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

[billd91]

Why? And I'm not going to buy "respect," since you do not have a monopoly on that quality. Why isn't it the beginning? Why does it mean drop it, rather than the player dropping out? You keep stating this as if it were a natural law, and your reasoning is simply not clear to me. Help me out here.

1) If player B drops out because of some topic, you've lost a player rather than losing a topic to include in the game. Topics are easier to replace. Players are more valuable.

2) If Player B drops out because Player A included him in action that crossed his lines, the game loses both Player B and the connection Player A was trying to establish anyway. Might as well reduce the losses to just the connection.

 

[S'mon]

I recall when GMing I once had a situation where the PC of a newly joined male player immediately started a hail of derogatory remarks about the abilities of the female PC (only female PC in the group) of the only female player. The new player was a stranger to the group. The new player's PC was heavily min-maxed, the female player's PC was normally competent. I told him to stop, and he said "It's my character". The female player never objected, but it made *me* uncomfortable, and I ended up asking him to leave the game.

I know there's probably not information to judge, but in principle do you think that's reasonable behaviour from the GM?

 

[Doug McCrae]

My previous gaming circle tended to shy away from ooc discussions of problems, preferring to handle everything in character. My current circle is quite prepared to raise issues ooc. I prefer the latter approach.

In one game, Chris had a problem with Ryan's PC going too far in insulting his PC. He raised the issue in the middle of the session. Ryan immediately toned it down. Ryan did not ask Chris why he was so uptight, insult Chris's PC more, or try to kill Chris's PC. The reason for this is that Ryan isn't a dick. I enjoy gaming with both Chris and Ryan.

In a pirate game, with three players, Kev, also in the middle of a session, raised a problem - the PCs were too far apart morally. Kev's PC was a good guy, Jon's was very evil and I was in between the two. We all agreed that this was a problem as the party must be able to work as a team. We agreed to all get closer to the middle ground. We did not try to solve the problem by ejecting the most evil PC from the group or by killing him, or by me and Jon's PC ganging up to kill Kev's PC and take his stuff.

These are, I think, signs of a group with a good social dynamic.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I told him to stop, and he said "It's my character".

He was clearly a dick. Sometimes the "I'm just playing my character" defence is a passive-aggressive cover for anti-social behaviour.

That said, I fully accept that in some groups, like Lanefan's, and to a large extent my former gaming circle, that kind of thing can be perfectly fine. The players are all mature, they know what they like, and have been playing the "what starts with the character ends with the character" way for a long time.

 

[Kerranin]

I recall when GMing I once had a situation where the PC of a newly joined male player immediately started a hail of derogatory remarks about the abilities of the female PC (only female PC in the group) of the only female player. The new player was a stranger to the group. The new player's PC was heavily min-maxed, the female player's PC was normally competent. I told him to stop, and he said "It's my character". The female player never objected, but it made *me* uncomfortable, and I ended up asking him to leave the game.

I know there's probably not information to judge, but in principle do you think that's reasonable behaviour from the GM?

If it makes people around the table uncomfortable, then it is a problem, even when the uncomfortable person is the GM. You asked him to stop, he refused. I don't see anything wrong with asking him to leave.

RP Games require a level of cooperation, interaction and trust that needs everyone to be comfortable with what is being said and done. If people start feeling uncomfortable, the whole group dynamic can be affected, the game goes downhill, and in the worst case, it can bring an end to the game.

 

[Celebrim]

Harrassment laws would like to have a word with you.

Yes, but, I'd like to have a word with them.

 

[Celebrim]

I know there's probably not information to judge, but in principle do you think that's reasonable behaviour from the GM?

Yes.

 

[Rel]

I always like it when I learn something from a thread, even if it's a small thing.

What I learned in this thread was that, by constantly being borderline offensive, I've managed to attract a group of gamers to my group (and friends to my circle of friends) who don't give me a hard time when I'm somewhat offensive. That's good for all of us I think.

 

[MrMyth]

Yet to go back to my original example, one PC having a crush on another PC does not come under any of "evil"*, "terrible things", or "mature themes and content". Or, dare I suggest that if it does there's a bigger problem rearing its head.

Oh, sure - that's the point. Someone up thread said one reason why a player wouldn't be entitled to object in your scenario was if the campaign was explicitly about mature themes and content.

Perhaps, thoguh I'd say the second player also needs to ask the mirror why such a simple thing makes him-her so uncomfortable. Maybe there'll be a legitimate answer, and that's fair enough. But far too often there won't be...

I think this is part of the core disagreement here. At least from your earlier comments (that someone should simply 'lighten up') you seemed to find it unlikely that someone could be genuinely made uncomfortable by another player's character directing romantic attention towards them. But... I'm generally of the view that if you are friends with someone, you should respect their hang-ups, rather than assume they are groundless or that they need to be forced to confront them.

 

[pawsplay]

Because you are the one changing the game. You are the one who has changed the gaming environment, not the other person. The other person hasn't done anything. He's sitting there, minding his own business and it's your actions which are causing him to be uncomfortable.

Not so. The game includes possibility of PC-PC romance. Player is 2 changing the game: "I decree there will be no romancing of my PC."