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

[Celebrim]

Let me ask the counter-question:

1) If another player at the table is doing something IC that makes you uncomfortable, how should you respond?
2) If that player grants your request to stop, how should you respond?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Good post, Celebrim.

However, the suggestion was made and has been continually repeated that somehow it manages to be merely a request, but that player #1 has no right to refuse it in any fashion full stop. But if you have no right to refuse the request, and if your only recourse is to acceed to the request, then it really doesn't seem very much like a request to me.

Interesting point. I think the issues it raises - the moral ought, freedom, whether I am free to act against the moral ought, does knowing the needs of others make me less free - are beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[fanboy2000]

You are setting a single-player veto. I don't think that's any way to run a game. It's certainly not democratic.

Going backwards, gaming groups aren't democratic entities. What we're talking about is etiquette, not government. A single-player veto would only exist in a gaming group that allows it. I.e, Player 1 isn't prevented from playing their character unless the rest of the party agrees with Player 2.

I look at this as a timing issue:

Fanboy's Rules for players:

1. Don't be a dick.
2. Your fun is not to come at the expense of another player.
3. Your fun may come at the expense of the DM's fun.
4. Don't use rule 3 to much or the DM will quit.

It's an incomplete list.

When Player 1 made a PC that was anti-social, but in love with another PC without that player's permission to create and in-game reason to be with the party, Player 1 created a situation that had the potential to violate Rule 2. That rule was actually violated with the amount of fun Player 2 was having dropped as a result of Player 1's actions. (So if Player 2 was having 5 Fun Units, and it dropped to 2 as a result of Player 1's actions, Player 1 as now violated Rule 2.)

Usually, Rule 2 violations are over and done with fairly quickly, only repeated violations by one player on another are a problem under that situation. Sometimes, they're more pervasive and last a while. Usually, player's work it out amongst themselves or self correct the problem by leaving the group.

In this situation however, when Player 2 informs Player 1 of the violation, we have another violation. Player 2's fun is now happening at the expense of Player 1's fun. Now each player has two choices: have fun a different way, or leave the group. One or both of them has to make the decision, or have it made for them by the group.

Finding another way to have fun is a time honored tradition in social groups, and is the hallmark of working it out like adults. Sometimes, however, that fails because or both of them is unwilling or unable to have fun another way.

So I look at it as a timing issue. Player 1 violated rule 2 first and thus is the one who has to make a decision, find another way to have fun, or leave.

 

[Celebrim]

I think the issues it raises - the moral ought, freedom, whether I am free to act against the moral ought, does knowing the needs of others make me less free - are beyond the scope of this thread.

No, I think they are entirely the scope of the thread. Where the thread about something less interesting than that, I probably wouldn't be participating. All the real issues in this thread have come down to different takes on each of those things, and how people believe either directly effects how they act in this situation or else how they act in this situation directly conveys what they really believe.

 

[pawsplay]

This language all seems too extreme to me, as does the Jester's use of 'demand' and 'dictate' quite far upthread. I don't see the (hypothetical) Player 2 as coercing or imposing or anything like that. I see him or her as making a request, no more.

I'm not sure how to find the OP upthread, but I remember it was something t the effect of, "Stop, this is unacceptable."

And it could be even less than a request - it could merely be an expression of his or her discomfort.

The questions are:
1) Should Player 2 make this request or not?

That is not a question in dispute. Every single person in this thread has indicated they are well within their rights, although some have said they might prefer to handle things in IC if possible.

2) Once the request is made, how should Player 1 respond?

I am not in a position to dictate their response. If I were to advise them, I would suggest considering ways to play their character they do not result in the problem situation. However, if they are not happy with that, it is not a question of how they "should" respond but of how they do.

I feel that it's fine for Player 2 to make the request. Sure, there are other options - deal with his or her feelings, leave the game - but I think the request is the most straightforward and sensible approach.

Once the request is made I think Player 1 should accede to it. It's surely no great trouble to Player 1 to do so.

That is a surely unwarranted assumption. It is entirely possible that, once asked to change how they play a character, a player may lose interest in the campaign from that point forward. I'm not proud of it, but there have been occasions when the GM has dictated aspects of my character once play had already started, and I ended up making excuses not to come back to the next session.

It's no "great trouble" to get a red car instead of a black one if your spouse would prefer it. Unless, of course, you hate red. Then it's a huge issue.

I have absolutely zero problem with Player 1 starting a romance, in fact I think it's a good thing. It's got the potential to add a lot to the game. While romance is not the main focus of my preferred gaming style, which is just the usual action adventure nonsense, I think it can be really good as a sideplot. There were several PC/NPC couplings in the last campaign I ran, though no PC/PC. The latter is a lot rarer, imx.

I think one of the reasons it's rare is because of Player 2. Which is really too bad.

 

[pawsplay]

So I look at it as a timing issue. Player 1 violated rule 2 first and thus is the one who has to make a decision, find another way to have fun, or leave.

See, I knew mind-reading woud enter into this. Ok, how exactly, is Player 1 supposed to know this until Player 2 raises an objection?

Here is the series of events how they might occur in a group with reasonably good social skills.

Player 1: PC2, I have always loved you.
Player 2: Whoa, there! I feel uncomfortable about PC-on-PC romance because I think roleplaying this kind of scene is a little too close to reality. I am sorry. I would prefer we not roleplay this scene out.
Player 1: Do you want to fade to black and just say what the characters talk about, or are you asking me to retcon what PC2 just said?
Player 2: I would really prefer that you retcon it.
Player 1: Is it okay if PC2 secretly wants to say it but doesn't?
Player 2: I would prefer that PC2 direct his misguided passions to another character.
Player 1: I can probably just assume he has lost interest then.
Player 2: Fine.
Player 1: Ok, GM? I take back that last line.
GM: Whatever. Are you attacking or what?

 

[billd91]

See, I knew mind-reading woud enter into this. Ok, how exactly, is Player 1 supposed to know this until Player 2 raises an objection?

This is why we're not holding it against Player 1 for innocently giving something a try... though, frankly, asking for approval to involve another player's PC is usually going to be a better approach than just trying it unilaterally.

 

[Hussar]

See, I knew mind-reading woud enter into this. Ok, how exactly, is Player 1 supposed to know this until Player 2 raises an objection?

/snip

Ask?

I mean, that was the other crux of the issue originally. That Player 1 kept this a secret from the table and insisted the DM do the same. Player 1 deliberately deceived the table by withholding information about his character.

Had Player 1 asked in the first place, none of this would have come up. The conversation would have occurred during chargen and been a non-starter.

Let's not forget as well, there are other people at the table. Player 1 does the romance thing with Player 2 and is told that Player 2 is not comfortable. he turns to Players 3, 4 and 5 and asks if they'd be interested in the concept. The other three say no thanks.

Is it okay for Player 1 to continue down this road when the entire group has said no?

Let's take a mechanically based example. AD&D Paladin (groan, paladin thread, arrrrgghh). If I drop the Palabomb on the group, I just dictated to the entire group that they can't play an evil character, and even a neutral character is problematic.

At least, unless we start houseruling things. But, let's presume that we want to play by the rules.

Is it okay for me to drop the Palabomb on the group regardless of any objections from the other players? To me, no, it's not okay. I should be asking the group if it's okay with everyone that we play a good group and not forcing the issue.

To me, this is no different. 1 player has introduced an element that directly impacts another player. It's not a side thing or background element. It directly impacts game play between two players. Doing it without any discussion beforehand and continuing to do it even when I know the other person objects makes me a bad player.

If I do something that makes someone else uncomfortable, and I know that it makes someone uncomfortable and I continue to do it, that makes me a dick. It doesn't matter what the social situation is.

OTOH Pawsplay, your example of how a good social group would handle this is pretty much exactly what people have been saying through this entire thread. Player 1 brings something to the table that Player 2 objects to. They talk about it, but cannot come to some sort of compromise. Player 1 drops the issue.

Yes, I totally agree that that's a good social group.

 

[fanboy2000]

See, I knew mind-reading woud enter into this. Ok, how exactly, is Player 1 supposed to know this until Player 2 raises an objection?

Player 1 doesn't know. It's Player 2's responsibility to tell Player 1. No remedial action is necessary until Player 1 knows about the problem.

If a player creates a character with a secret that the other players and the DM don't know about, then it's a risk the player should be willing to take. It may never come-up in play to the extent that Player 2 doesn't even know about it. If that's the case, there's no Rule 2 violation.

In fact, in the scenario you gave it seems to me that the violation didn't happen until Player 1 said "PC2, I have always loved you." Player 1 took a risk and it didn't work out. Oh well. I didn't win the lottery either.

 

[demetri0us]

I personally hate it when somebody hijacks a game in the name of role playing, just to feed their ego.