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

[MrMyth]

Your response seems to underline the whole problem I have with the direction this discussion has taken - that a person playing the game differently than you means that they aren't your friend. Both sides have the assumption that any percieved slight in the game has the appropriate response of ending a friendshp.

I don't think the issue is one of playing things differently. It is playing in a way that makes other people uncomfortable and not stopping if they ask you to.

If a friend has his character develop a crush on mine, and I find that odd, I wouldn't immediately try and get him kicked from the game. I'd tell him that it bothers me and ask him to stop.

It is the point at which he decides to either keep going with it, or amp up the uncomfortableness, or try and get in my head to figure out why I won't let him do that, or cause more trouble for me in or out of character in response... that's when I realize he probably isn't a friend, or someone I want to game with.

Basically, if friends are actually resolved, communication should resolve the issue. Even if that resolution is that we both want to be playing a different type of game, and someone leaves the group to play in a different style of campaign while still remaining friends with everyone in the original group.

But yeah, being unwilling to back off from harassing someone in character, or feeling that its an appropriate response to ramp things up since they refuse to 'lighten up'? That's not cool, and certainly not the actions of a 'friend'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Rather than a game problem translating into a social problem, "You don't play the way I like, so I don't like you," I'm talking more about social problems translating into game problems, "I don't like you, so I'm going to play the way you don't like".

I guess it depends upon the table, and how far stuff like that is allowed to go.

I trust my players would take the issue in their own hands, long before I would have to get involved.

If a player makes a PC that, for whatever reason, doesn't work well with others, I don't punish the others by mandating that they find a way to fit the PC in. If they would shun an NPC for some behaviour, they may shun a PC. If they would kill an NPC for some behaviour, they may kill (or attempt to kill) a PC.


RC

 

[Lanefan]

You mean like betrayal, adultery, theft, or something?

Yeah, actions might reveal that an individual is not as much of a friend as you might have thought, but I'm not so sure that the actions which are actually telling in this case are the ones you seem to think that they are.

Your response seems to underline the whole problem I have with the direction this discussion has taken - that a person playing the game differently than you means that they aren't your friend. Both sides have the assumption that any percieved slight in the game has the appropriate response of ending a friendshp.

You may have hit an underlying cause of the disagreement here.

Were the people you're playing D+D with your friends outside the game as well before the game started, or were you strangers before play began?

I always assume (perhaps wrongly) that the people you're playing D+D with are also your friends outside the game beforehand, and that you already vaguely know what makes each other tick. And, that you are capable of separating in-character actions and emotions from out-of-character actions and emotions.

If you're gaming with strangers I can see how things could go wrong pretty fast, as you don't only have to figure out what makes these various characters tick, you also have to figure out what drives the players behind them...and how capable they are of separating player from character.

And if the DM is also a stranger to most/all of the players, that's a whole third layer to figure out - while a DM can say up-front what type of game she wants to run, the players are still left trying to get a "read" on her gaming style as well as on the world she's running. Tall order, particularly in a short campaign.

Lanefan

 

[Rel]

If a player makes a PC that, for whatever reason, doesn't work well with others, I don't punish the others by mandating that they find a way to fit the PC in. If they would shun an NPC for some behaviour, they may shun a PC. If they would kill an NPC for some behaviour, they may kill (or attempt to kill) a PC.

Other Players: "Your character dies."

Problem player: "My character wouldn't do that!"

 

[Nagol]

I guess it depends upon the table, and how far stuff like that is allowed to go.

I trust my players would take the issue in their own hands, long before I would have to get involved.

If a player makes a PC that, for whatever reason, doesn't work well with others, I don't punish the others by mandating that they find a way to fit the PC in. If they would shun an NPC for some behaviour, they may shun a PC. If they would kill an NPC for some behaviour, they may kill (or attempt to kill) a PC.


RC

That works for group vs. single character. I've had the experience of a group schism (1/2 go one way, the rest go another). At that point you can (1) run two separate groups for an indefinite potentially permanent timeframe, (2) "pick a side" and foribly retire the other group, or (3) end the campaign.

I've done all the alternatives and liked none of them.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think the issue is one of playing things differently. It is playing in a way that makes other people uncomfortable and not stopping if they ask you to.

Earlier Pbartender wrote:

"My larger point is, however, that very often this particular problem -- that of one player putting the breaks on the game do to character stubborness in the name of role playing -- very often has to do with a player (NOT the character) willfully deciding to be a jerk about it for whatever reason."

I think the two camps arguing over this issue are largely disagreeing only over who unreasonably "putting the breaks on the game do to...stubbornness" and "willfully deciding to be a jerk about it for whatever reason". I think you can make a reasonable argument either theoretical player is breaking the implied social contract. On the one hand, we have a player (or DM) who may be harassing another player through their roleplay. On the other hand, we have someone who is escallating some situation by responding to it with some OOC stance and special pleading and appeal to emotion. We are looking to assign blame and find the 'bad player' or 'the jerk'.

Neither group here is necessarily wrong. To give an example, in one family you might have a tradition of loudly and raccously arguing over various intellectual trivialities just out of love of debate and thought play. In another family, loud and raccous debates are always sympomatic of deep underlying divisions in the family resulting from and resulting in family trauma, verbal abuse, domestic violence, and the breakup of the family unit. Now, in the group you have players who are members of both of these families. The player from the first family unit initiates a situation that potentially or actually throws the player characters into conflict. The player from the second family doesn't see arguments as a 'good time', and is immediately made deeply emotionally uncomfortable and very quickly moves to an OOC defensive stance where she accuses the first player of harassment and being a jerk. Which player is 'in the wrong'? I don't think that there is any sort of quick and easy answer to that question. The first player is actually being insensitive. But, so is the second player. And moreover, both of their stances are deeply sympathetic in context. One player finds enjoyment in tension and conflict which is completely natural because tension and conflict are what drives an interesting story. The other player finds personal tension and conflict overwhelming and tries to hold a party veto over everything that the party does, and that is completely natural too.

Now, if this game - this friendship - is going to work both players are going to have accept some comprimise. This is in life as it is in the game. If you can't make that work in game, then forget about making it work when the conflicts are really meaningful.

I think it is better to instead of trying to drop people in buckets as 'the friend' or 'the jerk' and then throwing temper tantrums where we go, "Oh, I see I put you in the wrong bucket. You don't actually fit into my good bucket, so out you go.", to actually look for the problem and the real stake people have that is motivating them. I mean, generally speaking, people didn't suddenly turn into 'jerks' even if they are acting like one now. People in this thread sound like crusading Paladins to me, only instead of 'detect evil', they've got this whole 'detect jerk' thing going followed by the same sort of 'smite jerk' behavior that we associate in game with 'lawful stupid'.

Gaming well, like life, takes courage and sensitivity. It means seeing the situation as other people see it, and it means trying to help everyone have fun.

 

[Dausuul]

The player from the first family unit initiates a situation that potentially or actually throws the player characters into conflict. The player from the second family doesn't see arguments as a 'good time', and is immediately made deeply emotionally uncomfortable and very quickly moves to an OOC defensive stance where she accuses the first player of harassment and being a jerk.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're skipping some steps here. The situation posited was:

Player 1 plays character as being in love with Player 2's PC.
Player 2 says, quote: "Dude, this is really creepy. Don't do that. It's making me really uncomfortable and I am not interested in playing this out at all."

Now, I'll concede player 2 is not being as diplomatic as s/he could be here (could do without the "creepy" part), but it's hardly flinging accusations of harassment. At this point, neither player has done anything wrong. Player 1 tried introducing a new roleplaying element, which is fine. Player 2 objected, which is also fine. Disagreements happen.

But then we get to the part where:

Player 1 "gives him a bad time and tells him to lighten up," and ganks Player 2's character if he thinks he can get away with it.

See what we're objecting to? Up till now, both players were behaving in a mature and rational way, but now Player 1 is dismissing Player 2's objections out of hand ("lighten up" is one of those things that, if you ever find yourself saying it, should make you question your own behavior), making fun of him/her, and engaging in in-character recriminations for out-of-game disagreements. That's not acceptable.

Edited to add: In regards to the original disagreement, I feel Player 2 has the right to nix any such development regarding his/her character unless PC/PC romance is an explicitly included element of the game. Most folks play D&D to kill monsters and take their stuff and maybe save the world, not find true love. If Player 2 isn't okay with it, it should stop. Player 1 can certainly try to negotiate some kind of compromise, but it's a bit like real-life dating; if you ask somebody out, they have the right to say no and you are not entitled to a "split the difference" solution, though you're free to propose one.

However, the disagreement in itself does not warrant booting anyone from the table. On the contrary, I appreciate that Player 1 is willing to try new stuff and Player 2 is willing to be forthright about objecting to it. It's when we get to the "make fun of you and kill your PC" stage that somebody needs to go.

 

[S'mon]

Other Players: "Your character dies."

Problem player: "My character wouldn't do that!"

I have had that exact experience.

 

[Celebrim]

Up till now, both players were behaving in a mature and rational way...

I think you are the one skipping steps. From what has happened up until now, I don't think we can assert that both players were or were not behaving in a mature and rational way. But I think we can assert that both player #1 and player #2 see each other as playing in some fashion that is wrong and would likely characterize it as immature. Whether that's a truthful characterization or merely a self-justifying one is entirely a different matter.

I don't think we can assert that player #1 is immune to OOC condemnation for 'harassing behavior' and also player #2 is immune to criticism for being uptight. I don't think you can issue a blanket statement saying that player #2 has every right to publicly correct player #1 undiplomatically, but that player #1's responce to player #2 is something more than correcting player #2 in an undiplomatic fashion. I mean, I can probably agree that neither player is handling this in the best possible fashion and with the most mature cue's, but I'm not prepared to agree which one is being 'immature' and a 'jerk'.

I wish that we could keep gender references out of this, because I think its biasing the conversation in certain ways. I think by making the 'harrassed' character female, we are engaging in subtle gender bias, not only by making the assumption that women are more likely to be victims, but in making the other player fit into a sterotype of the geek making unwelcome character advances. Let's make this more general, and try to avoid our biases where we can.

Suppose both players are males and one is playing a female character? Does this change how we see things? Does this change our estimation over whether one players in character play represented unwelcome sexual harrassment? Does this change or feelings about how 'creepy' this is, or whether someone should 'lighten up'? Actually, on second thought, I wish some other example was used entirely, because this one is freighted with all sorts of baggage. I like my example better because it is I think about trying to make the players fit in something other than neatly labelled boxes we have ready made answers for.

I'm personally not prepared to say which is worse - responding to an out of character situation with an in game stance or responding to an in game stance with an out of character one. You have apparantly decided what isn't acceptable. But from player #1's perspective, he may have already decided that he's been treated in an unacceptable way.

I'm not one that puts alot of stock in forms over function. Raised in the South, I know that there is a whole art in being insulting while maintaining the forms of being polite. Taking a 'victim stance' in response to some small or manufactured slight in order to protect yourself while you seek to savagely slander some one else is one of them.

"lighten up" is one of those things that, if you ever find yourself saying it, should make you question your own behavior

That's true, but I would extend that claim to such a large list of phrases* that it would be best to just say, "You should always be questioning your own behavior."

(*"He is a jerk." would be very high on that list. "I've been wronged." is probably at the top of it.)

 

[Pbartender]

Were the people you're playing D+D with your friends outside the game as well before the game started, or were you strangers before play began?

I always assume (perhaps wrongly) that the people you're playing D+D with are also your friends outside the game beforehand, and that you already vaguely know what makes each other tick.

Here, you've hit the nail on the head... You assumed wrongly. Not everyone always gets to play with people they know or are friends with.

I have a long established gaming group and currently everyone in our group is friendly with everyone else. But with the exception of my wife, everyone else in the group was mostly a stranger when they joined, and in some cases it took a long time before the rest of us understood what made the other tick.

Rarely, it took a long time before we realized that the new player's personality or play style weren't compatible with the rest of us. While we always did everything we could to ameliorate the problem, a compromise can't always be found, and there's no other solution but to ask them to leave, so they can find another group they'd be happier with.

I think you can make a reasonable argument either theoretical player is breaking the implied social contract.

I'm personally not prepared to say which is worse - responding to an out of character situation with an in game stance or responding to an in game stance with an out of character one. You have apparantly decided what isn't acceptable. But from player #1's perspective, he may have already decided that he's been treated in an unacceptable way.

I'm not one that puts alot of stock in forms over function. Raised in the South, I know that there is a whole art in being insulting while maintaining the forms of being polite. Taking a 'victim stance' in response to some small or manufactured slight in order to protect yourself while you seek to savagely slander some one else is one of them.

That I can grok. And though I 'm certain you realize I mostly agree with you, it's all very close to what I was getting at...

That is to say, the overt symptom (characters treating each other poorly in-game) may have a hidden, underlying cause (players treating each other poorly out of game), or vice versa. Also, that because of that it's not always easy to determine who is actually at fault.

It is best, if possible, to find all the information possible from everyone concerned, and use that to form a peaceable solution. Sometimes, however, there is no possible solution other than to make the hard decision to let someone go from the group.

*"He is a jerk." would be very high on that list.

It may sound like splitting hairs, but I've found there is a world of difference between "He is a jerk" and "He is acting like a jerk". In the context of my previous post, I was hypothetically talking about someone who actually is a jerk... Someone who willfully and maliciously doing things to provoke someone else, no matter if they appear to be instigator or victim (I have seen it come from both sides of the fence -- often both at the same time).