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

[billd91]

What about the issue of Player 1 having tacitly signed up for this by agreeing to play in an rpg? Rpgs are so open-ended that I don't think we can assume that much about what someone has signed up for, and must leave the possibility of raising an objection if things develop in an unexpected area. That's both a great strength of rpgs, but also a potential pitfall.

There are certain things I would expect, like a player signing up for D&D shouldn't have too many objections about the lack of realism. They shouldn't be continually complaing that hit points are stoopid, dragons can't fly and the like. They should also not play a pacifist, or someone who isn't prepared to risk their life going down monster-infested holes.

I think signing up for an RPG gives implicit consent for certain genre-based things, and for a wide variety of things to at least be proposed. I wouldn't fault Player 1 (or A) for trying to include Player 2 (B)'s PC in a romance. But once the line gets exposed and consent is withheld, I would expect Player 1 to back off.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think signing up for an RPG gives implicit consent for certain genre-based things, and for a wide variety of things to at least be proposed. I wouldn't fault Player 1 (or A) for trying to include Player 2 (B)'s PC in a romance.

Yeah, I agree, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact it's a good thing, initially.

But once the line gets exposed and consent is withheld, I would expect Player 1 to back off.

Yeah.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To me it's a pretty fundamental social rule. Player 2 can't change. You can't change feelings, any more than you stop having an allergic reaction. Player 1 can change his or her behaviour. It's a relatively easy thing to do.

Welcome to the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

(1) Player 1's desire to play Character X is also based on emotions.

(2) It is not your emotions which are critical, but it is how you react to them that is.

(3) It is untrue that you cannot change how you feel. Emotions are complex things, and sometimes exploring what one feels does indeed change how one feels.

(4) Acceptance of points (2) and (3) are, in a very real way, determinants of maturity.

Yes, if something makes someone truly uncomfortable, it is going to have to be addressed. Addressing it should follow this progression, IMHO:

1. Deal with it in game if possible. I.e., spiders bug me, but I can play that out by slaying the giant spider and taking its stuff.
2. Talk about it. Attempt to compromise. EDIT: Obviously, this is something that is bothering you more than simply not liking spiders. AFAICT, no one in this thread has suggested that "there is something wrong with honestly speaking up when someone is making you uncomfortable", so that is a straw man -- IMHO and IME generally damaging to the conversation, rather than helping achieve understanding or agreement.
3. If no compromise is possible, decide who or what you wish to drop (as a group).


RC

 

[pawsplay]

It can't really be explained any more than that.
To me it's a pretty fundamental social rule. Player 2 can't change.

I just don't accept that. To me, it's a fundamental social rule you don't coerce people into doing things for your benefit. I don't impose my preferences on a social group activity by fiat. That's an aggressive act and I disapprove.

You can't change feelings, any more than you stop having an allergic reaction. Player 1 can change his or her behaviour. It's a relatively easy thing to do.

First of all, no one is being asked to change their feelings. Second, feelings are not like allergic reactions. Feelings come from the way we perceive a situation, and it is possible to modify our perception. You are correct, there is no way to simply deactivate a feeling. However, simply because we have a feeling does not mean it has to control us.

I may feel as if I could not stand it if another player has their PC fall in love with mine. However, that feeling is an illusion. In fact, I could stand it, and I would suffer very little harm. I would be uncomfortable. Most likely, over time, I would become more comfortable. However, I will continue to be uncomfortable and may become more uncomfortable if I continue to think, "This should not be." If the issue is simply my discomfort, I really wonder why I can't simply work through it. If you want to claim it is actually ethically wrong to roleplay an PC-on-PC romance and I have a good reason to be uncomfortable, that is a different situation.

The word "stalker" has been thrown around and I don't think the word likely applies to the original situation described, nor to most RPG situations. If you actually have a stalker, the fact that they are in a D&D group with you is the least of your problems. I don't think labeling one person as the good person and the other person as the bad person is helpful in this situation, or even in most situations. I do not accept that Player 2 necessarily has a personal, hurtful intention. They may, but again, that implies a larger problem than the unwanted PC interaction.

I believe I have a pretty good handle on human interactions. Apart from having years of experience as a GM and being in a very fulfilling marriage, I also have a BA in Psychology and all but thesis on my Masters in Rehabilitation Counseling Psychology. What I am saying about getting along with people is the same sort of information I might say to a client, or teach in a psychoeducation class. Telling other people what to do is largeless fruitless unless you are reasonably asserting your personal rights, and in any case is more likely to lead to frustration that satisfaction.

"You must accept me, and you must not offend me" is a mythical statement, and it does not work any better in the RPG world than it does in other situations.

Again, it would be better to work it out, but if not, ultimately it's a choice of everyone involved whether to be in the game or not. Whether they like what other people like, or not.

 

[MrMyth]

I may feel as if I could not stand it if another player has their PC fall in love with mine. However, that feeling is an illusion. In fact, I could stand it, and I would suffer very little harm. I would be uncomfortable. Most likely, over time, I would become more comfortable. However, I will continue to be uncomfortable and may become more uncomfortable if I continue to think, "This should not be." If the issue is simply my discomfort, I really wonder why I can't simply work through it.

Again, I think it unreasonable to insist that someone should suffer through a situation which makes them uncomfortable. Especially when the player causing the discomfort should have plenty of other avenues of roleplaying which don't involve pursuing this approach with a player who doesn't want it.

And I think we've seen at least one anecdote in this thread where someone did try and suffer through it, and only became more uncomfortable, and the situation was all the worse when it came to a head.

The word "stalker" has been thrown around and I don't think the word likely applies to the original situation described, nor to most RPG situations. If you actually have a stalker, the fact that they are in a D&D group with you is the least of your problems.

I think the use of that term has primarily been to the character's behavior, not the player. And, yes, behavior has been discussed that the word definitely fits - either a character continuing to pursue another character after being rejected, or the initial scenario where the character is in love with another PC and pursues them 'behind the scenes'. There are plenty of reasons why someone would find that sort of behavior in game uncomfortable.

And of course, one argument against that is that you should be able to seperate your character from yourself - it doesn't bother you when your character gets horribly killed by lizard people, right? But honestly... it is a lot easier to put distance betwen yourself and something like, versus something that more closely mirrors a real world situation. And when its another player pursuing a romantic agenda in a disturbing fashion, yeah, that's going to go past the boundaries of some people.

I don't think labeling one person as the good person and the other person as the bad person is helpful in this situation, or even in most situations. I do not accept that Player 2 necessarily has a personal, hurtful intention.

I don't think most of us are labelling one person as good and one person as bad - at least, not at the initial point. At that point, all we have is the instigator - the person whose actions caused the situation - and the responder, the person responding to the situation.

Now, if the instigator is asked to not pursue this game element, and chooses to do so anyway, or responds by making things worse for the other player or taking it out on them in game... yeah, at that point I'm calling them a bad person.

And, similarly, if the person who was made uncomfortable immediately becomes completely unreasonable, and insists the initiator must be thrown of the game whether they intended offense or not - at that point, they are being the bad person.

But at the point at which someone has simply been asked to stop their behavior that is bothering someone else, no one is inherently the bad guy.

I believe I have a pretty good handle on human interactions. Apart from having years of experience as a GM and being in a very fulfilling marriage, I also have a BA in Psychology and all but thesis on my Masters in Rehabilitation Counseling Psychology. What I am saying about getting along with people is the same sort of information I might say to a client, or teach in a psychoeducation class. Telling other people what to do is largeless fruitless unless you are reasonably asserting your personal rights, and in any case is more likely to lead to frustration that satisfaction.

Credentials aside, I can't put too much weight in the suggestions you've given. They've come across a bit too much as, "If something upsets someone, its their responsibility to get over it". And that seems, at least to me, both insensitive and a poor approach for a group of friends to have. People getting along should involve respecting one another's boundaries and trying to reach a common solution when conflict arises. And yes, sometimes compromise will go one way, sometimes it will go another way. But, generally, I've found that personal feelings and a respect for someone's boundaries should trump someone wanting to pursue one specific uncomfortable roleplaying element for their pretend character.

"You must accept me, and you must not offend me" is a mythical statement, and it does not work any better in the RPG world than it does in other situations.

That seems a bit of a distortion of what is being said. No one is saying you need to somehow know in advance what will bother someone, and avoid it. They are saying that if you do happen to make someone uncomfortable, and are alerted to this fact, you try to avoid that behavior.

It's Rule 1: Don't be a dick.

The key to realize is that it isn't that initial behavior that is being a dick. Saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if our characters fell in love?" That's perfectly fine.

It's continuing to pursue that line of thought when the other player says, "No... I'm not really comfortable with that." Or viewing it as a personal attack when they bring it up. Or deciding that if they won't let your characters fall in love, you need to kill their character off. Or to harass them OOC until they 'lighten up'. Or, essentially, continuing with any other behavior in-character that you certainly don't need to do, and that you know makes your friend uncomfortable, but you insist on doing anyway.

 

[pawsplay]

Again, I think it unreasonable to insist that someone should suffer through a situation which makes them uncomfortable.

I guess it's a good thing I didn't insist that, then.

Especially when the player causing the discomfort should have plenty of other avenues of roleplaying which don't involve pursuing this approach with a player who doesn't want it.

I'm not there, I don't know. Further, I'm not sure that matters. What matters is that their preferences are being thwarted, which is essentially the same issue Player 2 is having.

And I think we've seen at least one anecdote in this thread where someone did try and suffer through it, and only became more uncomfortable, and the situation was all the worse when it came to a head.

I certainly don't advocate trying to suffer.

I think the use of that term has primarily been to the character's behavior, not the player. And, yes, behavior has been discussed that the word definitely fits - either a character continuing to pursue another character after being rejected, or the initial scenario where the character is in love with another PC and pursues them 'behind the scenes'. There are plenty of reasons why someone would find that sort of behavior in game uncomfortable.

sure, but that doesn't automatically mean Player 1 is at fault. I think it's reasonable to place the discomfort where it exists: in Player 2's perception of the situation. Is player 2's viewpoint a reasonable one, or are they asking for the game to be altered for unreasonable reasons?

And of course, one argument against that is that you should be able to seperate your character from yourself - it doesn't bother you when your character gets horribly killed by lizard people, right? But honestly... it is a lot easier to put distance betwen yourself and something like, versus something that more closely mirrors a real world situation. And when its another player pursuing a romantic agenda in a disturbing fashion, yeah, that's going to go past the boundaries of some people.

So, if it's difficult to separate yourself from your character entirely, doesn't that mean that asking player 1 to edit their character's actions is essentially rejecting some part of them, and then asking the group to back up that rejection? Is that a good way to run a group? Just asking. "We held a vote; you're a creep." I'm just not sure about that.

I don't think most of us are labelling one person as good and one person as bad - at least, not at the initial point. At that point, all we have is the instigator - the person whose actions caused the situation - and the responder, the person responding to the situation.

Tomayto, tomahto. Simply labeling the "instigator" and "responder" is laying blame where I don't think it's appropriate. Both players are instigated and responding to the situation.

Now, if the instigator is asked to not pursue this game element, and chooses to do so anyway, or responds by making things worse for the other player or taking it out on them in game... yeah, at that point I'm calling them a bad person.

Is that helpful?

"You, you there, expressing your personal preference. You are a bad person."

so if Player 2 objects, player 1 becomes a bad person. If they don't, Player 1 is not a bad person. Or maybe they are, and we just don't find out about it because they aren't challenged. I'm not comfortable labeling someone as a bad person for:

Wishing to do something that somebody else doesn't like, who does not have a really reasonable basis for insisting they stop.

And, similarly, if the person who was made uncomfortable immediately becomes completely unreasonable, and insists the initiator must be thrown of the game whether they intended offense or not - at that point, they are being the bad person.

Maybe. Sometimes it may be productive to ask if other people in the group would also like to remove the person, or to set a personal limit: I will not play if this continues.

But at the point at which someone has simply been asked to stop their behavior that is bothering someone else, no one is inherently the bad guy.

Credentials aside, I can't put too much weight in the suggestions you've given. They've come across a bit too much as, "If something upsets someone, its their responsibility to get over it". And that seems, at least to me, both insensitive and a poor approach for a group of friends to have.

I can appreciate your skepticism. Most people are not taught to take responsibility for their emotions and it may sound strange to hear it spelled it so explicitly. But you seem to be picking up a message, "get over it," which I am not saying. The person offended has a choice.

People getting along should involve respecting one another's boundaries and trying to reach a common solution when conflict arises. And yes, sometimes compromise will go one way, sometimes it will go another way. But, generally, I've found that personal feelings and a respect for someone's boundaries should trump someone wanting to pursue one specific uncomfortable roleplaying element for their pretend character.

I agree. I've taught classes on setting healthy boundaries.

However, Player 1 is also entitled to set boundaries. "I don't wish this campaign to turn G-rated" is a reasonable limit, particularly when the players involved are older than eleven. Player 1 and Player 2 have equally valid boundaries they would like to set. If agreement cannot be reached, however, some compromise has to occur.

As presented in the original scenario, Player 2 insisted the behavior stop. Unless at least one other player makes the same insistence, Player 2 is stating a "must" that is actually only their personal preference. From the standpoint of the GM, the player who is not willing to roleplay is, by default, a problem. A player who is antagonistic is also a problem.

That seems a bit of a distortion of what is being said. No one is saying you need to somehow know in advance what will bother someone, and avoid it. They are saying that if you do happen to make someone uncomfortable, and are alerted to this fact, you try to avoid that behavior.

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Sometimes people are uncomfortable with things they are not justified in asking other people not do do. Not to get too far afield, but I don't care how many people are uncomfortable if I play Vampire, or choose to marry someone of the same sex, or if someone breastfeeds their infant. Those people are simply expressing prerogatives they don't have.

In this type of situation, it's less likely to be so clear-cut, but I think there is room for Player 1 to say, "Hey, I'm just trying to roleplay here. Why is Player 2 making this personal?"

It's Rule 1: Don't be a dick.

The key to realize is that it isn't that initial behavior that is being a dick. Saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if our characters fell in love?" That's perfectly fine.

It's continuing to pursue that line of thought when the other player says, "No... I'm not really comfortable with that." Or viewing it as a personal attack when they bring it up. Or deciding that if they won't let your characters fall in love, you need to kill their character off. Or to harass them OOC until they 'lighten up'. Or, essentially, continuing with any other behavior in-character that you certainly don't need to do, and that you know makes your friend uncomfortable, but you insist on doing anyway.

So basically, your argument is to call me a dick. If I'm Player 1, and I don't fold like a card when Player 2 complains about X, that makes me a dick.

I just don't accept that. I would rather have more Player 1s, who are willing to roleplay something, than Player 2s, who are erectings lots of barriers to very common, relatively safe emotions. I don't want Player 1's rigidity or pushiness, but I don't want Player 2's sense of entitlement either.

Again, all you are saying is that it's best if people can work the situation out. Every person in this entire thread, without any exception I am aware of, agrees it would be better if Player 1 and Player 2 simply made an agreement both were happy with. If that's all your saying, you are not providing a script for the situation where they can't agree. If, on the other hand, you are saying this MUST be done, you are providing a script I do not accept, and that I would view as more likely harmful to a long-term group among friends who know each other well and view RPGs as a diversion worth investing some thought into.

I can be turned into a pile of writhing flesh, slowly losing my sanity as my very humanity erodes, but I can't deal with someone saying, "Don't you realize? I have always loved you!" I mean, seriously.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I just don't accept that. To me, it's a fundamental social rule you don't coerce people into doing things for your benefit. I don't impose my preferences on a social group activity by fiat. That's an aggressive act and I disapprove.

Telling other people what to do is largeless fruitless unless you are reasonably asserting your personal rights, and in any case is more likely to lead to frustration that satisfaction.

"You must accept me, and you must not offend me" is a mythical statement, and it does not work any better in the RPG world than it does in other situations.

This language all seems too extreme to me, as does the Jester's use of 'demand' and 'dictate' quite far upthread. I don't see the (hypothetical) Player 2 as coercing or imposing or anything like that. I see him or her as making a request, no more. And it could be even less than a request - it could merely be an expression of his or her discomfort.

The questions are:
1) Should Player 2 make this request or not?
2) Once the request is made, how should Player 1 respond?

I feel that it's fine for Player 2 to make the request. Sure, there are other options - deal with his or her feelings, leave the game - but I think the request is the most straightforward and sensible approach.

Once the request is made I think Player 1 should accede to it. It's surely no great trouble to Player 1 to do so. Lanefan's suggested course of action - to mock Player 2 and not change his behaviour - is, I think, wrong.

The word "stalker" has been thrown around and I don't think the word likely applies to the original situation described, nor to most RPG situations.

Yes, I think you're right. Just as we assume Player 2 is acting in good faith we must also see Player 1 as doing the same.

I have absolutely zero problem with Player 1 starting a romance, in fact I think it's a good thing. It's got the potential to add a lot to the game. While romance is not the main focus of my preferred gaming style, which is just the usual action adventure nonsense, I think it can be really good as a sideplot. There were several PC/NPC couplings in the last campaign I ran, though no PC/PC. The latter is a lot rarer, imx.

 

[billd91]

So basically, your argument is to call me a dick. If I'm Player 1, and I don't fold like a card when Player 2 complains about X, that makes me a dick.

Hyperbole isn't really helping your argument. Nobody's characterizing Player 1 backing off as "folding like a card". That's a very confrontational way of stating it.

I just don't accept that. I would rather have more Player 1s, who are willing to roleplay something, than Player 2s, who are erectings lots of barriers to very common, relatively safe emotions. I don't want Player 1's rigidity or pushiness, but I don't want Player 2's sense of entitlement either.

Since a lot of us have been including the caveat that Player 2 isn't just throwing out uncrossable lines willy nilly, I don't think it's fair to characterize him as "erecting lots of barriers to common, relatively safe emotions." If he's doing that, then he's the dick in this scenario, remember?

I can be turned into a pile of writhing flesh, slowly losing my sanity as my very humanity erodes, but I can't deal with someone saying, "Don't you realize? I have always loved you!" I mean, seriously.

Well that's not for you to decide for him, is it? But we're not just talking about unilaterally working in a little romance into the story. Some posters have been suggesting that we take a broader view of the whole thing... so we are. Would you be so willing to dismiss Player 2's emotional response had Player 1 worked a rape or other abuse into the backstory? A little romance is pretty innocuous for most people (though not all), but the principle we're working with would be the same up and down the continuum of potential relationships between Player 1's PC and Player 2's PC.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If I'm Player 1, and I don't fold like a card when Player 2 complains about X, that makes me a dick.

Not for all values of X, but in this situation certainly. If Player 1 doesn't comply with a reasonable request, and I think that this is a reasonable request, then yes, he's a dick.

I don't think the term 'fold like a card' is helpful. The non-dick Player 1 accedes to the request because it's the right thing to do, there are no control/dominance issues. Or we should assume that there are none.

I can be turned into a pile of writhing flesh, slowly losing my sanity as my very humanity erodes, but I can't deal with someone saying, "Don't you realize? I have always loved you!" I mean, seriously.

Eh, humans are weird that way.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't see the (hypothetical) Player 2 as coercing or imposing or anything like that. I see him or her as making a request, no more. And it could be even less than a request - it could merely be an expression of his or her discomfort.

To the extent that it was all these things, I was perfectly happy with it and saw it as productive.

However, the suggestion was made and has been continually repeated that somehow it manages to be merely a request, but that player #1 has no right to refuse it in any fashion full stop. But if you have no right to refuse the request, and if your only recourse is to acceed to the request, then it really doesn't seem very much like a request to me.

The questions are:
1) Should Player 2 make this request or not?

Yes. I've always said that. However, I've also always said that the form of the request must be as non-confrontational as possible. Exactly what form that least confrontational and most diplomatic version of the request may be depends on the circumstance, but I've offered I think a very wide variaty of possible approaches that can be used and which will be appropriate under different circumstances.

Stopping the session to say, "You are making me uncomfortable. Please stop.", while it is sometimes quite appropriate and may in some cases be your only recourse, is not the least confrontational approach IMO.

2) Once the request is made, how should Player 1 respond?

With full empathy and respect for the concerns and distress of other player at the table.

This however does not necessarily mean that that player is required to just shut up and back off, although, though if he is comfortable with doing so then he is certainly free to do so. If it costs him nothing to give up, then almost certainly he should do so.

I feel that it's fine for Player 2 to make the request. Sure, there are other options - deal with his or her feelings, leave the game - but I think the request is the most straightforward and sensible approach.

Frankness is a valuable trait. There are situations in life where frankness is wanting and lacking and it takes some courageous to speak up and out about the thing that no one wants to say. And frankness beats dishonesty all around the ring. However, being frank is not the be all end all of communication, nor is it always the most sensible approach. In real life, people are seldom frank precisely because they know that it is confrontational and likely to lead to the airing of all sorts of emotions in unproductive ways. It's great when you have a situation among friends where complete frankness causes no hard feelings, but that is highly highly unusual.

There is this other equally valuable trait called tactfulness, and it must be paired with frankness. Tactfulness is the skill of conveying your real empathy and goodwill toward the person while telling them things that might make them uncomfortable. Its hard to do. Go to far one way and you seem condescending. Go to far in another direction and you seem dishonest.

Once the request is made I think Player 1 should accede to it.

Then, it's not really a request is it?

It's surely no great trouble to Player 1 to do so.

I think player #1 should be the judge of that.

Lanefan's suggested course of action - to mock Player 2 and not change his behaviour - is, I think, wrong.

Oh certainly, but that's not all that is on the table here.

To be exact, if someone just blurted out how they were uncomfortable and asked me to stop, I'd probably:

a) Offer an apology for making them uncomfortable, and assure them that I certainly had no intention of doing so. Try to be as humble and non-threatening as possible.

b) Try to discover exactly what it is that I was doing that made them so uncomfortable, and once I'd discovered it offer my sympathy for their feelings whatever they are and apologize again if necessary.

c) Try to suggest a line of play which extricates our characters from whatever situation that has made them uncomfortable as gracefully as possible.

d) If there seems to be some confusion, remind the player that they have full control over their character and are not required to do anything in response to any overature by myself as a player or by my character. I can't (or won't) force them into anything, whatever overatures I may make. Remind them that I'm in charge of my character and that I only wish to jointly create a story with them within the framework of the game. As such, however their character responds to my character, I will always try to respond to their lead in such a way that it allows the game to continue. My character is therefore safe to insult, condemn, punch or whatever they feel their character needs to do to signal to the character (and to me the player) whatever their character feels. In effect, my character is - regardless of the pretence in the relationship between the characters - an absolutely loyal friend in the end, except where we might mutually agree otherwise for the fun of it. The relationship should be treated like those of a TV show or story, where the characters fight, sometimes work cross purposes or to selfish interests, occasionally put each other down, but always manage to be for each other in the end. This is in my opinion a meta-rule to a game like D&D which requires party dynamics. Intraparty conflict occurs, but never to the point that it splits the party unless we all agree that is the most interesting thing to happen.

e) If there seems to be any confusion, remind them that I was in character, and that my in character self does not reflect my real beliefs and opinions about anything necessarily. It would be a dull game indeed if I could only play myself.

f) If the situation persists and I find myself continually offending people unwittingly or the available range of emotions I can display constrained to the point that its all meta-game because RP makes the players too uncomfortable, find as gracious of an excuse as possible for not attending future sessions and wish them all the best of luck with the game.

But, to the extent that I heed a request, I do so because I'm trying to be gracious - not because I'm required to obey them or to subjegate my own feelings, desires, and preferences to theirs.