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

[Raven Crowking]

If we allow consideration of live-action play, the line's a whole lot more hazy.

Yes. And, if you find yourself hiding in the steam tunnels below the university, perhaps Mazes and Monsters isn't for you.

It is only the extreme example to make the point that sometimes it does make sense to just state the issue baldly.

In your example, though, the problem was related to the player, and it shouldn't have been each individual player's problem to deal with it -- there should have been an official report, and the player should have been banned.

Also, the same steps still apply:

Can I deal with this IC? Answer: No.
Can there be a compromise? Answer: No.
Can we deal with this as a group? Answer: I certainly hope so.​

Because there are corner cases where the answers Questions 1 & 2 (the ideal first and second ways of dealing with the issue) are so obvious that they don't need to be consciously asked doesn't somehow negate their general relevance.

Indeed, had the people involved followed the line of reasoning above, one would hope that an official report would have been filed.

No one is claiming that there is no legitimate reason for making a complaint OOC. The argument is merely that simply making a complaint OOC doesn't automatically validate that complaint.


RC

 

[the Jester]

But it isn't a completely internal matter for PC 1 the moment he tries to role-play it out with PC 2.

What is at issue here is player 1's ability to decide on his motivations. His actions are always up to him too. Telling the other pc he's romantically interested isn't even really part of the original scenario. Still, I'll chew this one over for you. The answer is the same. PC 1 can say or do what he likes in game as long as he is willing to face the in-game consequences.

Honestly, what it all boils down to is- for my table, anyway- it is completely ridiculous to try to place your character "above" or "outside" of the campaign setting and the events of it, which include betrayal, death, murder and yes, romance. I would no more make PC 1 untouchable by romance than I would by evil cultists ("I'm uncomfortable with non-Christian religions in game), demons and devils ("I'm uncomfortable with the existence of Satanic imagery in game"), spiders ("I'm an arachnaphobe, and I'm uncomfortable with giant spider attacks") or any other element.

If any of those are deal-breakers, by all means, leave the table. Quit the game. It's not for me to force you into an uncomfortable game, but neither is it for you to dictate how other players play their characters.

For example: if player 1 (player, not character) is physically touching Player 2 in any why that makes player 2 uncomfortable, it is okay to say so, right then and there, and it is probably best to do so.

But now you're stepping way outside of the parameters of the discussion. Has anyone argued that it's okay if:

-One player tries to molest another?
-One player tries to beat up another?
-One player tries to force another to eat or drink his favorite snack?

We are quite clearly talking about an entirely different matter here because, instead of it being the actions of characters that are in question, it's the actions of the players that are in question.

Put another way, while I wouldn't let one player stop another pc from having a background that included mass murder, I wouldn't want a mass murderer as one of my players. (And a smart group of pcs will not recruit pcs unsuitable to their party. If someone insists on making a character that won't fit in, the characters handle it- and ultimately, the player makes a new character or sits on his heels waiting for the 20% of the time that he's going to get vs. the rest of the time that the others get. The idea that every pc must be allowed to join the party simply because he is a pc is a terrible fallacy.)

But staying in character, to me, and preserving the roleplaying intensity of the game, is not something that is more sacrosanct than the enjoyment of the game itself.

Do you at least recognize that player 1 might have his fun spoiled by having player 2 tell him that his pc's motivations need to be re-written?

In the original situation being discussed, I think player 1 has a much more legitimate case for being upset than player 2 does. Again, each table is different, but my table includes 'adult themes' and the like. Heck, in a discussion after Book of Vile Darkness came out, my campaign was adjudged to be "vile" in its content- because it includes "vile" elements (human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc), not because those things happen all the time or constantly to or by pcs. If a player is uncomfortable with those elements- which indeed MAY come to affect a pc directly- he has no more place at a table like mine than a player who objected to non-Christian religious portrayals would (or worse, one who objected to parodies of Christianity or elements thereof, which occur aplenty in my game as well).

I guess I fall firmly on the "Game is more important than any one player" side of things- or perhaps a more accurate way of putting this is "Each player should find the right table for him or her comfort zone, but should NOT try to change an established table's social contract to suit themselves."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can someone XP the Jester for me? Thanks.

 

[the Jester]

If we allow consideration of live-action play, the line's a whole lot more hazy.

Allow me to roll my eyes.

YMMV... but... any group that is LARPing ought to have worked the 'rules' on these things out in advance.

One of the trouble cases I alluded to before included no touching - just a guy who repeatedly leered, spoke too suggestively, and otherwise harassed female players. He made them fearful for their actual physical safety. He haunted several conventions I went to, but since nobody ever spoke up during game, no official report ever got filed on it, so none of the conventions or individual GMs could ban him.

Why was this guy in the group anyway? If he was that creepy, why in God's name didn't anyone ever report him? If he made anyone in the group fearful for their safety, the GM should have stepped up immediately and given him the boot. And "no individual GM could ban him" is a total and complete cop out. A GM can exclude anyone from his game. In fact, a GM is obligated to be picky about his players if he doesn't want a load of creeps, asstards and idiots joining up. Hello again, geek social fallacy!

If an organized play group 'forces' you to be with someone that you don't want to be with in game, either stop playing, step out of the organized play group or expel the real offender. And sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever for "My gaming boss made me" as an excuse to let poopy people in your game poop all over it.

You see, you're talking about a largely different topic than the rest of the thread. You're talking about creepy players whose OOC actions are creeping out other players. OOC, not IC. The discussion here, at least to me, seems to be more about IC issues that a single player gets weirded out by- and really innocuous IC issues at that (IMHO).

If LARPs blur the lines so much, perhaps GMs that run LARPs should be even more careful than pen & paper GMs about who they let in their games.

 

[Celebrim]

It is only the extreme example to make the point that sometimes it does make sense to just state the issue baldly.

I have at several points indicated that are cases where OOC communication might be your best resort.

For example:

"I prefer it, because I think dealing with things IC is less harsh and more appropriate to an issue raised by someone else's in character play, but I do agree that there are exceptions where OOC communication are appropriate or even required." - Me

And there are other quotes, but its a long thread and I don't want to write an index for it.

Most of those cases where I think OOC communication are 'appropriate or even required' fall however in to the 'extreme' side of the spectrum, and the cases you outline qualify. The cases that come to mind would be cases like 'character rape' where the possibility of IC freedom has been removed, actual OOC issues unrelated to the player's IC conduct (touching for example), and situations where its clear that IC responses won't work because the underlying problem is that the other player is letting his OOC feelings govern his IC play (a player whose character is attracted to another PC primarily because the player is attacted to another player and inappropriately communicating his real feelings).

For example, if your character is being abused verbally or physically by another PC, and you figure out that this is happening because the other character's player is currently annoyed with you it is definately time to try to resolve that issue OOC. But that may mean not speaking up immediately (while the character is still stewing in his anger) and toughing it out for a while, or it may mean that if you don't address this OOC right now that its just going to explode or get worse. Exactly how you should respond then depends alot on your assessment of the player. Maybe if you say, "Hey, you are making me uncomfortable.", he'll realize he's being a jerk and stop. Maybe he's acting like that because he thinks you are being a jerk, and "Hey, you are making me uncomfortable." is just going to set him off.

And it should be clear that if you are actually being verbally or physically abused by another PC, its a different case that your characters being in conflict. The reason that someone acting out there real emotions is an extreme case is precisely because it blurs the line between what is happening to your character and what is happening to you. The intention of the other player is therefore important in how you percieve and respond to the IC play.

I think if you go back and read what I've said, far more important to me from the start has not been the particular solution you hit on, but the attitude in which you undertake to resolve the matter.

 

[Celebrim]

No one is claiming that there is no legitimate reason for making a complaint OOC. The argument is merely that simply making a complaint OOC doesn't automatically validate that complaint.

Exactly.

 

[Edvamp]

I wouldn't call that training, but experential aversion. After all, a blank character sheet practically invites GM meddling. So it is an understandable but futile response to a hostage-taking GM.

There seems to be quite a bit of conflict between players and DMs on this issue. I guess I can't speak for all DMs but isn't the main reason they would want to meddle in character backgrounds is to help enhance the campaign and make it a more fun experience for all involved?

 

[MrMyth]

Before I even begin to address your post, let me ask you a question.

Did I actually say that?

Because if your main objection turns out to be about something I didn't say, then that changes things a bit wouldn't you agree?

What exactly did I say. Don't paraphrase. Don't surmise. What exactly did I say. I suggest that in the context of your objection you are bolding the wrong part of that sentence.

"Whether it is logical or not, player #2 feels 'uncomfortable' and puts the responsibility for their own feelings on someone else. They respond to the situation emotionally, and they assert their entitlement and the superiority of their wants and desires over anyone else. They don't feel inclined to or that they have any need to comprimise or empathize with the other person."

"So my advice is that if you feel uncomfortable, to not immediately say any of things that people are suggesting being said because it just gets you immediately into the possibility of a confrontation. In ideal world, maybe it will work, and in an ideal world maybe you aren't being overly sensitive, or prude-ish, or a control freak when you say it."

"Instead I would focus humbly on the possibility that the feelings I'm feeling are my own, and my responsibility, and that if I'm asking someone to change their otherwise harmless behavior to conform to what may be my weaknesses, that I should look on that as asking some one a favor and by no means state it as a demand or expect that in making the demand that I'll get a particular outcome."

I really can't see any way to read the above quotes other than as heavily suggesting:
-That when someone is uncomfortable, it is their own fault and comes from their own "entitlement", and lack of willingness to emphathize with the person making them uncomfortable.
-That when someone is uncomfortable, they should remain silent and avoid any possibility of a confrontation, and that speaking out load as I have suggested could mean they are "overly sensitive, or prude-ish, or a control freak".
-That when someone is uncomfortable, the behavior that is bothering them is likely "otherwise harmless" and that the source of the offense is from their own feelings and their own weaknesses.
-And, finally, that asking someone to stop making you uncomfortable is asking a "favor" of them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There seems to be quite a bit of conflict between players and DMs on this issue. I guess I can't speak for all DMs but isn't the main reason they would want to meddle in character backgrounds is to help enhance the campaign and make it a more fun experience for all involved?

I agree.

But if you're foisting off an unwanted twist on someone, you've jus imposed a "fun tax" on one of your players; someone will already be starting from a negative point.

(Which is why I never do to anyone's PC what I'd object to being done to one of mine...in substance or method.)

 

[Edvamp]

If having an innocent used as a plot hook is 'the DM screwing them around', then truly I say to you that playing as an orphan is not going to result in the DM not being able to 'screw you around' much less keep you safe from plot hooks baited with innocents in distress. Look at what happened to Luke - the villain turned out to be his father, his mentor turned out to be dispassionate liar who was using him for his own ends, and his damsel in distress love interest turned out to be his sister. That goes way beyond any thing I've ever came up with.

And yet nowhere near as far as some Luke & Leia slash fic out there, but anyways...

If the DM is intent on screwing with you, he will do so, regardless of whether you give him openings in your character background or not. If a player creates a character background of the man with no name, dead or unknown family, no friends and even the other PCs as 'allies of convenience' just to create a dark and brooding role-playing experience then that is one thing. Horribly cliched, but ok. If the player does that to avoid having any implied emotional attachments that the DM can use against him, then he is opening himself up. Then the DM might go after the next thing a character might care about, his equipment!

Besids, should a player really be going out of his way to avoid DM plot hooks? Isn't that why he's there playing D&D? He should allow the DM every opportunity to try and engage his interest, whether it is simple quest for gold and plunder, rescuing the princess or the DM going through the PC's entire family until he is kidnapping the PC's favorite second cousin....and that's a big mistake. (points for reference)