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

[Hussar]

[/INDENT] Are parts 1 & 2 even that relevant? All that matters, IMHO, are parts 3 & 4. Assume, for a moment, that Player 1 creates a character who is in love with Player 2 and Player 2 agrees to that set-up. Now suppose that during the course of play, Player 1 pushes the boundaries of what Player 2 finds acceptable. Player 2 gets wigged out and asks him to stop. He's not interested in that sort of thing.

In both cases Player 1 is pushing the boundaries of what Player 2 finds acceptable. Is Player 2's knowledge of a "romance" relevant?

1 and 2 are relevant to this discussion insofar as I was simply recapping the chain of events that were specific to this example. I wasn't trying to say that this was necessarily the only way this could play out.

There are any number of ways this could happen, I was simply elucidating for those who might have lost track, what the specific example in this case was.

No worries.

I mean, it's going to be great if everyone is perfectly understanding, but ultimately all you are doing is just saying, "No." No matter how much you say, "This is my problem, not yours.", you've just slapped down some other players idea.

And what is the problem with that? The other player introduced an element that I have zero interest in. Why should I have to compromise at all here?

Sure, it might be great if I did, but, at what point do any other players at the table get the right to dictate the game to me?

Remember, Player 2 in this example had no idea that this was coming. This was totally out of left field. He or she was not asked beforehand at all and actually, Player 1 specifically tells the DM not to tell Player 2 and let it be a surprise.

Sorry, if someone drops something in my lap, it's entirely within my rights to say, "No, thank-you".

Let's move the goalposts somewhat. Instead of Player 1, it's the DM who does this. The DM introduces an NPC and has the NPC begin stalking the PC. The PC turns to the DM, and OOC says that this makes him/her feel very uncomfortable, could it please stop. The DM reacts by having the NPC murder the PC in his/her sleep.

"Oh, well, you brushed off crazy stalker guy, he didn't take it too well. It's all in character," says the DM.

Would you continue playing with that DM? I might, but, there'd be some very serious conversations around the coffee table for a while.

I strongly disagree with any viewpoint that says a player HAS to play to someone else's ideas when that player finds those ideas uncomfortable.

Again, no means no.

 

[Celebrim]

And what is the problem with that? The other player introduced an element that I have zero interest in. Why should I have to compromise at all here?

Why should they?

Sure, it might be great if I did, but, at what point do any other players at the table get the right to dictate the game to me?

I'm sure they are saying exactly the same thing only they are using the word 'dictate' more correctly than you are in that sentence.

Let's move the goalposts somewhat. Instead of Player 1, it's the DM who does this. The DM introduces an NPC and has the NPC begin stalking the PC. The PC turns to the DM, and OOC says that this makes him/her feel very uncomfortable, could it please stop. The DM reacts by having the NPC murder the PC in his/her sleep.

Exactly when did we encourage players to dictate to the DM what dangers and challenges they were to face? Do you see where this goes? Why are we giving out out the unlimited right to be outraged, to play the victim, to have your feelings hurt, and to 'wig out'? That's unlimited freedom to dictate the terms of the game. Why do you think anyone has the right to 'wig out'?

I'm sorry, but if you are playing my game, "Getting stalked by the creepy NPC" is part of the assumed consent. I assume that is implied by the statement that prefaces my games where I explain that my major inspirations are HP Lovecraft, JRR Tolkien and the Grimm Fairy tales. If you don't want to get stalked by Ringwraiths, horrors out of time, and little hunchbacked fairy men who want your first born child, tough. If you don't want to handle that, then go find a game that doesn't have a horror or horrorific elements.

Don't expect your hangups to dictate the game that everyone else is here to play.

I strongly disagree with any viewpoint that says a player HAS to play to someone else's ideas when that player finds those ideas uncomfortable.

I do too. However, I'd just shorten the statement down to: "I disagree that a player has to play."

I think I've made it very clear what my standards are and how I want to treat everyone. But if you insist you just can't comprimise then by all means leave and take your petty dictatorial emo self with you, because you will have left me no room for sympathy.

 

[SteveC]

I do too. However, I'd just shorten the statement down to: "I disagree that a player has to play."

I think I've made it very clear what my standards are and how I want to treat everyone. But if you insist you just can't comprimise then by all means leave and take your petty dictatorial emo self with you, because you will have left me no room for sympathy.

In looking at that, all I can say is "wow." There are a lot of hot-button issues that players can have, whether from real life issues, or from firmly held beliefs. You are not saying that if they're not comfortable exploring those issues in game their only alternative is to leave the game? That seems to be what you mean, but I can't believe that. Perhaps some clarification?

Let me say that I am not married, but currently in a long-term relationship that's likely to go there, and I completely understand Hussar's position. I have been in enough games where in-character romances led to real world problems that I'd definitely say no-thanks immediately.

As I said before, that kind of a conversation is best held (in my opinion) out of the game where an issue is laid out and players can deal with it as an adult. If someone isn't comfortable with something that's going on in the game, I'm going to work to make them feel better about it, so long as it's humanly possible: I don't think someone who doesn't like combat and fighting could really play in a D&D game, for instance.

One of the secrets of "my character would do X" that many tend to forget is that there is no character, only a group of people sitting around a table adopting personas, that are entirely under each on of their control. If your character takes an extreme stand on something for roleplay purposes, that's not a refuge: you're choosing to have them do it. I am reminded of the scene in Talladega Nights where Ricky Bobby says all sorts of horrible things but expects to get away with it because he said "with all due respect," first.

The other point about "I'm playing my character," that is quickly forgotten is that, in a group, everyone else has a right to respond to the choices you make, and be playing theirs. I've played in several games where one guy had to be the hidden evil character, and he was absolutely astonished that a group of good characters wouldn't just put up with it!

So we're all adults (or heading that way) why can't these things be worked out before there's a problem?

--Steve

 

[Celebrim]

In looking at that, all I can say is "wow." There are a lot of hot-button issues that players can have, whether from real life issues, or from firmly held beliefs. You are not saying that if they're not comfortable exploring those issues in game their only alternative is to leave the game?

What do you think?

That seems to be what you mean, but I can't believe that. Perhaps some clarification?

I spent this entire thread clarifying my feelings on the matter. It seems to me that this point, any clarification I added would be no less likely to be misunderstood than anything I've already said. However, I would encourage you to look at exactly what I said again and try to interpret it without adding anything to it.

It's right there in the sentences you quoted what I found objectionable to the point that I would require a player to leave. It's right there in the sentences I quoted where I encourage you to interpret what I was going to say in the light of all my previous insistance in the thread that people were too quick to resort to the answer of 'throw the jerk out'.

And its right in the thread you quote from where I outline why the particular stance Hussar takes makes it impossible to deal with the issue in any other manner.

Let me say that I am not married, but currently in a long-term relationship that's likely to go there, and I completely understand Hussar's position. I have been in enough games where in-character romances led to real world problems that I'd definitely say no-thanks immediately.

As I said before, that kind of a conversation is best held (in my opinion) out of the game where an issue is laid out and players can deal with it as an adult. If someone isn't comfortable with something that's going on in the game, I'm going to work to make them feel better about it, so long as it's humanly possible: I don't think someone who doesn't like combat and fighting could really play in a D&D game, for instance.

I agree with all of that, and have agreed with all of that in this thread. In fact, you have said here exactly the very thing that might clue you in to what I just said.

The rest of what you say brings up interesting points, but I think it rambles enough that I can't say I agree with it completely. But I would like to point out this statement especially because it is one of my pet peeves, and it is an echo of things I said earlier in the thread, and I think you get it exactly backwards:

I am reminded of the scene in Talladega Nights where Ricky Bobby says all sorts of horrible things but expects to get away with it because he said "with all due respect," first.

Yeah, so in Hussar's example, who is that expect to get away with it because they have prefaced their stance with something designed to get the listener's empathy, and what exactly is it that they are trying to get away with?

The other point about "I'm playing my character," that is quickly forgotten is that, in a group, everyone else has a right to respond to the choices you make, and be playing theirs. I've played in several games where one guy had to be the hidden evil character, and he was absolutely astonished that a group of good characters wouldn't just put up with it!

See, you are setting out to prove one thing (defend Hussar), and yet persist in your argument to actually agrue against him and for the other side in this debate.

So we're all adults (or heading that way) why can't these things be worked out before there's a problem?

--Steve

Hey, and now we are in complete agreement.

 

[S'mon]

I think I've made it very clear what my standards are and how I want to treat everyone. But if you insist you just can't comprimise then by all means leave and take your petty dictatorial emo self with you, because you will have left me no room for sympathy.

That seems a bit harsh, and if you're calling Hussar "emo" that's close to a personal attack.

 

[pawsplay]

Gosh, this thread has gotten complex. I hope I am stepping in at a good place to say how I view PC-on-PC romance:

1. I absolutely do not feel I have to accomodate another player's backstory in my character concept. We were lovers in college? Uh, no. We were not. Please don't write my character.
2. On the other hand, I think in an RPG the assumption is that developments in-story are fair game. As long as the development is relevant to people's interests, does not constitute some type of harassment because of outside-the-game social goals, and fits the characterizations of those PCs, I think it's the player's job to roll with it.
3. On the other hand, if the game wanders outside the comfort zone of the players involved, that should be handled outside the game. Again, I think the default assumption is that the players should be willing to work with the other players, but if that is not fun/feasible/fair, I think it only makes sense for the discomfited player to assert themselves and ask the situation be addressed. The end result might be retconning the situation, agreeing on a future course to the storyline that steers away from problem areas, or one or more players being asked to consider whether they can accept the situation or whether they would prefer to excuse themselves from the game.

 

[Celebrim]

That seems a bit harsh, and if you're calling Hussar "emo" that's close to a personal attack.

Yeah, that's harsh. But it needs to be, because I think too much distance is being placed mentally between the dysfunctionality of theoretical stance A and theoretical stance B when in my mind they are the same underlying problem. Each side is (potentially) convinced that their feelings are more valid than the other side, and each is (potentially) taking their emotions as a basis of a claim of authority to the point of dictating terms to every one else.

No, I'm not attacking Hussar personally. I'm describing what I think about this hypothetical player's position, because I want to emphasize that the hypothetical player isn't mildly in the wrong by that point, or isn't merely being 'undiplomatic', is not excused on the grounds of their 'feelings', but has gotten as far into the wrong as they can be. It's twisted and sick position and it should be exposed as such before we find ourselves in that position and lest we comfort ourselves in the false belief that it is defensible and persuade ourselves to feel and act that way.

 

[S'mon]

No, I'm not attacking Hussar personally. I'm describing what I think about this hypothetical player's position, because I want to emphasize that the hypothetical player isn't mildly in the wrong by that point, or isn't merely being 'undiplomatic', is not excused on the grounds of their 'feelings', but has gotten as far into the wrong as they can be. It's twisted and sick position and it should be exposed as such before we find ourselves in that position and lest we comfort ourselves in the false belief that it is defensible and persuade ourselves to feel and act that way.

The "I'm not comfortable with your PC being in love with my PC, stop/retcon it" position is "as far into the wrong as they can be" and "twisted and sick"?

 

[S'mon]

Gosh, this thread has gotten complex. I hope I am stepping in at a good place to say how I view PC-on-PC romance:

1. I absolutely do not feel I have to accomodate another player's backstory in my character concept. We were lovers in college? Uh, no. We were not. Please don't write my character.
2. On the other hand, I think in an RPG the assumption is that developments in-story are fair game. As long as the development is relevant to people's interests, does not constitute some type of harassment because of outside-the-game social goals, and fits the characterizations of those PCs, I think it's the player's job to roll with it.

That would be my feeling also. I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with having your PC be in love with somebody else's PC. It shouldn't normally cause a problem for either player.

However if I ever did this, and the other player said "stop", well I think it'd be ok to think slightly less of them (unless I knew they had good reason* to be uncomfortable with it, in which case I wouldn't have had my PC be in love with theirs in the first place), but I would 'stop', ie it wouldn't ever come up in-play again. And I certainly wouldn't try to kill their PC, which seems even more dysfunctional. I'd probably think of my PC as having received some signal that their love would be forever unrequited, but no obvious reaction.

*Either from the player's personal life, or the player had created a PC who obviously would not be a plausible romantic interest. In either case I would be a bad player if I created a PC in love with theirs.

 

[Hussar]

Wow.

Why should they?

Just so I'm absolutely clear here, because, like a few others in this thread, I'm a bit taken aback that you would take this position: In your view, when a player is faced by a situation, in your game, that he or she finds uncomfortable, that player has two choices:

1. Suck it up and play through.

2. Leave the game.

Is that accurate?