G'day
Some players are not really interested in their characters as imaginary people or as fictitious characters, but are more interested in their characters as sets of formal abilities that they dispose tactically to overcome formal problems. (This is not necessarily an inferior approach, just different.) And other players, for reasons that I have never really understood, have their characters take deliberately bizarre and over-the-top actions. (But I notice that players are more inclined to do this when they are bored or when the GM has been jerking them around.)
On the other hand, some GMs are very much into the consilience, the alternative realism of their worlds. They find the wargaming and the wacky approaches by character-players really spoils their fun, and the fun of other character-players who share their preferences. These GMs are justified in intervening when a player's decisions threatens what they (and other character-players) get out of the game. The question is one of balance and of appropriate means.
A lot of RPG products give GMs very bad advice about the balance between GM and character-player preferences. They say "You are the gameMASTER. You are GOD at your gaming table. What you want GOES." This is both unreasonable and impracticable. In fact we all have to make compromises, because our friends do not play in our games in order to be bullied but to have fun. The danger with compromises is that you end with an option that doesn't satisfy anyone. So what you have to do is not game with any character-player who is not inclined to enjoy any game you can enjoy running, or with any GM who is not inclined to run any game that you can enjoy playing in. This isn't a personal judgement: I have good friends who I don't role-play with any more.
Then, with the people you choose to game with, you have to find a style of play that everyone can enjoy. The more strictly you insist on doing things your way as a GM, the fewer players you will be able to get and keep. The more strictly you insist on doing things your way as character-player, the fewer games you will enjoy or be accepted at.
The group thus chosen, and the balance thus struck, the GM has to find an appropriate way to intervene when a character-player drifts into unacceptable territory, into conduct that threatens his or her enjoyment of the game and that of other character-players. Similarly, the character-players have to find a way to apply feedback to the GM when his or her behaviour drifts out of the zone of what makes the game worthwhile to them.
Now, the convention in RPGs is that the person playing a particular character gets to define what that characer is like, and perforce knows better than anyone else what is in character and what is out of character. What's more, making choices for his or her character is the only input a character-player has into the game. So taking away control of a character is a very high-impact option for the GM to take. It robs the character-player of his whole stake in the game.
When I am troubled by player's decision I ask "Why are you <doing whatever>?". More often than not, the player has a good reason that I haven't thought of. But if I am not satisfied with the reply, I ask "Do you think that that is what [<character's name>/a person from <character's background>] would do in this postion?". Usually, the player reconsiders. But if the player presses on I let it pass. I do not argue with a character-player about his character during the game. If there is a misunderstanding or issue I discuss it out of game time. And if I think that a player lacks the ability or goodwill to play a game that I will enjoy running, or that the other players will enjoy playing, I sack him or her.
As a character-player you have three choices.
1) You can knuckle under.
2) You can quit the game.
3) You can get the GM to modify his or her behaviour.
To knuckle under you have to be able to understand what the GM wants. Can you?
To quit the game you have to be able to put up with being left out: it is unreasonable to expect the others to quit something they enjoy because you don't enjoy it. Do not under any circumstances lobby the other players to stage a mass walkout, and don't try to lure other players into other games or activities that clash with the campaign you're leaving. That kind of soap-opera scheming is what makes people end up on Jerry Springer.
You can try to modify the GM's behaviour with trantrums and walkouts, but in my experience that is usually counterproductive.
What I recommend is this. Think carefully and discover what really bugs you about having the GM take over your character, and what you really feel when it happens. And then go to your GM in private and explain the problem along these lines:
"When you take control of my character or refuse to accept my statements of his actions I feel frustrated because I feel that I have no input into the game."
or
"When you take control of my character or refuse to accept my statements of his actions I feel insulted because you are dismissing my ideas without even asking what they are."
Offer a solution in terms of what you want the GM to do:
"In future, please trust me to play my character in character to the best of my ability. If you think I have forgotten something, please remind me. If you can't fathom my intentions, ask me. But leave me in control of my character."
And offer an alternative that you are prepared to stick to, such as:
"If you aren't happy to do that, I would prefer to quit your game."
And from that point, negotiate. Remember: this is a negotiation about what will happen in the future, not an argument about what happened in the past. So don't argue about what happened, what people meant, what the GM was trying to do. Accept the GM's version of his or her motives, and get him or her to do something different next time he or she wants to accomplish that end.
Or leave the game.
Regards,
Agback
