I've spoiler-blocked out my response to Celebrim below, just because... it got really long, and I figured I'd let anyone who wants to avoid the length do so.
[sblock]
This is going to get political if we don't watch it, but I hold to a strict definition of blaming the victim. Sometimes "blaming the victim" is brought up as a defense by people who adopt spurious passive aggresive stances and then are called on it. This is unfortunate, because it makes it harder for actual victims to defend themselves.
Fair enough about the actual background for the term.
Still, whatever one calls it, I think it is a bad attitude to vilify or discourage someone speaking out against behavior that makes them uncomfortable. Or accusing it of being passive-aggressive. Nothing like that is going on here - we're talking about someone directly approaching the problem and asking someone to stop the behavior that bothers them. That's pretty much the exact opposite of being passive-aggresive!
However, suggesting that someone had no real grounds for taking offense, is not blaming the victim. For example, if I have two colleagues at work who in a private conversation good naturedly rib each other about their personal appearance, or even touchy things like race or gender, if I overhear that, what real grounds do I have for taking offense at comments not directed at me and which the parties in the conversation thought amusing. I'm asserting a right to be offended that I don't actually have. No real harm came to me. The people I observed were clearly tolerant of each other, what grounds do I have for injecting my intolerance? Granted, this is not a clear cut bright line sort of thing, but that is exactly my point.
Well, I think there are still boundaries that could be crossed even by conversation that you aren't intended to be part of. If I overhear two colleagues harmless flirting, there is little reason for me to be bothered by it. If I hear them engaging in really explicit sexual talk? That might make me uncomfortable, and the appropriate response might be for me to speak up and point out people can overhear them. Asking them to take the talk elsewhere isn't trying to claim victimhood - it is simply trying to resolve an uncomfortable situation that has arisen!
And if their talk is actually something offensive - if I overhear them making derogatory comments about other coworkers, or about my race or gender, for example - then yeah, I think I may have grounds for being offended!
Of course, the example doesn't really match the situations we've been discussing, which have been focused not on someone objecting to behavior between other people at the table, but behavior they've been involuntarily involved in. If a coworker comes up to me and starts engaging in talk that makes me uncomfortable, then yeah, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to stop!
Out in the real world, friends tease each other all the time. It is a means of testing whether or not you are the sort of person that goes all to peices over little and makes big emotional scenes, and sometimes its a means of finding out where your boundaries are. "So and so has issues with X, so let's avoid bringing that up when they are around."
I don't think it is particularly cool to imply that anyone who might object to someone crossing their boundaries is "the sort of person that goes all to peices over little things and makes big emotional scenes". Especially since, from the beginning, we've been saying the appropriate response when presented with something that bothers you is to simply ask the person to stop that behavior!
You keep trying to reimagine the situation. As though when Player B is bothered by the actions of Player A, Player B will inevitably respond with some sort of huge scene where they accuse Player A of stalking them and making them a victim and Player A needs to 'pay recompense' and answer to justice and... all sorts of other nonsense that no one, other than you, has really suggested.
All that we have been talking about, in those situations, has been for Player B to speak up and say, "Hey, dude, I find this behavior kinda creepy, and would really like you to stop."
Finally, for myself... yeah, my friends and I tease each other about stuff. But we don't do it to try and find out what someone's boundaries are. We do it to have fun. If we
do find out a boundary line, we respect it. The idea that you
need to poke at someone until you find out what upsets them, or that someone is flawed if they have topics they aren't comfortable with... that seems a pretty weird definition of friendship to me.
I'm not even going to argue this one because I don't know how to go there within the rules and now I'm having to skirt the line already.
Ok, let me just say - I'm not trying to upset you or cause you any sort of anger or frustration, if something I said crossed the line. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth - all I was doing was responding to your direct quote of, "Who granted you the right to get ... uncomfortable", and noting that being made uncomfortable has nothing all to do with 'rights.' If that isn't the problem with responding, and you instead can't say anything because it would instead stray into some sort of political talk or discussion that isn't appropriate here - fair enough, and I'm willing to leave that thread be.
Yes, just like I said. In the real world, you go to court to bring injunctions against people. They are very much asking for 'justice' when they bring this up, and failing justice I think it's very clear that people in this thread have been quick to assert their right to retribution.
Ok, yes, some people have suggested in-character retribution as a response. I... seem to recall that you were one of them.
Those responses have also been completely seperate from those of us advocating resolving things out of character. And I don't think any of us have been advocating 'justice' or 'retribution'. All we've been looking for is for someone to stop the behavior that is making someone else uncomfortable. That isn't asking for someone to be punished for their behavior - that is saying, "I'm not comfortable with the direction this is going, can we drop this idea, put it behind us, and move on as normal?"
I would agree that the first person has a burden on them to recognize that they have made the other player uncomfortable and to find a way to back off. I don't agree that there is some absolute standard that says, "Ok, now you have been wronged, so sound you hue and cry of 'Justice' as loud as you like."
You are the only one who has been phrasing things like that!!!
Yes, it is possible for someone to get upset over trivial things. There is no absolute standard. But we aren't suggesting anyone should be constantly shouting out that they have been victimized and crying for justice. All we are suggesting is that when someone
does cross their boundary lines, the best approach is to mention that this does bother them and ask the one responsible to stop.
Can you explain how? And in particular, can you explain how in a way that justifies the assertion that it is fully incombant on player #1 to change and not at all on player #2?
Player 1 initiated a behavior involving another character in an uncomfortable situation against their will. It is very unlikely that behavior is vital to their enjoyment of the game. Player 2, however, will absolutely have their enjoyment of the game diminished by any form of this behavior continuing.
That all says to me that Player 1 is the one with the burden of backing down.
Now, that doesn't mean Player 1 has to do so. He could say, "NO, this plot is absolutely important to me. If I can't stalk Player 2, then the game just isn't as fun to me." In which case Player 1 is probably a jerk, and I imagine things will get worse until the game is disrupted entirely or Player 1 gets tossed from the game.
But in most cases, when Player 1 crosses the boundary lines of Player 2, it isn't out of intentional malice, it is because they didn't realize it would be a problem. And usually, when Player 2 points out that it is an issue, most friends will simply back down and find some other RP element that they can enjoy.
Of course, sometimes it
will go the other way. Player 2 might be bothered by the situation, but realize it wasn't malicious, and simply suck it up and try and tough it out through the uncomfortable experience. Isn't that exactly what happened in Hussar's example?
And it meant Hussar sat through one miserable session after another. Where if he had spoken up, the other player involved would probably have been able to find some other approach to take that wouldn't have bothered him. I find it very unlikely that their enjoyment of the game
required romantically pursuing his character. And if it did, then I'd say there may be much more serious issues in play that need to be addressed.
Yes it is. Freedom doesn't mean anything if it isn't freedom to occasionally cause offense. It's precisely offensive speach that is protected by the first ammendment. It's precisely the things that other people might object to that define whether we have any freedom at all.
A direct attack on someone's freedom would involve trying to physically prevent them from speaking. Or perhaps passing a law that forbid them from being romantically involved with another PC. Or any number of other approaches.
Asking someone to stop behavior that bothers you? That isn't an attack in any way. If the player chooses to respect your wishes, then that is a choice they have made. If they don't, you can't stop them... but it is the sort of conflict which might result in someone having to leave the group.
And note that you don't necessarily have any 'right' to play in someone's D&D game. It is usually a private activity taking place among individuals who desire to be part of it, usually in a personal residence. If you do cross the line and act like enough of a jerk to get kicked out, they aren't 'attacking your personal freedoms'. You are free to go off and play D&D and be a jerk somewhere else.
"If Player 2 has been made uncomfortable, they can bring this up without 'slandering' Player 1."
I can think of only one way how.
Ok, I'm a little confused here. You genuinely feel that someone saying, "This behavior makes me uncomfortable, would you please stop it?" is 'slandering' Player 1? That it is "claiming [Player 1] is abusive", and is a personal attack on his character and is potentially victimizing him?
Cause I think that's nonsense.
All the examples we've given have largely been directed at the behavior, rather than the person behind it. And usually assuming that aren't
intentionally trying to creep someone else out. That they are unintentionally crossing someone's boundaries, and the best way to resolve that is to
point this out and ask them to stop it.
Again, speaking out honestly about something that makes you uncomfortable isn't
remotely a form of passive-aggresiveness. It is nearly the opposite - trying to resolve a situation by honestly sharing your concerns about it, rather than letting it simmer unspoken.
Despite everything else you responded to, you seem to have missed my main point here: Speaking up when something makes you uncomfortable is a good thing. The second you condemn this as a problem is the second you are
encouraging actual harassment and
discouraging people speaking out against it.
If Player 2 is upset because Player's #1's character is constantly insulting player #2's character, then we first have to make sure that both player #1 and player #2 haven't forgotten that they are not their character. And if player #2 is playing a role-playing game for crying out loud, then that there are things that might make them uncomfortable is I think taken with about as much given as that there will be rents and payments in monopoly.
I don't buy this
at all. It is a
given that during a role-playing game, one should expect to encounter behavior that bothers them and makes them uncomfortable? No way. Not in my game, and not in most. If that
is an assumption of your game, then fair enough, but it is most certainly not a default assumption of the genre.
And again, I also don't buy the idea that everything is forgiveable if it is in character. If someone else wants to play a bard who, for whatever reason, singles my character out and is constantly insulting me... even if it is in game, that could well become frustrating. I'd like to think that if I was playing with friends, I'd be able to ask him to stop and he'd respect my wishes.
Sadly this is not usually true. In my experience, players that have been made to feel uncomfortable tend to have all the beliefs about that that you and others here have outlined - namely, that they have been wronged, that the person who has wronged them has no recourse but to apologize/retcon/back off/etc., that they have a right to be angry and upset, and that if an apology is not forth coming that the person should be thrown out of the group.
Ok, things finally make sense. If this is the behavior you deal with... fair enough. I think your comments may be much more applicable to such behavior.
But that is a very different thing that what pretty much anyone in this thread has suggested. You say that myself "and others" have outlined these behaviors, but that's not true. YOU are the only one who has brought them up. No one has suggested that apologies need to be handed out, or that anyone needs to be kicked out of the group if they don't apologize, or that anger and claims of being wronged should be the first recourse.
People holding to these convictions do not actually in fact try to resolve things peacefully when they go OOC. They don't feel that they have a responcibility to do so. They feel instead entitled to something, and so they don't confess this as a small character flaw, they don't apologize, they don't try to empathize with the other players position, or anything of the sort. "Why should they have to do so?" as so many people in this thread have immediately forcefully proclaimed. "My feelings were hurt." "You did something to me." "You made me uncomfortable." None of these things are the basis of a peaceful resolution.
Well, my sympathies that you've had to deal with whatever situations have made this so personal for you. For myself, that isn't what I'm advocating or what I generally would expect from most gamers.
I do think that your last few lines there are wrong. I absolutely think that someone can honestly speak up and say, "My feelings are hurt," or "You made me uncomfortable" and expect to resolve the issue peacefully from there.
I'm actually starting to again be confused by what you are recommending. You've had a lot of lines attacking this as being passive-aggressive. But it isn't. Instead, what you actually seem to be suggesting - not saying this honest opinions, and instead trying to swallow up one's uncomfortableness and deal with it - seems much more likely to lead to passive-aggressive sniping and frustration.
I just don't see why you feel that there is something wrong with honestly speaking up when someone is making you uncomfortable.
In point of fact, switching to OOC publicly and in front of the group is an immediate escalation of the situation. Even the most mature player who is jolted out of an IC state where he's holding on to the thought, "These actions don't reflect my assessment of my friends, or my friends assessment of me", is going to be immediately thrown on the defensive and probably made quite angry by someone taking the in game events as personal attacks. And this is particularly true because by making the appeal in front of the group, you are putting the other person on trial in front of the rest of his friends - who themselves are very likely to unconsciously or even openly begin playing the roles of judge and jury.
If I see this, and I'm DMing, I'm going to try to immediately shut it down because there is just about no good that can come out of people snipping at each other IC and 9 times in 10 if I can get peoples heads back in the game we can move on with no more hard feelings and people will cool off.
Again, I just don't get this. If I say, "Hold up, I don't like where this is going, can be back off on this plot thread," I'm not trying to escalate the situation and put someone on trial. I'm trying to stop an uncomfortable sitation before it gets worse.
A DM who shuts that down and insists we need to proceed with it anyway... again, that's where we will see passive-aggressive frustration creeping in. We're not looking for people to spend time sniping at each other as a means of resolving thing - we're hoping that if someone is doing something that bothers you, a simple request to stop that behavior will be taken to heart.
You genuinely feel that if another character starts stalking my own, and I ask him to stop OOC, that the best approach is to overrule me and insist we play it on IC? That won't cause me to 'cool off' - that will make me a lot more concerned and creeped out.
Only if the player is severely confused about the difference between IC and OOC. In my experience, there isn't any OOC conflict that can't be worked out ICly by the same sort of methods (and then some) by which people work out conflict in the real world. And if it can't be worked out IC neatly, then it certainly isn't going to get worked out OOC neatly. Personally, as DM, I find brawls between the player characters are alot easier to deal with than brawls between the players themselves. YMMV, but I find IC arguments tend to be alot less tense than OOC ones, even when some element of that IC argument reflects OOC tensions.
I guess on this we just have to disagree. Again, you are the only one suggesting 'brawling between players' as some sort of approach of resolution. I'm thinking that peaceful discussion in real life is appropriate when real life concerns are the ones at hand, and a lot easier to resolve than forcing something to get resolved by in-character fighting in the game itself.
Mine too. Which I why I've got the standards I do, so that conflicts in the game can be left in the game, and disappear when we get up from the table. I've tried it the other way, and it just makes for a painful real life soap opera, rather than an amusing in hindsight now you can laugh about it in game one.
If it works for you, all to the good, I suppose. But if something in the game crosses someone's boundaries, I'd rather know about it and avoid that topic, rather than insist they get over it and laugh about it later.
[/sblock]
