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

[billd91]

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.

No, it's not so mind blowing. People who are uncomfortable with other people playing D&D aren't at my D&D table. They're not part of the social situation, so they get no say at all in the situation.

But in any social situation where a participant says "Woah, I'm uncomfortable with where this is going," that should be a signal for everyone to reassess what they're doing.

 

[Celebrim]

No, it's not so mind blowing. People who are uncomfortable with other people playing D&D aren't at my D&D table. They're not part of the social situation, so they get no say at all in the situation.

But in any social situation where a participant says "Woah, I'm uncomfortable with where this is going," that should be a signal for everyone to reassess what they're doing.

Ok, fine. But that is circular.

Essentially you are saying, "By definition, anyone who I am playing the game with will be basicly comfortable with anything that I'm comfortable with, and so, whenever they raise an objection it will be one that I'm sympathetic to or I wouldn't be playing with them in the first place."

And ultimately, that is exactly what RC is saying. The only difference is that I think RC is cognizant of that, which is why he is throwing out examples of people who are uncomfortable with the things you assume anyone you'd ever play with is comfortable with. And you are responding, "Well, yeah, but I'd never play with those people. Those people don't get to tell us how to play."

Which is exactly his point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok, fine. But that is circular.

Essentially you are saying, "By definition, anyone who I am playing the game with will be basicly comfortable with anything that I'm comfortable with, and so, whenever they raise an objection it will be one that I'm sympathetic to or I wouldn't be playing with them in the first place."

And ultimately, that is exactly what RC is saying. The only difference is that I think RC is cognizant of that, which is why he is throwing out examples of people who are uncomfortable with the things you assume anyone you'd ever play with is comfortable with. And you are responding, "Well, yeah, but I'd never play with those people. Those people don't get to tell us how to play."

Which is exactly his point.

Thank you; you are exactly correct.

It should also be noted that "a participant of the social situation" is an artificial boundary. Jack Chick is (or was) a participant of society; people who are uncomfortable with D&D are participants of the same society you are. Saying you exclude them from your personal sphere is a tacit admission that "I'm uncomfortable" isn't sufficient to make you stop what you are doing. There are qualifiers.

Frankly, if "I'm uncomfortable" was sufficient to make people stop what they are doing, no one anywhere would ever do anything.

EDIT: Frankly, I find it odd that it is contentious at all to say, within a social engagement, that a problem should be dealt with first within the context of that engagement if possible. If not possible, it is best to seek a compromise, and only if that fails should one determine who gets kicked to the curb.

SECOND EDIT: Imagine that I was Jack Chick. I am concerned about your playing D&D, but your reasoning is that I am not part of your social situation, so I have no say. My viewpoint, however, is that you are part of my social situation, so I do have a say.

Imagine now that I was playing Jackie Chick, female thief. I am concerned about your playing D&D in such a way that your fighter has always loved Jackie Chick, but your reasoning is that I am not actually part of your character's situation, so I have no say. My viewpoint, however, is that you are part of my character's situation, so I do have a say.

I would hope that the parallel is obvious.


RC

 

[billd91]

Ok, fine. But that is circular.

Essentially you are saying, "By definition, anyone who I am playing the game with will be basicly comfortable with anything that I'm comfortable with, and so, whenever they raise an objection it will be one that I'm sympathetic to or I wouldn't be playing with them in the first place."

And ultimately, that is exactly what RC is saying. The only difference is that I think RC is cognizant of that, which is why he is throwing out examples of people who are uncomfortable with the things you assume anyone you'd ever play with is comfortable with. And you are responding, "Well, yeah, but I'd never play with those people. Those people don't get to tell us how to play."

Which is exactly his point.

No, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. People outside the social circle don't get a say in what's going on inside the social circle. So RC's attempt to twist Prof Cirno's statement fails to be convincing. It's clear what Prof Cirno's context was. There's no circular reference there at all. If someone is uncomfortable with anybody playing D&D, they're not in the particular social situation of the D&D game. So their input is irrelevant. The same would be true for any social situation in which someone isn't present, whether comfortable with the context of the situation or not.

But for people who do choose to be in the social circle, they don't lose all ability to object to specific subject matter just because they're comfortable with the main gatekeeper for the social circle - playing in my D&D game. I have players who would object to certain subject matter being brought to the table. So there are topics I inject into the game.

 

[MrMyth]

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

I see no one claiming an absolute right to offend.

I don't think so...

For myself, I'm not claiming any rights at all. What I'm doing is suggesting, if one is genuinely offended, that it is better to bring this up in honest discussion rather than swallow that emotion and let tension and bitterness develop over it.

And, at the same time, I'm saying that if I discover I've offended somebody, I'll try and avoid doing so in the future, and that this is behavior I simply assume is a default for my friends and most civilized people.

But these aren't absolute positions. I certainly admit that there may be times when someone could be offended, and realize the issue isn't that big a deal, and simply move past it. And there are times when someone else might complain about my behavior, and I wouldn't agree that their complaints had merit. I just don't see that as particularly the case in most of the examples we've discussed.

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.

To sort of follow up on the above... I don't think an absolute line can be drawn. But as I've mentioned before in this thread, I do think one has a much stronger claim to objection over elements that they have been unwillingly connected to. Objecting to another PC's romance is very different from objecting to a romance being forced on your PC unwillingly.

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.

If the situation is literally imprisoned in Player 1's mind for the entirety of the game, then... yeah, I suppose. But that isn't the case, here. We actively see Player 1's PC acting on their love for Player 2's PC. This may be out of the sight of Player 2's PC, but not out of the sight of Player 2. They have to sit at the table and watch as their PC is subjected to behavior that, yes, can feel very much like being stalked.

If you are infatuated with a good friend, but never let it influence your relationship with them, that isn't a problem. But if they notice you are constantly doing favors for them, secretly paying for their meals, trying to handle disputes for them with other people, and happen to just be in the area around them at all times to make sure they are safe.... even if your intentions are absolutely pure, that behavior could absolutely bother them.

The original scenario seemed to be along these lines - Player 1's PC was in love with Player 2's PC, and because that love, went out of their way to protect and help them, and basically built their life around the other character. That is absolutely "doing something" to them - it is directing behavior towards them that Player 2 is not a fan of, and wants to stop.

If the situation is truly entirely within Player 1's head and never impacts the game at all, then sure, he can come up with whatever background elements he desires.

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.

Neither!

We've said this several times, yet it keeps getting overlooked. There is nothing wrong with Player 1 trying out some new roleplaying element. There is nothing wrong with Player 2 not wanted to be part of this roleplaying element. The problem is Player 1 persisting with the roleplaying element in spite of Player 2's objections.

And yes, that will not universally be true, as we've tried to make clear. But I certainly find it to be the case in many of the examples we've looked at. There is no fault with either of them at the start - the fault comes from one player intentionally causing discomfort to another player, and that only happens once an objection has been raised and one player persists in spite of it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. People outside the social circle don't get a say in what's going on inside the social circle. So RC's attempt to twist Prof Cirno's statement fails to be convincing. It's clear what Prof Cirno's context was. There's no circular reference there at all. If someone is uncomfortable with anybody playing D&D, they're not in the particular social situation of the D&D game. So their input is irrelevant. The same would be true for any social situation in which someone isn't present, whether comfortable with the context of the situation or not.

This would be true only if the "people playing D&D" social context was completely seperate from the larger social context. Which it is not.

See the Second Edit on my previous post.

In effect, you are saying that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being's discomfort, provided that the first person is at your table, and the second person isn't. Which is okay, btw, and actually necessary to do anything. Fooling yourself about it, however, is less okay IMHO. YMMV.

Or, as another really obvious example of where the theory that "I'm uncomfortable" means you automatically stop breaks down, we in this thread are in a social circle defined by the thread. I say that I am uncomfortable with you disagreeing with me....actually, with you not saying you agree with me. Do you stop?

I very, very much doubt that you do.

(And, apart from the exercise itself demonstrating that the theory is wrong, I don't think that you should. Your reaction to this post, though, will certainly demonstrate that qualifiers are required before simply kowtowing to "I'm uncomfortable"! )

RC

 

[MrMyth]

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.

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.

Also, I'm really not a fan of the attitude that people just need to 'man up and play the game', and dismissing genuine phobias and concerns as being "oversensitive" and needing to "be babied".

I mean, I guess it does explain your situation, if you truly feel that no one could genuinely be bothered by such things, and that the need to replace swarms of spiders with scorpions in a game is a complete dealbreaker.

But man, I just don't really think I will ever get the mindset of valuing the integrity of the game over an actual friendship.

 

[MrMyth]

In effect, you are saying that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being's discomfort, provided that the first person is at your table, and the second person isn't. Which is okay, btw, and actually necessary to do anything. Fooling yourself about it, however, is less okay IMHO. YMMV.

Yes, I value the enjoyment of my time gaming with friends over the concerns of strangers whose opinions I don't agree with.

That doesn't seem a reasonable comparison to valuing the comfort of one person playing at my table with another friend's right to engage in behavior that I find objectionable.

(Note that for the purpose of the above statement that yes, I am assuming that the behavior in question is indeed objectionable by my standards.)

Or, as another really obvious example of where the theory that "I'm uncomfortable" means you automatically stop breaks down, we in this thread are in a social circle defined by the thread. I say that I am uncomfortable with you disagreeing with me....actually, with you not saying you agree with me. Do you stop?

The difference is, this is a discussion forum. One of the goals of the forum is to discuss things, which almost inherently involves dealing with conflicting viewpoints. It also encompasses an immense social base as compared to a small and relatively tight-knit circle of gamers, who I would usually expect to be friends.

Thus, if someone objects to what I'm saying because I disagree with them, I don't think that is particularly reasonable in a forum designed to address disagreements.

On the other hand, if someone said, "Hey, I don't think you meant any offense, but your comments about elf-playing gamers really bothered me" - yeah, I'd probably try to avoid whatever language I used that accidently insulted someone.

Going beyond that, if someone started using actual slurs or discussing topics forbidden on the messageboard, I'd expect a decent person would retract such things once people pointed out they weren't ok... and if they didn't, I'd expect moderators to take action.

If a thread was created explicitly for such talk, on the other hand, anyone participating in that thread wouldn't really have room to complain.

Thus... sure, if you join a game where they tell you up-front it may involve you being forced to confront situations you would find unpleasant, and you agreed to that, you don't have room for complaint.

But I don't think that is a default assumption of the game. And I'll continue to expect that decent people will back off from something once they learn it is bothering a friend, and that a DM will try and stop such behavior once he is made aware of it.

 

[Hussar]

Oh good grief.

/snip

As I said right at the beginning, I see the two stands as being two sides of the same coin.

/snip

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."

/snip.

Close, but, it's your first point which is why I disagree so strongly with you. You see both sides as being essentially the same thing. I do not. Someone who chooses to do something that they know makes another person uncomfortable, and continues to do so over the objections of the other person is placing their fun over someone else.

Not only that, but their fun is now completely independent of the fun of the other people at the table.

In other words, Player 1 can continue to have fun, even knowing that his fun is ruining someone else's fun.

OTOH, Player 2's objections are not actually ruining Player 1's fun. Because, Player 1, IMO, shouldn't be having fun once he knows that his actions are ruining someone else's enjoyment.

In other words, Player 1, in all good faith, brings something to the table that he thinks will increase the enjoyment at the table. This is laudable and should always be encouraged.

However, Player 1 is wrong. It didn't increase the enjoyment at the table. It actively reduces the enjoyment at the table unless, of course, Player 1 can continue to enjoy his behavior knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's fun.

I don't play with people like that.

To me, these are not simply two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter if Player 1 is a player or the DM. His goals are very good. Everyone should try to bring things to the table that people will enjoy. And, romance, in and of itself, is certainly not something bad. There's every reason to believe that this would work.

But, at the end of the day, it didn't work. The experiment failed. Adding this element did not serve the purpose that it was intended to - increasing enjoyment at the table.

Isn't that the best justification for stopping something? When something you try fails, you either change what your doing and do something else, or you stop doing it entirely.

What you don't do is carry on doing the same thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You see both sides as being essentially the same thing. I do not. Someone who chooses to do something that they know makes another person uncomfortable, and continues to do so over the objections of the other person is placing their fun over someone else.

Not only that, but their fun is now completely independent of the fun of other people.

In other words, the D&D Player can continue to have fun, even knowing that his fun is ruining someone else's fun.

OTOH, Jack Chick's objections are not actually ruining the D&D Player's fun. Because, the D&D Player, IMO, shouldn't be having fun once he knows that his actions are ruining someone else's enjoyment.

In other words, the D&D Player, in all good faith, introduces something that he thinks will increase the enjoyment of society. This is laudable and should always be encouraged.

However, the D&D Player is wrong. It didn't increase the enjoyment of society. It actively reduces the enjoyment of society, unless, of course, the D&D Player can continue to enjoy his behavior knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's fun.

I don't accept people like that.

To me, these are not simply two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter if D&D Player is a player or the DM. His goals are very good. Everyone should try to bring things to society that people will enjoy. And, a game, in and of itself, is certainly not something bad. There's every reason to believe that this would work.

But, at the end of the day, it didn't work. The experiment failed. Adding this element did not serve the purpose that it was intended to - increasing enjoyment of society.

Isn't that the best justification for stopping something? When something you try fails, you either change what your doing and do something else, or you stop doing it entirely.

What you don't do is carry on doing the same thing.

Just to point out the obvious parallel.


RC