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

[MrMyth]

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 guess we both have different expectations of people.

The central idea of yours is that you can never inform another person that they are doing something that bothers you without somehow insulting them in the process just doesn't mesh with my experiences. Maybe I just am used to being around more reasonable people.

But if I turn to my friend and say, "Hey, those insults are getting a bit too much for my tastes, could you tone it back?"

I'd expect him to basically see it as a non-event and gladly do so, rather than become angry or embarassed.

Sure, if I approach him in an unreasonable fashion, it might turn out different. If I stop the game and, rather than talk to him about it, instead turn to the DM and other players and say, "Hey, guys, Mike is being a jerk and ruining this game. DM, can you tell him to stop his immature, juvenile, childlike behavior and play the game like a decent human being?"

Then... yeah, I'm guessing he'll be upset. But getting upset simply because someone is honestly telling you how they feel about something you are doing? It's possible, I suppose, but I don't see it as 'more likely than not'.

Now, if the other player isn't sympathetic to the issue? Yeah, there could be a problem. But if you don't say anything at all, then there is a guaranteed problem (one player having the session ruined). Speaking up immediately gives a very good chance of fixing the problem immediately, and at least opens it up to discussion before it is too late.

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.

I think you are still too focused on rules here. Either way, I've got an expectation for how I would act and how I would assume my friends would act. If they don't act in this fashion, they aren't going to be sent to jail or anything - I'd probably just lose some respect for them.

I expect most reasonable people to try and avoid behavior that causes distress to their friends. That doesn't mean I can enforce them in doing so or have passed some sort of law requiring it. That's just an expectation I have for how decent people act, myself included. If someone else doesn't live up to that expectation, so be it.

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.

Well, no, not assured... but yes, a situation is much more likely to be defused before tensions start running high.

Say I've got a roommate. I do the dishes the first night. The next night, I figure he will - but he doesn't. I could speak up right away... but no, I don't want to risk insulting him, so I decide to just clean it this night. In fact, I figure if I clean it each night, and do a really good job, eventually he'll realize he's not pitching in and start helping out himself!

Of course, my roommate just assumes that I like doing the dishes, so never bothers helping with them. And so is completely taken by surprise when, a month later, I explode and tear into him for being a filthy disgusing human being that never helps with the chores!

Stiffling your discomfort, or assuming that it will simply get better later, typically just leads to greater tension. Speaking up immediately, when you can simply discuss it calmly and openly and set some ground rules, seems the best approach to me.

And yeah - ideally, you might have set those rules when you decided to be roommates. (Ie, start the campaign). But sometimes an issue comes up that you didn't think to address, and I don't see why it is somehow offlimits to try and discuss the issue when it comes up - before it actually becomes a problem.

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.

Sure, it is a possibility. Or, even more likely, it may just be a misunderstanding - my friend keeps making a comment that I think is an attack on my religion, but no, he's was talking about broccoli, I just misheard him. I've seen stuff like that happen.

That doesn't change the fact that if I do get genuinely upset over something that happens in character, I should speak up about it. If I have decided that yes, this is not a pleasant experience... then I should communicate that fact. Because if it is an accidental thing, then my friend can easily stop and everyone is happy.

And if it isn't accidental, and there is malice behind it... well, maybe we will get a bit of a scuffle at the table. But getting it over with right away is probably better than one player spending the entire session intentionally harassing another player for fun.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Your right to do anything in a polite & civilized environment typically ends when it interferes with another's quiet enjoyment of that same space.

By asking a player to shift the focus of their PC's romantic intents from the PC of a player who isn't interested in it to a another, more receptive player/PC or an NPC, all you're doing is asking them to pick another target. IOW, you're saying, "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?"

By allowing the situation to continue unaltered, you're giving tacit agreement to behavior the target may find oppressive, possibly even criminal.

 

[Remathilis]

You know, I could just imagine how that conversation would go down...

Player 2 : I'm playing a tough-as-nails thief who is self-reliant and doesn't like being treated like a girl!
Player 1 : I'm playing a dark-and-brooding ranger who secretly loves the thief and will do anything for her.
Player 2 : Eww! Uh, can you NOT do that?
Player 1 : HOW DARE YOU TRAMPLE MY CHARACTER CONCEPT!!!

 

[Edvamp]

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.

What little we know of this specific scenario indicates it wasn't part of the campaign setting, but something wholly initiated by Player 1, so outside the scope of the DM, and nothing that could have been prepared for beforehand. The examples you mention are all things the DM can prepare players for to make sure no one would be upset by non-Christian imagery, violence or spiders.

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.

Maybe in my neck of the woods since good players are hard to come by I have a bit of bias, but I am shocked by the notion to encourage players to leave a gaming group at the first sign of the slightest interpersonal conflict. I'd hate to see some of these groups ordering pizza, "Does anyone like pepperoni? No? Screw that, I'm outta here!"

Is there no room for conflict resolution? As I mentioned in my previous post, we don't know how invested each player is in their position, beyond enough to voice them. Perhaps 5 minutes of discussion can resolve this before you start kicking people to the curb.

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?

Certainly that is a possibility. We don't know until we ask him, which is why an immediate quick OOC conversation on the matter lets each party state their case and see how it can be resolved.

In the original situation being discussed, I think player 1 has a much more legitimate case for being upset than player 2 does.

Also remember in the original situation Player 1's response to Player 2 mentioning being uncomfortable was to insult, berate and demean Player 2. It was actually that, not the PC on PC romance, that sparked this line of discussion.

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).

Which is absolutely fine, yet irrelevant. Again, in this specific situation Player 1 intentionally kept the romantic angle a secret until springing it on Player 2. It was nothing Player 2 could have been apprised of earlier to allow them to decide if that was the kind of campaign they would like to participate in.

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."

Which is just as much as an absolutist mindset in the absence of all the facts as "Avoiding player offense at the exclusion of all else." How do we know that no PC on PC romance wasn't part of this table's social contract, making Player 1 the offending party?

 

[pawsplay]

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?

Naturally. But of course many people have had bad GM experiences (or committed them), ranging from the clueless and annoying to the truly hurtful.

 

[pawsplay]

I see a number of people claiming an absolute right to not be offended.

I see no one claiming an absolute right to offend.

Is that basically where we're at?

 

[Edvamp]

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.)

To be fair, un-asked for is not always unwanted. If a player hands in a player background, and I see that with some tweaks I can use some elements to help further the campaign and, hopefully, all the players' enjoyment. Without revealing the reasons (as that would give away plot lines) I suggest those changes to the player and gauge his response. If he feels it would utterly destroy his PC concept, I would most likely back off. But he might feel that the changes gives him ideas he hadn't thought of.

Also, on that point, something in the PC background might not be game changing on its face, but conflicts with something in the campaign I can't reveal. For example, a player says his PC is related to minor nobility. Nothing that would give him an in-game advantage, just some extra flavor. Many DMs would probably be OK with that. But let's say in my campaign one of the plot lines involves the nobility all being afflicted with an inherited form of Lycanthropy that they are keeping secret from the citizenry. So with that, I can't have a PC related in any way to the nobility. So I have to alter that PCs background without explaining why to the player for fear of revealing a major plot point. The player pretty much has to accept that I am not trying to ruin his fun and I might have legit reasons to make changes.

 

[Edvamp]

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.

This brought a weird corollary in my mind between Player 1 trying to convince Player 2 to role-play romance and other, romantically involved discussions that might occur in real life:

Player 1: Cmon, try it, you might like it.
Player 2: I don't know, it doesn't seem like fun.
Player 1: I'll tell you what, try it once and if you don't like it we don't have to try it again...

All we need now is tequila.

Sorry, odd tangent.

 

[billd91]

I see a number of people claiming an absolute right to not be offended.

I see no one claiming an absolute right to offend.

Is that basically where we're at?

No. I'd have to say that's not even close.

 

[Edvamp]

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.

Ultimately it comes down to subjective opinions on what is considered reasonable to get offended by. And like art and pornography, it is hard to describe, easy to tell when it is happening.

So if I was playing a halfling and my friend was playing a half-ogre and he kept berating my character about being short, I would totally role-play it as it is obvious he isn't really insulting me.

If I am playing a Dwarf and another player kept referring to me by an in game racist term like 'stunty' I would still be ok.

If I was playing a modern game like Vampire or something, and a player role-playing a racist kept using modern racist terms (n word, for example) I would probably have a problem with that.

But that is me. I am sure there are gaming groups out there that would not be offended by any of the above.