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

[S'mon]

I'm conflicted here, I sense that Lanefan and Hussar are both somehow 'wrong' but I can't exactly put my finger on why!

Lemme see: I think anything that smacks of one PC 'stalking' another PC can be creepy, can be legitimately upsetting to the player of the stalkee. That should be recognised (Lanefan). OTOH it seems wrong to assume that any unspoken romantic interest in one PC by another amounts to such (Hussar).

 

[Nagol]

I'm conflicted here, I sense that Lanefan and Hussar are both somehow 'wrong' but I can't exactly put my finger on why!

Lemme see: I think anything that smacks of one PC 'stalking' another PC can be creepy, can be legitimately upsetting to the player of the stalkee. That should be recognised (Lanefan). OTOH it seems wrong to assume that any unspoken romantic interest in one PC by another amounts to such (Hussar).

Nah, the character receiving the attention (it didn't sound like stalking so much since the attentions are non-obvious and non-threatening) can get legitimately upset. The player not so much. The character has not been assaulted or threatened by anouther PC and it is that player's choice whether or not to use the situation for further role play. If the thought that another character could be in love the character receiving attention disturbs the player, he should simply ignore Lanefan's character.

In fact, taking Lanefan at his word, he has placed a great deal of trust in the other player as a strong negative reaction from the character receiving attention could result in the loss of his character.

 

[Pbartender]

If someone is that disturbed by something as simple as an in-game romantic pursuit of one character by another, they've got deeper issues. And I'm more than willing to poke the bear if that's what it takes to bring those issues into at least enough light so the person who has 'em can see 'em.

Be aware that Dungeons & Dragons is a game, and not a tool for do-it-yourself psychotherapy performed on unwilling subjects.

 

[Serra]

I've read through various parts of this and would like to add my thoughts. They pertain to D&D and any other RPG based type game.

"My character wouldn't do that!"

The five words that make every GM's blood run cold.

Unless a DM/GM railroads me with "Your character does this" then I don't see why as a player I would be saying "My character wouldn't do that". For myself I view it as though the DM is the world/novel while my character interacts with the said world.

But sometimes, the plot writes itself into a corner. The PCs make a unanticipated turn, and now one or more refuse to go along with it? Now what?

"IC Soultions for IC Problems" You don't get to refuse to go along with it, you have to deal with it I say.

And what do you do when the Thief player turns to you and says, "Dude, this is really creepy. Don't do that. It's making me really uncomfortable and I am not interested in playing this out at all"?

Being a female gamer- I think if I say I am uncomfortable it should just be respected and left at that. I think that goes for anyone though as that's just common courtesy respect etc. You may think it's really lame that it does make them uncomfortable but it doesn't change the fact it does so. You might as well just not do that.

As a player I just care if my fellow players being IC or not. That's my big one- be IC above all else with your character. I think the rest tends to work itself out.

 

[Dausuul]

If someone is that disturbed by something as simple as an in-game romantic pursuit of one character by another, they've got deeper issues. And I'm more than willing to poke the bear if that's what it takes to bring those issues into at least enough light so the person who has 'em can see 'em.

People don't come to the gaming table for cut-rate amateur therapy. It's not your job to identify and fix whatever issues they may have, I seriously doubt you're qualified to do it, and blaming the other person for "having issues" is a common excuse for acting like a jerk.

I'm with MrMyth and Hussar; if your fellow player has the maturity and honesty to say up front "This makes me uncomfortable" instead of pulling some in-character crap or just walking away, you can either respect that or get the hell out of my gaming group.

 

[Celebrim]

RP at a gaming table should be consensual between all parties. If someone is uncomfortable with a particular topic or type of interaction, then they should not be forced to dwell on it.

That said, it's just as possible for a player to use the excuse of consensual roleplay to attempt to hijack the group as it as for a person to use the excuse of 'it's what my character would do' to hijack the group. The two stances are two sides of the same coin. One is aggressive, but the other is passive aggressive. They both boil down to the claim that, "My personal preferences should be the overriding concern for the whole group." The person claiming 'this makes me uncomfortable' is taking the moral high ground by claiming to have been victimized, but fundamentally it's not that different from the intellectual high ground that you are just playing a game and being true to your character. Neither position necessarily trumps all other concerns, nor is either position necessarily being honest.

Because the game is supposed to be consensual between all parties, sometimes that will mean comprimise. Provided everyone has a charitable attitude toward everyone else at the table, issues like this should never come up. When they do come up, they should be resolved toward the end of mutual respect and trust in the other players at the table. I don't think that anyone should be forced to go through rape, torture, bondage and other sorts of extreme scenes for anyone's amusement. It is possible to blur the line between 'what is going on in the game' and 'what is really going on in the real world' and things that do blur that line should probably be avoided.

But on the other hand, it should be the stance of all players that they are going to try to address the scenes that evolve in the game in as courageous of way as possible, relying on the trust, respect, and affection they feel for the other players. Sometimes things are going to make you uncomfortable. You should not let underlying feelings like, for example, "I feel shy." or "I'm afraid of embarassing myself.", stop you from participating. Work out some way to push passed that, rather it involves toning down the scene, backing off this line of play, or finding out that your fears weren't as justified as you thought. Likewise, if you discover that something is making someone else in the table uncomfortable, whether by observation or because they tell you, you too should be trying to figure out how to tone down the scene, back off, or accept alternative lines of play that the other player suggests.

The players - and players I include the one wearing the GM hat - have to work together. They have to comprimise. They have to respect and trust each other. And when conflict occurs, as it inevitably does, the underlying consideration should always be, "What's more important to me, this person, this friendship, or this game."

What I find really amazing about this thread is that essentially both sides of this argument have adopted the same standard. They've rallied around one imaginary player or the other, championed them, and they've adopted the stance that the important thing is the game. Both sides have essentially approached the problem in the exact same way, and the only thing that they disagree with is which of the imaginary players needs to be tarred and feathered and thrown out of the group for hurting the game. This is adopting the stance that the game is more important than people, or at the very least, that one friend is disposable and the other is not.

Go through friendships much?

 

[Pbartender]

...or at the very least, that one friend is disposable and the other is not.

Go through friendships much?

Sometimes actions reveal that an individual is not as much of a friend as you might have thought.

 

[Celebrim]

Sometimes actions reveal that an individual is not as much of a friend as you might have thought.

You mean like betrayal, adultery, theft, or something?

Yeah, actions might reveal that an individual is not as much of a friend as you might have thought, but I'm not so sure that the actions which are actually telling in this case are the ones you seem to think that they are.

Your response seems to underline the whole problem I have with the direction this discussion has taken - that a person playing the game differently than you means that they aren't your friend. Both sides have the assumption that any percieved slight in the game has the appropriate response of ending a friendshp.

 

[Dausuul]

What I find really amazing about this thread is that essentially both sides of this argument have adopted the same standard. They've rallied around one imaginary player or the other, championed them, and they've adopted the stance that the important thing is the game. Both sides have essentially approached the problem in the exact same way, and the only thing that they disagree with is which of the imaginary players needs to be tarred and feathered and thrown out of the group for hurting the game. This is adopting the stance that the game is more important than people, or at the very least, that one friend is disposable and the other is not.

Well, first of all, I certainly have not "adopted the stance that the important thing is the game." I'm not proposing to throw people out of the group for hurting the game... the game isn't a person, it'll be fine. It's when your in-game actions are making your fellow players, who are people, feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, and they tell you as much, and you keep doing it and get all self-righteous into the bargain, that I as DM reach for the game-table equivalent of the banhammer.

Yes, it's theoretically possible to use "I'm uncomfortable with that" as a way to "hijack the group" as you put it. I've never seen it done, but I could conceive of it happening--someone comes into a hack-and-slash campaign and tries to guilt everyone into making it into an episode of Barney and Friends, or something like that.

However, we're not talking about that kind of general stuff. We're talking about the specific case of PC-on-PC romantic pursuit. Sexual relationships are fraught with real-life concerns, and unless inter-player romance is an explicit part of the social contract in your group (everyone knows and acknowledges that it's part of the game before they sit down to play), the desire of any player not to be involved in it* in-game should be respected.

It's not that there's anything wrong with introducing the idea, just like there's nothing wrong with asking somebody out on a date in real life**. The problem is when you don't take no for an answer. Ask anyone who's dealt with an unwanted suitor how much fun that is. If the player says, "I don't want to deal with your PC pursuing mine," the person initiating should respect that and back the hell off.

Go through friendships much?

If somebody is acting like a jerk and making things un-fun for other players, and they keep doing it after being asked to stop, they need to leave the game. I haven't said anything about ending friendships. Being friends does not mean putting up with obnoxious behavior, and if being called on obnoxious behavior causes somebody to end a friendship... well, that's up to them, not me. See Geek Social Fallacies #1 and #2.

I've known people who are excellent friends in general, but sitting down to game with them is a bad, bad idea. Gaming just brings out the worst in some folks.

[size=-2]*Yes, having to say no all the time, or deal with extravagant gestures of affection, counts as being involved.

**Although I strongly endorse discussing it out of character first. It's bad form to spring something like that on another player unexpectedly in the middle of the game, where objecting to it means bringing the whole session to a screeching halt.[/size]

 

[Pbartender]

Your response seems to underline the whole problem I have with the direction this discussion has taken - that a person playing the game differently than you means that they aren't your friend.

That's not what I'm referring to... I'm talking about people who, for whatever reason and regardless of how they play the game, don't like each other outside the game, and then one or the other or both use in-game antics to passive-aggressively tweak each other off.

Sooner or later, it boils over to affect the entire group.

What I've found is that what often starts as "my character won't do that" ends up actually meaning "Johnny's been treating me like a jerk outside the game, so I'm go to get back at him by not going along with his ideas in game" or "I don't like Johnny, but I can't openly treat him like a jerk in front of all his other friends, so I'll be a jerk to his character in game."

Rather than a game problem translating into a social problem, "You don't play the way I like, so I don't like you," I'm talking more about social problems translating into game problems, "I don't like you, so I'm going to play the way you don't like".