Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8527911" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I personally think this is putting the Watsonian cart before the Doylist horse.I asked my players--as I almost surely would for any game I'd offer to run--to play characters that are at least partially on board with the campaign premise. IOW, before the players even get to the point of &quot;do I have to repress this character in order to permit the group to work together,&quot; I'm asking them to please choose characters that don't need repression in order to cooperate.Like....this feels like inventing a problem where there needn't ever be one. Are you, and your players, okay with a game where people may choose to play someone of divided or even outright dubious loyalties? If so, great, people can opt in to those character types if they like. And if you or your players aren't okay with that, then the courteous thing to do is (a) discuss it to attempt to reach a more satisfying solution for everyone, (b) create a concept that meshes with that, or (c) bow out.All this talk of &quot;repress&quot;ing characters and &quot;permission&quot; just strikes me as (effectively) deciding the issue in advance: that players have a &quot;right&quot; to play treacherous or untrustworthy characters and are the beleaguered party. You've decided players are entitled to pursue certain lines of roleplay, and thus it is either an unfair imposition on them to tell them not to, a dereliction of duty on the part of those asking them not to, or an ever-so-gracious act of self-denial to choose not to exercise that right.Now, maybe I'm reading this wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. So, if I have misunderstood, I apologize. As it stands though, this looks a lot like priming the reader to see it from the perspective of the player that likes a betrayal or intra-party strife, and not at all from the perspective of the player who is sick to death of drama and people being horrible to one another and would like just this one place where they can leave that at the door.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8527911, member: 6790260"] I personally think this is putting the Watsonian cart before the Doylist horse. I asked my players--as I almost surely would for [I]any[/I] game I'd offer to run--to play characters that are at least partially on board with the campaign premise. IOW, before the players even get to the point of "do I have to repress this character in order to permit the group to work together," I'm asking them to please choose characters that don't [I]need[/I] repression in order to cooperate. Like....this feels like inventing a problem where there needn't ever be one. Are you, and your players, okay with a game where people may choose to play someone of divided or even outright dubious loyalties? If so, great, people can opt in to those character types if they like. And if you or your players [I]aren't[/I] okay with that, then the courteous thing to do is (a) discuss it to attempt to reach a more satisfying solution for everyone, (b) create a concept that meshes with that, or (c) bow out. All this talk of "repress"ing characters and "permission" just strikes me as (effectively) deciding the issue in advance: that players have a "right" to play treacherous or untrustworthy characters and are the beleaguered party. You've decided players are entitled to pursue certain lines of roleplay, and thus it is either an unfair imposition on them to tell them not to, a dereliction of duty on the part of those asking them not to, or an ever-so-gracious act of self-denial to choose not to exercise that right. Now, maybe I'm reading this wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. So, if I have misunderstood, I apologize. As it stands though, this looks a lot like priming the reader to see it from the perspective of the player that likes a betrayal or intra-party strife, and not at all from the perspective of the player who is sick to death of drama and people being horrible to one another and would like [I]just this one place[/I] where they can leave that at the door. [/QUOTE]

Verification