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

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

On the contrary - that has been what the last few pages have entirely been about, that if Player A's character is doing something to Player B's character that Player B finds OoCly uncomfortable, she has to handle it ICly, and talking to them about it outside of the game is somehow "bad"

I would say the question is being ignored precisely because it cuts away all the "what ifs" and provides a simple and clear situation.

 

[pawsplay]

On the contrary - that has been what the last few pages have entirely been about, that if Player A's character is doing something to Player B's character that Player B finds OoCly uncomfortable, she has to handle it ICly, and talking to them about it outside of the game is somehow "bad"

I would say the question is being ignored precisely because it cuts away all the "what ifs" and provides a simple and clear situation.

The question is being ignored because while you might get a few takers on roleplaying coming before all else, I have yet to see a single person espouse "no matter what." The deafening silence you hear is no one defending a position which you have invented.

 

[Hussar]

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'.

Huh. Why are ascribing motives to any of the players? I certainly didn't have any in the example. We're supposed to assume that everyone in the situation is behaving well and no one is actively trying to screw the other over.

How is it any different that I can play a character that I KNOW makes another player uncomfortable to the point where that other player might actually leave the game, but I can't play a character that takes away someone's imaginary friend's imaginary sword?

This is what I just don't get. The whole argument hinges on the fact that Player 1 KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt (because player 2 told him) that his behavior is making player 2 uncomfortable. Apparently that's fine and Player 2 should deal with it in character and never let it go out of character.

But, it's not okay for me to play a character that takes away someone's magic sword?

Why not?

As far as rewriting someone's background goes, well, if someone has written that their family was killed, that's a pretty strong signal that they're not interested in playing out family relations in the game. Now, let's say that's the background. Bob's character has no family because they were eaten by vampiric wombats.

You introduce an NPC family member.

Bob, after the session, because he's a good player and doesn't want to derail things, says, "Dude, I'm so not into this. I don't want to do this. This whole plot line you've introduced that contradicts my character background does not interest me in the slightest. Can we stop?"

What is your response?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll put it this way: why is it ever OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?*



* besides the obvious need of the DM to ensure the PC fits the campaign world, e.g. "No, you can't play the child of a cybermage from Antares in my 10,000 BC low- magic, low-tech campaign!"

 

[Edvamp]

I'll put it this way: why is it ever OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?*



* besides the obvious need of the DM to ensure the PC fits the campaign world, e.g. "No, you can't play the child of a cybermage from Antares in my 10,000 BC low- magic, low-tech campaign!"

Because people don't always get to determine the exact circumstances of their own birth. I've always done character backgrounds as a collaborative process between Player and DM. In the campaign I am designing now there is a pretty detailed and established world. My plan is to find out the personality and general flair of their characters from each player and provide a background that fits the kind they want to play and fits in with my world.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because people don't always get to determine the exact circumstances of their own birth. I've always done character backgrounds as a collaborative process between Player and DM. In the campaign I am designing now there is a pretty detailed and established world. My plan is to find out the personality and general flair of their characters from each player and provide a background that fits the kind they want to play and fits in with my world.

Birth?!?

This is an RPG in which THAT RW fact does not apply- PC design is precisely about playing God On a micro level. The player determines race, attribute allocation, class, skills & feats...and you (the DM) want to hijack his family history? Why not just hand out worksheets with targets a given PC must meet...or pre-gens?

Doesn't the responsibility of creating an interesting campaign world present enough challenges that you don't need to edit the creative designs of the other consenting adults at the table?


Collaboration between DM & player is one thing, overriding someone else's expressed veto is another thing entirely...its dictatorship.

If a DM told me the PC I wanted to play as an orphan was being re-written as the middle child of 6 with all my siblings & parents living happily in the shire- or vice versa- I'd either rip that PC up (in full view of all) and start anew or I'd get up & leave.

Yes, I've done both.

Unless the revision is clearly better to me in that it:

1. Fits better within the campaign
2. Models my PC concept better

It's nobody's darn business what background I want for my PC, and I won't put up with pointless meddling.

If the DM really wants a PC in the party who is rebelling from being part of a big, happy and suffocatingly nosy family, he's got the option of talking to other players about THEIR PCs backgrounds before mucking about with mine.

 

[Remathilis]

I'll put it this way: why is it ever OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?*

* besides the obvious need of the DM to ensure the PC fits the campaign world, e.g. "No, you can't play the child of a cybermage from Antares in my 10,000 BC low- magic, low-tech campaign!"

I might be contradicting myself a little here, but there is editing, and there is EDITING...

First off, I'd never allow another PC to do the editing. Not because they would necessarily do a poor job of it, but because it creates a fair-play field. A player's choices about his PC are HIS, and I don't think its any fairer to let another player make an character history edit (I'm his secret sibling or ex-lover) than I would allow another player to roll his HP when leveling up (or similar mechanical change).

If both players agree (We want to play brothers! or Our characters hook up. I've actually DONE both) then I allow. I NEVER would hide such info from my players though; they're mature enough to know how to play dumb on things like trolls/fire or Strahd's a vampire, they can handle a not-so-secret secret admirer.

HOWEVER, the PC backstory editiing rules don't necessarily apply to the DM, as long as its done in fairness and to further the "story". I usually seek the player's permission first (hey, are you willing to take a little tinkering for a really cool plot point?) and I do it very sporadically (It was cool when we learned Vader was Luke's father all along, it was less so when we learned Leia was his sister all along...) I've introduced a few such elements, but usually what I do is ask players for backgrounds and twist them a bit to make either cool adventures out of it or to fit better with my world. I'm also not afraid to back-track a bit (or ret-con) to fix problems if someone complains.

Lastly, you GOT to understand your audience. Lanefan's audience obviously doesn't care about things like secret admirers, party-assassins, or the like. I've had players (male and female) who objected to worshipping non-Christian gods (they either avoid clerics or worship non-specific "goodness" in the world) and others who were uncomfortable with the idea of a role-playing a relationship with someone that wasn't their BF. I've also had homophobic players who didn't like the idea of two dudes (one of which was playing a female) RPing a "relationship" and didn't want anything to do with it. In each case, we found work-arounds, or dropped the idea utterly on first objection.

In NO case was anyone's character built around the idea, or felt the need to pursue it beyond the first objection. I'm sure anyone trying to do so would get you booted so fast from the table you wouldn't have time to grab up all your dice! We gave up on using D&D for head-games/revenge/stealth dating in high school and DON'T miss that element of drama.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You missed the key phrase, "against their will."

All that talk of going to your players and seeking permission is cool, but what happens when the player gives an unequivocal and emphatic "No!" to your proposals?

Do you respect the creativity of your fellow human being or do you trample on it?

 

[Remathilis]

You missed the key phrase, "against their will."
All that talk of going to your players and seeking permission is cool, but what happens when the player gives an unequivocal and emphatic "No!" to your proposals?
Do you respect the creativity of your fellow human being or do you trample on it?

In NO case was anyone's character built around the idea, or felt the need to pursue it beyond the first objection. I'm sure anyone trying to do so would get you booted so fast from the table you wouldn't have time to grab up all your dice! We gave up on using D&D for head-games/revenge/stealth dating in high school and DON'T miss that element of drama.

Bolded Quote for Emphasis.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As a DM, you have all the power. Players can only do what you permit. PC creation is the fundamental bit of player creativity from which all of their subsequent decisions will flow.

If you are prepared to take away some of that, are you equally willing to make concessions in campaign structure to compensate for that power grab? Would you let a player sit down at the table with a Minotaur PC in your Humans & Halflings only game?

After you told him it was Humans & Halflings only?