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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?"

You can probably guess my answer: I'm out. Why would I want to play in a game or campaign whose premise offends me?

Re: Vampire, etc. & randomization

I have no problem with randomized generation of their age, despite it's effects on PC power, nor in games like Wild Cards. In the former, it's ostensibly part of the campaign texture, in the latter, it's essential to the nature of the setting from whence it sprang. Those are valid reasons for editing.

Besides, I've been through that with games like Stormbringer, Heroes Unlimited and Traveller.

Re: "Who's your daddy?"

I'm not with you at all on this one 90% of the time. I wouldn't dare tell a player his PC's dad isn't who he said it was unless the player is claiming a rationship that cannot be, as in claiming to be a royal bastard of someone who is an important NPC whom I as DM have declaired is childless. As someone else said, he can make the claim, but I decide the statement's veracity.

But other than that, I wouldn't make that change in ancestry over a player's objection, and I won't play long under a DM who does so.

 

[HealTheSquad]

What I find most interesting about this long exercise in defending the indefensible is how the positions seem to split broadly down edition wars lines. Coincidence?


Mod edit:

I know you are on record asking folks to not stop edition wars - but the moderation staff is not behind you on that one, and we don't appreciate people actively trying to stir up strife along edition-lines. So, let's not go there please.

~Umbran

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You're seeing something I'm not.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying I haven't noticed a correlation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But other than that, I wouldn't make that change in ancestry over a player's objection, and I won't play long under a DM who does soBut other than that, I wouldn't make that change in ancestry over a player's objection, and I won't play long under a DM who does so.

And upon further reflection, that's probably a good thing.

Were I to stay, I'd probably trash my old PC and the next PC would be an impossible fit for the foisted-upon plot twist in the PCs background- Lord Whitesnake is going to have a devil of a time explaining how he fathered a Shardmind, for instance.

Hmmmm...

Perhaps that will be my main response to DM meddling in the future: civil disobedience. Muck with things essential to my PC in ways I don't like and I'll play my PC in a way you don't like. My warrior will specialize in the Sap; my cloth-armored spellcaster will charge into battle with non-proficient weapons. My bard will become the Uber-Don Rickles/Andrew Dice Clay and insult every sentient being the party encounters.

There it is, that's my position: override my legitimate concerns at your own risk. Let's call it "RPG Chicken" and see who flinches first.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That has nothing to do with what we're saying.

Sure it does. Either "It makes me uncomfortable" has qualifiers, or it doesn't. If my examples are irrelevant, then it is because there are qualifiers. What it is and why it makes Player 2 uncomfortable is either relevant or not.

If it isn't relevant, then "Not having a gazillion gold pieces makes me uncomfortable" is perfectly valid. You are denying that character a gazillion gold pieces, and it makes him uncomfortable. Stop it.

If it isn't relevant, then "The game is D&D, and playing D&D makes me uncomfortable" is perfectly valid. You are making people uncomfortable. Stop it.

See, I can bold things too!

Dude, the bolded parts were from cut & pasting from your post. That bolding? Your bolding.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

No takers? Really?

I think we're waiting for "those claiming that Person B can never feel insulted and just has to deal with it" to show up so that they can answer it.

Although, actually, Celebrim did an excellent job answering this.

However, following all the way down to the rape point: Because a person argues that X is okay in a game, it doesn't follow that Y is. This is a direct result of considering qualifiers when determining the proper response to "Z makes me uncomfortable". It is those qualifiers that make some actions simply not occur in-game, while other actions do not occur "on screen" in-game (but may be part of the background), while still other actions occur "on screen" and the players may either deal with it or jump ship. You cannot get out of fighting a giant spider simply because spiders make you kinda uncomfortable. For some people's specific reactions to spiders, however, I might eliminate the encounter -- or even mention of cobwebs. I haven't actually met anyone so phobic of spiders (that I know of, anyway), however.

Likewise, imagine that you are playing in a campaign world modelled after Middle Earth, post-LotR. That world includes a history of implied rape (Saruman's breeding of half-orcs), as well as the implication of humans hunting other humans for sport (the woses were hunted by the Rohirrim). Likewise, Wormtongue has eaten at least one hobbit. If those ideas make you uncomfortable, you should perhaps choose a different setting. But accepting that the world included Saruman breeding orcs with stolen women doesn't mean that the same will (or should!) happen to the PCs. Nor does it mean that Wormtongue is going to consume your hobbit PC. (OTOH, Eowyn's love for Aragorn made him uncomfortable, and was eventually resolved.)

If you are uncomfortable with the idea of the Ewoks eating stormtroopers, or with the idea that Our Heroes are invited to the feast and seem to think nothing untoward of it (either ignorance is bliss, or they truly don't care), then perhaps you should choose a different setting. (However, Luke's infatuation with his sister has led to some uncomfortable moments around Casa Skywalker for sure....probably long after she was having little Hanlets.)

Oddly enough, romance has been a common topic/element in fiction for as long as fiction has existed. As such, it seems that anyone engaging in a work of fiction -- including the fictional space created by a role-playing game -- should expect some element of romance to exist. It would be a shallow world indeed where romance was a priori dismissed as "uncomfortable"....or even, Cthulhu forbid, "indefensible".

And, please note, it is quite possible to have an element of romance in a game without ever actually playing out a romantic scene. John Carter's love for Deja Thoris is conveyed quite effectively without ever descending (or ascending) to the bedroom, nor does Aragorn ever have a romantic scene with Arwen in the novel. Wesley and Buttercup do very little actual romancing between life-threatening perils (although there is some). Lusty as he is, all of Conan's actual romancing takes place off-screen as well -- we get a statement of mutual admiration and intent at best.

Romance has often been used in fiction to provide motivation without ever being realized "on screen". He gets the girl, she gets the guy, and then the sun sets. Cut. That's a wrap.

The last time I was a player, it was in a Star Wars game set during the Rebellion Era. My Jedi character was a survivor of the Purge, and had been secretly in love with his Master (a female Twi'lek). She obviously didn't know; Jedi are forbidden to love, and his feelings were therefore dishonorable. After her death in the Purge, he vowed to live up to her ideals....to be the perfect Jedi. It was an impossible task, of course, but well in keeping with the teen-angst-ridden Star Wars universe. He was also unduly influenced by anyone that reminded him of his former Master.

As it turned out, no one was playing a female Twi'lek Jedi, or even a female Twi'lek.....but if a replacement character came in that was obviously similar to my PC's former Master, the character's background wasn't going to suddenly change. Someone telling me it must would make me.....uncomfortable.


RC


.

 

[Hussar]

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.
/snip.

Actually, I agree. There is a point where "legitmate concern" becomes over reaction.

But, let's not forget two things. First off, timing. All of the things you bring up would occur in the very first session of the game. Most of them would absolutely be known before the first session of the game. Someone who agreed to join a role playing game would know, and probably give tacit approval, of any of the things you list. And, any problems would be occuring within the first ten minutes of the session.

The example that we're talking about is way down the line.

Which brings me to my second point. The reason this is way down the line, time wise, is because Player 1 INSISTED that Player 2 not be consulted in any way about this idea. In fact, he insisted that it be kept secret.

Now, let's use your examples, but, presume the same set up. Someone comes to a D&D game, doesn't know what D&D is about, and is not told a single thing about what can happen during a regular game session.

The player sees the stuff you list and gets weirded out.

All of that could be avoided just by TALKING to the player beforehand. Let that player know what's to be expected in the session and in the game. THEN that player can make a conscious choice as to whether or not he wants to play this game.

Otherwise, it's just asking for bad situations. Hiding the nature of the game, whatever that nature is, is not going to help anything. If someone is really uncomfortable about, say, gender bending players, that comes out during character generation when you do it as a group.

Now the player can make informed decisions.

Instead, he's being held hostage. If he disrupts the game because he's uncomfortable, he causes bad feelings and he's a bad player. If he sits through it, he has a miserable time and, let's face it, it's not going to be a good session for everyone else either unless this player is a REALLY good actor.

ALL of this can be resolved by a very simple rule: before you do anything that directly impacts another character at the table, ask. Take a couple of minutes and ask if this would be a good idea. It's a good idea to you, sure, but, if the other person is going to be uncomfortable, then no, it's not a good idea for the table.

 

[Hussar]

DannyA - Honestly, thinking about the whole "Who's your Daddy" thing, I think I came to a realization. The reason that so many players come to the table with a blank slate character background, Man With No Name, character who's family is dead and just got off a ship from a continent that sank into the ocean ten minutes after he set sail, is because of DM's that can't keep their mitts off other people's characters.

Seriously. If you include family members in your background, you can guarantee they will either be kidnapped, murdered, or will betray the PC. No one's family will ever just live nice, quiet lives with their hero child dropping by once in a while. Spouse or loved one? Succubus. Have an heirloom suit of armor? Thieves will steal it, or rust monsters will charge you first every single time, despite the fact that your heirloom suit of armor is actually hide.

So on and so forth.

I truly believe that most players have been trained almost from the get go that anything they put in their backgrounds will just be ammunition for the DM to screw them around with. So, they put nothing in their backgrounds. I know in my online games, the vast majority of the PC's I see are orphans. If I lived in a D&D world, the second my child began training as a cleric, I'd drown the little bastard before someone offed me.

 

[pawsplay]

You don't think that is a pretty gross overreaction to the situation, and detrimental to the entire group?

Very likely, but I can't insist someone endure a situation they consider intolerable.

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.

It would, which is why, given the choice between losing the player and banning in-character behavior, neither being a great choice, I'm kind of inclined to lose the player. I guess my solution would be that over time I would like the group to evolve toward being flexible and handling things in a mature fashion. Until that happens, I would rather people quit and retain their liberty than squash roleplay at my table. When it comes to player freedom, my style is to say "yes." Given that, I think people would have few reasons to feel abused at my table. At worse, someone quits over their personal issue with a certain theme, which is sad, but probably for the best in many cases.

 

[pawsplay]

DannyA - Honestly, thinking about the whole "Who's your Daddy" thing, I think I came to a realization. The reason that so many players come to the table with a blank slate character background, Man With No Name, character who's family is dead and just got off a ship from a continent that sank into the ocean ten minutes after he set sail, is because of DM's that can't keep their mitts off other people's characters.

I wouldn't call that training, but experential aversion. After all, a blank character sheet practically invites GM meddling. So it is an understandable but futile response to a hostage-taking GM.