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

[Celebrim]

I think RC is technically correct, but in danger of jumping some RPG equivalent of Godwin's Law. So, correct, but probably the hyperbole is probably confusing as much or more as it is illuminating.

I think there is an easier way to get at RC's point without reductio ad absurdum.

Earlier in the thread one of the focuses of debate between people was whether or not a particular game element was inherent to the game. Quite a few people on both sides immediately realized that player #2 could be shown to be 'in the wrong' if they could show that the objection was to something that people generally accepted as being an inherent part of D&D.

That is for example, if player #2 said to player #1, "Wait a minute, you're an elf?" rather than, "Wait a minute, your character is in love with mine?", it would color how we percieved the objection, "I'm not comfortable with that. You should play something else." So various people launched into attempts to prove that romance was or was not inherently an aspect of RPG's.

But let's reverse the problem. Suppose player #1 came to the table as a new player and said, "Ok, so my character is an elf and he's in love with one of the party members." It is quite easy to see that in certain groups there could already be an existing rule that, "No one plays elves because, because elves just creepy." else, "No one plays a character that is in love with another PC, because that just makes people uncomfortable." On some tables, player #1 will find an objection, "It's ok to play a character that is in love with another PC, but you can't be an elf." And at others, "You can play an elf, but you can't be in love with another PC."

See, the problem with attempting to prove that romance is or isn't inherently part of the game is that whatever is inherently part of the game is entirely an opinion.*

Everyone I think agreed that if the table had some existing rule permitting or excluding a form of play, then the table rule trumped someone's feelings of discomfort. That is to say, everyone in this thread has already agreed that in some cases the game is more important than making a friend comfortable. This isn't even a point of contriversy. It's something no one in the thread objected to earlier. Really however, it's unfair to say that anyone said, "the game is more important than a friend." What we all agreed to is (more or less) "Sometimes the needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few or the one."**

Now people are saying things like, "People outside the social circle don't get a say in what's going on inside the social circle. However, once inside my social circle then if they object to what is going on then we have to stop whatever we are doing." But we don't need to go as far a field as 'Jack Chick' to show that 'the social circle' in the example is being defined circularly, "And by social circle, I mean those people that I play with, who I've previously defined as only making objections I'm sympathetic to". We only have to go back into the thread to read those same people coming up with exceptions where they weren't sympathetic to player #2's objections and that - in their opinion - those objections weren't like the objection 'Your PC on PC romance is making me uncomfortable."

Once again, unless you count me (and I'm not sure you are should), I don't think that there are two sides in this thread. There is, as I said earlier on, in essence just one sort of argument being made here, and which side of this you think that you are on depends sololy on whether you've chosen to empathize with imaginary player #1 or imaginary player #2. The core argument that is actually being advanced is, "My feelings are more valid than your feelings." I don't think there has been nearly enough emphasis placed on the comprimise, and there is an amazing amount of continued binary thinking still going on for this thread being in as advanced of a state as it is. For example:

What I'm doing is suggesting, if one is genuinely offended, that it is better to bring this up in honest discussion rather than swallow that emotion and let tension and bitterness develop over it.

Why are we still insisting on this being an either/or sitaution, and not only an either/or situation, but that the only alternatives are one of two extremes?


*Technically, this isn't true. It's only true of specific story elements. Abstract elements shared by all stories are going to at some level be a part of all games. For example, all games will feature conflict of some sort at some point.

**I recognize that this isn't actually the only underlying moral basis that may be motivating peoples choice here, I'm merely using this as a convienent marker to show that its never anything ridiculous (and insulting) as "you think the game is more important than people."

 

[the Jester]

Also, I'm really not a fan of the attitude that people just need to 'man up and play the game', and dismissing genuine phobias and concerns as being "oversensitive" and needing to "be babied".

I mean, I guess it does explain your situation, if you truly feel that no one could genuinely be bothered by such things, and that the need to replace swarms of spiders with scorpions in a game is a complete dealbreaker.

Sigh.

For an argument that depends so much on context, it sure seems like nobody is paying attention to my repeated attempts to establish the context of my posts here. Let's try again.

People do not need to just 'man up' and play the game. It is absolutely fine to allow peoples' phobias and emotional issues to dictate, in part or entirely, the content of your game.

HOWEVER, I don't play with those people. I do not need to include everyone I know in my D&D game. My players are all people that can actually separate their own personal issues from the game.

Hell, I am an arachnophobe, and that doesn't stop me from using spiders as a dm, fighting spiders as a pc and even making spider-based items, spells or even cultures for inclusion in my campaign.

I play my game with people that don't need kid gloves. It's that simple. It's not that I play games designed to offend my players- I play with groups that won't get offended by little things, medium things or even big things. Terrible stuff happens to pcs- limb loss, curses, disease, death, torture.

I won't play Monopoly with people that get pissed off at having to pay rent on my properties. I won't play poker with people that insist that an ace is the low card all the time. I won't play Magic for ante with people that cry if they lose a card. I won't play chess with sore losers. I won't play drinking games with butt-heads that get violent when they're drunk. I won't play Boot Hill with people that despise everything western. It's really simple. I pick the people I play a given game with for playing that game, not dramatic scenes of my friends getting bent out of shape.

But man, I just don't really think I will ever get the mindset of valuing the integrity of the game over an actual friendship.

Apparently you don't get that the mindset of not playing with people that will bring my game down is far from game > friendship. I have stated this unequivocally many times in this thread now, but I'll do it again, only LOUDER this time:

I DO NOT NEED TO PLAY D&D WITH EVERY ONE OF MY FRIENDS TO MAINTAIN MY FRIENDSHIP WITH THEM, AND IF A FRIEND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR MY GAME I WILL NOT LET HIM OR HER IN.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think there is an easier way to get at RC's point without reductio ad absurdum.

Sure, but you've been saying the same thing for pages now, and it doesn't seem to be doing any better!

EDIT: Also, about the Godwin, doesn't a Godwin have to have equal applicability to any side of an argument? Or am I not understanding the concept? I mean, after all, I would love to read the rejoiner: Jack Chick says try to solve problems within the current social context! If you can't, trying to compromise is the next best thing! Only if those fail does Jack Chick claim anyone or anything should be kicked to the curb! Might sell fewer tracts, though.

Really, could someone XP Celebrim? I will happily XP you for doing so, as long as I haven't also XPed you too recently!

Apparently you don't get that the mindset of not playing with people that will bring my game down is far from game > friendship. I have stated this unequivocally many times in this thread now, but I'll do it again, only LOUDER this time:

I DO NOT NEED TO PLAY D&D WITH EVERY ONE OF MY FRIENDS TO MAINTAIN MY FRIENDSHIP WITH THEM, AND IF A FRIEND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR MY GAME I WILL NOT LET HIM OR HER IN.

Really, could someone XP the Jester? I will happily XP you for doing so, as long as I haven't also XPed you too recently!

EDIT: Thanks for XPing Celebrim, Jester, but I can't XP you right now for doing it!


RC

 

[billd91]

This would be true only if the "people playing D&D" social context was completely seperate from the larger social context. Which it is not.

It's pretty absurd to go to those lengths in our concerns. I know there's an impulse out there for people not involved in an activity to squash the fun of those actually participating that you're alluding to and ranging in topics from religious worship, use of birth control, varying sexual positions, and gaming. But this has been a far broader concern than just in gaming and should be looked at on that scale, a scale that should be judged on different standards than the individual game table scale. Plus, taking on that topic ventures pretty strongly into politics and civil liberties, topics not encouraged on this board.

Or, as another really obvious example of where the theory that "I'm uncomfortable" means you automatically stop breaks down, we in this thread are in a social circle defined by the thread. I say that I am uncomfortable with you disagreeing with me....actually, with you not saying you agree with me. Do you stop?

This is where I'm starting to get kind of cheesed off with this whole topic. Plenty of caveats have been included with this discussion that characterizing it as "I'm uncomfortable" means you automatically stop" is a disservice. Has the uncomfortable player been overly prickly? If yes, then the solution may be for the uncomfortable player to rethink his participation in a game that is a bad fit. But if he hasn't been, then we're looking at a situation where the initiating player should be expected to take the uncomfortable player's wishes into account. Maybe they work out some other compromise, maybe they don't. Maybe the initiating player leaves the game as a bad fit for him. But, as long as the uncomfortable player hasn't been overly prickly, the onus for appropriate behavior belongs to the acting player. How is this not an appropriate expectation?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If I were to take my friends, gather my D&D stuff, break into someone else's house, and play D&D at them, your argument would have a leg to stand on.

Seeing as how that's not only incredibly absurd but that this very topic is something we have dismissed before for the same reasons, you can either stop trying to twist my argument around, or you can admit that the fact that you need to twist it so bizarrely proves that you're done.

 

[MrMyth]

But let's reverse the problem. Suppose player #1 came to the table as a new player and said, "Ok, so my character is an elf and he's in love with one of the party members." It is quite easy to see that in certain groups there could already be an existing rule that, "No one plays elves because, because elves just creepy." else, "No one plays a character that is in love with another PC, because that just makes people uncomfortable." On some tables, player #1 will find an objection, "It's ok to play a character that is in love with another PC, but you can't be an elf." And at others, "You can play an elf, but you can't be in love with another PC."

I think it's a poor comparison. For one reason, yes, I think fantastic races are more core to a fantasy game than romance is - but I'll readily admit that is just an opinion, and a different group could have a different opinion then mine.

But more importantly - again, I think there is a big difference between accepting romance in a game, and wanting to be the target of it. Not wanting to be virtually stalked is a lot more personal reason, and a lot more understandable to me, than not wanting someone else to play an elf.

Everyone I think agreed that if the table had some existing rule permitting or excluding a form of play, then the table rule trumped someone's feelings of discomfort. That is to say, everyone in this thread has already agreed that in some cases the game is more important than making a friend comfortable. This isn't even a point of controversy. It's something no one in the thread objected to earlier. Really however, it's unfair to say that anyone said, "the game is more important than a friend."

I don't know - I see a big difference between someone asking about a campaign, and being told it contains elements they aren't interested in, than someone who is already part of a campaign and is kicked out because another player introduces an uncomfortable element without warning.

The Jester's view seemed to be that if a friend asked him to avoid a specific element - even one that was unimportant to the plot of the game and readily avoided - he would still rather not game with that person. And that is absolutely his decision to make, and if his friend is truly ok with it, fair enough. But I saw nothing to indicate that he wouldn't still go through with this even if this did hurt his friendship - that it was more important to him to make sure he didn't have to play with kid gloves.

His decision to make, absolutely. But it did certainly seem to be saying the game is more important than a friend.

Once again, unless you count me (and I'm not sure you are should), I don't think that there are two sides in this thread. There is, as I said earlier on, in essence just one sort of argument being made here, and which side of this you think that you are on depends sololy on whether you've chosen to empathize with imaginary player #1 or imaginary player #2. The core argument that is actually being advanced is, "My feelings are more valid than your feelings." I don't think there has been nearly enough emphasis placed on the compromise, and there is an amazing amount of continued binary thinking still going on for this thread being in as advanced of a state as it is. For example:

What I'm doing is suggesting, if one is genuinely offended, that it is better to bring this up in honest discussion rather than swallow that emotion and let tension and bitterness develop over it.

Why are we still insisting on this being an either/or situation, and not only an either/or situation, but that the only alternatives are one of two extremes?

I've said many, many, many times already that there are exceptions and that this is specifically not a situation where there is one absolute rule governing the situation. That doesn't prevent me from believing that some outcomes are more likely than others.

If something is genuinely bothering a person, then yes, I believe that staying silent about it is often leads to them getting more upset over it. And that honest communication about their concerns is often the best way to address the problem.

Also, in what way is "honest discussion" an extreme?

Anyway, I disagree with your perspective of this argument, or trying to indicate that those who favor one side or the other are doing so solely because of emphasizing with one player's perspective or another. I've said myself how I'd react regardless of which side of the situation I've found myself in.

And yes, there are times when compromise can be useful. Or even when I might side with Player 1 over Player 2, if the complaint being made was something trivial. And no, I can't provide a specific line that one must cross for a complaint to be considered non-trivial... though I've done my best to give some general guidelines earlier in the thread.

In those situations we have discussed, where the line has been crossed? Sometimes compromise could be found, if there is a lesser approach Player 1 can take that won't bother Player 2. But sometimes there isn't - and in those cases, I simply don't think it is an acceptable compromise to say, "Player 2, why don't you just accept half as much unpleasantness, and then everyone will be happy?"

 

[Rel]

Just to point out the obvious parallel.


RC

Really?

Really?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, from your statements above, we can conclude that, in order to determine whether or not "I'm uncomfortable" is reason to stop, you agree that we need to consider the context?


RC

 

[MrMyth]

Apparently you don't get that the mindset of not playing with people that will bring my game down is far from game > friendship. I have stated this unequivocally many times in this thread now, but I'll do it again, only LOUDER this time:

I DO NOT NEED TO PLAY D&D WITH EVERY ONE OF MY FRIENDS TO MAINTAIN MY FRIENDSHIP WITH THEM, AND IF A FRIEND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR MY GAME I WILL NOT LET HIM OR HER IN.

I get that's what you are saying. I just... I honestly, truly find it a self-defeating statement.

Kicking a friend out of a game is a ready way to hurt a friendship. You have said that it is something you are willing to do if you feel the friend isn't a good fit for the game, if they ask something like avoiding any intense interaction with spiders. That seems like you are willing to risk their friendship in order to preserve your right to use spiders in your game.

Now, you absolutely have the right to make that decision! I'm not trying to say otherwise. It's not behavior I would engage in, but its your game and your friends, which makes it your call. But I can't see any way to view that other than as saying the game is more important than the friendship.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So, from your statements above, we can conclude that, in order to determine whether or not "I'm uncomfortable" is reason to stop, you agree that we need to consider the context?


RC

Give me a proper argument that makes sense and doesn't desperately twist the actual topic and do so without making bizarre accusations...

...And we'll see ho the conversation goes from there.

But so far, that isn't happening, and trying to play me off as some kinda "Jack Chick" style person is damaging you far more then it helps you (because it helps you negative amounts)