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

[pawsplay]

Nope.

You may find someone in the group who is offended that you play all of your dwarves- as a DM or player- with a horrible Scots/Arabic accent. IMHO, that's tough.

Someone who doesn't want to play his character like Luke Skywalker so you can introduce a Darth Vader NPC with a connection to the party, OTOH, has a right not to be the linchpin in that plot- go talk to another player.

Ok, that's good. Is it a matter of degree, or is the issue one of annoyance versus authorial privilege? Or do both enter into the examples you are putting forward? Help me understand where you would draw the line.

 

[the Jester]

Player A is doing something to Player B's character.

I disagree fundamentally with this assessment. Player A is deciding the emotional context for his roleplaying regarding player B's character.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Help me understand where you would draw the line.

We're social creatures, and have all kinds of hardwiring that lets us read each others' emotional states. I'm pretty sure you can tell if someone is genuinely upset about something.

Because there is no hard & fast line: what one finds offensive another sees as a RP opportunity. I, for one, don't have problems with intraparty romances, and have even played some out. My favorite was an unrequited love an alien gladiatrix had for a human gazetteer- he was too frail for her to act upon her feelings.

But, for whatever reason, others would be extremely weirded out Bt that plotline.

So my answer is as it has always been throughout this thread: if someone objects to the plot-twist, respect their objection and ask someone else because while you may be able to detect that it agitates them, you have no way to tell the depth of their agitation but for their own say-so.

And a plotline in a RPG is insufficient justification to disrespect someone's position.

 

[Hussar]

I disagree fundamentally with this assessment. Player A is deciding the emotional context for his roleplaying regarding player B's character.

That's splitting hairs pretty finely. Considering that, presuming Player A is a good roleplayer, that decision will affect every single interaction these two characters have, to the point where Player A will base decisions on this relationship (which was brought up in the original example), it's not like this is happening in a vacuum.

Now, if it happens 100% in Player A's head and never comes to the table, well, sure, then Player B obviously can never complain because well, Player B will never know what's going on.

But, since Player A's actions are predicated upon the presumption of a love interest, even if it's not reciprocated, Player B is forced into this situation. Player A's character's behaviour towards Player B's character is entirely the issue here. So, yes, Player A's character is most certainly doing something to Player B's character.

Look how you phrased that. Player A decides his emotional context for his character's relationship with Player B's character. That's the whole point. Player A unilaterally decided this, which does impact Player B's game without any consultation with Player B.

He did so in the thought that this would make for an interesting game.

He is mistaken. It might be more interesting for him, although, I strongly doubt it. Knowing that his behavior is making the other player uncomfortable and knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's game, how could he honestly claim that it's making the game better and more interesting?

And to me, that's the whole point. The basic purpose of introducing this was to make the game more fun. Sure, no problems. But, it failed. It did not make the game more fun because it outright ruins someone else's good time.

Anyone who would continue to enjoy their behavior at the expense of others isn't someone I really want at my table. As soon as I know that my behavior is ruining someone else's fun, why wouldn't I stop? Sure, I might be having fun, but, fun isn't a zero sum game. At least it should never be. Knowing that my fun is ruining someone else's fun is going to make my fun, well, unfun.

Am I wrong for thinking that?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He did so in the thought that this would make for an interesting game.

He is mistaken. It might be more interesting for him, although, I strongly doubt it. Knowing that his behavior is making the other player uncomfortable and knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's game, how could he honestly claim that it's making the game better and more interesting?

In another, RW context, that's the kind of behavior that shows up in the definition of stalking.

 

[Edvamp]

If I were to walk up to someone and demand they talk to me about those things, and they said "I'm not comfortable with that conversation," then yes, I should stop. If you're out having dinner with your sister, her husband, and your nephew, would you really walk around to each table and display your nephew, then tell the people in the restaurant that you want to talk to each and every one of them about miscegenation?

Your examples do not work. Player A is not disjointedly talking about relationships in general and Player B demands he stop. Player A is doing something to Player B's character.

How amusing it is that every attempt to deflect this point is made by trying to turn Player A into the victim?

I agree that Player A should stop once Player B states they are uncomfortable, and I am certainly not portraying A as a victim.

I just believe, "I am uncomfortable" is not an absolute, universal Get Out of Jail Free card without context. I was replying to the notion that 100% of the time someone saying they are uncomfortable means the other person is wrong or should stop. I would think that you would need to know the situation, the context, when it was said before making that determination.

 

[Edvamp]

That's splitting hairs pretty finely. Considering that, presuming Player A is a good roleplayer, that decision will affect every single interaction these two characters have, to the point where Player A will base decisions on this relationship (which was brought up in the original example), it's not like this is happening in a vacuum.

Now, if it happens 100% in Player A's head and never comes to the table, well, sure, then Player B obviously can never complain because well, Player B will never know what's going on.

But, since Player A's actions are predicated upon the presumption of a love interest, even if it's not reciprocated, Player B is forced into this situation. Player A's character's behaviour towards Player B's character is entirely the issue here. So, yes, Player A's character is most certainly doing something to Player B's character.

Look how you phrased that. Player A decides his emotional context for his character's relationship with Player B's character. That's the whole point. Player A unilaterally decided this, which does impact Player B's game without any consultation with Player B.

He did so in the thought that this would make for an interesting game.

He is mistaken.

To be fair, Player A (and when did it become Players A & B instead of 1 & 2? I need a scorecard!) is not mistaken in trying something new, even without consulting Player B. Sometimes really innovative and fun ideas come from off the cuff, unrehearsed attempts. The mistake was, as posited in the original scenario, when Player B said he was uncomfortable, Player A reacted by saying he would insult and demean Player B.

Players should be encouraged to try new things and explore new avenues, with the caveat that if it doesn't work as anticipated they be willing to pull back.

 

[pawsplay]

Look how you phrased that. Player A decides his emotional context for his character's relationship with Player B's character. That's the whole point. Player A unilaterally decided this, which does impact Player B's game without any consultation with Player B.

He did so in the thought that this would make for an interesting game.

He is mistaken. It might be more interesting for him, although, I strongly doubt it. Knowing that his behavior is making the other player uncomfortable and knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's game, how could he honestly claim that it's making the game better and more interesting?

But it is Player B's objection that makes him mistaken. If Player B did not object, Player A would be on solid ground. So is the problem Player A's decision, or Player B's objection? That is the problem with trying to find fault in this situation.

If the problem is that Player A's actions are objectionable, and the definition of objectionable is that Player B objects, the "problem" is that Player B objects to Player A's actions. It's circular logic. We need some definition of acceptability outside whether Player B objects. We need some measure of whether their objection is reasonable, and whether their request to remedy the problem is reasonable. That is equally true of asking Player A whether his presumption is reasonable. If the root of the problem is that Player A and Player B simply want different things, that is simply a conflict. It does not seem fair to resolve it in favor of Player B based on the arbitrary criterion that we are considering Player A's stubborn refusal to be the cause rather than Player B's stubborn refusal.

So as a GM, I would ask the players to "come to the table," that is, to act with good intent toward all. If no truly satisfactory solution is available, then I am left wondering, who has the greater willingness? Whichever player is less likely to leave the group despite not getting what they want is my preferred player. If Player A simply opins, "This sucks" when asked to retcon the emotional attachment, while Player B says, "This is unacceptable and you must stop at once," Player B has signalled their willlingess to terminate the group. Player A, however, has only signified they will be unhappy with the decision, as they continue with the group. Since Player A has signalled a willingness to continue and Player B has not... I choose Player A.

Obviously the context may not fit what I have filled in, but there it is in a nutshell, as I see it. It's kind of a shame that Player A does not have to compromise if Player B quits, as that might be a useful learning experience, but that is Player B's doing by quitting.

If it turns out Player B is not ready to drop out of the group over the issue, I hope they rephrase their request in a more honest and less manipulative form: "I wish you would not. Please stop." The question must be asked in a matter that invites a real answer. Someone might be unwilling to state this because, "I do not prefer this," is not as aggressive as telling other people what to do. But if you say, "Do not do this," but you actually mean, "Please do not do this," you are being somewhat dishonest, manipulative, and perhaps even fearful. To ask is to invite refusal. If you do not ask and do not invite refusal, about a very ordinary kind of roleplaying situation, I think you are going to have to take responsibility for the fact you are oppressing your viewpoint on others.

 

[the Jester]

That's splitting hairs pretty finely. Considering that, presuming Player A is a good roleplayer, that decision will affect every single interaction these two characters have, to the point where Player A will base decisions on this relationship (which was brought up in the original example), it's not like this is happening in a vacuum.

The way I see, unless he actually does something to player B's pc, he's just roleplaying. Of course it's not in a vacuum; it would be silly to say it was. But player A deciding how his character feels about something is no more "doing something" to pc B than I'm "doing something" to a random person if I find them attractive, or for that matter than I'm "doing something" to a good friend that I'm pining over.

Anyway, as I said, each table is different, but clearly my tolerance for EXTREME! sensitivity is far lower than that of others. Because unless, as I keep saying, unless there's something OOC character going on here, I cannot see Player B's reaction as anything but extreme oversensitivity.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Amazing.

You've effectively said that you value a RPG plotline over your relationship with a fellow human being.