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

[Edvamp]

Well, you may have some lingual support to that statement. Nonetheless, I still don't feel entirely comfortable with the idea that the act of not treating someone badly is 'doing them a favor'.

Depending on how my day is going just interacting with certain people and them walking away alive constitutes me doing them a favor.

Then again, even in the best of moods I am a fairly misanthropic person overall.

 

[Edvamp]

Except player 1's fun doesn't require forcing the situation on the other player. Remember, the concept is of an unspoken silent love. But regardless, I agree that if his fun requires forcing discomfort on another player, then more serious issues may be at play. On the other hand, if player 2 requires constant coddling to avoid romance, spiders, bad words, vampires and demons, the issues may not be player 1's.

Which is why many of us have acknowledged that there is not enough information presented to come to an absolute determination of who is right and who is wrong. We don't know if Player 1 is a creepy lech or if Player 2 is just spineless and prissy. We don't know if the DM is an Irish Eskimo with a clubbed foot. We don't know if the person sitting next to Player 1 spends his spare time writing bad poetry at Denny's. All we know is that someone presented a vague situation about a player attempting to role-play an infatuation with another PC and since then everyone has been inserting their own pre-conceptions and prejudices.

This thread is an online, interactive Rorschach Test.

 

[Diamond Cross]

It also didn't help that the guy changed his story as well.

First it was the older players are trying to control the younger players.

Then he said it was just one player insulting other players.

So I call shenanigans.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I see a number of people claiming an absolute right to not be offended.

I see no one claiming an absolute right to offend.

Is that basically where we're at?

Nope.

You may find someone in the group who is offended that you play all of your dwarves- as a DM or player- with a horrible Scots/Arabic accent. IMHO, that's tough.

Someone who doesn't want to play his character like Luke Skywalker so you can introduce a Darth Vader NPC with a connection to the party, OTOH, has a right not to be the linchpin in that plot- go talk to another player.

To be fair, un-asked for is not always unwanted.

Which is why I repeatedly and expressly talk about changes over player objection; IOW, change that is expressly unwanted.

All we need now is tequila.

And rufies.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Which is why many of us have acknowledged that there is not enough information presented to come to an absolute determination of who is right and who is wrong. We don't know if Player 1 is a creepy lech or if Player 2 is just spineless and prissy. We don't know if the DM is an Irish Eskimo with a clubbed foot. We don't know if the person sitting next to Player 1 spends his spare time writing bad poetry at Denny's. All we know is that someone presented a vague situation about a player attempting to role-play an infatuation with another PC and since then everyone has been inserting their own pre-conceptions and prejudices.

This thread is an online, interactive Rorschach Test.

The thing is, none of that really matters.

In every other social situation in the world, someone saying "I'm not comfortable" is the giant neon sign of "Ok, time to stop."

Why on Earth is playing some silly tabletop game with other nerds an excuse to ignore that?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In every other social situation in the world, someone saying "I'm not comfortable" is the giant neon sign of "Ok, time to stop."

Why on Earth is playing some silly tabletop game with other nerds an excuse to ignore that?

QFT. That's the meat of the issue.

 

[Hussar]

Too many people to posrep them for great ideas.

Many DMs would probably be OK with that. But let's say in my campaign one of the plot lines involves the nobility all being afflicted with an inherited form of Lycanthropy that they are keeping secret from the citizenry. So with that, I can't have a PC related in any way to the nobility. So I have to alter that PCs background without explaining why to the player for fear of revealing a major plot point. The player pretty much has to accept that I am not trying to ruin his fun and I might have legit reasons to make changes

Or, instead, say to the player, "Sorry, that background doesn't fit with my campaign, pick another."

Or, trusting that the player is mature enough, tell the truth. "Nobility in my campaign is inflicted with a curse. If you want to be a minor noble, you are going to be afflicted as well." And then trust that the player will not abuse this knowledge by going all meta-game during the campaign.

See, I'm just not a huge fan of the idea that players need to be kept stumbling around in the dark in order to enjoy the campaign. There's no reason not to tell them. What's going to happen? They find out about something they are going to find out about anyway, just a little earlier. I trust my players that they will still be able to act in character during the game, even if they know that nobles are cursed.

Granted, you don't need to specify what curse. I'm not saying you have to give away everything.

But, revealing a bit of information in order to not bait and switch a player later down the road - "Oh, btw, that nobility feature in your character? Yeah, that didn't really happen." - is very much preferable. Players get REALLY uptight when you start messing with their backgrounds and their characters like that without getting a green light first.

Sure, it might be okay. But, often it really, really isn't. Why not err on the side of caution?

 

[Edvamp]

The thing is, none of that really matters.

In every other social situation in the world, someone saying "I'm not comfortable" is the giant neon sign of "Ok, time to stop."

Why on Earth is playing some silly tabletop game with other nerds an excuse to ignore that?

You really think that statement is an absolute with no context whatsoever? There are no situations you can think of where the person saying "I'm not comfortable" might be overreacting, overly sensitive, unrealistic or out of touch?

Such as, off the top of my head, people who might be uncomfortable with:

The teaching of Evolution
Being around anyone of a different religion/social strata/culture
Interracial relationships

If I was out having dinner with my sister and her husband, who are of different races, and my mixed race nephew and someone came up to us and expressed miscegenation made them uncomfortable, I am honestly not sure what my response would be, but I can bet you any amount of money it wouldn't be, "Ok, time to stop."

Of course we should respect people, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to offend even people with vastly different beliefs than me. But claims of offense do have to have some measure of reasonableness, subjective as that measure might be.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The thing about the examples you cited is that not a one is something about which persons with differing viewpoints will sit around discussing while laughing, drinking brewskis and generally having a good time.

OF COURSE people will be offended...and the discussion will continue. Typically at a higher volume.

But in a cooperative leisure time activity like gaming, there are different rules of conduct than in a spirited debate/shouting match.

I hang out with guys who have wicked senses of humor; everyone and everything we know about each other is fair game...at least when its just us.

So the guy who was dating an overweight girl (note: nearly everyone in the group is overweight) heard countless jokes about her size.

When he married her, he said "no more jokes about her weight." That moratorium has held for 5 years.

Why? Because we respect him as a pal, regardless of how merciless the razzing...and we want to remain on his joke-writing crew.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You really think that statement is an absolute with no context whatsoever? There are no situations you can think of where the person saying "I'm not comfortable" might be overreacting, overly sensitive, unrealistic or out of touch?

Such as, off the top of my head, people who might be uncomfortable with:

The teaching of Evolution
Being around anyone of a different religion/social strata/culture
Interracial relationships

If I was out having dinner with my sister and her husband, who are of different races, and my mixed race nephew and someone came up to us and expressed miscegenation made them uncomfortable, I am honestly not sure what my response would be, but I can bet you any amount of money it wouldn't be, "Ok, time to stop."

Of course we should respect people, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to offend even people with vastly different beliefs than me. But claims of offense do have to have some measure of reasonableness, subjective as that measure might be.

If I were to walk up to someone and demand they talk to me about those things, and they said "I'm not comfortable with that conversation," then yes, I should stop. If you're out having dinner with your sister, her husband, and your nephew, would you really walk around to each table and display your nephew, then tell the people in the restaurant that you want to talk to each and every one of them about miscegenation?

Your examples do not work. Player A is not disjointedly talking about relationships in general and Player B demands he stop. Player A is doing something to Player B's character.

How amusing it is that every attempt to deflect this point is made by trying to turn Player A into the victim?