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

[Edvamp]

Wow, this has been an interesting thread. This is my first post to this forum so I figured I would start off on an easy, softball, non-controversial thread!

When I first started playing D&D as a teenager in the 80's, my friends and I were somewhat immature, so I could see one of them creating a female character and hitting on one of mine to try and annoy me. Being teenage boys, I wouldn't try to talk to him and explain this is annoying me, simply say, "Shut up, Jackass" and move on with the campaign.

Now, I am attempting to get back into running a game and will most likely find players I don't know personally, so the idea of one player getting offended by another player's role-playing style is a very real one I might have to contend with, thus my interest in this thread.

First off, it seems a large part of the confusion/misunderstanding/disagreement stems from the fact that this whole scenario is mostly fictitious players and fictitious instances. There are so many gray areas that people are filling in the blanks to support their particular viewpoint. However that does lead to interesting scenarios and how they might be handled.

For instance, there is the subjective opinion on whether Player 1's desire to role-play outweighs Player 2's desire to not be offended or not. Is Player 1 restricting Player 2 by forcing him into a situation he finds uncomfortable, or is Player 2 restricting Player 1 by not allowing certain role-playing options.

What is interesting is more people in this thread agree than disagree. For example, when the situation was first mentioned, most people reacted not to the idea of PC on PC romance, but to Player 1 saying he would deride, belittle Player 2 and possible gank his character. Not one person, to my knowledge, said that was appropriate behavior. Also, no one has said that Player 1 was wrong in attempting a new role-playing style.

Personally, I lean toward not offending people, but with limits. Unless the DM specifically said it would be a non-violent campaign I don't think it is realistic to object to combat, for example. If you are playing in a Good campaign and you are in a 24-like situation where you have to torture someone to extract crucial, even life saving, information, I can see someone objecting either in character or out of character. And if the DM didn't state this would be a romantic themed campaign, a player could realistically object if he is forced into a PC on PC love interest. If a player wants to explore a romantic role-playing tack, the DM could simply introduce an NPC (who could then get kidnapped and give the player his own personal Legend of Zelda storyline).

I think the long lost brother was a bad analogy because that is definitely a tack a DM could take. I don't think the issue is messing with a character's back story, of course the DM has the right to do that. Hell, the DM could state that your entire life was a memory implant caused by a spell and you are really a secret agent for the drow empire. So introducing a long lost brother NPC or PC is certainly valid, in my opinion. It would create new in-game conflict for the character, but I don't think would create the potential for offense like an unwanted PC on PC romance would.

Because of all the gray area in this scenario, it is hard to point to an absolute one player is right, one player is wrong answer. In general it seems everyone agrees that belittling someone that expresses discomfort to a particular role-playing style is bad, but could a situation come up where someone is being overly sensitive and might deserve to be put back in place? Possibly.

This is why I rarely, if ever, introduce romance into a D&D campaign. Sometimes a character might visit a house of ill repute, but unless the woman is an assassin or has valuable information, I tend to cut to black with them going up the stairs to her room.

So, fascinating discussion. I know I haven't really contributed anything new, but wanted to express an outside opinion. Thanks!

Ed

 

[Lanefan]

Because of all the gray area in this scenario, it is hard to point to an absolute one player is right, one player is wrong answer. In general it seems everyone agrees that belittling someone that expresses discomfort to a particular role-playing style is bad, but could a situation come up where someone is being overly sensitive and might deserve to be put back in place? Possibly.

This is why I rarely, if ever, introduce romance into a D&D campaign.

OK. Now let's say a player introduces it, even if only in a PC-NPC form. What then? Do you run with it in character, ignore it, ban it, or ...?

Lanefan

 

[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?

No takers? Really?

Come on guys, you just said you didn't want this thread crashing to the ground. You're opinion is that roleplaying comes before all else, regardless of how others are offended. Would you agree with this statement, then?

 

[MrMyth]

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

...

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).

Ok, a few things I wanted to comment on, and ideas that may be worth thinking about:

You've indicated that, in your experience, female players tend to be more open to this sort of element than male players.

You've indicated that you have, in your own game, introduced backstory elements for characters without the players objecting to this.

I imagine both of these are true. Despite all the disagreements in the thread, I suspect we both are involved in games where these issues rarely if ever come up and everyone is pretty much happy with the style of play. Most of our complaints here are largely just virtual finger shaking at imaginary tables over the internet.

But... that doesn't mean these situation won't happen.

So the question is, what happens if they do? For myself, I certainly don't believe that backstories should be off limits. As a DM, I've had characters discover secrets about their past - I tend to believe that secrets like that can be one of the strongest parts of the game. And if two players wanted to come up with joint background between their PCs, I'd absolutely encourage it.

But what happens if the player doesn't want it?

Say you introduce an NPC into the game that is one player's sister. The player doesn't 'shout you down about it' (and portraying it like that really isn't fair to what anyone has been saying.) But they do seem bothered by it. They say, "Oh. It was... kinda important to me that my character was an only child. I felt that was an important part of her background. Do you really have to change that?"

They aren't accusing you of anything malicious. They aren't shouting you down, or attacking you, or 'playing the victim'. You had no way of knowing this was going to bother them. But now that you do know?

Well, where do you go from here?

Or what happens if a female player doesn't end up liking some 'small melodrama' that develops? Going back to that initial example. One player's PC is pursuing hers, and she isn't comfortable with it. And she says so: "I don't really like where this is going. Could you really not have your character fixated on mine?"

The other player says no. His PC is going to pursue her, whether she or her PC wants it or not.

It might defy your expectation of female gamers, but nonetheless - I'm confident there are many players out there, male or female, who wouldn't want to play through that scenario. So what do you do, as a DM, when they turn to you and say so?

 

[Dausuul]

Say you introduce an NPC into the game that is one player's sister. The player doesn't 'shout you down about it' (and portraying it like that really isn't fair to what anyone has been saying.) But they do seem bothered by it. They say, "Oh. It was... kinda important to me that my character was an only child. I felt that was an important part of her background. Do you really have to change that?" ...

Well, where do you go from here?

Generally that situation would not happen to me, because I would never add an element to a PC's backstory without consulting the player first. It wouldn't even occur to me as a possibility--I simply don't think of that as something that I as DM have the power to modify, any more than I have the power to write in different feats on a PC's character sheet. As a player, I would find it tremendously disconcerting to have the DM introduce something like that about my character. "Wait... I have a sister? How come I didn't know that?"

I suppose it could happen that I might take an established background element in an unexpected direction and that could cause problems. For instance, say the PC's back story includes a sister; but when I bring her on stage, the way I play her is unintentionally contrary to what the player had in mind. In that case, upon finding out, I'd sit down and get a better idea of what the player was envisioning, then either retcon the sister's behavior or work out some in-game reason for it (she's a doppelganger, she's been mind-controlled, et cetera).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

Well, you already know how I feel; here's how I'd react:

1. OoG discussion w/all parties involved
2. Offer solutions: quit violating Wheaton's Rule or quit the game. If the aggrieved party quits the game (preemptively or because enough is enough), warn the offender that if it happens again, there will be repurcussions
3. The consequence should be cessation of gaming with that person, either by kicking them out of the group or by leaving the group yourself.

I went through this on a bowling team. After years of bowling together, one of my oldest buddies- and a bowler of near-pro skill- started letting his occasional mistakes release truly volcanic outbursts of cursing, aggressive acts and all-around poor sportsmanship.

Not only did it disturb other bowlers, it disturbed everyone on the team...including his younger sister and brother. After one night in which a tantrum featured my 6'3" buddy spiking his 16# ball, his brother kicked him off the team.

It was years before I bowled with my pal again, even socially.

 

[Celebrim]

Say you introduce an NPC into the game that is one player's sister. The player doesn't 'shout you down about it' (and portraying it like that really isn't fair to what anyone has been saying.)

One of the rules I tried to set for myself as a player is that I wouldn't argue with the DM during a session, even if I thought the DM was wrong. If the DM was wrong, about say some rule, I might question the DM briefly, but if the DM didn't want to hear me I wasn't going to make a big point of it. Likewise, if I felt the DM treated me unfairly, I wasn't going to argue about it, but I might bring it up privately with the DM after the session. That's because I've been the DM and nothing is more frustrating than the player who is always asking for retcons, arguing with you over points of interpretation, and generally seeming to think that its debate club. Sometimes I'm wrong as the DM, and if someone catches it, then great. But if a player brings something up, and I don't agree with him, I just don't want to get in a debate about it least of all in the middle of the session while I have 3-5 other players trying to have a game. That just based on my experience, because I've also been the player thinking, "Gee, enough, it's not worth arguing over. Can we just get back to the game?"

I've been to tables that packed 30 minutes of fun into 5 hours of gaming because they were always off topic or in an argument. It's just not fun. So when I say, "shouting the DM down", I mean anything from literally that down to pretty much any sort of behavior that amounts to stopping play and arguing with the DM. YMMV on that, and I agree that it's nice both ways for the DM to get some help, because I'm absent minded sometimes and when you have alot of things going you just forget. So there is a fine line here. But I hate getting in an argument in the middle of play.

But they do seem bothered by it. They say, "Oh. It was... kinda important to me that my character was an only child. I felt that was an important part of her background. Do you really have to change that?"

First of all, if it really was stated in there background that they were an only child, it's highly unlikely that I'm going to contridict that with some introduced element. It's much more likely that you end up with family to 'didn't know you had' (as a player at least) if you leave it open in some fashion, either by not mentioning your family or else by introducing siblings that died an ambigious death (although technically, in a world with raise dead, that's just about all of them). Second of all, if it is highly important to someone's background, it should be in the background. If you say nothing about your family, and then raise the objection that you think you should be an only child after I've introduced a sibling, I'm going to have alot less sympathy than I would if you'd detailed your family. And if you'd actually written a background in which it was clear that being an only child was critical to your background, I'd just respect that. We're more talking about my right as a DM to 'fill in the blanks'. And as I said, while I think I have a right to fill in the blanks with NPC's, I wouldn't do that with a PC without your permission.

You had no way of knowing this was going to bother them. But now that you do know?

"I'm sorry, I had no way of knowing this was going to bother you. It's not in the background you submitted on this character. Why don't you talk with me after the session and we'll try to work out how to handle this problem?"

If that doesn't smooth it over immediately, then I'll try to work it out mid-session looking for some comprimise that doesn't require me to retconn. First, I'd try to assure her that I'd work something out without telling her what it was. But if that didn't work, I'd accept any of the following comprimises:

1) The sibling is a half-sibling.
2) The sibling is an imposter.
3) The sibling will be killed off quickly.
4) The sibling is an illusion created by some nefarious spell-caster with an ulterior motive. Any memory you have of a sibling have been implanted, and you'll soon realize that you've acquired some mysterious enemy.

That's just off the top of my head.

Or what happens if a female player doesn't end up liking some 'small melodrama' that develops? Going back to that initial example. One player's PC is pursuing hers, and she isn't comfortable with it. And she says so: "I don't really like where this is going. Could you really not have your character fixated on mine?"

Some combination of the following...

"Please try to stay in character, people."

"Keep in mind everyone that whatever you do, you really shouldn't be escallating any party conflict to the level it permenently splits the party so take whatever cues the other players are giving you. It's a team game and everyone should be participating. Intra-party conflict needs to be consensual on some level, and I really don't want to see it spilling out in to player conflict."

"Kim, I hope you understand you don't have to reciprocate in any romantic/flirtious play. You can just in character shoot that down, snub the other character, or ignore it. Just think of all the TV shows you've seen where a character is recieving unwelcome attention from another character and how its handled in the scene. 'Firefly' is a good example of characters that work together, but don't always get along smoothly. Imagine how River, Zoe, or Kaylee might handle unwelcome attention from Jayne."

"Kim, if you really uncomfortable even in character snubbing or putting the brakes on a romantic relationship. We'll hold off on this and talk with me after the session about it."

The other player says no. His PC is going to pursue her, whether she or her PC wants it or not.

See above, in some variation, emphasising 'Kim's' freedom of choice. Also emphasis that I don't like how a character conflict has been escalated up to a player conflict, and that's one of the many reasons it's best to stay in character. Also, take the male player aside after the game and talk to him about consensual play. Also, if I have suspicions, tell him that if he's doing this because he has a real life crush on the player, that it's not a particularly smooth move and unlikely to help his case any.

It might defy your expectation of female gamers...

I think we are getting some confusion here. My expectation of female gamers is that they enjoy small drama, that they are likely to develop crushes on NPCs. (Neither trait is exclusive to females.) My expectation is NOT that they enjoy having their character romanticly pursued by another player that they don't have an existing IRL romantic relationship with.

 

[Edvamp]

OK. Now let's say a player introduces it, even if only in a PC-NPC form. What then? Do you run with it in character, ignore it, ban it, or ...?

Lanefan

If a player asked about an NPC love interest I would be fine with it. I would definitely use it as a plot line using mind control, doppleganger, kidnapping, etc. This could lead to interesting discussions with the other party members (why should we rescue her, she's not our girlfriend).

What I would put the kibosh on would be overly graphic descriptions of affection by the player. Again, walk up the stairs or go into their tent and.....scene.

 

[Edvamp]

No takers? Really?

Come on guys, you just said you didn't want this thread crashing to the ground. You're opinion is that roleplaying comes before all else, regardless of how others are offended. Would you agree with this statement, then?

If I remember this part of the thread, possibly the reason no one took you up on it is that they felt their position didn't quite fit the extreme portrayal you were presenting. I don't recall ever reading in this thread anyone saying a player never has the right to get offended by another player's role-playing.

It is not a mathematical formula, 2 units of discomfort outweighs 3 units of role-playing. Like all other aspects of social interaction it is a judgment call. And even with all the 'What If' scenarios bandied about we can never really know until the situation happens in front of you. How upset is Player 2? How into the role-playing is Player 1? Would Player 2 be more into it if Player 1 was of the right gender/appearance? Could Player 2 be ok with it as a player and just role-play his character as not interested? Can the DM divert Player 1's attention with an NPC love interest?

Basically there are too many unknowns in this pretend scenario for us to determine an absolute course of action. Assuming we are all playing to have fun, and this conflict between players is making everyone at the table have less fun, then a resolution has to be made, and it might be the DM simply ruling in one player's favor (telling Player 1 to knock it off or Player 2 to just roll with it......cwhatIdidthere?)

 

[Edvamp]

Generally that situation would not happen to me, because I would never add an element to a PC's backstory without consulting the player first. It wouldn't even occur to me as a possibility--I simply don't think of that as something that I as DM have the power to modify, any more than I have the power to write in different feats on a PC's character sheet. As a player, I would find it tremendously disconcerting to have the DM introduce something like that about my character. "Wait... I have a sister? How come I didn't know that?"

I suppose it could happen that I might take an established background element in an unexpected direction and that could cause problems. For instance, say the PC's back story includes a sister; but when I bring her on stage, the way I play her is unintentionally contrary to what the player had in mind. In that case, upon finding out, I'd sit down and get a better idea of what the player was envisioning, then either retcon the sister's behavior or work out some in-game reason for it (she's a doppelganger, she's been mind-controlled, et cetera).

Just once I would like to take a player with the finely written, detailed, 8 page character background and pull a Wolverine, basically telling them in the 3rd gaming session that their entire life was a magical memory implant and that they are actually...

Just to see how they would react.