GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Maxperson]

absolutely not. That's the reason why kender are so toxic. If cerci is assumed to be a pc as someone else suggested earlier she is deep into that style of toxicity. Cerci's player made a conscious choice to play a toxic petty backstabbing bridge burning incompetent kardashian wannabe. any excuse that bears resemblance to "I'm only playing my character" is generally just the reverse order of "no offense but.." In one, the speaker is about to say something unacceptable, in the other the speaker probably just did something unacceptable but could be saying it pre-emptively. "I'm a roleplayer" & "I'm only playing my character" are not blanket immunity for the choices that player made for their character to get there or the failure to not invent any excuse to not be toxic

This is true for many games, but not all. One of the groups I play in allows PvP in the name of roleplaying your character. We all understand that this is the case and PvP is not common, but it does happen. Over the years we have all been there, and none of us takes it personally. Roleplaying is paramount and we hold no grudges, even if we lose a PC that is cherished.

Her sort of behavior would not be toxic in that one game that I play in. Instead it would be enjoyed and talked about, even if it ultimately ended up with another PC killing her for it. In my other game, that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.

 

[Jd Smith1]

This is true for many games, but not all. One of the groups I play in allows PvP in the name of roleplaying your character. We all understand that this is the case and PvP is not common, but it does happen. Over the years we have all been there, and none of us takes it personally. Roleplaying is paramount and we hold no grudges, even if we lose a PC that is cherished.

Her sort of behavior would not be toxic in that one game that I play in. Instead it would be enjoyed and talked about, even if it ultimately ended up with another PC killing her for it. In my other game, that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.

I don't allow PvP, but I've had several PCs in my campaigns no less toxic than Cerci; it is up to the party leader (and those he deputizes) to keep the toxicity in check, which provides interesting roleplay. Generally the toxic PC in question has skills or status whose utility outweighs their bad habits.

And the thing to remember is that Cerci was able to function for thirty years in society; she wasn't a slathering madwoman, but in fact was noteworthy for being very charming when it suited her. This goes back to encouraging fleshed-out PCs as opposed to cardboard cut-outs.

People do not undertake the sort of risks and hardships PCs do, regardless of the setting, unless life or their flaws have forced them into the desperate business of adventuring.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is true for many games, but not all. One of the groups I play in allows PvP in the name of roleplaying your character. We all understand that this is the case and PvP is not common, but it does happen. Over the years we have all been there, and none of us takes it personally. Roleplaying is paramount and we hold no grudges, even if we lose a PC that is cherished.

Her sort of behavior would not be toxic in that one game that I play in. Instead it would be enjoyed and talked about, even if it ultimately ended up with another PC killing her for it. In my other game, that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.

When player A & B resort to "PvP" against player C over toxic behavior it's clear that player C is the problem
@Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does. What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.

 

[billd91]

When player A & B resort to "PvP" against player C over toxic behavior it's clear that player C is the problem
@Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does. What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.

Diff'rent Strokes for diff'rent folks. That behavior might not be "toxic" for the group playing. There's no point in badwrongfunning it.

 

[jasper]

Then who does GOT revolve around?

Because that's a conversation many have. And depending on who a person chooses determines where the foci of the game is.

To paraphrase a local sport writer, "Breasts and Dragons. Breasts and Dragons. Breasts and Dragons."

 

[Maxperson]

When player A & B resort to "PvP" against player C over toxic behavior it's clear that player C is the problem
@Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does. What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.

I've already proven you to be wrong in your position, since you are incorrectly generalizing. In my two groups, it would be toxic in one, but not the other. You don't get to tell us that we are having bad wrong fun in the group that allows and enjoys that sort of game play. And yes, it works just fine in D&D. Just not D&D in YOUR group.

 

[Jd Smith1]

@Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does. What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.

You're the only one using those phrases.

And you are not the arbiter of what can and cannot work at tables other than your own. Or what is 'suitable', whatever that means.

Some gamers prefer PCs who are not just collections of numbers endlessly grinding 'kill monster, loot room, go to next room, repeat'.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I've already proven you to be wrong in your position, since you are incorrectly generalizing. In my two groups, it would be toxic in one, but not the other. You don't get to tell us that we are having bad wrong fun in the group that allows and enjoys that sort of game play. And yes, it works just fine in D&D. Just not D&D in YOUR group.

Exactly.

 

[Campbell]

I choose neither. At the end of the day examining this through the lens of authority does not feel right to me. Everyone is capable of setting their own boundaries. Everyone's personal boundaries and desires should be respected. Sometimes that means we cannot agree to play together, but shaming either party is counterproductive.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've already proven you to be wrong in your position, since you are incorrectly generalizing. In my two groups, it would be toxic in one, but not the other. You don't get to tell us that we are having bad wrong fun in the group that allows and enjoys that sort of game play. And yes, it works just fine in D&D. Just not D&D in YOUR group.

no you proved nothing with your claim. "some groups" & an anecdote is not proof of anything. You claimed that the type of behavior displayed by Cersi would be ok in a PC because there might be "some groups" with a gm so oblivious to a problem player's toxic antics that other players in the group were forced to resort to "PvP" to keep a player like that from destroying the campaign they feel forced to continue in for whatever reason instead of finding a different gm who may or may not be in the area & social circles they have access to. We haven't had kender protected by weasel wording & absolute morality for decades due to that exact reason. That's an experiment that was tried during 2e & recognized as a massive failure.

You're the only one using those phrases.

No I summarized this atrocity. I may not be an "arbiter" but I can point at how the sort of toxic behavior cersi displayed towards other wound be players if she were a pc that were the sort of thing to drive groups apart & damages the experience of the other players or how kender were excised with extreme prejudice for all of those reasons while you & max can only say that it might be ok for "some groups" & cite anecdotes.