Comprimise isn't one way to resolve this, it's the only way. It's only when you assert that comprimise is impossible that we have to discuss whether this table is right for you, because it's only then that you've literally removed the possibility of your fellow players sympathy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

They work it out.

That's just crazy talk.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

I think this is the point where your argument breaks down... or, at least, veers wildly away from what some of us have been trying to discuss.

It's been said a few times that 'trying to find a compromise' between players 1 and 2 could be an acceptable resolution to player 2 objecting to being involved in player 1's backstory. The point at which player 2 has been undeniably wronged is when player 1 refused to enter into discussion about the issue, and instead decided the appropriate response is to take it out either through in-character attacks or out-of-character harassment. Are you really unwilling to acknowledge that player 2, in this example, is the one who was refusing to compromise?

And that all the people in this thread who have objected to Lanefan's style of play have not been objecting to player 1 wanting to involve another character in his background, but in saying that the appropriate way to react, when asked not to do such a thing, is to harass the player, give them a bad time, and kill their character and take their stuff?

You've said we should look at the general case. But the general case isn't what people have been discussing, and isn't what you were initially responding to. I don't object to the claim that a compromise can be potentially the best resolution. And I do acknowledge there can be situations where the player wanting to 'veto' certain behavior is the one causing a problem at a table.

I recall a table where someone was playing a druid or ranger who was devoted to the woodlands. The party was attacked by an evil druid. The PC declared that we shouldn't fight back agaisnt the evil druid, that nature could do no wrong, and that he wasn't comfortable being part of a party that would fight against innocent animals. I don't know how much of that was in-character or out-of-character perspective, but yes, his request of the table was unreasonable, and all the more so when his inevitable decision in-character was to join in the druid attacking the party.

But... at the same time, I think some areas of comfort need to respected. There is a difference in trying to force the other PCs to go along with your character's beliefs, and in trying to persuade someone not to make you uncomfortable. And trying to involve other characters in unwanted romantic entanglements? Stalking and harassment? Yeah, that is crossing a line. And the other party involved should most certainly have the right to ask you not to cross it.

There is no evil a person will not do when they tell themselves that they have been wronged.

Yeah, I think this is a kinda random, extreme, unrelated philosophical point. In the example we've discussed, what the 'wronged' person has done is request to not have another player involve them in a form of roleplaying that they find uncomfortable. Tying 'evil' into that is all sorts of problematic.

I mean, at its core, I think I get what you are saying. That the goal is for everyone to have fun here, and so everyone should try and work with other players to make sure they are enjoying whatever makes the game fun. And so if two views of 'fun' come into conflict, the appropriate response should be to try and compromise.

But in this specific example, one person's view of fun involves romantically pursuing another character. For some, that isn't a point they are willing to compromise. And maybe the answer is that one of them needs to leave the campaign.

If the campaign is, up front, all about uncomfortable elements - if mature and disturbing plots is part of the game theme and something expected at the table - than maybe player 2 is the one who is a bad fit, and should decide to leave the game. If the campaign doesn't have that as a theme, though, I think player 1 is the one introducing inappropriate elements. And if his fun requires another player/character to be involved in an unwanted romantic relationship, I'd generally assume he is the one who needs to stop it or leave the game, before matters get completely out of hand.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Now, the scenario was Player 1 in a superhero game decides to get a very young sidekick a la Batman. Player 2 objects because s/he doesn't feel comfortable with the child endangerment issues.

That's an interesting case but, imo, a different issue to that of the IC romance. This is a question of genre versus realism. Some superhero games adhere more to genre, some are more realistic, most are somewhere in between. I actually think 'They work it out' is the wrong answer to this one. Here I'd very much look to the GM to tell us how realistic or otherwise this game was supposed to be.

I should also point out that child sidekicks are much more a Golden Age thing, and have been out of fashion in superhero comics for about 60 years. Batman is, ofc, a Golden Age character, having first appeared in 1939. If you created a Batman type today he wouldn't have a kid sidekick. For questions of 'Which age are we in?' I would also look to the GM for resolution.

 

[Mikaze]

But... at the same time, I think some areas of comfort need to respected. There is a difference in trying to force the other PCs to go along with your character's beliefs, and in trying to persuade someone not to make you uncomfortable. And trying to involve other characters in unwanted romantic entanglements? Stalking and harassment? Yeah, that is crossing a line. And the other party involved should most certainly have the right to ask you not to cross it.

I'd go as far as saying that accusing the player that is uncomfortable being involved against their will in those particular elements smacks of blaming the victim. I'd always thought that was the standard for the general playing populace.

Some lines you don't cross without the other player's consent. That is part of the RPGing social contract in our neck of the woods at least.

 

[the Jester]

But, why does Player 2 have to compromise? Player 1 is the one changing the situation, not Player 2. For some reason, this is always ignored.

I am finding that a lot of people seem to have a kind of blinders on here.

To go back to the original concept: Player A decides that his pc secretly loves player B's pc.

Player B gets weirded out and demands he stop it.

Now, I would TOTALLY agree that player A is out of line IF his backstory included any assumed actions or feelings on pc B's part. Otherwise, to me, player B is way out of line to tell player A how to run his character.

If pc B gets creeped out, the way to handle it is in character. If player B gets creeped out, it's worth talking about the situation; but really, telling player A he has to compromise his pc's emotional attitude is like telling someone that they can't play a halfling because you're uncomfortable with little people, even though you're another player instead of the dm.

If pc B is too creeped out by pc A, then the party kicks A out of the group. If he insists on following, they kill him and take his stuff or leave him tied to a tree or cripple him or scare him off or... etc ad infinitum. But this whole "Hey Joe, the way you roleplay the characteristics of your pc that I only know about because you told me out of game makes me uncomfortable" thing is just ridiculous. In the original scenario, remember, the pcs (other than pc A) don't know about A's love for B, and he doesn't even really express it (except through sort of strong & silent defense of her honor, etc).

Now, if the PLAYER of pc A is stalking the PLAYER of pc B it's entirely different. That's a whole different story. But really, I'm amazed that so many people seem to have blown up "my pc silently loves another pc" into some kind of "STALKER OMFG OH NOES" scenario.

I'm with Celebrim: if you don't want to be in a roleplaying game- you know, one with players playing characters that have personalities, desires, feelings, etc that are separate from the players'- then god dammit, accept that the players are going to roleplay, and you do NOT get to decide how the other players play their characters.

 

[Celebrim]

It's been said a few times that 'trying to find a compromise' between players 1 and 2 could be an acceptable resolution to player 2 objecting to being involved in player 1's backstory. The point at which player 2 has been undeniably wronged is when player 1 refused to enter into discussion about the issue, and instead decided the appropriate response is to take it out either through in-character attacks or out-of-character harassment. Are you really unwilling to acknowledge that player 2, in this example, is the one who was refusing to compromise?

I'm not assigning blame either way. However, I have previously said that I would consider the most obvious marker of the 'problem player' here to be the one that wasn't willing to comprimise (taking a ridiculously extreme position as the starting point of negotiation would be one example, but not the one I'd most expect to see).

The point when player #2 is undeniably wronged is when player #1 refuses to modify his line of play to address player #2's concerns once he's become aware of them. But this also has to work the other way. The point where player #1 is undeniably wronged is when player #2 refuses to modify his line of play to address player #1's concerns. When you go to the OOC appeal to a player because you are uncomfortable, there should be an understanding that you are taking an extraordinary step. If a the PC of player #1 'gets fresh' with the PC of player #2, and player #2 has his PC slap the first character and threaten them with physical harm if it happens again, that's a completely acceptable line of play and maybe even what player #1 expected. This is only pretend conflict between the players. When player #2 however addresses player #1 out of character, we've gone to real conflict (initiated by player #2). Likewise, if player #1 fails to 'get the hint' and persists to harrass player #2's character despite the fact that the line of play seems unwelcome both ICly and OCCly, then we've gone to real conflict (initiated by player #1).

Once we get to real conflict between the players and not intraparty conflict by mutual concent, then there really is no other recourse than to work it out. It may help to appeal to the authority of the GM if both parties agree to this and are willing to respect the decision, but it may not. Ultimately, the GM is just another player and all the GM can do is help the players understand the game world and try to arbitrate as best as he's able. Ultimately, the decision is in the hands of the players. If they can't agree to how to handle the conflict, one or more may have to abandon the game.

And that all the people in this thread who have objected to Lanefan's style of play have not been objecting to player 1 wanting to involve another character in his background, but in saying that the appropriate way to react, when asked not to do such a thing, is to harass the player, give them a bad time, and kill their character and take their stuff?

Ironicly, there have been quite a few people in the thread who have argued player #2's appropriate response is to ICly give the player a bad time, kill their character, and take their stuff. I'm only asserting that if you think that that is a good idea for player #2, you have to accept that player #1 has every right to that approach as well.

And to be honest, I'm somewhat more empathetic to both claims, than the claim that someone can just go OOC, assert how they don't 'feel comfortable with this', and expect everyone to immediately conform to their desire. Before I'd empathize with that, it requires a lot more unconsensual and extreme case than anything that has been outlined here. An example would be essentially character rape, where one player dominated another player and forced them to engage in sexual acts or other perversions against their will, although, in complete fairness for some settings and game systems (VtM for example) that line of play could have implied consent. In this case, player #1 has taken away all oppurtunity for player #2 to respond except by an OOC appeal.

I recall a table where someone was playing a druid or ranger who was devoted to the woodlands. The party was attacked by an evil druid. The PC declared that we shouldn't fight back agaisnt the evil druid, that nature could do no wrong, and that he wasn't comfortable being part of a party that would fight against innocent animals. I don't know how much of that was in-character or out-of-character perspective, but yes, his request of the table was unreasonable...

His request was it was unreasonable mainly because it muddled IC and OOC stances.

....and all the more so when his inevitable decision in-character was to join in the druid attacking the party.

No, it was made less so. Not that I approve of the overall stance, but at least he was getting back into an IC stance and playing his character.

But... at the same time, I think some areas of comfort need to respected. There is a difference in trying to force the other PCs to go along with your character's beliefs, and in trying to persuade someone not to make you uncomfortable.

I think it's only a matter of degree. The problem here is that different players are going to have different beliefs as to what is 'over the line'. Those have to be worked out through comprimise.

I mean, at its core, I think I get what you are saying. That the goal is for everyone to have fun here, and so everyone should try and work with other players to make sure they are enjoying whatever makes the game fun. And so if two views of 'fun' come into conflict, the appropriate response should be to try and compromise.

Yes.

But in this specific example, one person's view of fun involves romantically pursuing another character.

So?

For some, that isn't a point they are willing to compromise. And maybe the answer is that one of them needs to leave the campaign.

Yes. And that I believe brings you into complete agreement with me.