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

[Edvamp]

So many people (not including me) use point-buy these days it's not so much of an issue as it once was. That said, I've had this happen too - come up with a character idea then have the dice demolish it before takeoff...usually by rolling a bunch of very average stats instead of something with highs and lows I can work with.

I don't think I could ever do a point buy system. I just like the idea of not knowing what the character is going to be and having him develop before my eyes...and then developing a back story.

With very few exceptions, this is part of the reason why we don't usually worry about character backgrounds at all until they've survived a few adventures and become relevant. The rest of the reason mostly revolves around spending ages on an elaborate background only to have the character get killed in its first significant battle...why bother?

I lean towards thin back stories, at least placing them in some context of the world and campaign. I certainly avoid Chosen One type characters or having someone be too integral to the story who is too important to die.

Otherwise, if a player wants to make stuff up about their family, background, etc. I'm cool with it - unless the background tries to overlap with known game elements. Arbitrarily deciding "My father was a farmer, that farm was his kingdom and he was a tyrant; I couldn't wait to run away" is great. But I'm going to step on* an arbitrary "My father is Borneus II, Emperor of [the land where the PCs are]", in part because one's chance of being (or being related to) nobility is something determined during initial roll-up.

If a player of mine ever had their parents be farmers or something else as mundane I would be ecstatic. I have to explain to players that there are only so many runaway/freed gladiators or nameless soldiers of death wandering in from the wastelands in the world.

On a different tangent, and wondering if I've perhaps been mis-representing our fun bunch of people, I ran the gist of this discussion - the reaction-to-romance-in-game branch of it - past some of my crew last night and got back what amounted to a collective "what is their problem?!"; which only serves to make it clearer than ever to me that my/our gaming community must be considerably different from many of yours.

Lanefan

This just in, people have different opinions on stuff. News at 11.

 

[Edvamp]

Or:

1. He's a spy
2. He's questioning his moral compass (is possibly going to make an alignment change)
3. He is under some kind of compulsion
4. He has made a vow that is strong enough to be an exception to his otherwise chaotic nature
5. It's a job- he's the proverbial devil with whom a deal was made

Exactly, all of which would fall under 'or some such.'

For #2, if he does make an alignment change, would he still have the skills of an assassin? How would you run a reformed assassin, thief, warrior, starts over at level 1? Just curious as I have never played with or used one before.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Exactly, all of which would fall under 'or some such.'

For #2, if he does make an alignment change, would he still have the skills of an assassin? How would you run a reformed assassin, thief, warrior, starts over at level 1? Just curious as I have never played with or used one before.

Well, in certain versions of D&D, there is no such thing as an Assassin base class, so that couldn't occur. In those where a base Assassin class exists, typically, they only have to be non-good. Then, of course, there is the idea that assassin is a job description, not a class.

A reformed Assassin could be done a variety of ways, depending upon what kind of Assassin he is/was.

If it's a class thing, the class probably has rules about what happens if the PC reforms. He may not be able to advance any further as an assassin; he may lose his powers, or not.

If being an assassin is just a RP thing, then playing a reformed one is equally about RP.

 

[Edvamp]

Well, in certain versions of D&D, there is no such thing as an Assassin base class, so that couldn't occur. In those where a base Assassin class exists, typically, they only have to be non-good. Then, of course, there is the idea that assassin is a job description, not a class.

A reformed Assassin could be done a variety of ways, depending upon what kind of Assassin he is/was.

If it's a class thing, the class probably has rules about what happens if the PC reforms. He may not be able to advance any further as an assassin; he may lose his powers, or not.

If being an assassin is just a RP thing, then playing a reformed one is equally about RP.

Ah, my bad, I was referring to the player class Assassin, as opposed to any class that just accepts money for killing people.

I don't have my books in front of me, but I know Assassins had special rules and skills, but had to have an Evil alignment. So I would presume, like a Paladin, if he changed alignment he would lose his Assassin skills. But other than that I don't know what other penalty he might face, such as just becoming a thief or losing levels, etc.

Role playing wise he would definitely face penalties, first and foremost any clients he betrays plus the social stigma of having been an Assassin in the first place.

 

[pawsplay]

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 think the GM can do it under some circumstances.

1) It has to serve a useful purpose for the game.
2) It has to be done in the best interests of that player. That involves some guesswork, but with good intent, you can get away with some mistakes, and without it, you won't be excused for anything.
3) It has to be the kind of element that can only be introduced in this way. If it's an element the player could logically present for themselves, leave it up to the player.

An example would be a scenario where the PC turns out to be a clone/victim of memory alteration/etc. First of all, it should lead to something interesting. I don't think there's any justification for the old, "You're not who you think you are," with all the loose ends, emotional ramifications, and possible annoyance of the player unless you're doing something interesting. Second, you need to make sure you are dealing with a player who is possibly interested in such existential issues, probably won't object to that level of meddling, and trusts you are going somewhere worthwhile with it. Third, in keeping with the first point, this shouldn't be one of those "Isn't that interesting?" situations. If the player wanted to be a clone, they could let you know up front. This scenario only makes sense if you are offering something they can't provide by themselves. If the scenario lets them recognize previously misunderstood plot elements, surprises and amuses the players, and leads to an interesting situation ("No, Luke. I am your father.") then we're in business.

As far as I am concerned, a player should effectively never rewrite another player's PC. There are some corner cases. In some games, some of the narrative duties are shared, in that the players are sort of co-GMs. In that case, each player has whatever authority is given to them to use in the same way a normal GM would. A similar situation would be a play-by-post game where a lot of the dialog is going to be written in chunks; in that case, I think each player logically has veto around elements concerning their character or related story factors, but it's probably okay for a player to guess around a little within the parameters of narrating non-critical events. A third, somewhat different situation, is when a lot of meta-elements are actually part of the game. If the game has some kind of pass-the-talking-stick kind of mechanic, dramatic editing or the like, or you establish up front an informal process that is similar, then the playstyle itself admits to tampering by the other players and of course background elements may well be fair game according to the rules or customs of your group.

But in a traditional roleplaying scenario, I think roleplaying freedom is a central tenet. Freedom to define your own background, freedom to pursue uni-directional actions toward other characters, freedom to choose your PC's actions within whatever parameters of reality have been set.

I have to say, apart from some places where the discussion kind of derailed, this has got to be one of the most fascinating and informative threads I have ever read on dealing with interplayer conflict, authorial privilege, and the social dynamics of play.

 

[Celebrim]

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?

Ok, now that the thread appears to have regained some hit points, I'll take the risk of answering your question.

The reason you aren't getting alot of takers is I imagine that most people recognized your question as both pointless and useless. No one agrees with that statement, nor are you going to find a single quote on the board that sufficiently explains why you think that there might be some 'Yes' responses to the post. Not only that, because the question is phrased in such absolute terms that any response to tells you nothing of the naunces between different persons. I mean we all basically disagree with that statement and would affirm our disagreement with that statement, but that agreement doesn't mean that we don't have fundamental or important disagreements.

So the question doesn't accomplish anything except to get people irritated at the insinuation of the question.

Now let further get myself in trouble by risking a stab at how you came to ask such a useless question. I'm guessing that you got there by making a straw man of my claims.

First, I have said and still maintain that immediate direct frank OOC dissent from a line of play wasn't always the best and wisest course of action when you felt uncomfortable. This is no where near the same as saying that OOC discussion is always bad. I've previously asserted that in some cases it might be the wisest course, and I have previously said that in some cases you might have no choice but to do so. But this is also by no means the same as saying you should always do that. I maintain for what I think are very good reasons that you should prefer to try all of the following first:

a) Try to resolve the situation in a way that you are comfortable about through IC play.
b) Try to resolve the situation OOC after the session and privately.
c) Try to get the DM or some other player that the other player respects to mediate, either with you present or without.

The reason I suggest this is pretty simple. Both sides agree that if everyone is being mature, these situations will pretty much never come up. But the fact of the matter is that we all have bad moments. We all can be jerks from time to time. We all can get emotional and irrational. We all have buttons that can be pushed. That's just a simple recognition of our human nature. You have a table with six or eight people at it, and even if they are all pretty good or even really good close friends, tempers can flare at any game much less at a highly social game like an RPG. I've seen Monopoly turn into loud shouting matches and permenently hurt feelings on several occasions.

Now, a lot of people have asserted things like, "Well, I would never play with people like that." or "My friends aren't like that." and that's fine and I can only take your word for it. But I'd like to suggest that the situation that developed near the beginning of this thread is in some fashion archeatypal of how this interaction typically goes down in the real life. You see, the basic problem in this exchange is that both sides very quickly hit the stance: "Conform to my wishes our I'm going to take my marbles and go home." They left no room for comprimise and they immediately put the situation into as confrontational mode as possible.

Whether it is logical or not, player #2 feels 'uncomfortable' and puts the responcibility for their own feelings on someone else. They respond to the situation emotionally, and they assert their entitlement and the superiority of their wants and desires over anyone else. They don't feel inclined to or that they have any need to comprimise or empathize with the other person.

Whether it is logical or not, player #1 responds to player #2's assertion that they are being made 'uncomfortable' as an attack, as rejection, and as an accusation. They in other words respond emotionally, and even if they do change their line of play they are likely to feel resentment. They don't feel inclined to or that they have any need to comprimise or empathize with the other person, and like Lanefan (who was it should be said mostly joking) will probably respond to player #2's passive aggression with passive aggression of their own.

I don't want to argue who is justified here. It could be that neither is justified. It could be that both are. It could be that one or the other is being unreasonable. I'd have to be at the table to judge, and even then I really wouldn't to because none of that is really important. What's really important is not letting the game derail the friendship. And to do that, both sides have to back down from where they've gotten.

So my advice is that if you feel uncomfortable, to not immediately say any of things that people are suggesting being said because it just gets you immediately into the possibility of a confrontation. In ideal world, maybe it will work, and in an ideal world maybe you aren't being overly senstive, or prude-ish, or a control freak when you say it.

Instead I would focus humbly on the possibility that the feelings I'm feeling are my own, and my responcibility, and that if I'm asking someone to change their otherwise harmless behavior to conform to what may be my weaknesses, that I should look on that as asking some one a favor and by no means state it as a demand or expect that in making the demand that I'll get a particular outcome.

And I would first, in character, try to suggest some other alternate and hopefully fun of play. Because if there is one thing I know about geeks it is that they love it when someone says, "Do you want to play?", and they get uncomfortable when someone says, "No you can't play with me." or "I don't want to play." I would try to cultivate skill as a roleplayer because that's ultimately what makes other people at the table happy and comfortable and it can serve to defuse all sorts of uncomfortable situations if you make people laugh or smile. Too often I see players think that they are well served by cultivating skills as a debater - which are typically well honed in geeks - and their first instinct is always to start a debate on what should be happening, bang the gavel, and put court in order. Some of these are what we call 'rules lawyers', but that's not the only form this behavior can take.

Try not to be that guy who instead of playing is continually trying to start up a jury trial over whether someone else at the table is playing right. I honestly can't think of a situation I was ever in where it was necessary (or wise) as a player to tell another player flat out in the middle of the session, "I'm not comfortable with this line of play." And this is coming from a guy who still doesn't use demons and devils in his campaign because the occult overlap makes him uncomfortable, and who has also gamed with open practicing Satanists.

Don't be that player who gets offended and then says, "You are making me uncomfortable" as if its some other person's fault. Sure, there are times when things are going to happen that are legitimately offensive, or which you rightly don't feel you can participate in. But even when you are completely in the right, you still need to practice diplomacy in whatever situation you find yourself in. In my opinion that is not always best served by a OOC challenge.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

An example would be a scenario where the PC turns out to be a clone/victim of memory alteration/etc.

Sorry, but IMHO, that's not good enough to override player control.

While it is true that this is the kind if thing that needs to be done via PC background, generally speaking, it is not something that can only be introduced via one particular PCs background over player objections. Talk to another player about this kind of revision if your original plan is deemed unacceptable- doing otherwise is a violation of Wheaton's Rule.

And if NOBODY is interested in having this particular background twist...well, as Bill Engvall would say, "There's your sign!"

Second, you need to make sure you are dealing with a player who is possibly interested in such existential issues, probably won't object to that level of meddling, and trusts you are going somewhere worthwhile with it.

If the player were interested in this kind of thing, they probably wouldn't object, and alterations over objections are what I'm talking about.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't have my books in front of me, but I know Assassins had special rules and skills, but had to have an Evil alignment

In earlier editions, non-evil was the Assassin's alignment restriction- my still-active dual classed human Assassin/Illusionist is Lawful Neutral, for instance- but in 3Ed, they stiffened the requirement to evil.

However, a quick glance at the PrCl in the SRD shows no consequences for an alignment shift for the class.

 

[Edvamp]

First, I have said and still maintain that immediate direct frank OOC dissent from a line of play wasn't always the best and wisest course of action when you felt uncomfortable. This is no where near the same as saying that OOC discussion is always bad. I've previously asserted that in some cases it might be the wisest course, and I have previously said that in some cases you might have no choice but to do so. But this is also by no means the same as saying you should always do that. I maintain for what I think are very good reasons that you should prefer to try all of the following first:

a) Try to resolve the situation in a way that you are comfortable about through IC play.
b) Try to resolve the situation OOC after the session and privately.
c) Try to get the DM or some other player that the other player respects to mediate, either with you present or without.

A lot would also depend on when Player 2 was made aware of Player 1's intention (another thing not determined in this scenario). If Player 1 approaches Player 2 before the session then a confrontation in front of the other players could be avoided.

However, your suggestion of trying to resolve it IC leads me to ask: if Player 2 is uncomfortable with the role-play OOC but tries to resolve it IC, does that act as a tacit approval of Player 1's actions? Presumably, Player 1 is doing this for role-playing purposes, so Player 2's character actually responding to the romantic advances positively or negatively is irrelevant. The important thing is Player 2 is responding in game, and therefore role-playing the scenario.

 

[Celebrim]

A lot would also depend on when Player 2 was made aware of Player 1's intention (another thing not determined in this scenario). If Player 1 approaches Player 2 before the session then a confrontation in front of the other players could be avoided.

Sure. I've no problem with that. That's probably a good idea especially when a potential problem can be foreseen.

However, your suggestion of trying to resolve it IC leads me to ask: if Player 2 is uncomfortable with the role-play OOC but tries to resolve it IC, does that act as a tacit approval of Player 1's actions?

Only if IC rejection can be construed as tacit approval. And let's keep in mind. The majority of people have asserted that they though the original line of play 'harmless', and only objected to the player's failure to accede to player #2 request once they knew player #2 was uncomfortable. So is this a situation where we necessarily want to be communicating disapproval at the out of character? Does player #2 need to communicate disapproval at that level? Moreover, consider that everyone who disliked player #2's approach of going OOC has asserted that they would have been fine with player #2's rejecting the line of play IC. So what are we left with that is a problem? Sterotypical dysfunctionality on the level of Knights of the Dinner Table and not much else.

Presumably, Player 1 is doing this for role-playing purposes, so Player 2's character actually responding to the romantic advances positively or negatively is irrelevant. The important thing is Player 2 is responding in game, and therefore role-playing the scenario.

I'm not sure I follow. That I have validated your play by responding to it in no way means I've left open the possibility of it continuing which was I thought the real issue. So long as we are talking about something that involves in character consent, so long as that consent is withheld then the line of play is dead. I think I've made many suggestions for how to deflect this, and I think a mature player is going to pick up on OOC preferences that are expressed IC. If that communication path isn't fully working out it would be nice if after the session player #1 said to player #2, "This isn't bugging you is it?", or failing that if player #2 said to player #1 after the session something like, "You were doing a great job in there, but I just don't feel comfortable doing exploring romantic themes. Where did you see that line of play going?" So long as player #1 isn't acting out real feelings for player #2 through his character, I don't foresee a problem.