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

[Celebrim]

So if my character's background was the secret admirer and protector of another player's character without their knowledge or consent, you would disallow it? So basically you acknowledge that you were 100% wrong in your positions on this argument. Good of you to tell us.

Way to quote me out of context.

Let's look at the quote in context shall we?

...Generally speaking, I'm not going to approve a character concept that involves being a part of another player's background without consent of both parties. If this actually happens in a game, then player #2's problem isn't with player #1 - who is I think fairly innocent here unless this motivated by actual OOC dislike of player #2 - but with the DM who introduced this plot into the game.

3) But, I would like to heavily emphasis that the case we have been discussing is entirely different than this. We've been discussing the case of a PC that is - as a result of secret feelings of love for another PC - fanatically loyal to them. This might be a part of player #1's backstory (but it doesn't have to be, it could just as easily be invented in play) but it is certainly not part of player #2's backstory. It is a part of player #2 forestory, that is, not who the character _is_ (which I think should be something largely under the control of the PC) but rather what happens to the PC (which is not something anyone has full control over).

- emphasis added

Gee, that changes things a wee bit doesn't it? It seems I'm not actually saying anything you say I'm saying. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. What you quoted refers to Hussar's example and is highlighting why his example departs from the case that has provoked so much thought (or lack thereof), and does not refer to the original example at all. Not only that but the part that immediately follows what you quoted clarifies any misunderstanding that you might have taken from the part you quoted. This was deliberate. I recognized that someone might misunderstand my point, and so took extra pains to reiterate that he previous point was intended as contrast.

Now, you may disagree with me. You may say player #1 declaring he has always been a secret admirer of player #2 is part of player #2 backstory, and that's fine. We can have that discussion and I can explain more deeply why I feel it isn't, and where I draw the lines over what requires and doesn't require another player's consent. Briefly though, it should be obvious the fact that it is in player #1's backstory is irrelevant to the original example. Presumably if this was invented in the course of play, player #2 would have been just as freaked out. And there are many other reasons for thinking that a 'secret love interest' is not an inherent part of player #2's backstory and identity if you'll give it a moment's thought. For example, up until it comes up in play it's never actually had any impact on player #2's character. Player #1 isn't inventing a backstory that requires any interaction on player #2's character at all. If he wanted a backstory that said, "My character and player #2's characters were former lovers.", I'd say, "You'd have to talk that over with player #2." If the backstory has, "My character has always been an admirer at a distance of player #2's character, and when opportunity presented itself to insert himself in that character's life he jumped on it.", that doesn't require player #2's consent. Heck, on one level it doesn't even really require my consent, because he could move it out of the backstory and play 'love at first sight' or something of the sort out when the game began. So the whole bit about backstory is just spurious in the original example, because presumably those that hold player #1 is wholly in the wrong to include player #2 in the backstory would hold that player #1 is still wholly in the wrong to involve player #2 even if the backstory didn't exist.

Misquoting me on this level approaches willfully misunderstanding.

 

[MrMyth]

Technically, though, it isn't a question of what the 'player wants', but what the character wants. It's called a role-playing game because while I might personally be a pacifist, I have the freedom in game to play a violent criminal. While I might personally be a person prone to or approving of violence, I have the freedom to play a pacifist. My IC stance doesn't necessarily reflect my out of character beliefs, and on some level shouldn't reflect my out of character beliefs. That's why it's called RPing.

Again, there is this outlook that the purity of roleplaying is the most important thing at hand. For me, that just isn't the case. Roleplaying is a part of the game, yes, and my goal is going to be to try and make use of it. But if a roleplaying element comes up against an OOC concern, people's actual feelings, in real life, are absolutely more important to me than what a character wants in the game. I know that isn't quite what you are saying, but I'm trying to really pin down exactly the issue here between IC and OOC concerns.

How a character acts in-game can't ever be totally divorced from the player. That's the problem with the justification of, "This is simply how my character would act" - the only reason the character acts that way is because the player decided that was the case.

A player might decide that their PC isn't romantically interested in another. Maybe because they don't feel it would be someone their PC would be interested in. But they could equally decide that they don't want an in-game romance because that isn't a situation they want to experience.

That's why, in fact, I've been in favor of addressing this sort of thing OOC. Because the issue for Player 2 isn't that they feel the situation is one that could bother their character, it is a situation that bothers them. They don't desire playing through a scenario that, to them, resembles being virtually stalked.

You've indicated that its reasonable to set certain expectations at the start of a campaign. Why is it unreasonable, when a situation comes up that presumably wasn't ever discussed in advance, to try and set the boundaries then?

Especially because expectations may be so totally different. I'd expect, for most campaigns, that certain topics wouldn't crop up without warning (of which several extreme examples have already been mentioned in this thread). I also tend to expect, based on the people I play with, that everyone will make a general effort to work as a group and not undermine each others efforts, though this doesn't preclude some conflict arising and being dealt with during the game.

Similarly, I might expect that the potential for PC-on-PC romance will exist in most games, but that unwilling PC pursuit is not a default assumption for the game.

Let's suppose that this has happened and let's pass for now over the question of whether it should happen. You find yourself in this situation as a mature role-playing gamer. What is your internal mental state like? If it is immediately moved to blame another player or the DM and to start negotiating the situation OOC raising points of fairness or some such, then I can say nothing more clearly and compassionately (though not tactfully) to you than move back to remedial school please and stop playing with the adults until you are willing to act like one. Your surest path to happiness, growth, and contentedness with the game will be to accept a reprimand and correct your behavior because you are fully in the wrong here.

Wow. Is this sort of talk really necessary? I've bolded the parts that really bug me.

Once again, though, to make it clear. None of us are advocating immediately launching into blame of another player. I'm not sure when 'fairness' even comes into it. In this example at hand, I'd expect the response of a mature roleplayer, who doesn't like that plot thread, would be to say, "You know, I'm not really interested in this plot thread. I'd really prefer if you don't make a character who is my PC's brother without my consent."

What we are saying is that, if a situation arises where something is making you uncomfortable - and you know, going forward, that it will only bother you more and more - the mature thing to do is absolutely to speak up and try and discuss the situation.

I mean, earlier you spoke out against passive-aggressiveness, but you now seem wildly opposed to the opposite of it - open and honest communication.

If something bothers someone, they should feel free to bring it up without being told that they are acting like a child. I mentioned this before, and you have never addressed it - the point at which you condemn someone speaking their honest concerns about a situation, is the point at which you are encouraging an unpleasant environment. Whether it involves actual harassment, or simply unintentional discomfort, those are things that should be addressed, rathen than suffered in silence.

Again, this doesn't mean the DM and other players need to cater to someone's every whim. But regardless of the actual outcome, it seems completely unreasonable to portray someone raising a genuine concern as childlike behavior in need of a reprimand.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Gee whiz, though. Your player says to you, "I'm uncomfortable with my character losing. I'm uncomfortable with my character not having a gazzillion gold pieces. I'm uncomfortable with DMs using modules, playing in a published campaign setting, or not designing their own monsters from scratch. In fact, I am uncomfortable with using published rulesets; I expect my DMs to recreate the rules from scratch."

That has nothing to do with what we're saying.

And, hey, if "This is the basic rule of social engagement" why isn't is it applicable to forums? Why is that a straw man? If you are going to say that "Do not be a creep" is not a difficult social rule, and is "the basic rule of social engagement", where being a creep is -- apparently -- making someone uncomfortable......Well, we all know that any mention of D&D makes some people uncomfortable. There are people out there who think the game is Satanic or otherwise problematic.

Again, that has no bearing on what we're discussing. My friend lives in Kansas, she can hook you up for a real cheap price on more strawmen though, if you want.

It doesn't matter. If you are doing something and it makes them uncomfortable, you cease doing it. Really?

It doesn't matter why Player 2 asks you to stop. It's really none of your business in the slightest.

If you are doing something to Player 2's character that makes them uncomfortable, yes.

See, I can bold things too!

It doesn't matter why Jack Chick asks you to stop playing D&D. It's really none of your business in the slightest. You don't need to know why they're uncomfortable - it has no bearing on the issue at all.

You're right about one part of that - this has no bearing on the issue at all.

Out of left field much? Where did I imply that?

What I am saying is that a basic social rule, where the person who is making someone else uncomfortable must stop, and where why that person is uncomfortable not only does not matter, but has no bearing on the issue at all, can be applied to other circumstances.

Ignoring that you literally just compared unwanted PC romance to being so important as to be connected to the very core rules of the game in your rediculous strawman?

Ah, but no one is arguing that it is unreasonable for the other PCs to tell you to cut it out.

All that is being argued is that the most appropriate first response is that the PCs deal with the behaviour. Personally, I would advocate sending the stealing PC away from the party, or killing him and taking his stuff. IF that is not sufficient, it is then discussed. Perhaps the solution is to drop the player. Perhaps the PC is, unknown to you, acting under impulse of a curse or geas, and needs help.

No.

If you are doing something to a person's character, and that person tells you they are uncomfortable, you stop.

Your logic is what leads really creepy dudes to doing horrible things to the characters of female characters. Your logic is what leads people into leaving this hobby.

Wrongbadfun?

Never okay in the foreground, never okay in the background, or never okay in the deep background?

When someone can use rape in a game that is done in a mature, sensitive, and well done manner, I may change my mind.

Until that day comes - and it has not - then yes, it is absolutely wrongbadfun, and it is wrongbadfun because of so many people who are having pretty much the antithesis of fun because of it. It is wrongbadfun for the same reason FATAL is wrongbadfun.

If anyone is doing something that makes you uncomfortable they must stop? It doesn't matter why ProfessorCirno asks you to stop? It's really none of your business in the slightest?

I can't even decide whether or not I'd prefer a game with the "offensive" material, or if I'd prefer a game with ProfessorCirno?[/QUOTE]

You not wanting to play with me I take as a medal of honor. Oh no, I don't get to play with someone who's arguing that it's ok for guys to be creepers towards others in their game. Guess I'll just have to continue enjoying my own games where I don't have to deal with people who assault or attack others through the thin veil of "roleplaying."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

A question to those claiming that Person B can never feel insulted and just has to deal with it.

You have in your game a few dudes, and a few ladies. One of the dudes' characters starts really creepily stalking one of the ladies' characters, and talks about spying on her, sneaking around next to her, etc. He starts giving her "gifts" and then claims he's madly in love with her.

She OoCly tells him that she's severely uncomfortable with this.

He continues doing it.

Are you really going to tell me that she should just sit there and take it? That the guy in question is doing nothing wrong at all?

 

[Celebrim]

A question to those claiming that Person B can never feel insulted and just has to deal with it.

Quote it or it didn't happen. Let me see the claim.

 

[pawsplay]

So if my character's background was the secret admirer and protector of another player's character without their knowledge or consent, you would disallow it? So basically you acknowledge that you were 100% wrong in your positions on this argument. Good of you to tell us.

Actually, Celebrim has already refuted this exact point, upthread. The fact that Celebrim is being asked to explain and defend points already made says a lot about this thread.

 

[pawsplay]

pawsplay's Corollary to Wheaton's Rule: If you seem to know a lot of dicks, maybe the problem partly resides in you.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Quote it or it didn't happen. Let me see the claim.

Please answer the question.

 

[Dausuul]

Actually, Celebrim has already refuted this exact point, upthread. The fact that Celebrim is being asked to explain and defend points already made says a lot about this thread.

Yes. Mainly that it's a REALLY LONG thread.

 

[anest1s]

I am not reading all 20 pages o.0 (I plan to read it later though)

All I have to add, is that "My character would never do that" is usually followed by a player asking an other player to roll initiative. It has happened more than once in evil parties. And definitely more often than one would expect.

The point is, that if your character wouldn't do that, then you have to consider if other characters will do what you are about to do. And if they don't; be ready to roll initiative.