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

[MrMyth]

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?

Sure - as I've said several times already, it's possible that this might reduce the fun for Player 1. But I also feel that the loss of fun for him is likely to be significantly less than the loss of fun for Player 2 if the unpleasant situation continues. And if that isn't the case - if Player 1's fun actually requires forcing an uncomfortable situation on another player - than there may be more serious issues at play.

The difference is that Player 1 should have countless other options available that they find entertaining. If they want their character to be motivated by some sort of romance, they should be able to talk to the DM and see if they can come up with an NPC for the role, or see if any other PCs are interested.

Going back to the original scenario. If Player 2 lets things happens, it means they get to sit through the rest of the session watching as another player's character performs actions, directed at their character, that feel like stalking. This is an unpleasant experience and ruins the rest of the sesion for them.

If Player 1 backs down, instead, it means... they find a different romance to pursue. I just can't see any scenario in which that holds the same emotional value for them as the consequences for Player 2. If they must pursue Player 2's character in order to enjoy the game... again, it seems like there may be a much bigger problem going on.

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."

And if it was declared to someone at the start of a campaign that being unwilling pursued by other PCs was part of the game - or if a player objected, and all the other players agreed that this was a central part of the experience for them - than I agree, that's a situation where Player 2 should back out. (As I acknowledged very early on.)

I mean... again, I'm probably approaching this from a different angle than you guys. I game primarily to play with my friends. Say a friend in my game says to me, "Just so you know, I have a severe fear of spiders... big human-sized ones don't bug me because they are obviously unreal, but I don't think I could handle dealing with small, genuine skittering ones."

You know what I would do? I'd avoid throwing swarms of tiny skittering spiders at him! There are so many other things I can use in this game that the loss of one element is easy enough to handle. The Game being more important than the Player is simply a self-defeating concept for me - the entire point of the Game is to have fun with my friends in the first place!

That said... sure, there are limits. And they will change from one group to the next. And when you start getting into broader issues, you may well have no solution available - if one player insists on only playing in monotheistic games and another insists on only playing with the standard D&D pantheon.

But when it comes to a player's opinion over their own character? I can probably avoid having spiders crawl over them in their sleep, or have them be unwilling pursued when it comes to romance, or force them choosing between two morally-unacceptable decisions (sell your soul to the devil or this child dies!) If I know those will be issues for them.

Remember, we aren't saying anyone needs to avoid plot elements because they might offend someone. Just that, once you know something is a problem for the player, if that element can be removed without compromising the integrity of the campaign... I, at least, will generally find that a far better choice than losing a player entirely.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

I genuinely try to provide plot hooks, so I agree with you, generally speaking.

Where I disagree with some is the amount of deference I grant players who don't like a particular plot hook as it involves their PC. IOW, I'm friends first, game second. I won't force plot twists to PC background over someone's expressed objections or known dislikes...

Then again, what do I know but my own experiences? My 2 main gaming groups have been together since 1986 and 1998.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

Now, here's a question. Let's another character is acting like this towards your own, and it isn't rooted in some OOC annoyance on that player's behalf. But that this behavior does bother you and is hurting your own enjoyment of the game.

For myself, I feel that this case is even more important to speak up immediately OOC. Whereas, I am guessing from some of your previously stated positions, that you feel this would not be a good approach. That what starts in character should get resolved in character. (If that's not an accurate representation of your view, feel free to correct me and/or ignore everything I say following this.)

See, if I react IC, the other player might just take that as me playing along. "Ha, my dwarven bard made fun of the snooty elf wizard, and now the elf wizard is acting all offended. What excellent roleplaying!"

But if the situation actually is distressing to me, I'm guessing that it is usually because the other player simply doesn't realize that what his character is doing is bothering me. And only by speaking up OOC can I make him aware of this fact - at which point he would likely back down, and either try and turn his bard's insults elsewhere, or tone down the vehemence of the profanities or otherwise lessen the abuse to a level I'm ok with.

And just to be clear - I don't expect this because he's required to do so or anything. I'd expect that to be the outcome because that's how I'd act in his place, and how I would imagine any of my friends would respond. If you are causing unintentional distress, and made aware of it, it just seems the reasonable response to me to try and avoid causing that distress any farther.

The key is, if you are doing so unintentionally, it is only by having it brought up OOC that you can actually know that. I'd hate if one of my friends allowed me to continue doing something that was bothering them, simply because they didn't feel like they should speak up about it during the game.

Like I said - honest and open communication just seems the mature approach with these sorts of issues. The other approach - suggesting someone just shouldn't get upset over events that happen in-character, or that they should just tough it out and deal with it later so as to not risk momentarily disrupting the session - just seems to invite a situation where resentment will build up until you have a much more difficult confrontation later.

 

[Celebrim]

"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."

How about now?

When asking the question of what a writer believes, perhaps it would be appropriate to focus on those areas that speak directly to your questions about what they wrote. In this case, I think your question is, "Do you really believe that when someone is uncomfortable, it is their own fault?" And I think I made clear my answer, and it should be equally clear what my challenge to that question would be.

And, finally, that asking someone to stop making you uncomfortable is asking a "favor" of them.

Ok, on that one. You've got me. I do believe that asking someone to stop making you uncomfortable is asking a favor of them. It's either that are you are telling them to stop making you uncomfortable.

Request: "the act of asking for something to be given or done, esp. as a favor or courtesy; solicitation or petition:"

 

[Celebrim]

Now, here's a question. Let's another character is acting like this towards your own, and it isn't rooted in some OOC annoyance on that player's behalf. But that this behavior does bother you and is hurting your own enjoyment of the game.

For myself, I feel that this case is even more important to speak up immediately OOC. Whereas, I am guessing from some of your previously stated positions, that you feel this would not be a good approach. That what starts in character should get resolved in character. (If that's not an accurate representation of your view, feel free to correct me and/or ignore everything I say following this.)

See, if I react IC, the other player might just take that as me playing along. "Ha, my dwarven bard made fun of the snooty elf wizard, and now the elf wizard is acting all offended. What excellent roleplaying!"

But if the situation actually is distressing to me, I'm guessing that it is usually because the other player simply doesn't realize that what his character is doing is bothering me. And only by speaking up OOC can I make him aware of this fact - at which point he would likely back down...

I think it is at that point that your theory starts to break down. If the player in fact simply doesn't realize he's offending you, and has no intention of doing so, and is simply being his dwarven bard, if you turn to him and say, "You are making me really uncomfortable.", I would guess that the odds are better than not that player is going to be hurt and offended and possibly embarassed and possibly therefore angry. This is doubly true if the player isn't sympathetic to your cause of discomfort.

I would again hold up this thread as what you should expect to happen.

As to what you two should work out between yourselves and how, there are just too many variables in this for me to judge.

And just to be clear - I don't expect this because he's required to do so or anything. I'd expect that to be the outcome because that's how I'd act in his place, and how I would imagine any of my friends would respond. If you are causing unintentional distress, and made aware of it, it just seems the reasonable response to me to try and avoid causing that distress any farther.

This is a false extension of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is applicable to how you should behave, not how you can expect others to behave to you. It's this very same line of thinking which causes Louisianna to have one of the highest rates of accidents and most expensive auto insurance in the nation. Simply put, Louisianna drivers are so polite and considerate that they think that their own standards of politeness and consideration are higher than the law, and they expect for example, that because they themselves would stop to allow someone to make a left turn across four lanes of traffic or because they would turn a two way stop into a four way stop in order to let someone turn, that the other driver is going to do so. And based on that assumption that the other driver is going to happily stop, they turn out right into the middle of traffic. On the expectation of some one elses considerate behavior, they themselves become inconsiderate and ultimately have more accidents than they would if they were less trivially polite.

Not that I'm advocating impoliteness and aggression. I'm just merely noting that its not the only way to have an accident.

Like I said - honest and open communication just seems the mature approach with these sorts of issues. The other approach - suggesting someone just shouldn't get upset over events that happen in-character, or that they should just tough it out and deal with it later so as to not risk momentarily disrupting the session - just seems to invite a situation where resentment will build up until you have a much more difficult confrontation later.

Yeah, because if someone is likely to become more and more resentful over time, it's just assured that if they start a conversation that its going to go swimmingly.

But as for this, yes, sometimes it's worth suggesting that you just shouldn't get really upset or uncomfortable over events that happen in-character, especially if the other guy is - as you have painted in him in this case - acting completely innocently and without malice. Sometimes the problem is with you, and at the very least you should be open to that possibility.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can someone XP Celebrim for me?

 

[MrMyth]

When asking the question of what a writer believes, perhaps it would be appropriate to focus on those areas that speak directly to your questions about what they wrote. In this case, I think your question is, "Do you really believe that when someone is uncomfortable, it is their own fault?" And I think I made clear my answer, and it should be equally clear what my challenge to that question would be.

Even if you aren't speaking in absolutes, I still don't see why you would need to use such language if that wasn't what you were suggesting. You've said several times in this thread that someone being offended is their own fault. And... I recognize there is some point to what you are saying - if something bothers you, try and make sure it isn't a trivial matter first.

But... the problem is, a large bulk of your argument in this thread has seemed to indicate that this is your expectation. That when someone is made uncomfortable, it may be from being "overly sensitive, or prude-ish, or a control freak" or whatever. I've looked over your posts several times, and while that may not be your intent, the use of such repeated language and suggestion certainly indicates that you feel that is the default.

If you say that's not the case, I'll take you at your word, but I'm genuinely not sure how to reconcile that with earlier posts.

Ok, on that one. You've got me. I do believe that asking someone to stop making you uncomfortable is asking a favor of them. It's either that are you are telling them to stop making you uncomfortable.

Request: "the act of asking for something to be given or done, esp. as a favor or courtesy; solicitation or petition:"

Well, you may have some lingual support to that statement. Nonetheless, I still don't feel entirely comfortable with the idea that the act of not treating someone badly is 'doing them a favor'.

 

[Umbran]

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

Yes. I'm not disputing that. I was merely adding in some personal experience that might suggest that situations where jumping to dealing with it out of character might be better might be a tad more common, is all. YMMV.

I'm also not disputing that the vast majority of such things could be dealt with in-character.

I do happen to prefer clear communication between mature adults, I admit. For mature adults, dealing in-character with a problem that's more OOC seems to me... a tad passive-aggressive. As in, expecting people to change their behavior when you haven't actually told them what you really want. But I do recognize that as just my personal preference in management style.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Offensiveness is a 2-way street: both the offender and the offended have their part in it, and who is most to blame in a given situation is, as they say in my profession, "fact sensitive."

When someone is overly sensitive, they may need to toughen up or find a new group; someone who is overly offensive may need to tone things down.

Odds are high, though, that since all of this info will be passing through individuals' perceptive filters, opinions as to who is most at fault will vary greatly.

So I err on the side of caution...

 

[the Jester]

Sure - as I've said several times already, it's possible that this might reduce the fun for Player 1. But I also feel that the loss of fun for him is likely to be significantly less than the loss of fun for Player 2 if the unpleasant situation continues. And if that isn't the case - if Player 1's fun actually requires forcing an uncomfortable situation on another player - than there may be more serious issues at play.

Except player 1's fun doesn't require forcing the situation on the other player. Remember, the concept is of an unspoken silent love. But regardless, I agree that if his fun requires forcing discomfort on another player, then more serious issues may be at play. On the other hand, if player 2 requires constant coddling to avoid romance, spiders, bad words, vampires and demons, the issues may not be player 1's.

But where I disagree is whether the scenario in question is a reasonable one to discomfort a player. I really don't think it is- for my table. In fact, at my table, I think the discomfort that player 1 would feel in having to restrict himself from acting in character would outweigh player 2's issues with it. And my table's play style, while not "right" for everyone, is absolutely "right" for my table. I guess basically I don't have any players that would freak out about this, and I really prefer it that way. Just as you shouldn't play basketball with someone who gets bent out of shape if there's a lot of running back and forth involved, you shouldn't play D&D with people that don't enjoy the stuff that happens at the table, and in-game romance is 'stuff that happens at the table' for my group.

Let's look at a slight variant on the scenario: what if the pc's feelings for the other character develop over time in game, are still 'unspoken devotion' and the other player still gets uncomfortable over it. Is it reasonable to ask Player 1 to retroactively change his character's development over weeks or months of play time? I don't think so.

Again, every table is different. The social contracts we play under vary from group to group, so maybe your answer is different.

Let me also make clear that I fully recognize the difference between IC and OOC motivation. Throughout this discussion I have mostly been assuming IC motivation on player 1's part. If, however, player 1's motivation for the hopeless romance moon-eyes stuff is OOC, then I think that the scenario is entirely different.

The difference is that Player 1 should have countless other options available that they find entertaining. If they want their character to be motivated by some sort of romance, they should be able to talk to the DM and see if they can come up with an NPC for the role, or see if any other PCs are interested.

You're still missing the point. That's still telling player 1 how to run his character, or rather what he can't do with his character's thoughts and feelings. Hell no.

Going back to the original scenario. If Player 2 lets things happens, it means they get to sit through the rest of the session watching as another player's character performs actions, directed at their character, that feel like stalking. This is an unpleasant experience and ruins the rest of the sesion for them.

If Player 1 backs down, instead, it means... they find a different romance to pursue. I just can't see any scenario in which that holds the same emotional value for them as the consequences for Player 2. If they must pursue Player 2's character in order to enjoy the game... again, it seems like there may be a much bigger problem going on.

Some players are very invested in their character's personality and emotions, and being forced to run them in a way different than they were conceived and have been played previously can ruin them completely. I have seen players make new characters over having personality elements dictated to them.

I mean... again, I'm probably approaching this from a different angle than you guys. I game primarily to play with my friends. Say a friend in my game says to me, "Just so you know, I have a severe fear of spiders... big human-sized ones don't bug me because they are obviously unreal, but I don't think I could handle dealing with small, genuine skittering ones."

You know what I would do? I'd avoid throwing swarms of tiny skittering spiders at him!

I game primarily to play with my friends too. In the last 20 years, I've probably had less than 5 non-friends join our group, and they all became our friends quickly. We go camping together, we party together, we celebrate each others' birthdays and the births of children and go to each others' moms' funerals. But I don't need to game with all my friends, and some of them aren't the type of people I would want to game with. I want to game with people that aren't going to need to be babied with no spider swarms, or no rats, or no romance, or no deaths of innocents. I want people that are ready to avenge the rape of the women of the devastated town, that will fight through icky nasties. I want players who won't get weirded out when the Feywild party turns out to be full of drugs and sex. I want players who can keep their out-of-game issues out-of-game.

Again, every table is different, and there is certainly a point when it is reasonable to ask a player to knock it off OOC; but that point is generally when that player is already bringing OOC issues into things. Someone too sensitive to handle an unspoken, unrequited love by another pc is too sensitive to sit at my table.

There are so many other things I can use in this game that the loss of one element is easy enough to handle. The Game being more important than the Player is simply a self-defeating concept for me - the entire point of the Game is to have fun with my friends in the first place!

Like I said, it's all about the types of players you have in your game- and the types you want in your game. I very much do not want to have a player that demands that I drop any elements from my game, up to and including surprising them with a run through Return to the Tomb of Horrors in my regular campaign.

Remember, we aren't saying anyone needs to avoid plot elements because they might offend someone. Just that, once you know something is a problem for the player, if that element can be removed without compromising the integrity of the campaign... I, at least, will generally find that a far better choice than losing a player entirely.

I guess I wouldn't have that kind of player in the first place. But again, to each their own- every table is different. Whereas you don't want to use plot elements that offend your players, I don't want players that are offended by plot elements. Different strokes and all that.

I don't know if you were around when the Book of Vile Darkness came out, but there was a big discussion about how everyone's campaign rated on the scale of "light" to "vile" or whatever (from the accompanying issue of Dragon). Mine includes cannibalism, ritual sacrifice, drug use, etc- it rated as "vile". So I'm sure that my attitude comes from the "everything goes" style of campaign I run.