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

[pawsplay]

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.

Is it ever permissible to overwrite a character's background over their objections? I'm going to say yes, in some situations. I don't recommend it if avoidable, but sometimes the GM has to make things work and the problem may not be noticed until after things have been put into play. The clone/memory wipe scenario is not something I would press in like a Conan-inspired game, but it might be an integral plot element in another kind of game. If one or more players object enough to leave the game, I guess that could be it for the scenario, but that is not really distinct from other situations where the players reject the GM's scenario and leave the game. Assuming the scnerio makes some kind of sense within the context of the game, I think it's possible for the players to object to and even be offended by the premise, with there not being much left to do other than the GM saying, "Well, this is basically what's on the menu. How do we proceed?"

I never want that to happen, but it certainly can. Some examples I can think of are some Vampire games I played a number of years ago. I was in one game, where the GM decided to juke the character creation rules and hand out Generation according to the sires she assigned us based on our backgrounds. I got stuck as a 12th gen, while another player, who happened to be her boyfiend, got 9th gen with a character concept I thought was a problem in the first place (note for non-Vampire players: 9th generation is significantly powerful for a starting character). But I decided to deal with it. When his PC got into some trouble, I and another player had our PCs assigned to him to babysit, and when he continued to do problematic things, well... at some point, we ended up staking him and leaving him in a closet overnight, for safekeeping. He was incensed at being staked, I think he was miffed that his powerful PC was one-upped through some quick thinking, etc etc. I can certainly understand his frustration. But I don't think he had a right to complain about being babysat, or the consequences that followed, because the GM was trying to deal with the situation as it developed. So basically, I and a couple of other players were dealing with being handed weaker character sheets than he, while he was dealing with being put, ultimately, in a socially inferior position, as a sort of balance. His PC was lower generation, but less experienced. Right? But it wasn't an element of his choosing and I think the way he responded was not helpful.

Similarly, if you're playing a variant supers setting, like Paragons or Wild Talents or whatever, and you're playing a wizard, you can cry all you like when it turns out your powers are psionic or mutant or whatever, but it's kind of written into the setting that the GM, if anyone, knows the ultimate truth for the setting. Whining about your powers not really being magical, or I guess conversely about all superpowers coming from magic or divine blood or whatever, is not helpful. I don't think there's a reasonable justification for complaining.

And if you're playing D&D, and you find out your character's father was not really his father, well, that might cheese you off, but since it doesn't affect your backstory as you originally wrote it, nor the actions your character takes, but effectively only future events leading from that revelation on, well, that's pretty fair game, I think. I would try to work with a player who objected to something like that, but if I'm in a corner, I would probably have to say, "Look, can you work with me here?"

If a player digs and just refuses to accept something in the game, I can sympathize, and they are within their rights to quit, and I recognize in many cases there are real personal issues that might make that necessary, but you know, that happens sometimes. It is, in the end, just a game. If you're married and you really don't want to deal with any hint of romance toward your PC, I would suggest dealing with it in IC, then trying to see if something can be worked out OOC, and if the situation is still uncomfortable.... well, don't waste any time looking for a new group with a more compatible style.

So going back to your post, it presupposes refusal. Whether I would override someone's wishes who absolutely refuses is kind of a non-question, since if they refuse, I have no ability to compel them to cooperate. They might derail the game or quit or argue others into making concessions, but my belief about whether they have a right to do so is quite theoretical at that point. Which is one reason I prefer not to deal with players who are ofen, or even more than rarely, inclined to argue about stuff that happens that makes reasonable sense within the scope of the game.

 

[Hussar]

a) "Thanks Bob for waiting after the session to discuss this. Now we can talk about this at length without boring everyone else."

b) "First of all, I haven't done anything that contridicts your background. I'm simply filling in blanks in the story based on cues in your player background. I'm doing this to help you develop your character, and not for any other reason."

c) "Secondly, if you are really not interested in it, I'll drop the story line quickly and we can move on to something else. I'm sorry this plot development doesn't interest you. I thought based on what we'd talked about before the campaign regarding your goals and character conception and based on how you filled out the campaign questionaire that you'd really be into this, but I guess I was wrong. Maybe we should talk some more about what sort of stories you are interested in."

So, despite everything you've claimed, you do exactly the same thing I've stated should be done all the way along - you take the other person's claim into account and stop doing what makes the other person uncomfortable.

You do it with a lot more words, but, at the end of the day, that's what you're doing.

You try something, the other person says stop and you stop.

Why are you disagreeing with me then?

 

[Hussar]

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

And that's the basic point where we diverge. You claim that it's being confrontational. I say it's basic social interaction. And, when it happens, as you said yourself, you stop. It doesn't matter about anything else. No, I don't have to subject myself to discomfort merely because you are ignorant of what's making me feel uncomfortable.

Nor should I be forced to remain silent when I'm being made to feel uncomfortable. When someone does something that you are not comfortable with, who cares why? That person is uncomfortable. That person is not having fun. Not only is that person simply not having fun, that person is outright having a bad time.

If it was simply a case of being bored, then fine, that happens.

But this person is actually feeling bad. This person is being made to feel uncomfortable by something that can be stopped quite easily.

And, it should never have gotten to that point in the first place. As you said, campaign questionaires, group character generation, that sort of thing, nips all that in the bud before it gets started.

But, let's assume that the group didn't bother with all of that. Lots of groups don't. They should, but, like Lanefan said at the outset, he deliberately kept this fact a secret from the other player. Now, I'm not ascribing any ulterior motives to Lanefan here. He honestly believes (I think) that this would be fun and would add to the game.

However, it turns out that he's wrong. If it was fun and added to the game, no one would complain. The fact that someone actually felt strongly enough to say something means that it has achieved the opposite effect. It might be more fun for Player 1, but it's outright ruining Player 2's fun.

So, yes, Player 1 should stop. You should always stop when someone tells you that what you are doing makes them uncomfortable in a social situation. No one should be forced to endure things that make them outright uncomfortable just to make the "game" better.

------

And, please, can we stop with the whole "You just don't understand what I'm saying" thing? Because, from where I'm sitting, there are about half the people in this thread who are saying pretty much exactly the same thing as I am.

I understand what you're saying. I just disagree with it. You think that the game should come first. That people should just suck it up for the good of the game. I don't. I think that as soon as another player crosses your comfort line to the point where you feel you should complain, then that player should stop. And I couldn't care less about maintaining the game fiction.

 

[Edvamp]

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.

Absolutely, the initial attempt at role-playing is not what Player 1 did 'wrong'. However, how can Player 2 let Player 1 know that this is making him personally uncomfortable OOC if he role-plays the scene, even if rejection, in character? Player 1 might interpret Player 2's willingness to role-play the scene as acceptance.

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?

I would think so, for the reason mentioned above. It is the best way to explain to Player 1 without miscommunication that the Player, not the character, is not comfortable with this scenario and would prefer not to role-play it at all.

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.

Player 2's character not consenting to the romantic overtures is not the same as Player 2 consenting to play out romantic role-play. Let me see if I can try to explain (breaks out the puppets).

Player 1: My character makes romantic advances towards Player 2's character.
Player 2: My character rejects the advances and shows he/she is not interested.
Player 1: Hey, he wants to role-play this out.

Player 2's character rejecting the advances does not express to Player 1 that Player 2 does not want to role-play this type of action.

Try, instead:

Player 1: My character makes romantic advances towards Player 2's character.
Player 2: Hey, Player 1, I really don't want to go there, it's kinda making me uncomfortable, let's just stick to the campaign.

If I was the DM or another player at that table and the exchange was that polite and it stopped there, I would not feel uncomfortable or felt that a line had been crossed. Player 1 tried something, Player 2 expressed himself maturely and politely (no insults or sexually denigrating remarks) and that was it. In that situation I don't breaking character for a moment to politely express discomfort would be all that traumatizing.

 

[Edvamp]

And that's the basic point where we diverge. You claim that it's being confrontational. I say it's basic social interaction. And, when it happens, as you said yourself, you stop. It doesn't matter about anything else. No, I don't have to subject myself to discomfort merely because you are ignorant of what's making me feel uncomfortable.

Nor should I be forced to remain silent when I'm being made to feel uncomfortable. When someone does something that you are not comfortable with, who cares why? That person is uncomfortable. That person is not having fun. Not only is that person simply not having fun, that person is outright having a bad time.

To play Devil's Advocate I think what some people might have objected to was the absolutist position that a person stating they are uncomfortable always trumps role-playing. While it probably will 9 times out of 10, I could see situations where someone was just being overly picky or sensitive, or worse, trying to gain an advantage over or manipulate the group.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[pawsplay]

So, yes, Player 1 should stop.

Or Player 2 should quit.

You should always stop when someone tells you that what you are doing makes them uncomfortable in a social situation.

If that rule were kept, there would be far less justice in this world, for sure.

 

[pawsplay]

To play Devil's Advocate I think what some people might have objected to was the absolutist position that a person stating they are uncomfortable always trumps role-playing. While it probably will 9 times out of 10, I could see situations where someone was just being overly picky or sensitive, or worse, trying to gain an advantage over or manipulate the group.

Just throwing that out there.

Right. Or Player 2 isn't the problem, per se, but there's just no reasonable way to accomodate them.

 

[the Jester]

So, yes, Player 1 should stop. You should always stop when someone tells you that what you are doing makes them uncomfortable in a social situation. No one should be forced to endure things that make them outright uncomfortable just to make the "game" better.

Would you argue this if the player was made uncomfortable by depictions of non-Christian religions, demons, angels, etc.?

What if the player was made uncomfortable by playing out combat against humans or other "good guy" races?

What if the player was made uncomfortable by the fact that I use a funny voice for my character?

What if the player was made uncomfortable by the fact that I, a male, am playing a female character?

Seriously, there's a point at which "legitimate concern" becomes "Whoa drama overreaction wtf??". That point is different for each group, but the romantically-interested-in-secret hook is way over the line of "Whoa drama overreaction wtf??" for my game.

Now, I absolutely would back up player 2 if she objected to player 1 having inserted a past affair or other connection with her pc. Player 1 does NOT get to write player 2's pc's background, period. But in the case in question, it's a completely internal matter for pc 1, and unless there are some weird OOC issues between the players- in which case they probably want to resolve them OOC as well, or one of them might need to leave the game- I really think it's an unreasonable position for player 2 to take (I see it as essentially "You must tailor your background around me!").

Like I said, every group is different, but this kind of objection would be met with disbelief, possibly followed by scorn, in my group.

 

[Edvamp]

Or Player 2 should quit.

You don't think that is a pretty gross overreaction to the situation, and detrimental to the entire group? Of course it would be better if everyone in the group liked every role-playing idea brought to play, but that is pretty unrealistic. Not every idea is going to fly, and having a player quit over it seems just seems out of sync.

 

[Edvamp]

Now, I absolutely would back up player 2 if she objected to player 1 having inserted a past affair or other connection with her pc. Player 1 does NOT get to write player 2's pc's background, period. But in the case in question, it's a completely internal matter for pc 1, and unless there are some weird OOC issues between the players- in which case they probably want to resolve them OOC as well, or one of them might need to leave the game- I really think it's an unreasonable position for player 2 to take (I see it as essentially "You must tailor your background around me!").

Like I said, every group is different, but this kind of objection would be met with disbelief, possibly followed by scorn, in my group.

But it isn't a completely internal matter for PC 1 the moment he tries to role-play it out with PC 2. And we don't know if this is a part of PC 1's background or not, it could have been a spur of the moment idea he had to spice up the game a little. We also don't know how this side story deals with the main campaign story line.

And Player 2's concern doesn't have to reflect issues between Player 1 and Player 2. Player 2 can just say that he/she came to play D&D, not Romeo and Juliet. And unless they were told in advance that this would be a romance involved storyline, that is a pretty legitimate viewpoint.

So someone is going to lose. Either Player 1 ditches his idea, Player 2 sucks it up and deals with it, or one of them leaves the group. More than likely, depending on how strongly each Player feels about their position along with other social dynamics of that particular group, it would be one of the first two options. Now if this kind of thing constantly happens involving one or both of these players, then maybe one of them leaving might be a solution. But it shouldn't be the first one out of the bag.