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

[steenan]

I definitely don't force things that make people I play with uncomfortable. But, on the other hand, I don't want to have the options that make the game fun for me limited - and I have found that most of good roleplaying scenes come from situations that some people may not like (romance, religion, conflicts between PCs etc.).

For this reason, I just avoid playing with people who can't accept things that create my fun. If somebody was disturbed OOC by an in-game romantic advances, by fictional gods or something similar, I probably wouldn't invite them to a game anymore. I can't imagine myself running (or playing in) a game where such topics would be forbidden.

Of course, there are also "heavier" themes that more people take issue with. Excessive violence, rape, close perspective on demonic possession or mental illnesses etc. But they are not something that happens in most games. When I run games that include such elements, I put an appropriate information in the session description so that my friends know what to expect and if they want to avoid given game. When I'm to play in someone's game, I expect to get a similar information beforehand. In the range defined in this way - and accepted by all players by coming to given game - everything goes.

 

[MrMyth]

I guess it's a good thing I didn't insist that, then.

Well, that was certainly how it seemed to read. Saying that someone's feeling of discomfort is an illusion, and that being uncomfortable will go away if they endure the experience... that certainly sounded like advocating they suffer through an unpleasant experience one some vague hope that it will improve.

I'm not there, I don't know. Further, I'm not sure that matters. What matters is that their preferences are being thwarted, which is essentially the same issue Player 2 is having.

Maybe this is the breakdown in disagreement here, but I just really don't see them as the same issue.

If Player 2 backs down, the result is that they have to sit through an unpleasant experience in the game. Potentially creating long term drama, and at the very least making the game less enjoyable for them, if not resulting in them dropping out entirely.

if Player 1 backs down... he keeps playing the game and has one roleplaying approach changed or removed. There should be plenty of entertaining roleplaying he should be able to engage in anyway. I just can't see the same consequences in place for him. If Player 1's enjoyment on the game is genuinely tied to being able to romantically pursue an unwilling PC, then something about that seems very wrong to me.

sure, but that doesn't automatically mean Player 1 is at fault. I think it's reasonable to place the discomfort where it exists: in Player 2's perception of the situation. Is player 2's viewpoint a reasonable one, or are they asking for the game to be altered for unreasonable reasons?

I am having a lot of trouble resolving your claims of counseling with the sort of sentiments you are advocating. Yes, there could be unreasonable demands in some scenarios - we've discussed a number of them.

But the ones we've been focusing on are ones that I think someone's concerns are perfectly reasonable. I can think of any number of reasons why being pursued by another PC in-game could make someone uncomfortable, especially once they've made it clear they aren't interested.

Telling someone that their feelings don't matter, that they are an illusion, or are unreasonable... that if someone is in a situation that makes them uncomfortable, it is their fault... that logic really, really bothers me.

So, if it's difficult to separate yourself from your character entirely, doesn't that mean that asking player 1 to edit their character's actions is essentially rejecting some part of them, and then asking the group to back up that rejection? Is that a good way to run a group? Just asking. "We held a vote; you're a creep." I'm just not sure about that.

Again, you can criticize behavior without making it a value judgement on the person responsible. If someone says a remark that I find offensive, I can point that out without claiming that they were intentionally trying to offend me.

I think we've made it pretty clear that the initial action of the player isn't a problem. Wanting to pursue PC-on-PC romance isn't being a creep. Insisting on your right to do so when someone asks you to stop? That's the problem point.

I also think its pretty extreme to depict this as 'rejecting some part of someone'. We're assuming that Player 1 isn't intending their character's behavior to mirror their own. But for Player 2, if they have a hang-up about being stalked, it can well be uncomfortable in character even if it isn't 'real'.

Tomayto, tomahto. Simply labeling the "instigator" and "responder" is laying blame where I don't think it's appropriate. Both players are instigated and responding to the situation.

No, sorry, that's nonsense. Player 1 took an action that caused the situation. That doesn't mean the situation is inherently bad, but he is undeniably the root cause of it.

If someone walks up to me and pushes me, he's the cause. Whether I get upset or not, whether anything else results from this, he is responsible for shoving me.

Is that helpful?

"You, you there, expressing your personal preference. You are a bad person."

so if Player 2 objects, player 1 becomes a bad person. If they don't, Player 1 is not a bad person. Or maybe they are, and we just don't find out about it because they aren't challenged.

What? Are you even reading my post? He's a bad person because his response was to be a jerk - to hassle his friend, spitefully kill off his character, and give his friend a hard time.

That's out entire point - wanting to try out PC-on-PC romance doesn't make someone a bad person. But if your 'personal preference' is to insist that romance has to happen even if the other party doesn't want it to? Or it's to respond to their request with petty and spiteful behavior? Yes, that's the point at which you aren't being a good person!

However, Player 1 is also entitled to set boundaries. "I don't wish this campaign to turn G-rated" is a reasonable limit, particularly when the players involved are older than eleven. Player 1 and Player 2 have equally valid boundaries they would like to set. If agreement cannot be reached, however, some compromise has to occur.

You keep changing the original scenario. Player 2 isn't insisting on a G-rated campaign. What he is requesting is that non-G-rated activities don't involve him without his desire for them!

Player 1 wanting to pursue relationships with NPCs or with Player 3 or 4? I don't think Player 2 is entitled to any expectation that they can reasonably ask him to stop that.

As presented in the original scenario, Player 2 insisted the behavior stop. Unless at least one other player makes the same insistence, Player 2 is stating a "must" that is actually only their personal preference. From the standpoint of the GM, the player who is not willing to roleplay is, by default, a problem. A player who is antagonistic is also a problem.

Again, the insistance is only relevant because the behavior is being directed towards Player 2!

If "you must be willing to be stalked" is a requirement for the game, then sure, it's Player 2's fault if they join the game and then complain about it. But I wouldn't be expecting that going into a standard D&D game, and not wanting to deal with that sort of behavior doesn't mean that I'm a "problem player" not "willing to roleplay".

And again - remember that it in most situations, this would be easy enough to handle in character. If Player 1's PC tried to initiate a romance with Player 2's PC, and Player 2's PC said no, that should be the end of the story. The issue here is one PC pursuing another, in secret, behind the scenes, in a way that makes Player 2 uncomfortable.

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Sometimes people are uncomfortable with things they are not justified in asking other people not do do. Not to get too far afield, but I don't care how many people are uncomfortable if I play Vampire, or choose to marry someone of the same sex, or if someone breastfeeds their infant. Those people are simply expressing prerogatives they don't have.

In this type of situation, it's less likely to be so clear-cut, but I think there is room for Player 1 to say, "Hey, I'm just trying to roleplay here. Why is Player 2 making this personal?"

Because it was made personal for them! You made some real world examples, so let's try and directly compare them.

In the real world, if I see two men holding hands, I don't have any right to walk up to them, announce that this makes me uncomfortable, and that they need to stop this behavior.

But if someone else walks up to me - man or woman - and grasps my hand without my permission? Yes, that can make me uncomfortable, and yes, I should have the right to ask them to stop!

Now, what you seem to be arguing is that, because this takes place in-character, Player 2 should put aside any personal emotions or feeling they may have. That because they are roleplaying, they are 'forfeiting' the right to get upset over something that might bother them in the real world, like being stalked. And I don't buy that.

So basically, your argument is to call me a dick. If I'm Player 1, and I don't fold like a card when Player 2 complains about X, that makes me a dick.

That's... that's not what I said.

The goal of the game should be to try and make sure everyone is having fun. "Not having your PC pursue another PC who isn't interested" really isn't 'folding like a card' - it is respecting the wishes of your friend.

Now, you've tried to turn this argument around, and said that Player 1's desire to have this roleplaying element should be as equally valid as Player 2's desire to not be made uncomfortable. And... I simply disagree.

I can't imagine any reasonable person whose enjoyment of the game requires his character pursue another PC who isn't interested. You just shouldn't be that invested in your character. If an unrequited love is really absolutely central to your character concept, I can't imagine it would be all that hard to have it involve an NPC instead, or a different PC whose player is fine with it.

And asking you to make that change seems like much less of a burden than asking someone to ignore their feelings about the matter, or continue to play in a situation that makes them uncomfortable, or to leave the game if they don't like it.

I just don't accept that. I would rather have more Player 1s, who are willing to roleplay something, than Player 2s, who are erectings lots of barriers to very common, relatively safe emotions.

Maybe this is the heart of it. You've decided that these are 'very common, relatively safe emotions'. Who are you to decide that for Player 2?

The scenario we've been describing from the start is one in which Player 2 genuinely finds themselves being made uncomfortable by the situation. Not one in which they are arbitrarily trying to ruin Player 1's fun.

No, we're going with the idea that, for them, the situation isn't a safe and pleasant one. Maybe they've been in a bad break-up. Maybe the situation just feels too much like stalking. Maybe there are real-life relationships between people at the table and in-game romances put a strain on that. The fact that many people seem to find this plausible should probably give you some warning that your view of 'common and safe emotions' isn't universal.

I can be turned into a pile of writhing flesh, slowly losing my sanity as my very humanity erodes, but I can't deal with someone saying, "Don't you realize? I have always loved you!" I mean, seriously.

Seriously. Like I said, some topics are a lot harder to distance ourselves from. I have a friend who hates spiders. He has no problem with fighting a giant, man-eating spider in game, because its easy to recognize it as a fantasy creature. If a DM instead insisted on describing spiders creeping over his skin while he was tied up, and working their way into his mouth, his eyes, his ears? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he'd be profoundly disturbed by that.

And again, I don't think the situation we are talking about is someone walking up and declaring love for your PC. If that's the case, it really is easy enough to just say, "Sorry, not interested."

But if they keep pursuing you after that? Or if they hide their love from you, and instead secretly pursue you in the background? That's where the declarations of 'stalker' are coming into the picture, and yeah, that's something that can genuinely bother someone.

Seriously, I get that it doesn't bother you. But insisting that because of that, everyone else has to be ok with it also? That is their call to make, not yours.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

Sure, but again - we're not talking about forbidding one form of roleplay entirely. Player 2 is just asking not to be the target of it.

If you create a character whose concept is so fundamentally tied to the idea of romantically pursuing another PC's character even when your attentions are unwanted... that seems a really specific, really limited concept. If the lack of being able to pursue Player 2's PC is what causes you to lose interest in the campaign, that campaign was probably pretty boring to start with!

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

Player 1 is only able to not engage in PC on PC romance if every other player isn't interested. In which case, it's not too bad - it is what other people at the table desire. If they were forced to become involved in PC-on-PC romance when they didn't desire it, that would be 'too bad'.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, that was certainly how it seemed to read.

Once again, if after reading something you say to yourself, "That doesn't make sense.", it's a good idea to reflect on the possibility that the problem is with you and reread the passage.

It's reached the point that I've little desire to respond to your points because it would involve correcting misperceptions on virtually every line.

The best I can do is perhaps sum up what I see as your problems:

a) You are treating this as a contest with a winner or loser, and not only a winner and a loser but only one of two extreme outcomes. Either player #1 backs down or else player #2 backs down. You interpret everything you read through those lens, so if someone argues even slightly against one extreme outcome you take it as a whole hearted endorsement of the other. You pointedly deny any other possibility.
b) Your argument hinges on two things, that p1 has the less to lose and that p1 is at fault. But your argument is circular because it consists of defining p1 as the one that is less to lose and at fault by definition.
c) You are holding fast to a right to be upset, uncomfortable, and offended that doesn't actually exist.
d) You are inventing a highly detailed specific scenario, then trying to draw conclusions from that scenario that cover the general case. But its pretty clear that not only does your account of the specific senario have huge holes in it, but that if you take your conclusions and apply them generally you end up with nonsense. You refuse to consider alternate scenarios from people who are describing the general case and don't have your internal mental picture of what must be going on here in mind. People keep bring up alternate scenarios to try to show that the conclusions you are drawing from the particular case don't work generally, and may not even be applicable here.
e) You are primarily in your description of the situation trying to assign blame. Whether you are aware of it or not, you have a judicial/legalistic model of the situation and I find that mental model wholly unhelpful. You aren't using the language, but what you are saying maps one to one with juries, legal injunctions, prosecutorial investigations and so forth.

Just for an example, lately you've gotten all into hammering on the concept that player #2 is in the right because their player was the target of some role play, but its pretty easy to show that that is a pretty minor issue and not one that is really at the core of the problem either with discomfort or how we resolve it.

No, sorry, that's nonsense. Player 1 took an action that caused the situation. That doesn't mean the situation is inherently bad, but he is undeniably the root cause of it.

That depends entirely on what you think 'the situation' is. In your mental model, the situation is that "Player #1 started roleplaying with me without my consent, and his roleplay made me uncomfortable." But roleplaying with his fellow players is something that player #2 has a reasonable expectation that he is allowed to do, nor does he have a reasonable expectation that pursuing a romantic line of play will cause harm to player #2. Furthermore, player #2 has every reasonable expectation that he will be allowed to play his character, but that doesn't include any expectation that he can tell anyone else what to do or just avoid situations that are unexpectantly uncomfortable. So did player #1 really start 'the situation', or is the situation started by the fact that player #2 put a halt to the role play, brought OOC emotions into the game, stop the game, and wants to impose a new meta-rule on the game table? Personally, I'm not sure I want to rule on that like some sort of judge, which is why I've remained agnostic on - and relatively uninterested in - who to assign blame to here. One example of why I remain agnostic that you apparantly haven't even considered is whether or not p2 is a new player and previously in this group PC/PC romance was considered a valid line of play. Does p2 have the right to change the way this group has always played? Maybe, maybe not, but in either case this moves 'the start of the situation' and who is the instigator again who knows where, and frankly I don't care. I'm more interested in how to move the situation forward than deciding this like a criminal case. I'm not interested in your 'bad person', who is 'a jerk', 'instigator', 'stalker', 'blame' model. I think its highly unhelpful to the point of being dysfunctional. On top of that, you don't even offer a truly good legal framework because you are inventing it as you go.

You keep changing the original scenario. Player 2 isn't insisting on a G-rated campaign. What he is requesting is that non-G-rated activities don't involve him without his desire for them!

The notion of involvement is so vague as to be meaningless, and to the extent that it means 'acted upon' its also a useless dividing line.

Again, the insistance is only relevant because the behavior is being directed towards Player 2!

Wrong. Totally and wholly and completely wrong. That the behavior is directed at player 2 is not a signfiicant factor either in whether it makes someone uncomfortable or how much weight we should assign that discomfort when trying to resolve the situation. You've decided on the behalf of player #2 why they are upset, but we really don't know that except in your mental model of p1 and p2. It may be that p2 is upset over any romantic relationship. It may be that two other players flirting IC may make them just as uncomfortable. Then what? Is that discomfort now wrong and you rule for player #1? Under the model that who is being acted upon the only relevant thing this changes everything, but under mine it changes nothing. If it's really about the RP being directed at the PC, if that's reallly relevant, then discomfort over raping an underaged NPC is less important than discomfort over someone flirting with your PC in a courtly manner. Whether you are directly or indirectly involved in the scene has absolutely nothing to do with it how we should be handling this situation.

Now, you've tried to turn this argument around, and said that Player 1's desire to have this roleplaying element should be as equally valid as Player 2's desire to not be made uncomfortable. And... I simply disagree.

Yes, I know. And I can't help but think that there is a certain amount of self-identification with player #2 going on. But as a DM, I have to arbitrate between both the p1's and p2's of the world without favoritism and without claiming that p2's feelings or more important than p1's or vica versa. As a DM, these 'situations' start when I notice that there is conflict brewing, and usually the first sign is that players have gotten so caught up in their character they've lost all detachment and I can first catch it in their body language or in their unintentional tone of voice. And my concerns are going to be smoothing both sides feelings over, not trying to decide whose feelings are justified and whose aren't.

The scenario we've been describing from the start is one in which Player 2 genuinely finds themselves being made uncomfortable by the situation. Not one in which they are arbitrarily trying to ruin Player 1's fun.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Seriously. Like I said, some topics are a lot harder to distance ourselves from. I have a friend who hates spiders. He has no problem with fighting a giant, man-eating spider in game, because its easy to recognize it as a fantasy creature. If a DM instead insisted on describing spiders creeping over his skin while he was tied up, and working their way into his mouth, his eyes, his ears? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he'd be profoundly disturbed by that.

I can't and won't promise as a DM to protect a character from a real world phobia from encountering it in game. I'm afraid of heights (well, more accurately, I'm afraid of falling) and I'm almost phobic about needles. If the DM delivers a particularly evocative description of a needle that makes me uncomfortable, can my discomfort with these topics be used to remove pit traps and poison needles from a dungeon?

When you decide to role play, you are implicitly accepting that some things in the game might make you uncomfortable - a notion I believe you previously rejected. But some things in the game and inherent to the game (or any RPG) should make you uncomfortable, and that's part of the attraction of the game IMO. If you don't occasionally get uncomfortable with the pervasive violence in D&D and its implications and outcomes, I don't know what to say. It didn't take to many times killing the goblin whelps and what not in B2 before everyone at the table got wierded out and said, "What are we doing exactly?" That's part of the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"You must spread some XP around before giving it to Celebrim again."

 

[MrMyth]

Once again, if after reading something you say to yourself, "That doesn't make sense.", it's a good idea to reflect on the possibility that the problem is with you and reread the passage.

I... did. I specifically pointed out the language and reasons why I read it that way. I still don't see any other real way to read it.

The best I can do is perhaps sum up what I see as your problems:

a) You are treating this as a contest with a winner or loser, and not only a winner and a loser but only one of two extreme outcomes. Either player #1 backs down or else player #2 backs down. You interpret everything you read through those lens, so if someone argues even slightly against one extreme outcome you take it as a whole hearted endorsement of the other. You pointedly deny any other possibility.
b) Your argument hinges on two things, that p1 has the less to lose and that p1 is at fault. But your argument is circular because it consists of defining p1 as the one that is less to lose and at fault by definition.
c) You are holding fast to a right to be upset, uncomfortable, and offended that doesn't actually exist.
d) You are inventing a highly detailed specific scenario, then trying to draw conclusions from that scenario that cover the general case. But its pretty clear that not only does your account of the specific senario have huge holes in it, but that if you take your conclusions and apply them generally you end up with nonsense. You refuse to consider alternate scenarios from people who are describing the general case and don't have your internal mental picture of what must be going on here in mind. People keep bring up alternate scenarios to try to show that the conclusions you are drawing from the particular case don't work generally, and may not even be applicable here.
e) You are primarily in your description of the situation trying to assign blame. Whether you are aware of it or not, you have a judicial/legalistic model of the situation and I find that mental model wholly unhelpful. You aren't using the language, but what you are saying maps one to one with juries, legal injunctions, prosecutorial investigations and so forth.

Wow. I don't really see that as a fair portrayal of my views here. But... sure, I'll at least try to address a few of these points:

a) and d): You mention that I'm tied to one specific scenario with one specific outcome. But I don't think that's true. I've said several times that there are plenty of circumstances where it wouldn't be reasonable for Player 1 to yield to Player 2. I've given a number of examples of topics where it would be inappropriate for one player to try and change how someone else plays their character. I've specifically said there may be a number of ways something gets resolved, including the offended player leaving the group if it is an unresolvable difference with the campaign itself.

I've focused on one specific example because that was the one that we were initially talking about. If you don't have an issue with my opinions in that specific example, than there is no reason to be debating it with me. If you do have issue with my opinions on it, than why is discussing that specific example a bad thing?

c): Regarding the 'right to be upset or uncomfortable'. I still don't understand why people keep phrasing this like this. I don't need the 'right' to be made uncomfortable. It either happens, or it doesn't. If a friend does something that bothers me, and it makes me uncomfortable, that isn't something I've chosen to be entitled to - it is something that has happened based on my friend's actions interacting with my personal comfort zone.

Do I have the right to do anything about it? Now that is a genuine issue. But among a group of friends, I certainly think I have the right to speak up when something bothers me. Do I have an automatic right to have my friend yield to me when this happens? Of course not.

Now, in the initial example, I certainly think that is one where Player 1 should be the one backing down. Not because he has to, but because that is what a decent person would do, given the specific situation at hand.

Have I claimed this is the case in all situations? Of course not, and even listed more than a few where I don't think it would be. I've even gone a step further and tried to make clear exactly why I feel such about the initial example - because one player is having this game element directed at them without their desire for it, and because the topic (personal relationships, especially continued attention from an unwanted source) can be a sensitive one for many people.

b) and e) I'm not sure where 'fault' comes into play. I, and a lot of other people, have made it clear that the problem is not from anyone introducing a new RP element into the game. The problem comes from pursuing that element when you know that it makes someone else uncomfortable. That doesn't always mean you have to back down, and I've never claimed that is the case.

What I have claimed is that, generally, someone's pursuit of a single roleplaying aspect of their character is, yes, typically less important than someone else's comfort at the table.

Again, not universally true, especially on something that doesn't impact their part of the gaming experience at all. Which, again, I think I and others have been very clear about since the very beginning.

Just for an example, lately you've gotten all into hammering on the concept that player #2 is in the right because their player was the target of some role play, but its pretty easy to show that that is a pretty minor issue and not one that is really at the core of the problem either with discomfort or how we resolve it.

Except I think it is at the core of the issue. The issue is the fact that you feel it is "a pretty minor issue" that someone has to deal with what, to them, seems to be "in-game stalking". To them, that is a big deal. It makes them uncomfortable. It is actively making their gaming experience unpleasant rather than enjoyable.

If it isn't something that would be an issue for you, that's fine. But you are making that judgement call, apparently, for all gamers everywhere - even though various people in this thread seem in agreement that this could be a reasonable issue for someone to be upset about.

I'm not interested in your 'bad person', who is 'a jerk', 'instigator', 'stalker', 'blame' model. I think its highly unhelpful to the point of being dysfunctional. On top of that, you don't even offer a truly good legal framework because you are inventing it as you go.

I've used the term jerk to refer to someone who engaged in petty and spiteful behavior. Do you really disagree with that assessment? I've used the term stalker to describe a specific example in which one PC secretly pursues a romantic interest in another (unwilling) PC. Do you also find this an inappropriate description?

As for talk of 'blame', much less discussion of some overarching legal framework, I'm pretty sure that hasn't been anything I've really talked about at all - all those concepts have originated on your end, from what I can tell. I certainly don't think one can or should come up with some sort of automatic legal formula to handle these sorts of things.

The notion of involvement is so vague as to be meaningless, and to the extent that it means 'acted upon' its also a useless dividing line.

Wrong. Totally and wholly and completely wrong. That the behavior is directed at player 2 is not a signfiicant factor either in whether it makes someone uncomfortable or how much weight we should assign that discomfort when trying to resolve the situation.

How is involvement vague in any way? If Player 1's PC pursues Player 2's PC romantically, that is a much different situation than Player 1 having his PC get involved with an NPC, or another PC.

I don't see how you can say the fact that the attention is directed at Player 2 is not a factor in it making Player 2 significant. Of course it is a factor, it is at the core of the original example!

Player 2 is upset because they find another PC romantically pursuing their own, secretly and without their consent, to be an uncomfortable situation.

The attention being directed at them is a core part of that statement. We've specifically said that they are not objecting to another PC being involved in romance. If the attention wasn't directed at them, they wouldn't have been made uncomfortable in the first place!

Look, there are lots of factors that go into this sort of thing. I'm not saying that being the target of unwanted attention is the only one. But I think it is a big thing. It certainly isn't irrelevant.

"The scenario we've been describing from the start is one in which Player 2 genuinely finds themselves being made uncomfortable by the situation. Not one in which they are arbitrarily trying to ruin Player 1's fun."

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I repeat again - the scenario we are discussing.

Look, let's get this out of the way right now - if Player 2 is raising objections because they are trying to ruin Player 1's fun, I don't approve of that.

I can't and won't promise as a DM to protect a character from a real world phobia from encountering it in game. I'm afraid of heights (well, more accurately, I'm afraid of falling) and I'm almost phobic about needles. If the DM delivers a particularly evocative description of a needle that makes me uncomfortable, can my discomfort with these topics be used to remove pit traps and poison needles from a dungeon?

Well, one might suggest that if someone is truly bothered by needles, the existence of D&D as a game based on imagination leaves a potentially infinite number of options for the DM to include in the game as challenges in place of needles.

Does every phobia merit that sort of treatment? Of course not. But I have two friends who are really bothered by stuff happening to eyes. If I knew of that, and nonetheless intentionally included a cleric who can cast Seething Eyebane, and elaborately described the effects of the spell? That would seem like a jerk move on my part, and probably mean they would never play in my games again. If I don't know if it in advance, and they started getting visibly upset in the midst of it, and explained why?

I'd try and find some other approach to replace it. Yes, D&D is a game where 'anything can happen'. But the idea of intentionally causing discomfort to a friend, just because that is part of the purity of the game... well, that's not why I play D&D. I play it to have fun with friends.

And maybe sometimes that involves intense stuff that makes us truly think about things in a new light. But at other times, it often just involves some random fun. One player's fun shouldn't have to come at the price of making another player uncomfortable, and the players shouldn't have to be forced into uncomfortable situations unless they came to the table expecting that to be part of the game.

 

[fanboy2000]

One Thousand Forty Two

Once upon a time a D&D player wanted to explain how an anti-social character might end up in a group dynamic like the one found in many D&D adventures and campaigns:

Background for DM: I've long held an unspoken love for the woman who has become the party Thief (i.e. another PC) and I'm here for one reason only: to see she comes to no harm. I'm going with the party whether they like it or not as long as she is in it. The rest of the party can go to hell as far as I'm concerned and will get there a lot faster if they show any interest in her beyond simple companionship.

Now, a question. Does the Thief player know about this?

I sure hope not, as the Thief PC doesn't know either; and this is one case where player knowledge and character knowledge should be the same. With time and some luck the idea is that it eventually comes out through play even if words aren't involved much - he always leaps to her defense before defending anyone else in a battle, for example; or stands up for her interests in any disputes, etc.

But, what if the Thief player wants nothing to do with this? What if the Thief player has entirely different ideas and just has no interest in your entire background. Does the Thief player have to suck it up and deal with it or should the Thief player have some say in how the group is going to interact.

I've met more than a few players who have zero interest in romance in an RPG. Just not what they want out of the game. Makes them feel very uncomfortable. Heck, whatever the reason.

Isn't this blindsiding the Thief player? I could see it working, but, I could also see this going very, very badly.

If and when it ever becomes apparent that my guy is interested in the Thief, it then becomes up to the Thief's player to decide how said character would react. Perhaps she goes with it. Perhaps she tells me to get lost. Perhaps, being a Thief, she takes fearless advantage of the situation and lets me keep stopping bullets for her while pretending she's never noticed me; until I stop one too many and die. There are many options.

The only difference between this scenario and something developing within the game as it goes along is that I've brought it in with me. I could have a completely different background and have never heard of the Thief, yet 3 sessions in I could have fallen in love with her and be doing exactly the same thing. But here, I'm using it as the hook that actually gets me out adventuring in the field with this bunch of clowns...

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"?

What do I do? First, I ask myself why I'm hanging out with someone who is so uptight. Second, maybe then or most likely later, I give him a bad time and tell him (it's always 'him's who have these issues) to lighten up. And third, if I think in the least that I can get away with it I follow the advice of the mighty King Crow and find out what the Thief had in its pocketses.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that we can quantify fun on a scale of 1 to 10,000. 10,000 is Disney World when your 7. 1 is a root canal. Where you place yourself on the scale (and what role you picture yourself in when you place yourself there) will dictate your response.

 

[Hussar]

I can't and won't promise as a DM to protect a character from a real world phobia from encountering it in game. I'm afraid of heights (well, more accurately, I'm afraid of falling) and I'm almost phobic about needles. If the DM delivers a particularly evocative description of a needle that makes me uncomfortable, can my discomfort with these topics be used to remove pit traps and poison needles from a dungeon?

Why not?

Let's say that the presence of needles goes beyond just mildly annoying but outright makes you uncomfortable. It makes your skin crawl and any scene which features needles will drain any enjoyment you might get from the game. Not really sure about the fear of heights one equating with pit traps, but, perhaps a setting like Sharn is a bad idea.

As a DM, I have two choices: lose a player or lose a couple of elements (needle and pit traps) from the game.

Now, if my game is set in Sharn, then we're going to have a problem. I likely cannot move my entire campaign out of Sharn without massive amounts of reworking. So, yeah, likely player 2's going to get the boot here. But, losing pit traps and needle traps? Whoopee. I take out my Mark 2 eraser and scrub out a couple of uninspiring and boring traps. Big deal.

I'd much rather keep the player thanks.

And see, the example we're talking about, one character brings in a romance on another character, is closer to removing pit traps from a campaign. It doesn't require a complete rework of a campaign in order to accomodate another player. All it requires is a change to the character - which hopefully has a bit more depth that would make a fairly minor change pretty easy.

It's all about scale. Expecting the DM to rewrite an entire campaign because of something I bring to the table? Unreasonable, likely. Unless, of course, I KNEW beforehand that this would be a problem and I did it anyway. Then I'm just a jerk. But, if, like in the P1 P2 example, it was an honest mistake, then sure, it's unreasonable to expect the DM to eject dozens of hours of work.

OTOH, expecting another player to remove something that took him ten minutes to come up with because it's going to cause me to feel crappy during the game for the next several hours? Oh yeah, no problems there. And the player who insisted that his idea trumps someone else's fun gets the boot.

And I've noticed that no one decided to talk about what happens when Player 1 in the Theif Love example decides to switch targets to other players and everyone at the table refuses to engage. Is the player still within his rights to force what he wants on other people?

 

[Vegepygmy]

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?

I agree that this is a mature, reasonable way to resolve the matter. But it wouldn't need to be resolved at all if Player 2 had just thought to ask in the first place, and he really should have thought to do so. People possessing ordinary, common social skills are well aware that unsolicited romantic attention (even by proxy) can make the recipient feel extremely uncomfortable, and they therefore proceed cautiously.

It's kind of like me trying some "new move" on my wife in bed. She might like it. And unless I ask her, I can't know if she will like it until I try it. But I'd be an utter fool to just go ahead and do it without asking her, because I know it's quite possible she won't like it, and it's a lot smarter for me to get her permission in advance than try to "retcon" the situation afterward.

 

[steenan]

"You must spread some XP around before giving it to Celebrim again."

And I would so like to give some. More than one, if possible.

Celebrim's last post is really great, one of best posts I ever read on this boards. Reasonable tone in quite a heated discussion and a lot of very wise points.

I could kiss him for the last paragraph.