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

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

I think we've all fairly accepted that Character A is actually showing the romantic desire.

As was stated, if Character A never actually did anything, Player B would've never even known the desire for the romantic plot was there in the first place.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Pawsplay, I cannot even begin to comment on your post, as you are stating that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being.

It's just mind blowing.

 

[Lanefan]

But in a cooperative leisure time activity like gaming, there are different rules of conduct than in a spirited debate/shouting match.

There are?

At times, our games *are* spirited debate/shouting matches. Some of those times it progresses from there to spirited fists and weapons and spells...

Best part is, the same players who often fight like cats on Saturday night (goody-good PCs vs. a PC Necromancer) are just as often unified on Sunday night in the arguments in another campaign (old age and alcohol vs. youth and enthusiasm). And much fun is had by all.

Lan-"beer was there too"-efan

 

[pawsplay]

Pawsplay, I cannot even begin to comment on your post, as you are stating that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being.

It's just mind blowing.

On the contrary, I value real relationships far more than a gaming group held together on the pretense of tolerance. As I have outlined, my inclination is to keep the group intact and include everyone as much as they are willing and able to participate. Certainly, any one gaming group is not exactly equivalent to my entire social circle, and I would not force someone into situation they dislike, whether they are Player A or Player B. I don't even know what you mean about valuing somebody's imaginary elf. I think you must have some great misunderstanding of my viewpoint if you think I said anything close to that.

The justification of my position is basically this: I am, customarily, the GM for my circle of friends more often than not. I have had great luck running games for years at a time, both with old college mates as well as with recent acquaintances. Object to my principles under any theory you want. If you want to blow your mind, recognize that you are saying you are literally unable to comprehend a pragmatic, successful approach.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are?

Well, even though our sessions have gotten noisy or testy, nobody's been assaulted or arrested yet. As always, YMMV.

Anywho, I'm done with this thread because nothing I can think of can bridge the gap in what I think constitutes civil and respectful behavior and a willingness to hold a plot twist in higher regard than a relationship with another person.

AFAIK, I'm not at the table of any of those who feel that way, but if I am, I know how to handle it. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

[Edvamp]

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.

You are asking for an objective, universal standard for social situations and interpersonal relationships, and it just doesn't exist. As I was saying in the last page you cannot account for all situations without knowing the context, the people involved, etc. There are too many unknowns here for us to decide if Player A is just being stubborn or if Player B is just being overly sensitive. In some groups or situations, Player A is at fault, in others Player B is at fault.

Among my friends I know we say things that strangers might consider offensive. For us, "I hope you die on your birthday" is basically Hello. And sometimes the things said involve race, ethnicity, or whatever, and in most other social situations I would probably consider horrifically offensive.

And, yet again, I would like to bring up that a large reason for the number of responses against Player A was not his attempt to role-play, but rather the response to hearing Player B's taking offense by insulting and demeaning Player B.

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.

No pistols at dawn?

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 I may put on the Psychologist hat for a moment (knew this degree would come in handy one day), in any group dynamic of two or more people there are going to be varying roles of dominance and submission, winners and losers, with tons of compromises going on constantly. As conversations and other social aspects flow there are going to be people who control a conversation, then give up control, then re-establish it. This goes into all manner of aspects, where you go to eat, what movies to go see or what channel on TV, topics of conversation. And unless you have one really dominating personality this control cycles throughout the group. So in any group you are constantly compromising, giving up, but also gaining, control of various situations. And 99% of the time you barely notice it and don't really care.

This situation is just one of those. We, being the analytical, overly strategic nerds that we are, are examing every possible aspect of this scenario over the past (believe it or not) two weeks. But in reality, in most groups this 'conflict' might take 30-60 seconds and could be as easy as:

Player A: I profess my love for [Player B's PC]
Player B: Hey, I'd prefer we not go there. I'm just here to kill orcs.
Player A: Eh, fair enough. Hey DM, can you throw in a love interest for me at some point?

OR

Player A: I profess my love for [Player B's PC]
Player B: Wait, what? When did this come about? I'm not too sure I'm cool with this.
Player A: Let's give it a try, I promise not to get weird but I think it could lead to some fun story lines.
Player B: OK, but just remember I have class.

Or some such. The majority of times when these kinds of conflicts come about in social situations one side will usually give in, and not really even consider themselves to have 'lost' the conflict. This is the only way group dynamics can work, otherwise every decision no matter how insignificant could end up as a brawl (what do you mean you got Diet Coke???)

 

[Edvamp]

Well, even though our sessions have gotten noisy or testy, nobody's been assaulted or arrested yet.

And how many of your spirited debates have ended that way?

 

[the Jester]

Amazing.

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

No, I've said that I don't have to game with someone to be friends with them, and that not all my friends are the types of people I want to have at my table.

To repeat: I cannot imagine this happening at my table because I don't game with people with the kinds of thin skins where it would come up, but every table is different and has a different level of tolerance for this. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with my approach.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The thing is, none of that really matters.

In every other social situation in the world, someone saying "I'm not comfortable" is the giant neon sign of "Ok, time to stop."

Why on Earth is playing some silly tabletop game with other nerds an excuse to ignore that?

Again, you know that people playing D&D makes some uncomfortable.

If you really believed that this was true, you wouldn't be playing D&D.

Are you playing D&D?

I guess you don't really believe that this is true. Or else you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being.

It's just mind blowing.


EDIT: And that's tongue-in-cheek, yes, but I hope it demonstrates the basic problem with assuming that "I'm uncomfortable" actually, by itself and requiring no context or qualifiers, works as you say you think it does. I can guarantee you that those two words, without anything that makes my discomfort reasonable or more important than other factors, has never gotten me out of work, out of doing homework when I was younger, or out of chores then or now. In Basic Training, it certainly wouldn't have made the drill sergeant stop training. "Gee, hon, I'm uncomfortable doing the dishes tonight" would get me a night on the couch at best.

Sometimes a declaration of discomfort is important, and should be heeded. Sometimes it is not, and should not. Qualifiers are required to determine which of those times this is. Even if that qualifier is that you only care about the discomfort of persons with differing viewpoints willing to sit around discussing while laughing, drinking brewskis and generally having a good time.



RC

 

[Celebrim]

Pawsplay, I cannot even begin to comment on your post, as you are stating that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being.

It's just mind blowing.

Oh good grief.

Can we stop the hyperbole and holier than thou attacks on people?

Even if that is what he's saying - and its not - then the only difference demonstrated in this thread between you two is which of the two players you'd kick to the curb and possibly how self-righteous you'd feel doing it. There are two players involved in this argument and they want things which conflict. The main difference between you two on this matter is which of those players you see as better suited to gaming with the group and how you rationalize it.

As I said right at the beginning, I see the two stands as being two sides of the same coin. It is my very strong suspicion that the very people who are standing firmest on player #1's right to not be offended, who would be most likely to become angry if they found themselves in player #2's shoes and player #1 was making a request that they couldn't sympathize with. Then you'd find them making Pawplay's argument without the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance.

Consider Hussar's relationship to my position over the course of the thread. In every part of the thread I'm taking a coherent position that a player should be free from interference and allowed to play his character. In the first half of the thread, to the extent Hussar can imagine that my position is a defense of him as a player, Hussar is cheering me on and saying 'Give that wise man some XP!' and stuff like that. But as soon as I take the same coin and show him the other side of it, Hussar is shouting me down as being the sort of cad who values the purity of roleplay more than he does people. The only real difference I can see those is whose shoes Hussar is imagining himself in. And that's how people are. That's not some failing particular to Hussar. I'm only picking on him because he's been particularly open and honest about his feelings in this thread. (Some reward for his nobility, huh?) But that's humanity. I'd be very surprised indeed if you weren't a member of that class, and look out indeed if you start saying things like, "I'd never do that."

That's the reason I've tried not to pick sides in this. Because it's my strong suspicion that the two players would trade hats were the situation slightly different. What would worry me most in either player is simply how unwilling they are to comprimise and how little they consider the feelings of the the other person at the table. I'm completely uninterested about which side of this situation you take a stand on because IMO, both player #1 and player #2 are saying the exact same thing and the only difference is how they superficially try to justify it.