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

[Lanefan]

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.

I'm guessing you mean the characters of female *players*, above...

I have to assume stuff like this sometimes happens. Fortunately, I've managed to miss out on it so far.

That said, you're also making some assumptions here:
- that female players always play female characters
- that it's always a male (N)PC chasing a female (N)PC
- that it's male players driving the chasing.

In my own long-term experience, it's mostly - not always, but mostly - the female PCs and-or PCs run by female players that do the chasing. To, I might add, the immense benefit of the game.

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

Why does rape keep coming up in this discussion, other than to add to the hyperbole quotient? Romance does not mean rape. I thought this was obvious.

You not wanting to play with me I take as a medal of honor.

In that case, have another one.

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."

By the same token, I can avoid dealing with those who can't (or won't) separate IC from OOC on some pretty basic levels. Benefits all round, I suppose.

Lan-"dare I mention the Gnome-Gnome-Leprechaun threesome?"-efan

 

[Rel]

This thread has gotten really long and it feels to me like the same ground is getting plowed again and again, only the tension seems to be rising. So keep politeness at the forefront or we're going klunk.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Why does rape keep coming up in this discussion, other than to add to the hyperbole quotient? Romance does not mean rape. I thought this was obvious.

Because it is where the conversation leads. Also, I'd like it if you could answer my question from the last page.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Let's turn it around a second. Can I declare that my character is your character's long lost older brother? I want to do a whole Cain and Abel sort of thing. Not only that, but, that family heirloom sword that you have? That's not really yours. You are honor bound to hand it over to me, thankyouverymuch.

Is this acceptable behavior?

Besides the RP responses listed above- all cool with me, FWIW- there is also the RW response "No, my PC has no siblings, for reasons X, Y and Z," any of which could be a simple as "because that's the way I envision him" or "for reasons yet to be revealed."

And if any form of "No..." is the answer given, the respectful response should be some form of "OK, I'll do something else with my PC."

Now, as a DM, if that happened, and the second player secretly made his PC the first player's PC's sibling, I wouldn't disallow it. However, if it ever got revealed and it caused some kind of blowup, I'd side with the player who didn't want his very own "Racer X" as part of his PC's history.

By doing so- even secretly- you've effectively discounted the other person's will and creativity 100%, and overridden/overwritten his character sheet with your own.

You've just done the RPG equivalent of grabbing his character sheet, editing it- in pen- and putting a smiley at the top next to the annotation, "FIFY!"

 

[Remathilis]

Man, never let real life get in the way of a good thread!

Ok, as the OP, I gotta add my two coins to the dual topics considered: Do players have veto power over elements of the DM's world, and does he have veto power over elements pertaining to his own PC?

First things first. The Original Post assumes a basic level of assumption many sandboxers proudly thump their chest and declare as "poor DMing". However the original "my character wouldn't do that" doesn't have to be the end result of a railroad-to-hell. That isn't always true. For example, a player might decide they don't want to bite on a module hook for a module the DM has bought and others want to play. Rather than express his feeling maturely, he opts that his "character doesn't want to do X" where X is the plot hook. It has nothing to do with the DM forcing or overriding the actions of the PC, merely the PC acting as roadblock, citing "his character" as the excuse.

The latter example is much more disturbing, imho. There are PLENTY of reasons why Player 2 might feel uncomfortable. For example, he's a male and is uncomfortable with the concept of acting-out sexual/romantic scenarios with another man, or she's a female in a relationship uncomfortable with acting out sexual/romantic scenarios with another man not her sig-other. I've seen both. Usually, a knock-it-off is enough to change player 1's notion. He can justify it anyway he wants; he found someone better, he refuses to act and becomes the model of courtly love, etc. IT DOESN'T MATTER! Player 2 said no, you respect that.

Failing to respect that becomes harassment. Period. If you cannot respect those boundaries, you have become the problem. I come to play D&D to slay orcs, gain lewt, and have fun. If your character's background gets in the way of me doing any of the following, we have a problem. Its easier to ret-con a backstory than find a new player...

IMHO, of course.

 

[fanboy2000]

First things first. The Original Post assumes a basic level of assumption many sandboxers proudly thump their chest and declare as "poor DMing". However the original "my character wouldn't do that" doesn't have to be the end result of a railroad-to-hell. That isn't always true. For example, a player might decide they don't want to bite on a module hook for a module the DM has bought and others want to play. Rather than express his feeling maturely, he opts that his "character doesn't want to do X" where X is the plot hook. It has nothing to do with the DM forcing or overriding the actions of the PC, merely the PC acting as roadblock, citing "his character" as the excuse.

Generally speaking, if one PC doesn't want to follow the plot hook and the others do, I let them work it out. If I sense that the player is constantly rejecting adventures that the other players want to engage in, then it's possible the player is incompatible with the group. Not a big deal, really.

If the PCs, as a group, reject a plot hook and go off to do something else, I'm fine with that as the DM. Running the game (i.e., the actual act of playing out the NPCs, adjudicating actions, and running the various challenges the PCs face) is where I derive most of my fun. The preparation isn't as much fun for me, and I don't care how the PCs interact with the world, so long as they do. A player who does the minimum amount to get through an adventure (basically just checking things off a list) isn't as much fun for me to play with as one who goes out and looks for things to do in the world I created.

IMHO, of course.

Ditto.

 

[Hussar]

I gotta give you guys props. I write an example where someone, as DannyA puts it, takes someone else's character background, and rewrites it, and you're okay with that.

I'll admit, I'm pretty impressed. I'd never, ever play with another player who did it, but, hey, you stuck to your guns. No lines can ever be drawn and anything is perfectly acceptable. Even to the point where Raven Crowking is claiming that nothing can be too offensive at the table.

I'll lend him my copy of FATAL. And my collection of Gor novels too.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat. To me, this would be a deal breaker. A DM who re-wrote my character's backstory without any prior notice or discussion would not be my DM for long and another player who would not respect being told that his/her behavior was making me uncomfortable and stop would not be someone I'd want to spend time with.

To me, a player's character is the only thing in the game that wholely belongs to that player. It's thiers. No one gets to rewrite anyone's character without discussing it first.

Hey, since it's fine to introduce a NPC older brother that can tell me what to do because I'm playing a Samurai style character, maybe you could just take care of my character sheet too while you're at it. Seems to be that I shouldn't even bother playing since anything I do can be over written by anyone else at the table, simply by them introducing a new element. And, my only recourse is to leave the group.

I'd be taking that option thanks.

 

[Umbran]

Because it is where the conversation leads. Also, I'd like it if you could answer my question from the last page.

No amount of logic leads to rape. Period.

Let us have no more insistence that such vile acts can be in any way based in logic, or that anything like "reasoning" is behind it.

 

[Celebrim]

I gotta give you guys props. I write an example where someone, as DannyA puts it, takes someone else's character background, and rewrites it, and you're okay with that.

This doesn't logically follow. It is such a wierd jump of logic that I invite you to consider if you are being any more honest than the guy who says, "I'm just playing my character." In what way does the introduction of a older brother, whether one previously thought dead or simply one introduced into the amorphous undetailed spaces of a background, "rewrite someone else's character background"? There are a few backgrounds where such an introduction doesn't make sense, but even a background written with classic 'older brother tropes' would allow something like a secret illegitimate brother as a plot complication.

I think all those things sound pretty fun, nor if they happened to me would I see them as 'rewriting my character background'. I would only see things as rewritnig my character background as you know, things that actually rewrote my character background.

And the really interesting thing is, I didn't even say I would permit this sort of thing. In fact, no one said 90% of the things you accuse them of saying in that rant, and its no secret that I'm a conservative evangelical christian so how well do you think I'd tolerate or encourage FATAL or Gor play at my table hmmm? And you aren't being fair to RC either, because that's not what he said and I don't think based on what he's posted over the years that's how he plays. When you go there, it has no basis in what anyone in this thread has said. It's like the repeated claim that I'm encouraging player character rape at my table or that I'm being hostile to female roleplayers. It's just bunk. It hyperbole to the point of being silly, and would be offensive if I didn't actually have +5 natural armor bonus skin. I've played with more female RPers than most DMs. I've never had complaints that I'm mysognist or encouraged that at the table.

I got to tell you. Female RPers on the whole dig this small melodrama stuff more than male players do.

Depending on the circumstances, I might introduce an older brother to a PC as the DM, but as I said I wouldn't let another player be another player's older brother without player consent and that is especially true if I thought the real motivation of the player was to 'mess with someone', 'order another player around', or 'take the heirloom sword'.

But as the DM, I feel perfectly free to introduce any NPC that is implied by the character background pretty much at will and I don't expect to be shouted down about it. In my current campaign, I've already introduced a sister and nephew to the game and I didn't hear any whining about a sister not being in the backstory from the player - and it's my player most likely to get snippy and emotional at the table (also one of my most experienced and skilled RPers).

I might as well come out and say it, but I don't think you are being honest with yourself. You wrote this diatribe where you loudly proclaimed your rights to keep your character intact and free from outside control. It was all stirring and idealistic and made you sound like you had some legitimate complaint, but it's bunk. No one is suggesting rewriting your character sheet. I'd never do that. I'm probably one of the most outspoken posters on the proper division between the DM and player. Read my first few post on the thread. And I seriously doubt that you are actually troubled by the general idea of relatives of the player being introduced to the game. No, I think you are actually bothered by something else and it shines through despite all your protests that this is about character integrity for two reasons. First, your character integrity isn't actually being threatened, and secondly when you muster your actual complaints they are about something else.

What you actually complain about when outline how wrong this is the possibility that you'll have to turn over your magic sword or obey someone else. But that's ridiculous on several levels. It would be like complaining how unfair it was for the DM to introduce your Leige Lord or father into a samurii campaign. I mean both of those have a greater ability to command your allegiance than an older brother, and yet I would think if you really want to play a 'samurii campaign' it would be precisely these shifting family, clan, and feudal loyalties that would make it interesting. I've already shown sufficiently I think that you can play right into the brother hook even if it were to happen without having to be brow beat by anyone. Your still your own character no matter what NPC shows up, never mind that I suggested I'd never let your original example happen in the first place.

I really hate that this thread is coming crashing down, because its one of the most interesting threads we've had in the past year (at least). And probably the admins are going to think I'm upset with you are something and this is going to get the thread banned, but that's not the case. There are very few posters out there over the years that have gotten more XP from me than you, but I don't even know where you are coming from with this but I don't think its logic that is motivating you.

 

[Lanefan]

I got to tell you. Female RPers on the whole dig this small melodrama stuff more than male players do.

Over the long haul, on average, I'd have to agree with this. That said, IME it's also usually been the case that the male player(s) will happily participate in whatever "melodrama" (probably not the best term for it, but it'll do for now) the female player(s) might instigate; and will sometimes instigate it themselves.

I really hate that this thread is coming crashing down, because its one of the most interesting threads we've had in the past year (at least).

Seconded.

Lan-"this discussion needs beer"-efan