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



## Remathilis (Sep 15, 2010)

"My character wouldn't do that!"

The five words that make every GM's blood run cold. It could be an unbitten adventure hook, a intriguing story twist, or simply a refusal to except the majority vote on which hall to turn down. What we have here is a power-struggle between player and GM, using the only narrative tool a player has; control of his character, to utterly stop any forward momentum the GM may have.

How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?

The first two questions are the easiest. Communication is the key. Players using this chestnut are throwing up the emergency handbrake because they don't like where things are going. There should be plenty of opportunity to address this problem BEFORE it get to here. Often times, the GM can explain things "Out of character" and if the player is reasonable, there should be some effort to make concession. If you run a Epic Heroic Romantic game with knights in shining armor and princesses to rescue, tell the player BEFORE he roles up a half-orc assassin! Likewise, if you just bought Module X and your real excited to play it, announce to the group BEFORE the module is run you want to play it and why (without spoiling it, of course) so that the players will bite the adventure hook, even if normally they don't go for "that kinda adventure."

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? I've found that sometimes a GM needs to show his cards a bit to get the player's on board. Like the module scenario above, it gives away a bit of future expectation in exchange for player buy in. (Players are more willing to do risky behavior "for the good of moving things along" if they know they have a reasonable chance of survival.) If things get really heated, that's usually a good time call a session "so the GM can think over his next move" and let cooler heads prevail later.

These are all fine and dandy GM tools, but what about the players? Like all compromise, its about give and take. The first rule of character design is "Never go into a game with a character so developed you have no room to maneuver him." This often comes from character who follow a theme: gruff loner, righteous holy man, sneaky bastard, etc. In any story-telling media; a protagonist is expected to grow; Luke goes from a farm-boy to a Jedi Knight, Frodo leaves his comfortable life to find true heroism and friendship, etc. Be willing for your character to grow in the same vein; if your character is a loner who doesn't like people, why does he hang out in an adventuring party? Does he secretly like these people? Similarly a sneaky bastard can have his heart softened to become a bit more heroic, and a righteous holy man can learn to see more than just what his theology dictates. Never paint yourself so thoroughly that you can't go along with the game. 

Again, communication is the key. If the GM prefers heroes and you want an anti-hero; tell him and perhaps a compromise can be reached (said character becomes more heroic as the effects of his heroic allies rub off on him.) Risk-adverse PCs become more daring after some successes. Rash PCs learn some caution by stunning failures. Changing like this deepens the PC and can sometimes turn one-dimensional PC into something more. 

The log-jam known as "my character wouldn't do that" can be avoided if both sides are willing to compromise. With some open minds, great games will happen. Good gaming.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 15, 2010)

I see the solution as follows:

#1. Players who halt the plot by saying "My character wouldn't do that!" need to take responsibility for starting things moving again. There are three common solutions:

Come up with a justification for your character to go along with the plot after all.
Make an alternative proposal for what to do and persuade the rest of the party to go with it.
In the extreme case, if you can neither justify your character going along nor get the other PCs to accept your alternative, accept that your PC is going to part company with the group and it's time to make a new character.
#2. In the situation that a halted plot is resolved by an alternative proposal as above, the DM needs to be ready to roll with it and improvise as necessary.

I don't think I've ever seen a "My character wouldn't do that!" logjam that could not be resolved by following these rules.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 15, 2010)

I had an experience like in this vein as a player of a superhero Champions game.

Four of the six characters were effective immortals.  Three had extensive (multiple century) backgrounds.

The GM decided to run a commercially available module that involved time travel.

The gist was a physicist had accidentally thrown himself back in time.  Time rifts were appearing and "things" were coming through and being disruptive.

Upon investigation, the PCs were told by an expert in the field that it was difficult or impossible for the same being to simultaneously exist.  In the event that were to happen, one or both would probably be vented from the universe into a parallel space.  What would happen to half the team when we went back?  What would happen to the other immortal as he aged into himself naturally?  These questions couldn't be answered.

The team decided to protect the wife of the physicist and research what damage, if any he caused the time stream.  It appeared that he became the head of a fading defence contract company, willed a bunch of cash to his erstwhile wife, and may have contributed to a 6-month quicker ending to WWII.  There was a debate whether we SHOULD do anything or simply treat the incident as the husband was killed in research and the wife receiving payment for his unfortunate incident.  Regardless, one of the immortals was going to get basic training on the equipment and stay behind while the wife was sent home if we decided to meddle with the timestream.  

This destroyed the module and the campaign folded.

Apparently, the heroes were expected to jump into the time travel device and have it operated by the wife right off the bat.  The device, being unstable, explodes killing her.  The time rifts are the response of the physicist, upon hearing about his wife's death, against those he holds responsible.

Without the stimulus of her death, he wouldn't cause the rifts.

Could the campaign have been salvaged?  Absolutely.  The GM in question wasn't experienced enough to roll with and control the developing situation.  

The huge problem buried in the module was the conceit the future behaviour of the PCs was predictable and controllable to the point of basing current events around future behaviour.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 15, 2010)

Nagol said:


> The huge problem buried in the module was the conceit the future behaviour of the PCs was predictable and controllable to the point of basing current events around future behaviour.




Indeed. Extremely poor module writing compounded by DM inexperience.

It's fine for PCs to say "Our characters wouldn't do that!" as long as it's promptly followed by "We'd do this instead." Dealing with this situation is the central challenge of GMing; indeed, it's why we have GMs in the first place. If PCs always did what the adventure-designer expected of them, there would be no need for a human being to run the game.

That said, it would be quite a job to salvage the situation you describe... writing good, flexible modules is hard enough without trying to build in causal loops as well.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 15, 2010)

Five words that never bothered me as a DM. 

"My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing. 

Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 15, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> "My character wouldn't do that!"
> 
> The five words that make every GM's blood run cold. .




Not, necessarily.  there are times when it just does not make sense for a character to do something. Depending upon the style of game being run, this can be a good thing. It can lead to interesting character interactions, side stories that run parallel,  the end of a particular character's story (if the character reached their goal and no longer has a reason to adventure).

The GMs the I know (myself include)  will accept and work with it provided that it is  based on the character's past actions and/or background or the player can give a reasonable in character explaination why based on other experiences the character has had in game.  If it truly makes sense that the character  would not do it

1. We ask what would your player do in this situation?
2. If necessary, we will split the party and let our improvisational skills go to work to create a little side adventure or parralel storyline.  The player gets no more allotted screen time than they would have as a player and then we try to work them back in at a later time.

Only once did we have a player do it to be a douche. The player in question had already been a problem. One DM kept him because they were good friends. The DM tailored the game to the player's style to avoid complaints (then, when the DM tailored it to everyone else, the guy whined and complained when there was no combat).  The other DM put up with the player, because the DM mentioned above was his best friend and the guy was a friend and kind of cool out of cool, but after numerous warnings the DM got fed up and kicked him out when the player did it just, because his style was not being catered to and nearly got the entire party killed by performing a blatantly evil action.

Now, as mentioned, communication before character creation can head off some things.  However, as for modules, unless running a one shot or series of one shots or characters have all bought into an adventure path, imo, the DM should be tailoring the module or adventure to the group they have. Tie it to character motivations, have clues or objects tied to character goals, change NPCs, etc.  If you can't, don't use it or have other options ready.  As the 3.0 DMG states,  no designer knows your players and their PCs better than you. Tailor them to fit into your game.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 15, 2010)

My mix tape of the thread so far.







Remathilis said:


> The first rule of character design is "Never go into a game with a character so developed you have no room to maneuver him." . . . Never paint yourself so thoroughly that you can't go along with the game.





Nagol said:


> The huge problem buried in the module was the conceit the future behaviour of the PCs was predictable and controllable to the point of basing current events around future behaviour.





Dausuul said:


> It's fine for PCs to say "Our characters wouldn't do that!" as long as it's promptly followed by "We'd do this instead."



All of this advice belongs in game books.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Sep 15, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> "My character wouldn't do that!"




I haven't heard that since I stopped running pre-written adventures. There is a simple solution as a DM/GM, ask the players what do they do, don't tell them.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 15, 2010)

Nagol said:


> <snip>
> 
> This destroyed the module and the campaign folded.
> 
> ...




I can see what you mean about that adventure having the problem of unusual heroes acting in a reasonable but non-genre manner as a result. As far as salvaging the situation, a good way could have been time paradoxic. The wife dies because of one of the time rifts the physicist creates that happens to appear shortly after she leaves the company of the heroes. That's one of the fun bits of time travel paradox, the time traveler becomes the cause of his own response. But I can totally see where a relatively inexperienced GM might get flustered by the situation and not come up with that solution.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 15, 2010)

I have known a player who used this to be entirely disruptive to the game. Every time the party decided to go one way, he'd not go that way and force the party to go the way he wanted.  Eventually we stopped going the way he wanted, and he got his character killed. He blamed the people and started berating us, so he was asked to not come to the game sessions again.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 15, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Five words that never bothered me as a DM.
> 
> "My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.
> 
> Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.






MortonStromgal said:


> I haven't heard that since I stopped running pre-written adventures. There is a simple solution as a DM/GM, ask the players what do they do, don't tell them.




See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story* and the PCs react poorly to it.

* Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 15, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I can see what you mean about that adventure having the problem of unusual heroes acting in a reasonable but non-genre manner as a result. As far as salvaging the situation, a good way could have been time paradoxic. The wife dies because of one of the time rifts the physicist creates that happens to appear shortly after she leaves the company of the heroes. That's one of the fun bits of time travel paradox, the time traveler becomes the cause of his own response. But I can totally see where a relatively inexperienced GM might get flustered by the situation and not come up with that solution.




There were a bunch of possible strategies for recovery and several of the players were experienced GMs and trying to help make the situation work.

One of the simpler methods to get us moving again was the young immortal who planned on going in suggested that he would send a quick note to the lab from the past if he did go in.  The suggestion was the GM have short note delivered from a legal firm/post office suggesting that the travel to the past worked, was valuable, and not harmful to the immortals, but no details could be provided because of paradox potential.  Unfortunately, the GM couldn't justify having that work to himself.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 15, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story* and the PCs react poorly to it.
> 
> * Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.




The story is not evil or taboo. The story writes itself as it is played. The only time the game can completely logjam is if the whole party decides that they aren't going to do _anything_ (at which point the campaign just ends). The game world exits primarily for the PC's to adventure in but events and happenings continue to take place in areas that the players choose not to go. If chasing the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra doesn't catch the players fancy then perhaps other interested parties go after the treasure while the PC's are busy in the Sugg Swamp. 

What if the NPC's find out that the "treasure" includes something terrible that gets unleashed that the PC's might want to deal with? Now instead of tomb raiding the players need to track down the careless NPC's, get the treasure and stop the evil.........or ignore it and go off and become pirates!  The point is the world is a more interesting and dynamic place if the wheels keep turning and both action and inaction have tangible consequences.


----------



## Oryan77 (Sep 15, 2010)

I don't hear "my character wouldn't do that" very often because I'm too busy asking the players, "What are you guys doing?!?" It's just as frustrating sometimes.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 15, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The story is not evil or taboo. The story writes itself as it is played. The only time the game can completely logjam is if the whole party decides that they aren't going to do _anything_ (at which point the campaign just ends). The game world exits primarily for the PC's to adventure in but events and happenings continue to take place in areas that the players choose not to go. If chasing the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra doesn't catch the players fancy then perhaps other interested parties go after the treasure while the PC's are busy in the Sugg Swamp.
> 
> What if the NPC's find out that the "treasure" includes something terrible that gets unleashed that the PC's might want to deal with? Now instead of tomb raiding the players need to track down the careless NPC's, get the treasure and stop the evil.........or ignore it and go off and become pirates!  The point is the world is a more interesting and dynamic place if the wheels keep turning and both action and inaction have tangible consequences.




For me the worst logjams happen when the players can't agree on what they want to do.  I hate trying to split attention between separate groups and gently encourage the group to reach consensus, but that can take...some time.


----------



## Philosopher (Sep 15, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Five words that never bothered me as a DM.
> 
> "My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.
> 
> Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.




I fully agree.

As a player, I _hate_ it when DMs try to dictate what my character will do - and I've had DMs try it. I don't merely say, "My character wouldn't do that," I say, "My character is _mine_ to play, stop assuming what he/she will do," just to be clear. I once saw a DM stipulate that a PC did something that shortly led to the PC's death. The player clearly disagreed with the DM's assumption of what his character did (even before the death occurred), but he wasn't the confrontational type, so he let is slide. This same DM has a tendency to come up with particular storylines that he wants to play out, and that's when he acts this way. (He doesn't always do this, however. Believe it or not, he's overall one of my favourite DMs. This is his only real fault, and he has responded well to my constructive criticisms.)

As a DM, I almost never hear those words from a player. When I do, it never bothers me. Hell, I've put work into some parts of an adventure that get completely bypassed. This doesn't bother me (I can use the stuff in the future), and I never railroad my players. Note that this does not mean I don't have storylines. It's just that the stories that emerge are based on player input. It's their game as much as it is mine.

More often, when I hear a player say, "My character wouldn't do that," it's in response to other players. That's something I leave to the players to work out. Of course, we may, from time to time, need to be reminded that we're playing a collaborative game. Sometimes the player just wants to roleplay why they end up deciding to follow the proposed course of action, rather than playing mindlessly. Compromise can be important. I remember once, as a player, making a decision that seemed to leave the DM uncertain about what to do next. Noticing this, I told him that I was okay with changing my character's mind about it. To his credit, he went along with it - I guess he just needed a minute to think it through. Nonetheless, I don't think any DM should expect this, even if it's a nice thing for a player to do.



Remathilis said:


> See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story* and the PCs react poorly to it.
> 
> * Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.




Story is why I play the game, but it should not be dictated by the DM. I tend to start off with a general concept, letting my players know what sort of campaign it will be. Sometimes I give them several themes as options, and their decision determines where I set the campaign in my world. Sometimes the character's backgrounds tells me what story will be pursued from the beginning. Sometimes we start off with the sandbox. But when the PCs pursue certain quests, that tells me what stories to develop, _after_ they've decided to pursue it.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Sep 15, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?




The problem here is simple: You have designed an adventure in which the players have no choice but to take a specific action, but you are attempting to convince the players that they have a choice about it. (You're probably trying to trick them because you know they won't like having control of their characters taken away, which should probably make you second guess why you're doing something you know they won't like in the first place.)

But if you want to solve the problem, you have two choices:

(1) Stop designing adventures which mandate certain PC actions.
(2) Tell the players that they have no choice.

Done.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Sep 15, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story* and the PCs react poorly to it.
> 
> * Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.




I think one of the biggest hurdles I had as a GM was learning that its not about the story its about events (or encounters if you prefer). The goblins are going to attack the castle regardless if the PCs are there or not. How the PCs deal with the situations becomes the story but they events happen, hopeful the PCs get involved but it may end up just being the background for their tailoring shop and the strange new tax laws imposed by the goblin overlords.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 15, 2010)

For me, when the problem comes up, it's usually one player saying it to the rest of the group. Three PCs are gung-ho to go on the adventure of the week but one is dragging his or her feet.

If the player is willing to work in good faith to address the issue, and the DM is ready to adapt when the PCs go off in an oddball direction, it's seldom a big deal.

If the player is just being contrary (and I've seen this quite a few times)... well, honestly, one is almost always better off without that player.

On the rare occasions that the whole party balks at whatever adventure hook you've put in front of them--well, you should certainly sit down and think about how to make your hooks more appetizing in the future. In the meantime, however, it's not unreasonable to say, "Okay, what _do_ you guys want to do tonight?" If the players reject the DM's planned adventure hook, they need to be ready to come up with their own.

Of course, when they _do_ come up with their own, the DM needs to be ready to take it and run with it.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Five words that never bothered me as a DM.
> 
> "My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.
> 
> Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.






MortonStromgal said:


> I haven't heard that since I stopped running pre-written adventures. There is a simple solution as a DM/GM, ask the players what do they do, don't tell them.




These two quotes pretty well sum up my opinion here.

If the dm is telling the pcs what they do, he is stepping over the line of "proper dm behavior" imho. If the dm has a story that he wants to tell or a direction he wants the campaign to go in, he needs buy in from the players so that they _choose_ to follow his hooks. 

Whenever a pc's actions are assumed or mandated in an adventure, I cringe.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 16, 2010)

the Jester said:


> These two quotes pretty well sum up my opinion here.
> 
> If the dm is telling the pcs what they do, he is stepping over the line of "proper dm behavior" imho. If the dm has a story that he wants to tell or a direction he wants the campaign to go in, he needs buy in from the players so that they _choose_ to follow his hooks.
> 
> Whenever a pc's actions are assumed or mandated in an adventure, I cringe.




See, there is a fine line between what is implied here and what I am saying.

I don't want to seem to imply that the DM is telling the PCs what to do, but the problem arises when there is a failing of each to meet eye to eye.

To whit: I recall an adventure where the PCs began in a bar looking for work (an old D&D chestnut). One player, right off the bat, disliked this scenario. He claimed his PC wouldn't be in a bar and he wouldn't be friends with an elf since his PC disliked elves (and another PC was an elf). 

How would you you handle said scenario? Obviously, the player was being an antagonist (and a jerk) but what if the whole group decided they didn't want to  be in a bar looking for adventure and go off and become bandits (which completely different than the tone/game you as a GM want to run?) 

See? Communication.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 16, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story*. . .



Get thee behind me, Satan!







Remathilis said:


> . . . and the PCs react poorly to it.
> 
> * Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.



If you are referring to "obstacles, goals and reasons for them" as the wheels of the world in motion, then we are in agreement.

If you're talking about placing things in front of them to force them to react like a charged wire against a frog's leg, then see the first part of my reply.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2010)

"My character wouldn't do that" can only be met by one response:

"OK, what does she do?"

And if she goes left where the rest of 'em go straight on, and she dies and they don't, well - them's the breaks.  (of course, if they die and she doesn't, them's also the breaks...)

Not that big a deal, really, unless you're dictating PC actions without bothering to charm or dominate them first. 

Lanefan


----------



## Nagol (Sep 16, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> See, there is a fine line between what is implied here and what I am saying.
> 
> I don't want to seem to imply that the DM is telling the PCs what to do, but the problem arises when there is a failing of each to meet eye to eye.
> 
> ...




First, the DM should set up the initial play expectations in the invitation to play.  Hey guys, I want to run D&D where the PCs are <heroes/detectives/rebels/lost princes/whatever> in a world of <ancient mystery/heavy intrigue/alien invasion/whatever>/  Character creation is using <4d6/poiint buy/elite array/whatever>.  One of the main expectations is the group can be a group -- please build characters that will mostly work with the other PCs.  I  don't have time to run one campaign per player, unfortunately.  House rules will follow if we get a game together.  

Having built an explicit social contract with the players, the DM can call out when behaviour is outside the expected norm.

Character wouldn't be in a bar or be friends with an elf?  Guess it just retired -- want to make a character that fits the game or go home?

Group wants a radical change in game play?  Guys, we have a problem.  I came prepared for X, but now you're doing Y.  We can (1) have one of you DM, (2) break for the day and play a board game or something until I determine if I can/want to run Y, or (3) throw a wrench into the characters' plans and revert to X or some close approximation of X.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Five words that never bothered me as a DM.
> 
> "My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.
> 
> Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.




Agreed!

It is true that players should make characters that are willing to engage the campaign milieu.  It is equally important that the GM realize that the one place they cannot tread is "what your PC would do".  That is the sole province of the players.



RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 16, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> See, there is a fine line between what is implied here and what I am saying.
> 
> I don't want to seem to imply that the DM is telling the PCs what to do, but the problem arises when there is a failing of each to meet eye to eye.
> 
> ...




Ok mister elf hater you are not in a bar. Where are you? 

The rest of you are approached by a rather attractive elf babe that looks like she is in some sort of distress. 

"Um. I am down by the dock seeing if any ships need crewmen." 

Great. I'll get back to you. Because there are 6 of you guys, the larger group gets 50 minutes out of each play hour, thats fair at 10 min. per player. In the meantime make yourself useful and keep an eye on the pizza rolls for us.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Five words that never bothered me as a DM.
> 
> "My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.
> 
> Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.




I've seen those words come up in two real situations that are problematic. 

The first is to have them presented as justification for disruptive actions. A PC who steals from other characters can be a problem. The easiest approach is to try and talk with the player and ask them not to have a character do that - at which point you start to here, "That's just how the character acts!" There are certainly other approaches. Coming up with in-character consequences tends to be the most common one, but can also elicit claims that you are picking on that PC. 

Either way, I don't think it unreasonable to try to get a potentially disruptive PC to stop acting disruptive, or stop ruining the game for other players.

The other situation is when a PC simply happens to not fit with the plot of the game. Some farmers want to hire the PCs to go slay a black dragon that is ruining their lands. 4 PCs agree, but the last says he won't due it, because he loves dragons. Or has an irrational hatred of farmers. Or will only go if they pay him 10,000 gp. 

Now, a DM can just go ahead and run with that - either by having the other PCs go on the adventure and leave him behind (and then either ignore him, or let him RP hanging out in town drinking), or by coming up with some extremely convoluted reason to convince him to go along. 

But that doesn't change the fact it can be frustrating for a DM when a PC has some backstory element that puts them completely at odds with the direction of the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2010)

If the DM ever hears these words, he's done something wrong.  He's either tried to narrate player action, or he's jumped to a 'bang' based off a wrong assumption, or he's constructed a plot without enough branching points and contingencies, or he's got in his head that his campaign as a novel, or he's approved a character concept that should have been a huge red flag, or he's approved a character concept without really talking it over with the player, or he's got in his head that there is only one true path to fun and all others must be avoided.

Whatever the cause, he's the one being a problem here - not the player.   I don't think there is really all that much room for comprimise here.  The DM is pretty much 100% at fault in just about 100% of cases.  I think I'm in agreement with The Shaman in this if I understand him correctly.  I honestly can't think of a situation where a DM hears these words where it isn't incumbant on the DM to apologize.  If having to apologize to your players is how you define 'chilling', I guess I'm sort of in agreement with you, because its never fun to learn you've screwed up.

1) Narrating Player Action:  You should never tell a player what their character does or how they respond emotionally to something, except in the fringe case of their character being mentally dominated by something (which shouldn't happen very often) as provided by by the rules.  You shouldn't do this even as color, nor should you do it as part of a text dump or hook.   You shouldn't even do this by expounding on extended action in a scene that occurs as the result of player choice.  Every point where there is a player choice between too paths, or where the player can explore and learn new information, you should stop - even where it seems trivial.  If the PC's declare there intention to go down a road until they come to a city, you should pause when they get in sight of the city, and pause again when they have the choice to actually go through the gates.  This is to give them time to investigate the scene and decide whether they want to continue with thier stated path.  It can be awkward to prompt for trivial propositions, but its alot less awkward than getting, "My character would never do that."
2) 'Bang' Based off Wrong Assumption: This is at least for me the most likely place where I'll err.   For me, I'm always ready to move a slow scene on to the predicament, the challenge, the real meat and point of the scene.  Sometimes I get in the rush and instead of waiting for my players to signal their clear intentions, I make assumptions about their intentions or their current disposition and then I get slapped back (and rightfully sometimes) for creating a scene that didn't actually involve player consent and participation.  Sometimes its a player being deliberately ambigious, but even then, its my job to pick up on that and force the player to narrate concrete actions or intentions.  Sometimes you just have to say, "Tell me more about...", or "I don't understand your intention...", or "Maybe if you'd show me what you want to do rather than just tell me..."   Don't get too anxious for the show to start if the players are showing trepidation and caution.
3) Non-branching plot: This is a 'turn in your DM card' sort of error in my opinion, and its really only excusable in the most novice of GM's.  Anyone who has actually referee'd an RPG for any length of time ought to know that the DM can't predict player action, and that the player's will always do things that are unexpected.   You should never create a story that absolutely hinges on any one action, and you better be prepared to adapt what you have to what the players actually do.
4) Campaign as a novel: Usually this is a mistake of a slightly more mature and sophisticated DM who has begun to create plots more complex than 'hack and slash'.  The DM creates elaborate plot lines and eventually gets invested in the story turning out in a particular way that he finds emotionally satisfying.  Suddenly the PC's - while still 'protagonized' in a sense - find that there status as the games protagonists depends on them making the choices the DM has prepared for them to remain relevant to the plot.  It becomes critical that they befriend the widowed noble lady, or whatever, and the DM gets upset when they ignore her and his elaborately concieved character drama suddenly grinds to a halt.   The basic problem here is that DM is unwilling to share the story.  It's a failure to trust the players.  If you aren't willing to share the story, you should actually be writing a novel and not a campaign.
5) Approved Anti-Social Character Concept: This is a problem that occurs when your players first start to mature and become sophisticated RPers.  The DM starts trusting the players, and is impressed with the depth of the character conception, but fails to realize that the character is one that really works only in a novel.  Functional games have character constraints that you don't have in a novel because in a novel the audience is the reader, where as in a game the audience is effectively the character's themselves.  The reader doesn't necessarily mind if the characters don't share screen time, or if they have conflicts, or if the plot branches at various points.  But all of these things can make the game less fun for the players.  It's up to the DM to recognize character concepts that will negatively impact the campaign and discuss ahead of time how the player will handle those challenges.  Cowards, zealots, bigots, misanthropes, home bodies, hermits, sociopaths, traitors, and so forth all require very delicate handling by the player and in most cases simply need to be overruled as valid character concepts.  If you approved a character concept that will balk at participating with the other PC's, then you have a problem and you are primarily at fault.   The only way the player could be at fault here is if player has changed his concept mid-play or proceeded to concieve his character contrary to your mutual agreement prior to the campaign starting.   In that case, what you have is an anti-social player, not an anti-social character.
6) Approved Character Without Looking at It: I have no sympathy for that.  If you didn't bother to think about what the player was going to play, and ended up with a CE assassin and a LG paladin in the same party, then you get what you deserve.   Not every collection of characters is compatible.  It doesn't really take alot of experience to realize that.
7) One True Path To Fun: This is the small scale case of creating a novel instead of a campaign.  DMs should spend time imagining events in their game, to help ready themselves to play.  What they should not do is become emotionally invested in the actual game exactly matching their imaginations.  They should be prepared to enjoy the unexpected.   They should be willing to enjoy the game that actually happens, not the game that they expected to happen.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 16, 2010)

There was a lot of PC separation in the games I played in during the late 90s. Lot of Amber, lot of White Wolf. They were rather like the Philip K Dick novel, The Man In The High Castle, in which, I think, the protagonists never meet one another. GMs down my way at the time were strongly influenced by fiction, they regarded themselves as primarily storytellers, using techniques like foreshadowing, cut scenes and, ofc, switching between protagonists. These 'storygames' were not predetermined, each individual player's story had an unknown ending, each player had a lot of freedom. Too much, in fact. The problem was there was no clear unifying motive or objective as there is in D&D - go down dungeon, get treasure, get xp. The PCs were more like real people, or characters in a well-told story - plausible, believable. Problem is, that doesn't really work in an rpg.

I felt we never got enough direction from the GMs in those games. We were free to create any PC we wanted, with the result that there was no party, no unifying goal or even shared culture.

There was one GM in particular, Will, who was notorious for keeping the PCs separated. In a Forgotten Realms game he ran I think the campaign ended before any of the PCs had ever met one another, after something like ten sessions.

Once I co-operated with Will writing one-shots for the Glasgow Student Nationals (rpg tournament). We would each write a scenario and both run one scenario on Saturday and the other on Sunday. The problem with Will's scenario was that none of the PCs could meet until about halfway thru. Up until that point they were appearing in their own little vignettes, establishing their characters. Fine for a story, unacceptable in a campaign, and utterly fatal in a one-shot, imo.

The thing is, Will's scenario was, in almost all other respects, utterly brilliant. A Golden Age superhero adventure, wonderfully period appropriate, comics literate, influenced by Warren Ellis, Sandman Mystery Theatre and John Steinbeck. A flawed masterpiece, really.

What I'm saying, in a long-winded way, is that the GM does have some responsibility to keep the group together. In D&D one often doesn't have to think about this - the xp system and basic assumptions regarding parties and dungeons do that for you, provided you are running traditional D&D. In many rpgs, sometimes D&D, the players need a bit of direction from the GM, particularly at the start, so their PCs don't literally live in different continents, or dimensions. Sounds ridiculous but I've seen it happen more than once. The GM imo bears the primary responsibility for this preparatory work, which even includes PC motivations. Games where the party is split up don't really work, imo. And imx, it was mostly GMs at fault for splitting the party. Or rather, never joining it in the first place.

It's been said before that players and GM have to meet one another halfway in terms of the GM's prepared material. Ultimately the players have to, in most games, interact with what the GM has prepared. But that's also true, as Remathilis says, of the players. They also have to meet one another halfway.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But that doesn't change the fact it can be frustrating for a DM when a PC has some backstory element that puts them completely at odds with the direction of the game.




That should never happen.  Why didn't you read the backstory and go, "Wait a minute?  You want to play a homebody misanthrope how loves dragons and hates farmers?  I'm afraid that's just not going to work with the rest of the group, and I'm going to have a hard time creating a story for that character to participate in that everyone else will find satisfying.  I could run a game for this character if you were the only one playing, but you aren't."

You have to work with the players to come up with character concepts that work both for them and for you and the rest of the group.  It's a requirement of wearing the DM hat.  I learned this the hard way (and I'm sure most DM's do).  You can't just give the players a blank check to create any sort of character that they want and then expect it to work out, and this is particularly true if you have imaginative and sophisticated RPer's for players.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> The thing is, Will's scenario was, in almost all other respects, utterly brilliant. A Golden Age superhero adventure, wonderfully period appropriate, comics literate, influenced by Warren Ellis, Sandman Mystery Theatre and John Steinbeck. A flawed masterpiece, really.




Yeah.  The problem you run into is that alot of the best DM's are also fairly compotent novelists, and that they naturally want to start applying their techniques as writers of fiction to the game.  Alot of positive things can come out of that, but if the DM doesn't recognize the different constraints of the medium then trouble ensues.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 16, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The DM is pretty much 100% at fault in just about 100% of cases.



To keep the party together, there have to be certain shared goals and motivations, sometimes other features are agreed upon too. These mostly come from the GM and the players have to agree to them.

In trad D&D it's, usually tacitly, agreed that PCs will go to dangerous places and try to gain xp and treasure. If the PCs don't do this then the game doesn't work. Imo if a player says, "My character wouldn't do that", the DM is entirely right to reply, "Yes, he would. By agreeing to play in the game you have signed up to create a PC that will do that."

Likewise it's quite common for the GM to set certain parameters at the start which include PC personality and motivation, such as no evil alignments. When I run a superhero game, the PCs have to be superheroes. If half are heroes, half villains and one's a guy who never does anything dangerous and just wants to be left alone then the game won't work.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 16, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I've seen those words come up in two real situations that are problematic.
> 
> The first is to have them presented as justification for disruptive actions. A PC who steals from other characters can be a problem. The easiest approach is to try and talk with the player and ask them not to have a character do that - at which point you start to here, "That's just how the character acts!" There are certainly other approaches. Coming up with in-character consequences tends to be the most common one, but can also elicit claims that you are picking on that PC.
> 
> Either way, I don't think it unreasonable to try to get a potentially disruptive PC to stop acting disruptive, or stop ruining the game for other players.




Two ways to handle this;
1) Let the PC's work it out. If they insist on fighting each other let the other players know that the time spent on their personal squabble will detract from the overall adventure time actually earning XP and loot. Other players may implement internal sanctions against this kind of behavior up to and including fragging the instigator. 

2) Warn the player out of game to cut the crap or hit the road. 




MrMyth said:


> The other situation is when a PC simply happens to not fit with the plot of the game. Some farmers want to hire the PCs to go slay a black dragon that is ruining their lands. 4 PCs agree, but the last says he won't due it, because he loves dragons. Or has an irrational hatred of farmers. Or will only go if they pay him 10,000 gp.
> 
> Now, a DM can just go ahead and run with that - either by having the other PCs go on the adventure and leave him behind (and then either ignore him, or let him RP hanging out in town drinking), or by coming up with some extremely convoluted reason to convince him to go along.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact it can be frustrating for a DM when a PC has some backstory element that puts them completely at odds with the direction of the game.




I outlined a method for dealing with special snowflakes a bit upthread. The player will get the hint or get bored and leave. Either way problem solved.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 16, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> ...
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact it can be frustrating for a DM when a PC has some backstory element that puts them completely at odds with the direction of the game.




Why is it "the PC's backstory is at odds with the direction of the game" rather than "the game's direction is at odds with the PC's backstory"?  At character creation, the DM can make requests/demands based on campaign details.  After that, the PC's backstory is set and the DM doesn't get to complain.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 16, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> That should never happen.  Why didn't you read the backstory and go, "Wait a minute?  You want to play a homebody misanthrope how loves dragons and hates farmers?  I'm afraid that's just not going to work with the rest of the group, and I'm going to have a hard time creating a story for that character to participate in that everyone else will find satisfying.  I could run a game for this character if you were the only one playing, but you aren't."
> 
> You have to work with the players to come up with character concepts that work both for them and for you and the rest of the group.  It's a requirement of wearing the DM hat.  I learned this the hard way (and I'm sure most DM's do).  You can't just give the players a blank check to create any sort of character that they want and then expect it to work out, and this is particularly true if you have imaginative and sophisticated RPer's for players.




I find it's generally sufficient to get the players together and say, "Okay, guys, plan out your party. The PCs need to have relationships to each other such that you can trace linkages from any character to any other character, and they all need to be motivated and willing to work together." Then sit back and let them hammer out their concepts.

A unified party is generally all I need. I don't so much care what unifies them; they don't have to go in the direction I planned for them to go, just so long as they go _somewhere_ and they do it together.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 16, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> In trad D&D it's, usually tacitly, agreed that PCs will go to dangerous places and try to gain xp and treasure. If the PCs don't do this then the game doesn't work. Imo if a player says, "My character wouldn't do that." the DM is entirely right to reply, "Yes, he would. By agreeing to play in the game you have signed up to create a PC that will do that."




I would still never tell a player that their character _has _to do anything. Unless magically compelled, the character is free to not participate and so is the player. 

The #1 expectation is that everyone at the game is there to contribute to the entertainment of everyone else. Unwilling participants are free to leave.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 16, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> That should never happen. Why didn't you read the backstory and go, "Wait a minute? You want to play a homebody misanthrope how loves dragons and hates farmers? I'm afraid that's just not going to work with the rest of the group, and I'm going to have a hard time creating a story for that character to participate in that everyone else will find satisfying. I could run a game for this character if you were the only one playing, but you aren't."




Sure - but these sort of tidbits aren't guaranteed to show up in the background. Someone's backstory might be that he's an aspiring nobleman looking to make a name for himself. The adventure presents itself, it seems like a good hook for the character to me as the DM, but he decides it would be degrading to 'work for farmers' - "My character wouldn't do that!"

Now, from here, I can try and work with him to either convince him to change his character to be one more functional with the party, or try and invent alternate reasons for him to adventure, or eventually I can give up and try to pressure him by letting his character get bored sitting around uselessly in town. 

I don't think I quite agree with this level of DM-blaming you seem to be advocating. There are players out there that will sometimes genuinely just be contrary, whether for good reasons or not, and putting all the fault on that for the DM is just an invitation to set the stage for one bad game after another.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Two ways to handle this;
> 1) Let the PC's work it out. If they insist on fighting each other let the other players know that the time spent on their personal squabble will detract from the overall adventure time actually earning XP and loot. Other players may implement internal sanctions against this kind of behavior up to and including fragging the instigator.
> 
> 2) Warn the player out of game to cut the crap or hit the road.




And that's my point. Up above, you firmly said that a DM should never tell a player what to do or how to act. Now, you are saying it is an acceptable option to tell them to stop acting disruptive or they will get kicked out of the game. 

Those are the same thing. There _are_ times and places when a character's behavior isn't going to mesh with the group. At which point the best initial approach, for me, is to try and talk it over with the player and see if they can stop having their character act like that. 

If they say that no, they can't, they have to "be true to the character"... well, that's when I would try to curtail their behavior through in-game consequences, or let the other PCs deal with it. Or, ultimately, ask them to leave the game. 

I'm largely in agreement with the suggestions you've given on how to handle the problem with such players. It was that initial comment of yours, that a good DM will somehow never run into this sort of situation, that I just didn't quite get.



ExploderWizard said:


> I would still never tell a player that their character _has _to do anything. Unless magically compelled, the character is free to not participate and so is the player.




To try and clarify a bit, in the end, I just don't see any real difference between saying:
1) Sorry, Joe, your character has to find a reason to go on the adventure to save the princess; vs
2) Sure, Joe, you don't have to go save the princess! But if you don't, you can't play.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 16, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> Why is it "the PC's backstory is at odds with the direction of the game" rather than "the game's direction is at odds with the PC's backstory"? At character creation, the DM can make requests/demands based on campaign details. After that, the PC's backstory is set and the DM doesn't get to complain.




Again, I don't think that from a starting backstory the DM will be able to extrapolate every action a character might take, especially in the case of some players. If a character doesn't specifically say he hates farmers in his backstory, but later decides that is the case halfway through the game, how do you propose the DM respond? Or, say, the character starts acting in a way that is inconsistent with their backstory?

Basically, it feels weird that people think it perfectly ok for the DM to veto any backstory elements at character creation, but it is out of line to be concerned about a character's behavior at any later point in the game, even if it proves disruptive to play.


----------



## Rel (Sep 16, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 1) Narrating Player Action:  You should never tell a player what their character does or how they respond emotionally to something, except in the fringe case of their character being mentally dominated by something (which shouldn't happen very often) as provided by by the rules.  You shouldn't do this even as color, nor should you do it as part of a text dump or hook.   You shouldn't even do this by expounding on extended action in a scene that occurs as the result of player choice.  Every point where there is a player choice between too paths, or where the player can explore and learn new information, you should stop - even where it seems trivial.




It appears that I'm in the minority but I disagree with this pretty strongly.  My games benefit significantly when I provide some narration that helps frame the upcoming session and glosses over stuff that would take a long time to play out during the session in minute detail and would, ultimately, not be very engaging for the group as a whole.  Let me give an example of what I'm talking about to see if I'm really at odds with most of the posters in this thread:

Let's pretend my campaign has three players, each with one character.  Here they are with the basic personalities that the _players themselves have established_:

Tricksy, the Halfling Rogue - Tricksy has a thirst for knowledge, especially about maps and history.  He's shy around women.

Grongar, the Human Barbarian - Grongar is a simple man with simple tastes.  He likes beer and he likes wenches.  He knows that his chosen profession is likely to result in his death at a young age and he's all about indulging his vices whenever he isn't risking his life.

Snevish, the Human Wizard - Snevish views adventuring as a means to an end.  He wishes to open a school of wizardry and that's going to take a lot of money.  He takes every opportunity to grow his fortune by making good investments with the loot he gains by adventuring.

So, last session, the party arrived at the town of Stinkport after making their way through the many dangers of the Fetid Swamp and were able to turn in a bunch of Lizardman Heads for a bounty.  I'm trying to frame the action for the next adventure, but I'm not sure what exactly that will be.  I have a few things prepared and want to figure out what direction they are headed.  So, the day after our game night I send out the following e-mail:

"Over the course of the next week you grow familiar with Stinkport.  You had already indicated that you were fine to stay at the Barnacled Anchor Inn because the innkeeper, Belik, regarded you as heroes for slaying so many of the accursed Lizardmen that slew his brother.  As such he's cutting you a low rate on your rooms.

He's also cutting Grongar a low rate on ale, which Grongar proceeds to consume in large quantities.  Grongar is also cutting a swath of conquest through most of the serving wenches as the week progresses.  Belik is fairly tolerant of Grongar's behavior in general as many other patrons are coming into the Anchor to hear his tales from the swamp.  Amid the debauchery, Grongar hears from some of the wenches that it's been a while since they were "with a proper man since the sailors don't seem to come to town much anymore".  He also picks up from some of the other patrons that the Coast Road to Kingsport across the border with Faldren is dangerous and trade is light.

Meanwhile Tricksy has been at the Temple of Shaldra, Goddess of Knowledge.  There he meets the head archivist, a female elf name Kaella.  After stumbling over their initial meeting she points Tricksy to a cramped room crammed with maps and books, which he dives into with relish.  Among other things he finds some documents referring to the new king of Faldren who ascended the throne a couple of years ago.  It seems that since that time the area has been beset by more pirates than usual.  A look through some of the maps shows a multitude of small islands located off the coast within a couple days sail of Stinkport.

Snevish spends the majority of his time meandering through the Merchant Quarter and the Docks looking for a place to sell some of the Drake Blood that he collected in the Swamp.  He is told that there is little market for it here but there might be at the University in Kingsport or at the College of Arcanum on the island of Skyfall.  But the prices he is quoted here are terribly low.  When he asks further about that he's told that the merchants traveling the Coast Road have high overhead because they must hire large numbers of guards.  The ship captains are clearly afraid to venture west toward Skyfall due to an increase in piracy.  Both the merchant caravans and the ship captains seem interested in hiring the party as protection for their respective ventures.

Let me know what you guys want to do so I can plan for next session..."


So tell me, is that wrong in your opinion?


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 16, 2010)

Rel said:


> So tell me, is that wrong in your opinion?




It depends on how you react when one of the players says, "No, my PC wouldn't do that. Here's what I think he'd do."


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2010)

Rel said:


> My games benefit significantly when I provide some narration that helps frame the upcoming session and glosses over stuff that would take a long time to play out during the session in minute detail and would, ultimately, not be very engaging for the group as a whole.




I'm not saying you can't jump to a 'Bang'.   I'm just saying you have to take care that you aren't playing the PC's as you do it.



> Let me give an example of what I'm talking about to see if I'm really at odds with most of the posters in this thread:




Good idea.



> "Over the course of the next week you grow familiar with Stinkport.  You had already indicated that you were fine to stay at the Barnacled Anchor Inn because the innkeeper, Belik, regarded you as heroes for slaying so many of the accursed Lizardmen that slew his brother.  As such he's cutting you a low rate on your rooms.
> 
> He's also cutting Grongar a low rate on ale, *which Grongar proceeds to consume in large quantities.  Grongar is also cutting a swath of conquest through most of the serving wenches as the week progresses.*  Belik is fairly tolerant of Grongar's behavior in general as many other patrons are coming into the Anchor to hear his tales from the swamp.  Amid the debauchery, Grongar hears from some of the wenches that it's been a while since they were "with a proper man since the sailors don't seem to come to town much anymore".  He also picks up from some of the other patrons that the Coast Road to Kingsport across the border with Faldren is dangerous and trade is light.
> 
> ...




I consider the bolded sections problimatic.  In those sections you are narrating player action.  In my experience, when you do this you are often going to cause players to feel like they are mere observers in the game, and you are eventually going to run up into a situation where the player is going to say, "My character would never do that."   And with some player personalities that's going to happen sooner rather than later.

Critiquing the specific example further, while I don't have a problem with the general approach of a text dump to set the scene or with a text dump occuring in an email for the sake of avoiding slow sessions, I don't think you've achieved enough here to justify the overall approach.  I don't think you can justify from the example the risk involved in narrating player action.  Despite the text dump, you haven't actually cut to a bang.   If I'm your player, when the session starts, I'm going to want to continue investigating the very things you've glossed over.   If I'm Grongar, I'm going to want to enter a conversation with a wench I've just bedded to see if I can get details that are missing in your summary.  If I'm Tricksy, I'm going to want to initiate an RP with Kaella to try to smooth over what you've described as a somewhat rocky relationship in the hopes of obtaining a stronger ally, and I'm going to want to more information about this king of Faldren.  And if I'm Snevish I'm going to think you completely gypped my character by providing him less RP oppurtunities and chances to develop alliances than you have the other two characters, so I'm probably going to try to see if I can't make up for that by finding something more profitable to do than what you made me do.  So, all the stuff that you glossed over (with the exception of the details of Grognar's intimacies) are stuff you'll likely have to redo in session anyway.

An, equally important, we are still no closer to an exciting story element than before even if we don't.  What you've actually cut to isn't a 'bang', but rather a something that is at best going to be an in character conversation between the player's as they try to hash out what they want to do next and which at worst is going to be an out of character argument.  This isn't a 'bang'.  So, if all you've achieved from a text wall is a bit of artful setting description leading to a player inquiry or decision, why not just limit yourself to a setting description?  What do you actually gain here by including player action in the setting description?

You've made reasonable assumptions about the likely path of play, and if your players are nice guys and have no real pet peeve with the DM playing their characters, this will likely get passed over.  But you can get into big trouble making assumptions about how characters will behave because what seems reasonable to you might not seem reasonable to the player and this will be particularly true if you decide anything that the character did based on your assumptions will have any real consequence.  If Grognar finds he's acquired a social disease or made some wench pregnant, I wouldn't be surprised if Grognar's player finds your decisions having consequences that effect him to be unfair.


----------



## Rel (Sep 16, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> It depends on how you react when one of the players says, "No, my PC wouldn't do that. Here's what I think he'd do."




It's pretty rare that one of my players says, "No, my PC wouldn't do that.  Here's what I think he'd do."  More often they will says, "Ok, and also I do this..."

But, when it happens, I pretty much always say, "Ok that sounds fine."  Sometimes I'll say, "I felt it was a reasonable assumption based on *personality trait X*.  For future reference, can you clarify *personality trait X* so that I can create opportunities for you to roleplay that?"


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 16, 2010)

Rel said:


> So tell me, is that wrong in your opinion?




No, because..........

1) This is happening outside of active play. 

2) The player can respond to and address anything they might have an issue with before the next session right? 


I would probably send a blanket message asking how each of their characters spent the week in Stinkport and give them the essential info based on that or just make it up like you did if I didn't get any answers.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 16, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> To try and clarify a bit, in the end, I just don't see any real difference between saying:
> 
> 1) Sorry, Joe, your character has to find a reason to go on the adventure to save the princess; vs
> 2) Sure, Joe, you don't have to go save the princess! But if you don't, you can't play.




Easy.

1) = you WILL play my way.

2)= If you cannot accept what the rest of the group wants to to you are free to pass on this adventure. 

What I do NOT agree with is the idea that the DM is obligated to entertain special snowflakes when such players are too selfish to consider the rest of the group.


----------



## Rel (Sep 16, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> An, equally important, we are still no closer to an exciting story element than before even if we don't.  What you've actually cut to isn't a 'bang', but rather a something that is at best going to be an in character conversation between the player's as they try to hash out what they want to do next and which at worst is going to be an out of character argument.  This isn't a 'bang'.  So, if all you've achieved from a text wall is a bit of artful setting description leading to a player inquiry or decision, why not just limit yourself to a setting description?  What do you actually gain here by including player action in the setting description?




Well first, this theoretical e-mail would not exist in a vacuum.  I'm assuming that there will be follow up e-mails that will have the players asking questions and otherwise fleshing out the bare bones agendas that I've assumed for them.  The point is to get them to make a decision about what they plan to do next in terms of adventuring since that's what will require more preparation on my part.

What I gain is that I'm jump starting the roleplaying and cutting out loads of (IMO) extraneous "town exploration" stuff that is probably going to take a lot of time and ultimately not be terribly interesting.  My experience is that in situations where the party can split up and pursue individual agendas that we can get bogged down with each person taking time to have lengthy conversations with NPC's that are not terribly engaging for the rest of the group.  So I'm covering part of that in broad strokes and moved them along the path toward something more interesting.



> You've made reasonable assumptions about the likely path of play, and if your players are nice guys and have no real pet peeve with the DM playing their characters, this will likely get passed over.  But you can get into big trouble making assumptions about how characters will behave because what seems reasonable to you might not seem reasonable to the player and this will be particularly true if you decide anything that the character did based on your assumptions will have any real consequence.  If Grognar finds he's acquired a social disease or made some wench pregnant, I wouldn't be surprised if Grognar's player finds your decisions having consequences that effect him to be unfair.




I do indeed have "nice guys" as players and they don't seem to have any pet peeves about me making assumptions regarding what their characters would do.  I think that the reason they are tolerant of it is because I don't abuse that authority.  It probably helps that we've been gaming together for upwards of 15 years and so we just kind of "get" each other.

As for there being consequences for actions the players undertook while I narrated them, I promise that Grongar got the Half-Orc Clap before he ever set foot in Stinkport! 

I've been GMing for a long, long time and I guess I've just never seen a problem with a bit of exposition to move things along, provided that I do so with the understanding that if a player flat out says, "My character wouldn't do that." then I'm willing to back off.  I think that for situations like this it's a lesser evil than to have much of the group bored while a subset of the group painstakingly asks every question they can conceive of from some NPC that they met on the street.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Easy.
> 
> 1) = you WILL play my way.
> 
> 2)= If you cannot accept what the rest of the group wants to to you are free to pass on this adventure.




Well yeah, but isn't "you can walk away from this table" equally a choice in the first example as well? Even if I don't announce it out loud, when I say, "Seriously, Joe, your character needs to find a reason to go on this adventure", I'm not threatening to _tie Joe to a chair and forcibly narrate his character's actions_. I'm saying that if he doesn't do that, he doesn't participate in the adventure. The fact that he can go ahead and leave is pretty much just understood.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Two ways to handle this;
> 1) Let the PC's work it out. If they insist on fighting each other let the other players know that the time spent on their personal squabble will detract from the overall adventure time actually earning XP and loot. Other players may implement internal sanctions against this kind of behavior up to and including fragging the instigator.



Ayup.

I say just let 'em fight if they want to...but with a strong caveat that you have to have the right players for this to work; players who are capable of separating in-game actions (after lengthy plotting, Jane's character just assassinated Joe's character) from out-of-game emotions (Jane and Joe are laughing about it and are still good friends).

Eventually, the adventuring gets done...and in the meantime, I get lots of free entertainment I don't have to design.  Benefits all round... 

Lanefan


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2010)

Rel said:


> Well first, this theoretical e-mail would not exist in a vacuum.  I'm assuming that there will be follow up e-mails that will have the players asking questions and otherwise fleshing out the bare bones agendas that I've assumed for them.




At this point though, you are practically doing 'play by post'.  If we have the assumption here of a give and take exchange of information prior to the session, why not send out an initial email describing the town and ask the player's what their agenda will be rather than assuming for them?  What do you actually gain by setting the agenda?



> What I gain is that I'm jump starting the roleplaying and cutting out loads of (IMO) extraneous "town exploration" stuff that is probably going to take a lot of time and ultimately not be terribly interesting.




I get that you are cutting out some small drama town exploration stuff that your group doesn't find that interesting.  I don't get how you see that as also 'jump starting the role playing'.  Sure the point is to short cut past alot of role playing that you don't find all that terribly interesting in favor of something else?



> My experience is that in situations where the party can split up and pursue individual agendas that we can get bogged down with each person taking time to have lengthy conversations with NPC's that are not terribly engaging for the rest of the group.  So I'm covering part of that in broad strokes and moved them along the path toward something more interesting.




Ok, sure, I understand cutting to the bang.  And, I understand handling invididual one on one RP in a format outside that of the group session.   I still don't get how you gain any advantage by making assumptions about the player's actions and agenda when it would be so easy to either just not make that assumption or to prompt the players for their actual agenda at the start of the 'play by post' session you describe.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 16, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Well yeah, but isn't "you can walk away from this table" equally a choice in the first example as well? Even if I don't announce it out loud, when I say, "Seriously, Joe, your character needs to find a reason to go on this adventure", I'm not threatening to _tie Joe to a chair and forcibly narrate his character's actions_. I'm saying that if he doesn't do that, he doesn't participate in the adventure. The fact that he can go ahead and leave is pretty much just understood.




In that sense yes it boils down to the same thing-one person decides that it is up to everyone else to entertain him/her in a desired manner and is unwilling to consider the desires of anyone else. These are player types the group is better off without.


At one time long ago a new person joined our local gaming club and ran a campaign for us. It was very heavy handed and at one point he actually addressed the group and said: " This is my campaign and you will do exactly as I say!!" 

This was followed by the sounds of dice being put away and the rest of us getting up and leaving the table. The DM eventually learned how to get along with people better and became a good friend but that game was toast.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 16, 2010)

Like so many things, this gets back to communication between the players and the GM. It is the GM's responsibility to communicate what kind of campaign he intends to run, to set the groundrules and the parameters. With that done, it's the players' responsibility to pick up that ball and run with it in as awesome a direction as they can.

When I run a campaign, I try to let the players know what I'm going for so that they can design appropriate characters who'll fit the world and the campaign story (or be pro-active enough to give me a direction if it's a sandbox campaign) and then I listen to what they want to play and design accordingly. I've found that to be a pretty good concept.

For example, I'm running War of the Burning Sky at the moment, so I made sure that the group knew what kind of a game that was, and designed their characters so that they would have logical, in character reasons to continue the campaign.

I think the best reply to "my character wouldn't do that" is to initially ask "okay, what would he do, then?" and just roll with it. If it turns out that one or all of the group wants to go a completely different direction from what the GM expects, that can be a very good thing... depending on the kind of campaign that's going on. It may result on a short evening's play where the GM has to retool what he intends to run, but them's the breaks, and it's why the GM gets the big bucks.

--Steve


----------



## Rel (Sep 16, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> At this point though, you are practically doing 'play by post'.  If we have the assumption here of a give and take exchange of information prior to the session, why not send out an initial email describing the town and ask the player's what their agenda will be rather than assuming for them?  What do you actually gain by setting the agenda?
> 
> I get that you are cutting out some small drama town exploration stuff that your group doesn't find that interesting.  I don't get how you see that as also 'jump starting the role playing'.  Sure the point is to short cut past alot of role playing that you don't find all that terribly interesting in favor of something else?
> 
> Ok, sure, I understand cutting to the bang.  And, I understand handling invididual one on one RP in a format outside that of the group session.   I still don't get how you gain any advantage by making assumptions about the player's actions and agenda when it would be so easy to either just not make that assumption or to prompt the players for their actual agenda at the start of the 'play by post' session you describe.




I think you ask some good questions here and I've given it some thought.  My answer has to do with the personalities of my players.  Overall they are a very good bunch and they are fantastic friends.  However some of them  (depending on the exact player makeup of the campaign perhaps most of them) are not the most proactive group ever assembled.

I could trot out an e-mail that gives the obvious features of the town and say, "So what's your plan?"  I know for a fact that one of my players would immediately launch into an exploration, with some character driven agenda in mind, tenaciously going after his goal and uncovering the local politics/economic/streetwise scene.  Another would probably pursue things if they were part of the very narrow sort of goal that his characters typically pursue.  The other two would probably not respond to the e-mail at all or would read it an hour before they came to the session.  (Just for the record I know this because I've tried it multiple times in the past.)

By virtue of narrating some of what they have already done then I'm sort of giving them a push in the "right" direction, where I define "right" as "the direction you already told me you were playing your NPC in".  I'm not force feeding them the plot hooks.  But I'm putting it on the fork for them and dipping it in some juicy sauce.

Obviously this method wouldn't work for every player.  But then no method works for every player.  The first rule of GMing as far as I'm concerned is "Know your players."  For these players, and many similar players I'd guess, it is no great crime to narrate a bit of their characters behavior when it is the kind of thing they've already indicated they would typically do.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 16, 2010)

I agree with SteveC that the GM changing direction can be a good thing.

I have in all my years of gaming done the my character would not do that three times.  Once to end my character's adventuring, because he reached his goal and there was more immediate matters that needed him to stay (however, he sent my new PC to aid the party).  This took everyone by surprise, but everyone agreed it was a fitting retirement. A second time, because the  the idea was my rogue would be thrown into the party  by circumstances and his time with the party would "transform" him to the most loyal of comrades and a heroic character.  However, his introduction had him conning the naive Monk out of money by acting as a guide and then leaving him stranded in the middle of the city (the monk had paid up front and he thought he could make money guiding back. The monk only asked to be taken to a specfic part of the city).  The players still look fondly upon him and his progression.  

Then there was the following: 

 I was running a monk in Rolemaster. The GM had stated the order were paladin like. They protected the weak and the downtrodden. They tried to be the epitome of good, what is right and lead by example.   I played the character like this for fifteen levels. 
   After completing a major arc, we set off on a ship and found a new continent to explore.  The first town we came to had a bunch of peasants about to be executed.  A little information gathering revealed their crime- stealing fruit and bread to feed their families and one or two for shouting down the magistrate enforcing the laws.  
    Here we were a party of very experienced adventures and, yet, the rest of the party was willing to let them be killed just so they could learn more about the people in charge.
    There was no way  my character was going along.
    I informed the players and the GM that I was activating spells and magic and was going to rescue the peasants and by myself if it was necessary.
   The players were understood why, but wanted me to wait.  If not, they would deny knowledge of my character and he could not travel with them.
  The GM asked me if I was sure and I told him "Yes". I reminded him that he told me how strong he had told me  the order was in their beliefs and that is how I always played the character.  He completely agreed. 

 I understood  that the character might no longer be welcome in the party.  

I told the players that I did not expect them to back me up and would be willing to make up a new character.  

 The GM went through with me saving the NPCs and I thought that would be the last time I would play him (Two of the PCs gave me additional support from the sidelines).
    As I started to pack up the character and watch the remainder of the session. the GM asked me what my character would do next. I told him he would become a Robin Hood or Zorro like character.  He could use him as an NPC  
   The focused the party on their information gathering and making connections while I, occassionally, got to rescue peasants for corrupt nobles and back alley thugs which started catching the attention of others.
  Eventually, the PCs made a connection with an underground resistance while I learned that they and the resistance were going to be ambushed.
I notified them and then skulked in the shadows to ambush the ambushers.  When it was over,  the character ended up back in the party and part of the resistance.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 16, 2010)

I've found, through long experience, that what this whole scenario boils down to is...

How much do you trust your players, and how much do they trust you?

Can you trust them to not bring the game to a screeching halt, because they are simply being too stubborn (for whatever reason) to continue the game?  Can you trust them enough to play their characters' personalities faithfully while still finding ways to work through those moral dilemmas that inevitably show up to make the game more interesting.  _"Fine! Have it your way! We'll help the farmers...  But I'm not going anywhere near anything that even vaguely resembles dirt, and you can't make me eat that slop they call food.  Gods help me, I'll have to buy an extra quart of Au De Aetheral just to withstand their stench!  I sure hope they don't pay us with chickens."_

Can they trust you do set the scene with occasionally a little bit of railroading without you dictating that they take actions that are in gross violation of their characters' personality?  Can they trust you to play their characters just as they would?  _(Rel, I think, has already given a fine example, presuming his players indeed had no objections.)_


----------



## Rel (Sep 16, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> _(Rel, I think, has already given a fine example, presuming his players indeed had no objections.)_




I've had not a single complaint from the fictional players of the fictional characters in my example.  It's been a huge success by that metric.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2010)

Rel said:


> I've had not a single complaint from the fictional players of the fictional characters in my example.  It's been a huge success by that metric.




Well, no wonder they don't complain!  They're "fictional players"!


----------



## Rel (Sep 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, no wonder they don't complain!  They're "fictional players"!




Yeah well fictional players have a lot of advantages over the real thing.  For example, all my fictional players are bisexual Penthouse Pets.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Easy.
> 
> 1) = you WILL play my way.
> 
> ...




That's some pretty fine hair splitting.  Both boil down to, "You will do what I say or get out."  Considering you gave an example later of #2 where the entire group rebelled, I'd say it's probably equally problematic.

IMO, I solve all of this with group character generation.  No one gets to create characters in a vacuum in my campaigns anymore.  Your character WILL have a reason for being with this group and he WILL have ties to other members of the group.

That solves virtually all issues for me.  No more lone-wolf, Strong Silent Type, Man with No Name crap at my tables, thank you very much.  Your character will be embedded in the campaign before the first die roll.


----------



## Henry (Sep 17, 2010)

Rel said:


> For example, all my fictional players are bisexual Penthouse Pets.




Beats the heck out of Wonder Pets.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That's some pretty fine hair splitting. Both boil down to, "You will do what I say or get out." Considering you gave an example later of #2 where the entire group rebelled, I'd say it's probably equally problematic.




If the entire group decides they are not interested in a given adventure the that isn't a problem at all. They remain together doing what they want. The problem pops up if the group wants to go in several different directions and cannot agree on a course of action to take together.

The difference is that in most of these cases it is a disagreement between what the rest of player characters want to do instead of what the DM wants them to do. If the DM provides 3 different adventure hooks and the group doesn't like any of them and decides that they want to go into the hills and hunt bugbears everything is still ok as long as the whole party is on the same page. 

Heh. That example of the group rebellion actually happened and I would do the same again.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 17, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Again, I don't think that from a starting backstory the DM will be able to extrapolate every action a character might take, especially in the case of some players. If a character doesn't specifically say he hates farmers in his backstory, but later decides that is the case halfway through the game, how do you propose the DM respond? Or, say, the character starts acting in a way that is inconsistent with their backstory?
> 
> Basically, it feels weird that people think it perfectly ok for the DM to veto any backstory elements at character creation, but it is out of line to be concerned about a character's behavior at any later point in the game, even if it proves disruptive to play.




But if the player is being honest about his character, then it isn't the player being disruptive by balking, but the DM who is being disruptive by trying to force actions down the players' throats.

The "spontaneous farmer hate" comes very, very near to a straw-man example, of course.  But I can tell you the sequence of events that would occur if a DM made a "woe is me, my player hates farmers, my players suck" post here.  In sequence:
1) Lots of people: "your players suck! the lot of a DM is hard".
2) Several people: "the situation you describe doesn't make any sense, clarifications please".
3) After some teeth pulling: "well, yeah, the campaign was advertised as a social-intrigue campaign*, and the character in question is a tricked out social-monster with minimal combat abilities whose ambitions are purely political".
4) Lots of people: "DM-sir, dude, the problem is your fault".

*The fault is actually the player's!  The evidence from reading these boards for years (clearly no sample bias........) is *every* campaign advertised as social-intrigue based is actually pure hack-and-slash.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2010)

Let me address the farmer example again.

I see that there are basically four possibilities.  Let's deal with the ideal case.

The player has a character concept for a snooty, fastidious, nobleman.  I have approved of this concept.  In the course of the parties adventures, the party finds a peasant farmer who offers to pay the party whatever he can to help deal with some problem.  The player considers this and decides that his character would consider such an offer to be beneath his dignity.  He says, in character, "Are we to be mere sellswords?  Am I to be the servant of a slave?  I don't accept employment from villains.  Let us continue on the Baron, as we had planned, and leave this peasant to his lowly problems."   Now, the player is a mature RPer.  Out of character he knows this line of play is potentially disruptive.  The other players have characters that are more strictly heroic, and he can tell that the other players are excited about this plot hook.  But the other players are also mature players, and they recognize from the stylized speach that what the player is really communicating on a meta-level is, "I think we need to play out this scene, because its important to my characterization.   So, someone quickly talk my character into going along with the plan, so that we can get on to the adventure.  I agree to be flexible on this provided someone provides me with a good excuse."   And, if that's what's going on, then let me say that as a DM, it's watching well done intraparty RP like that is one of the great joys of DMing for experienced players.  

If I was playing another character in the party, I'd try to resolve the issue by turning it around.   I'd tell the peasant he could keep his money, and I'd tell my aristocratic friend that we were of course not drawing blood for pay - we were fulfilling our duty as noble and free men to protect the lowly.   If necessary, I'd rebuke the peasant for offering to pay us, as if he was our equal station.  I believe that for most mature RPers, this would satisfying the other player's need to characterize.

This can go wrong in one of three ways.  

First, the DM can not recognize the issue, and instead tries to take control of the PC.  This is going to result in, "My character wouldn't do that.", and the DM is IMO unquestionably in the wrong.  

Second, the other players may not recognize that the player's stance.  They may assume that the in character stance is exactly reflective of the player's out of character stance.  They may believe that he's simply saying, "I (the player) don't want to do this."  And they may not have the RP sophistication to come up with an in character way of handling this problem.   As a result, they may attempt to respond to the player in an out of character way (and with improper out of character emotion).  This is likely to result in player conflict, as you have one player here offering a valid characterization and finding himself dealing with real anger, veiled insults, and a bunch of other childish things.   The DM's job in this case is to publicly try to smooth over the misunderstanding and encourage everyone to avoid attempting to solve problems OOC.

Thirdly, the player that is balking may actually be disruptive.  Either he is mistaking his own in character stance for an out of character stance (because my character wouldn't want to do this, I don't want to either), or he's letting his out of character feelings influence his in character stance (I don't want to take this plot hook, but I don't want to look overtly like a jerk, so I'll throw an in character fit), or he's actually the sort of player that gets a kick out of derailing the game so as to remain the center of attention at all times.   If this turns out to be what is going on, we probably have a blown session, and it's the DMs job to privately take that player aside after the session and try to explain to the player that he's not the only one playing the game and that therefore he needs to keep in mind that he has a responcibility to everyone else in the group to play in a cooperative manner.  That doesn't mean he has to betray his character concept, but it does mean that he has to be looking for ways to make his character work with everyone else and if he can't, then he either needs a new character or a new group.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> In that sense yes it boils down to the same thing-one person decides that it is up to everyone else to entertain him/her in a desired manner and is unwilling to consider the desires of anyone else. These are player types the group is better off without.




What makes it a bit trickier for me is that I've seen a number of players who act like that, but not because they are outright bad people - it just comes from a complete lack of understanding of the social dynamic, or that part of the goal of the game is for everyone to be having a good time. And that's where it gets tricky to deal with - this person genuinely feels that their character should act in a certain way, and doesn't understand why doing that is pissing off everyone else in the group. 

Honestly, the biggest lesson here is just communication. There are times when a player's personality or a character's history may conflict with the group. Sometimes there may be solutions to be found in-game, sometimes the only approach is to try and address it out of character. Either way, though, recognizing it and discussing it is the key.  



ExploderWizard said:


> At one time long ago a new person joined our local gaming club and ran a campaign for us. It was very heavy handed and at one point he actually addressed the group and said: " This is my campaign and you will do exactly as I say!!"
> 
> This was followed by the sounds of dice being put away and the rest of us getting up and leaving the table. The DM eventually learned how to get along with people better and became a good friend but that game was toast.




Yeah, I can't deny that presentation matters a lot! Despite the roles of player and DM, the game is a cooperative one, in the end, and attempting to deny that is generally not going to end well.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2010)

Rel said:


> It appears that I'm in the minority but I disagree with this pretty strongly.  My games benefit significantly when I provide some narration that helps frame the upcoming session and glosses over stuff that would take a long time to play out during the session in minute detail and would, ultimately, not be very engaging for the group as a whole.  Let me give an example of what I'm talking about to see if I'm really at odds with most of the posters in this thread:
> 
> Let's pretend my campaign has three players, each with one character.  Here they are with the basic personalities that the _players themselves have established_:
> 
> ...




I think this is good stuff, esp with less proactive players, though more effort than I usually go to.    Players should be free to retcon this stuff if vital:  "No, sorry, Grognar is still grieving for his lost love Taleria, slain by the evil high priest Tulsa Dark, and has no interest in wenches right now" - but that's rare.  Usually GM & player are on the same page and players love this stuff.

Re some PCs getting more stuff going on than others - I think that's fine.  But it should be influenced by factors such as the PCs' Charisma, relevant Skills (Streetwise should generate many hooks) and prior actions in-play.  Wallflower PCs are ok though.


----------



## Rel (Sep 17, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> What makes it a bit trickier for me is that I've seen a number of players who act like that, but not because they are outright bad people - it just comes from a complete lack of understanding of the social dynamic, or that part of the goal of the game is for everyone to be having a good time. And that's where it gets tricky to deal with - this person genuinely feels that their character should act in a certain way, and doesn't understand why doing that is pissing off everyone else in the group.
> 
> Honestly, the biggest lesson here is just communication. There are times when a player's personality or a character's history may conflict with the group. Sometimes there may be solutions to be found in-game, sometimes the only approach is to try and address it out of character. Either way, though, recognizing it and discussing it is the key.




I agree with you on this.  I was mentioning in the thread about "negative XP" that we used to have a standing (joke) rule in our games that if your character starts with more than half a page of backstory that you get a 100XP penalty on Night 1 of the campaign.  That "rule" was instituted after years of us having long and fully fleshed out backstories that we gave to the GM and brought to the table with us.

The problem was that all this stuff that we'd written about who our character was was getting in the way of the party gelling as an entity with its own agenda.  One guy would have written, "There is NOTHING more important than getting my father's sword back from the Duke who murdered him and stole it!"  Another would write, "The Blacktooth Orcs destroyed my village and those who I loved.  I will hunt them down to my last breath."  Then we'd start gaming and those two players would argue endlessly about what direction the party should take.

That's a bit of a simplification for illustrative purposes (assume the players in question were my bisexual Penthouse Pet players) but it's not that far off.  Too often some minor tidbit from a PC's five page backstory was suddenly brought to the fore when the GM threw a certain plot hook that the rest of the party wanted to go with.

So now we make sure that our individual character motivations fit well with the group and broadly motivate the PC rather than force them into a narrow focus.  The Dwarf Warden I'm currently playing in my friends 4e game is living in the shadow of his father's greatness and is motivated to do anything and everything to prove that he is equal to the legacy.  So basically that means that pretty much any plot hook that gets tossed at us I'm like, "I'll DO IT!"


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 17, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> The "spontaneous farmer hate" comes very, very near to a straw-man example, of course. But I can tell you the sequence of events that would occur if a DM made a "woe is me, my player hates farmers, my players suck" post here. In sequence:
> 1) Lots of people: "your players suck! the lot of a DM is hard".
> 2) Several people: "the situation you describe doesn't make any sense, clarifications please".
> 3) After some teeth pulling: "well, yeah, the campaign was advertised as a social-intrigue campaign*, and the character in question is a tricked out social-monster with minimal combat abilities whose ambitions are purely political".
> 4) Lots of people: "DM-sir, dude, the problem is your fault".




Er... no offense, but I don't think that's a correct interpretation of a straw man argument. It was an example given of the sort of play where I've seen this type of situation come up. A straw man would be more like, say, involve taking my example and then responding to a different situation that you yourself come up with. Such as, perhaps, a situation where a DM misled a character as to the type of campaign, as opposed to a situation where a character spontaneously invented a personality trait that ended up disruptive to the campaign. 

Seriously though, I think your point breaks down when you say that "if a player is being completely honest with their character," then the DM is at fault. 

Do you really think it so impossible for a character to have elements in the backstory with ramifications that the DM doesn't forsee? Or for a player to genuinely decide, in the middle of the game, that he has a new personality trait? Or that his interpretation of a previous personality trait is different from the DMs?

I don't think these are common situations, sure. But I've seen players that have acted like this. Sometimes to intentionally be a jerk, more often because they just don't quite get what is wrong with a character being disruptive and causing conflicty. It is this sort of thing that I am talking about, and I think a very different situation from a DM advertising one type of campaign and running a different one. 



Celebrim said:


> Thirdly, the player that is balking may actually be disruptive. Either he is mistaking his own in character stance for an out of character stance (because my character wouldn't want to do this, I don't want to either), or he's letting his out of character feelings influence his in character stance (I don't want to take this plot hook, but I don't want to look overtly like a jerk, so I'll throw an in character fit), or he's actually the sort of player that gets a kick out of derailing the game so as to remain the center of attention at all times.




This is really the situation I'm referring to. Honestly, with most players, when you have conflict between a character's motivations and the direction of the plot (or even just the direction other PCs want to go in), that sort of conflict can be an _opportunity _more than a disruption. Some of the strongest RP and character development I've seen has come out of mature players having that sort of conflict - and either making the hard decisions (that might result in a character leaving the group) or finding a way to resolve it. 

I think your point about the player merging character and player positions is a key one - for a good player, they can often resolve an in-character conflict with an outcome that the _player_ finds interesting even if the _character_ is upset with it. But for some players, they can't break out of that divide, and that is where this sort of problem comes from. 



Celebrim said:


> If this turns out to be what is going on, we probably have a blown session, and it's the DMs job to privately take that player aside after the session and try to explain to the player that he's not the only one playing the game and that therefore he needs to keep in mind that he has a responcibility to everyone else in the group to play in a cooperative manner. That doesn't mean he has to betray his character concept, but it does mean that he has to be looking for ways to make his character work with everyone else and if he can't, then he either needs a new character or a new group.




And I guess this is where the real difference of opinion comes from. If this sort of thing happened, I wouldn't just call the session. I'd try and have that conversation right there, possibly with the assistance of the other players. Either finding a good resolution in-character, or try and convince him, as you note, that he needs to try and be 'part of the party'... or, worst case, let his character go off and sulk and let everyone else keep playing.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 17, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> But the other players are also mature players, and they recognize from the stylized speach that what the player is really communicating on a meta-level is, "I think we need to play out this scene, because its important to my characterization.   So, someone quickly talk my character into going along with the plan, so that we can get on to the adventure.  I agree to be flexible on this provided someone provides me with a good excuse."   And, if that's what's going on, then let me say that as a DM, it's watching well done intraparty RP like that is one of the great joys of DMing for experienced players.



Good stuff. In the past I've seen players, including myself, be much too dogmatic, too inflexible about their character's personality and behaviour. Never get beyond, "My character wouldn't do that" to "My character has concerns about that." Rpg players seem to love dogmatic types of PC tbh - the paladin, the witchfinder in Warhammer, the X who hates Y. It's always perfect undying eternal hate, of the sort that never (or very seldom) occurs in the real world.

You're absolutely right that it's a mistake to feel that extremely stubborn behaviour is necessary to portray character. Often all that's needed is the raising of an objection, a concern or somesuch, followed by acquiescence to what is obviously the GM's prepared adventure, or the party majority view. Ben Grimm always grumbles. In the end he almost always goes along with Reed's crazy plan, but it's the grumbling that is his signature character feature. That he caves is not a problem.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 17, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Good stuff. In the past I've seen players, including myself, be much too dogmatic, too inflexible about their character's personality and behaviour. Never get beyond, "My character wouldn't do that" to "My character has concerns about that." Rpg players seem to love dogmatic types of PC tbh - the paladin, the witchfinder in Warhammer, the X who hates Y. It's always perfect undying eternal hate, of the sort that never (or very seldom) occurs in the real world.
> 
> You're absolutely right that it's a mistake to feel that extremely stubborn behaviour is necessary to portray character. Often all that's needed is the raising of an objection, a concern or somesuch, followed by acquiescence to what is obviously the GM's prepared adventure, or the party majority view. Ben Grimm always grumbles. In the end he almost always goes along with Reed's crazy plan, but it's the grumbling that is his signature character feature. That he caves is not a problem.




This is a very good point. Extreme attitudes need not be constantly held onto just to make a character feel like it has some flavor. Actually it makes the character more of a generic stereotype than flavorful. 

For every David St. Hubbins and Nigel Tufnel in a party there should be about 5-8 Derek Smalls.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Good stuff. In the past I've seen players, including myself, be much too dogmatic, too inflexible about their character's personality and behaviour. Never get beyond, "My character wouldn't do that" to "My character has concerns about that." Rpg players seem to love dogmatic types of PC tbh - the paladin, the witchfinder in Warhammer, the X who hates Y. It's always perfect undying eternal hate, of the sort that never (or very seldom) occurs in the real world.




No, but perfect and absolute beliefs are common to heroes, and it could be argued that they are in fact the defining trait of them.  Real people comprimise their principles; heroes almost never do.  That's what makes the heroic.  Jean Val Jean isn't heroic because he's one of the strongest men in the world; he's heroic because when he decides he is going to atone for the wrong he feels he's done to Fantine, he isn't ever let anything get in his way.  This unbending unyielding nature is part of what makes heroes inspiring.  



> You're absolutely right that it's a mistake to feel that extremely stubborn behaviour is necessary to portray character.




That might be correct, but it would be a mistake to think that's what I said.  I think that you may be focusing to much on the eventual acquiesnce and not enough on the party comprimise that yields it.  The trick here is to find a way to comprimise without betraying the character.  

Ray and Belkar in 'Order of the Stick' are great examples of characters who find ways to be themselves while still playing as a group and advancing the overall story.  Caving in can be a problem if it is forced or contrived and if it occurs to easily.  It's essential that everyone still be driven by believable in game considerations.  Likewise you have to watch out for the temptation to be looking for excuses to comprimise your character, because if that is really the driving force behind your role playing, then you should be playing a different character IMO.  (In fact, before next session, I'm going to have to issue an in game caution to one of my players over being to willing to betray his character concept when its conveinent to do so.)

The more salient point of that example that I was trying to make was that mature groups of players considered it more important to help each other achieve characterization, than it was to acquire gamist rewards like money.   The mark of an immature player in the above example would be resentment toward the player who ultimately forced the party to forgo treasure, which would be borne out as real anger directed at the player.  The mature players IMO see that characterization as 'the fun' and the treasure as arbitrary numbers on a character sheet with no real worth.   Were there another player in the party whose character was 'greedy', there should be characterization of the interparty conflict over the lost reward, but this should never be spilling over into real resentment between the two players as if the player himself is greedy and the treasure real.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 17, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> No, but perfect and absolute beliefs are common to heroes, and it could be argued that they are in fact the defining trait of them.  Real people comprimise their principles; heroes almost never do.  That's what makes the heroic.  Jean Val Jean isn't heroic because he's one of the strongest men in the world; he's heroic because when he decides he is going to atone for the wrong he feels he's done to Fantine, he isn't ever let anything get in his way.  This unbending unyielding nature is part of what makes heroes inspiring.




Perhaps, (and this assuming you mean Jean Valjean from _Les Miserables_, and not Jean Val Jean the French porn star ) but he's a hero working solo in the context of a novel written by a single author.

Heroes working in concert with a half dozen other heroes as a team, in the context of a game narrated by, effectively, more than a half dozen authors is a whole other ball game.

A better example might be D&D's standard point of reference...  _The Lord of the Rings_.  

Each member of the Fellowship is a hero in his own way.  Each of them has his own absolute beliefs and unbending, unyielding natures.  And, what happens when those beliefs come into conflict and cannot be resolved?  One of them dies, two of them get captured, and the team falls apart irrevocably, with majority of them abandoning the original quest they set out upon, either on purpose or by necessity. 

That's hardly inspiring, when you really think about it.



Celebrim said:


> The trick here is to find a way to comprimise without betraying the character.
> 
> Ray and Belkar in 'Order of the Stick' are great examples of characters who find ways to be themselves while still playing as a group and advancing the overall story.  Caving in can be a problem if it is forced or contrived and if it occurs to easily.  It's essential that everyone still be driven by believable in game considerations.  Likewise you have to watch out for the temptation to be looking for excuses to comprimise your character, because if that is really the driving force behind your role playing, then you should be playing a different character IMO.  (In fact, before next session, I'm going to have to issue an in game caution to one of my players over being to willing to betray his character concept when its conveinent to do so.)
> 
> The more salient point of that example that I was trying to make was that mature groups of players considered it more important to help each other achieve characterization, than it was to acquire gamist rewards like money.   The mark of an immature player in the above example would be resentment toward the player who ultimately forced the party to forgo treasure, which would be borne out as real anger directed at the player.  The mature players IMO see that characterization as 'the fun' and the treasure as arbitrary numbers on a character sheet with no real worth.   Were there another player in the party whose character was 'greedy', there should be characterization of the interparty conflict over the lost reward, but this should never be spilling over into real resentment between the two players as if the player himself is greedy and the treasure real.




That, however, I couldn't agree with more, and largely illustrates the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That's some pretty fine hair splitting.  Both boil down to, "You will do what I say or get out."  Considering you gave an example later of #2 where the entire group rebelled, I'd say it's probably equally problematic.
> 
> IMO, I solve all of this with group character generation.  No one gets to create characters in a vacuum in my campaigns anymore.  Your character WILL have a reason for being with this group and he WILL have ties to other members of the group.



Isn't that just saying, at its extreme, "You will play what I say or get out?"

I mean sure, it's your perogative as DM to say "no Gnomes" or "no Tieflings" or even "no Wizards" if it fits the setting.  But taking it the step further of telling me what personality types I can/cannot play is *far* worse of a railroad than anything you-as-DM could ever do in an adventure.  The adventure is yours.  Do with it what you will.  But the personality - the actual character of the character I'm playing: that's mine.

Lan-"now off to run a game"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> A better example might be D&D's standard point of reference...  _The Lord of the Rings_.
> 
> Each member of the Fellowship is a hero in his own way.  Each of them has his own absolute beliefs and unbending, unyielding natures.  And, what happens when those beliefs come into conflict and cannot be resolved?  One of them dies, two of them get captured, and the team falls apart irrevocably, with majority of them abandoning the original quest they set out upon, either on purpose or by necessity.



So?  You then have a 3-way split party for a while, one of which stays split and finishes the original quest while the other two eventually end up re-meeting and interweaving as characters come and go.



> That's hardly inspiring, when you really think about it.



Au contrarie, it's very inspiring; proof that you don't always have to have the same party stay together in order to get a grand adventure and good story.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2010)

First off, Celebrim needs more posrep in this thread.  Someone cover me please.  That is one wise cat.



Lanefan said:


> Isn't that just saying, at its extreme, "You will play what I say or get out?"
> 
> I mean sure, it's your perogative as DM to say "no Gnomes" or "no Tieflings" or even "no Wizards" if it fits the setting.  But taking it the step further of telling me what personality types I can/cannot play is *far* worse of a railroad than anything you-as-DM could ever do in an adventure.  The adventure is yours.  Do with it what you will.  But the personality - the actual character of the character I'm playing: that's mine.
> 
> Lan-"now off to run a game"-efan




Not really.  It's, you can play whatever you want so long as it is not disruptive to the game.  Your character will fit in with the group and have a reason for adventuring with this group.

Now, if you can fit your "man with no name" character into that restriction, then groovy.  I follow Rel's advice on this.  Your character has to have a reason for being here beyond a big flashing P floating over his head.



> So? You then have a 3-way split party for a while, one of which stays split and finishes the original quest while the other two eventually end up re-meeting and interweaving as characters come and go.




Having 2/3rds of the group relegated to observers for significant amounts of time is not the way I want to run a game.  Might be fine for some people, but, to me, RPG's are not spectator sports.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Not really.  It's, you can play whatever you want so long as it is not disruptive to the game.  Your character will fit in with the group and have a reason for adventuring with this group.



I'll be the one who decides if my character fits in, and how; and who in the party she gets along with and doesn't; and whether she sees them as doing something useful and to be helped and respected or sees them as just a bunch of walking treasure ripe for the stealing (most likely a bit of both); and whether or not she ever tells them her name; and whether that name is real or not, etc.

Parties that function like soulless killing machines might be efficient, but they generally sacrifice character to do so and thus are boring as hell.


> Now, if you can fit your "man with no name" character into that restriction, then groovy.  I follow Rel's advice on this.  Your character has to have a reason for being here beyond a big flashing P floating over his head.



Done. 

Name: _none._  Alignment: _N possibly trending NE._ 

Background that players might eventually learn: _I have no name, no past, no future; I'm a drifter who learned my warrior skills through the simple fight to survive in an uncaring world.  You'll get maybe one word out of me a day if you're lucky and chances are it'll be unrepeatable in mixed company._ 

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._



> Having 2/3rds of the group relegated to observers for significant amounts of time is not the way I want to run a game.  Might be fine for some people, but, to me, RPG's are not spectator sports.



You're assuming all the parties are getting run at the same session.  Split parties are run on different nights...one night it's Pippin-Merry-Gandalf, the next might be Aragorn-Gimli-Legloas, and so forth...

Lan-"unrepeatable words go here"-efan


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I mean sure, it's your perogative as DM to say "no Gnomes" or "no Tieflings" or even "no Wizards" if it fits the setting.  But taking it the step further of telling me what personality types I can/cannot play is *far* worse of a railroad than anything you-as-DM could ever do in an adventure.  The adventure is yours.  Do with it what you will.  But the personality - the actual character of the character I'm playing: that's mine.



1) Personality and behaviour are related to race and class. For example it would be pretty much impossible to be a D&D wizard and not be studious.

2) No evil alignments is a relatively common houserule.

3) The xp reward system is very manipulative. It doesn't absolutely control PC behaviour but it gives a strong push in a particular direction. Xp for gold encourages the PCs to be greedy and mercenary, xp for class-appropriate activities encourages PCs to act according to class and so forth.

4) Don't the PCs need common goals and methods in order for the game to function? Traditionally in D&D all the PCs want to go to dangerous places, kill monsters and take their stuff. Which is quite strange behaviour when you think about it. PCs have to be extremely violent people.

If a PC wants to be a farmer, or a minstrel, or a cordwainer or a lorimer, or any kind of a normal person really, he's not going to be able to adventure with the party. If all the PCs want that they are not going to be able to interact with the DM's prepared material, which presumably mostly consists of holes in the ground with monsters in.


----------



## Rel (Sep 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> You're assuming all the parties are getting run at the same session.  Split parties are run on different nights...one night it's Pippin-Merry-Gandalf, the next might be Aragorn-Gimli-Legloas, and so forth...




That neatly solves the problem of split parties resulting in boredom for those not currently involved in the action.  But it creates a couple new problems that are not trivial.

First it means that the GM is running games on multiple nights of the week.  That's not an option for many people due to either work schedule or family commitments.

It also means that the players might have to reschedule game sessions based on what part of the party they are in.  This also might be a problem for the same reasons as the GM's issue.

Lastly but not leastly, my gaming group is foremost a group of friends and we all look forward to the chance to get together and see each other every week.  I think it would kind of stink to not be able to see some of them for an extended period of time because the PC's in our RPG went separate ways.

I don't think that just because we have as part of the "buy in" conversation at the start of the game "The party should have good reasons to be together and stay together most of the time." that it makes them a "soulless killing machine".  I will say however that if the group feels strongly that they need to split up for a short time to accomplish a particular thing that results in combat, I usually will have the players whose characters are not present run some of the monsters.  It's fun for them to try and kill the rest of the party from the outside once in a while.


Anyway, I've recently been reading the 4e DMG2 and, amid the other good advice in there about running games, I really like the party building methodology.  Basically it's a three step process:

Come up with a blurb for your character that contains a basic personality and motivations.

Then pick a "tie" that you have with one other member of the party.

Then pick a "conflict" that you have with another member of the party (something that might cause a little friction with them, not a giant wedge that keeps the group from doing their job).

I think that this approach assures an interlocking series of relationships that both binds the party together but also keeps things interesting.  I don't think it needs to be adhered to rigidly or anything.  But it makes for good guidelines.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 19, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> "My character wouldn't do that!"
> 
> The five words that make every GM's blood run cold. It could be an unbitten adventure hook, a intriguing story twist, or simply a refusal to except the majority vote on which hall to turn down. What we have here is a power-struggle between player and GM, using the only narrative tool a player has; control of his character, to utterly stop any forward momentum the GM may have.
> 
> How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?




My solution is to define this as a non-problem. If the GM's story requires the PC to act in a non-PC-like manner, the GM's story is the problem. Sure, the player should work with others on establishing a reasonable characterization, but once the campaign's underway, it's a little late for that, isn't it?


----------



## Rel (Sep 19, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Sure, the player should work with others on establishing a reasonable characterization, but once the campaign's underway, it's a little late for that, isn't it?




Why is it too late to establish further characterization once the campaign is underway?


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 19, 2010)

Rel said:


> Why is it too late to establish further characterization once the campaign is underway?




It's not. It is, however, too late, to unestablish previous characterization.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2010)

Rel said:


> That neatly solves the problem of split parties resulting in boredom for those not currently involved in the action.  But it creates a couple new problems that are not trivial.
> 
> First it means that the GM is running games on multiple nights of the week.  That's not an option for many people due to either work schedule or family commitments.
> 
> ...



All fair comment, though as for the last it's all in all probably better for the game if you're also seeing each other outside of the game sessions; if for no other reason than if you're not the sessions can too easily get derailed by other conversations.


> I don't think that just because we have as part of the "buy in" conversation at the start of the game "The party should have good reasons to be together and stay together most of the time." that it makes them a "soulless killing machine".



True, but I've seen the one lead to the other often enough to be wary of it.


> Anyway, I've recently been reading the 4e DMG2 and, amid the other good advice in there about running games, I really like the party building methodology.  Basically it's a three step process:
> 
> Come up with a blurb for your character that contains a basic personality and motivations.
> 
> ...



Though good advice on the surface, it makes one huge assumption:
that the PCs knew each other before adventuring.

If the party is thrown together by external forces (my previous campaign started this way) or if it is recruiting strangers on the fly (my current campaign started this way), this won't work well at all.  Also, particularly at campaign start and it seems somewhat unlike others here, I prefer to have the players roll up their characters in isolation of what the others are doing, so each will at least start out playing what he/she wants.  If there's any glaring gaps once they get together I'll lob in an NPC to fill 'em.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 2) No evil alignments is a relatively common houserule.



Sadly, yes.



> 4) Don't the PCs need common goals and methods in order for the game to function? Traditionally in D&D all the PCs want to go to dangerous places, kill monsters and take their stuff. Which is quite strange behaviour when you think about it. PCs have to be extremely violent people.
> 
> If a PC wants to be a farmer, or a minstrel, or a cordwainer or a lorimer, or any kind of a normal person really, he's not going to be able to adventure with the party. If all the PCs want that they are not going to be able to interact with the DM's prepared material, which presumably mostly consists of holes in the ground with monsters in.



That's where the common goal needs to be presented from outside, by the DM via some aspect of the game world.  If a PC wants to be a farmer but all the farmland's been overrun by Orcs, well guess what? 

It's very rare, even in my wacky crew, for a PC to outright decline to adventure at all.  But it's far more common for them to be individuals first, in the party mostly out of convenience and strength-in-numbers; and I'm fine with that.

And let's take your above thoughts one step further.  Those dangerous violent people are most likely going to look out for themselves first when the going gets really tough; hardly conducive to a coherent team but much more realistic, and a large part of the reason why parties as an entity are so incredibly resilient - there's always going to be one who runs away and survives.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'll be the one who decides if my character fits in, and how; and who in the party she gets along with and doesn't; and whether she sees them as doing something useful and to be helped and respected or sees them as just a bunch of walking treasure ripe for the stealing (most likely a bit of both); and whether or not she ever tells them her name; and whether that name is real or not, etc.




In my experience, whenever a new player comes into the group with this sort of background, they are invariably problem players who spotlight hog and throw hissy fits whenever things are centered on them.



> Parties that function like soulless killing machines might be efficient, but they generally sacrifice character to do so and thus are boring as hell.




Umm what?  How is a group that knows each other suddenly bunch of "soulless killing machines"?  A group that comes up with characters as a group has personalities.  They have to because it's required in order for someone else to have something to build off of.  It's far more often that the strong silent, Man With No Name time is nothing but a soulless killing machine with zero interest in actual role play.



> Done.
> 
> Name: _none._  Alignment: _N possibly trending NE._
> 
> Background that players might eventually learn: _I have no name, no past, no future; I'm a drifter who learned my warrior skills through the simple fight to survive in an uncaring world.  You'll get maybe one word out of me a day if you're lucky and chances are it'll be unrepeatable in mixed company._




Why are you playing a mime in a role playing game?  In a game that is focused almost exclusively on talking, what's the point of having a silent character?



> 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?  In my group, the answer would be yes.  This would be discussed beforehand and known by at least three people (you, me and the Theif player).  But, how is this different than requiring connections to other PC's at the outset?



> You're assuming all the parties are getting run at the same session.  Split parties are run on different nights...one night it's Pippin-Merry-Gandalf, the next might be Aragorn-Gimli-Legloas, and so forth...
> 
> Lan-"unrepeatable words go here"-efan




I'd love to be able to game on different nights.  Not going to happen.  It's hard enough to game once a week.  Three times?  Not a chance.  And I have a pretty strong feeling that there are far more groups like mine where it's physically not possible to have three game nights a week.

I haven't had that kind of time, nor have I been in a game where anyone has had that kind of time since high school.  Getting four to six adults in the same room regularly is hard enough as it is, without trying to further complicate the schedule.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'd love to be able to game on different nights.  Not going to happen.  It's hard enough to game once a week.  Three times?  Not a chance.  And I have a pretty strong feeling that there are far more groups like mine where it's physically not possible to have three game nights a week.
> 
> I haven't had that kind of time, nor have I been in a game where anyone has had that kind of time since high school.  Getting four to six adults in the same room regularly is hard enough as it is, without trying to further complicate the schedule.




I'd be happy if my group could get it together to game _once_ a week. We manage about once every 2-3 weeks, and that's after instituting a rule that 4 out of 6 players constitutes a quorum (if at least 4 players plus the DM can make it, we game).

Splitting the party is really, _really_ not a good option for us.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 20, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Au contrarie, it's very inspiring; proof that you don't always have to have the same party stay together in order to get a grand adventure and good story.




No, it's doesn't prove that at all...  It proves that a single author in complete control of all the characters in the story doesn't have to the same party stay together in order to get a grand adventure and good story.

The last time I saw something similar to this happen in-game, it ended up with the players arguing and shouting at each other.  Irreconcilably hard feelings followed and three players left the group.



Lanefan said:


> So?  You then have a 3-way split party for a while, one of which stays split and finishes the original quest while the other two eventually end up re-meeting and interweaving as characters come and go.




It's a fine idea in theory that rarely works in practice.

My larger point is, however, that very often this particular problem -- that of one player putting the breaks on the game do to character stubborness in the name of role playing -- very often has to do with a player (NOT the character) willfully deciding to be a jerk about it for whatever reason.

In other words, it most often is not a problem with the setting, the campaign, the adventure or the characters (those sorts of problems can be easily fixed).  Occasionally, it might be the DM's problem, especially if it's multiple players rebelling against him (as long as the DM's not an asshat, he can fix that with a little humility and diplomatic finesse).  

But very often, it simply turns out to be a fundamental personality conflict between two or more players, and there's really nothing that can be done except to expel the offending players.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 20, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'll be the one who decides if my character fits in, and how; and who in the party she gets along with and doesn't; and whether she sees them as doing something useful and to be helped and respected or sees them as just a bunch of walking treasure ripe for the stealing (most likely a bit of both); and whether or not she ever tells them her name; and whether that name is real or not, etc.




Well, yeah. Because that works for you and your group. Some groups can absolutely thrive on party conflict and the roleplaying opportunities that arise from it. That doesn't mean it will work for every group - some groups will break down and fall apart over it, or let in-character conflict develop into out-of-character drama. 

If a group plays best by not having evil characters or making sure everyone is at least trying to work together, that doesn't mean they are lacking in character, that doesn't mean they are 'boring as hell', that doesn't mean they are playing the game _wrong_ in some fashion.


----------



## Rel (Sep 20, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> All fair comment, though as for the last it's all in all probably better for the game if you're also seeing each other outside of the game sessions; if for no other reason than if you're not the sessions can too easily get derailed by other conversations.




Well thankfully we have enough of a critical mass of kids at this point that we see each other frequently at birthday parties if nothing else.   And we do get together for other non-gaming activities pretty frequently too.  But we designate the first half hour of every session to basically just shooting the bull before we get down to gaming.  There are still plenty of off topic digressions but it's not a big deal.



> True, but I've seen the one lead to the other often enough to be wary of it.




My mileage varies on this.  I don't think I ever recall a party of characters played by this group being a "soulless killing machine".  Just not part of the player type makeup I guess.



> Though good advice on the surface, it makes one huge assumption:
> that the PCs knew each other before adventuring.




And we've arrived at the point where that is a default assumption that we like.



> If the party is thrown together by external forces (my previous campaign started this way) or if it is recruiting strangers on the fly (my current campaign started this way), this won't work well at all.  Also, particularly at campaign start and it seems somewhat unlike others here, I prefer to have the players roll up their characters in isolation of what the others are doing, so each will at least start out playing what he/she wants.  If there's any glaring gaps once they get together I'll lob in an NPC to fill 'em.




We handle character creation differently for different campaigns.  We've had times where we made characters in isolation and the first session is when our characters meet.  We've had times when we devoted a session to character creation collaboratively and the PC's know each other beforehand or not.  We've had times when we make the PC's and start the campaign on the same night.  We've tried almost every combination of this that I can think of.

I get where you are coming from.  There was a time several years ago where individuality was absolutely king in our games.  But like I said when I first jumped into this thread, we arrived at a point where all that backstory was causing too much inter-party friction for too little payoff.  I'm not suggesting that my favorite thing is for the party to be a well-oiled-machine right out of the gate.  In fact the whole "pre-existing conflicts" thing actively encourages some small scale friction among the PC's, which keeps things interesting.

First and foremost we're gaming to have fun.  We've discovered that we have more fun by not putting the individual characters first and placing some semblance of party unity for the sake of gaming efficiency at the front of the line.  We still have fun moments of internal strife brought on by roleplaying.  But it is almost always done by the character raising some objection to the direction of things while the player is winking at the rest of the group telling us that we need to convince them in some other manner that the proposed idea is to their benefit.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> In my experience, whenever a new player comes into the group with this sort of background, they are invariably problem players who spotlight hog and throw hissy fits whenever things are centered on them.



I think you mean "aren't centered", here. 

I'm not talking about new players, however.  I'm talking about players you already know, and vaguely know what to expect.  It's extremely rare that I'll take someone into my game that I don't already know quite well from elsewhere.



> Umm what?  How is a group that knows each other suddenly bunch of "soulless killing machines"?  A group that comes up with characters as a group has personalities.  They have to because it's required in order for someone else to have something to build off of.



I used an extreme example, but I've found in the past that players/DMs who start out wanting the party to get along and never argue are ultimately looking to build the party into a machine, where everybody knows exactly what to do and there's no variation. In other words, party internal alignment = LN.







> It's far more often that the strong silent, Man With No Name time is nothing but a soulless killing machine with zero interest in actual role play.



True, and I probably could have come up with a better example; I was trying to indicate how a Man With No Name *could* have a reason for joining a party.



> Why are you playing a mime in a role playing game?  In a game that is focused almost exclusively on talking, what's the point of having a silent character?



Mystery.

Part of the ongoing game might be discovering through play what makes this guy tick.


> 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.  







> In my group, the answer would be yes.  This would be discussed beforehand and known by at least three people (you, me and the Theif player).



The DM has to know, if only so my character can be played properly if I miss a session.  Discussing it first with the Thief player takes all the mystery out of it...it's like knowing how a book ends before reading it. 







> But, how is this different than requiring connections to other PC's at the outset?



The difference is that this wasn't required.  It was voluntary.


> I'd love to be able to game on different nights.  Not going to happen.  It's hard enough to game once a week.  Three times?  Not a chance.  And I have a pretty strong feeling that there are far more groups like mine where it's physically not possible to have three game nights a week.
> 
> I haven't had that kind of time, nor have I been in a game where anyone has had that kind of time since high school.  Getting four to six adults in the same room regularly is hard enough as it is, without trying to further complicate the schedule.



The trick is to be able to jump from group to group.  If on a given game night most of group A's players can't make it but group B's can, then you run group B.  Next week might be group A again.  It's not perfect, but if it's a choice of that or keep a group together that has no reason to stay together (or who have been driven apart by in-game events a la the Fellowship), I'll split the party every time.

What I've also done in the past is put one group on hold for a few months while I run the other - this works best if there's a fair amount of player overlap between the groups - and again goes back to the LotR idea where one story goes on hold while the book deals with the other(s); then they go on hold while the first one gets dealt with.

Lan-"I hope I answered everyone else in this post too"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2010)

Rel said:


> And we've arrived at the point where that is a default assumption that we like.



I'm not at all saying this can't work, but I find that if the characters have to get to know each other *while* adventuring it makes for more RP opportunities.

Question, though: are your PCs generally all the same race, or from the same town, etc., to explain how they all pre-know each other?  


> We handle character creation differently for different campaigns.  We've had times where we made characters in isolation and the first session is when our characters meet.  We've had times when we devoted a session to character creation collaboratively and the PC's know each other beforehand or not.  We've had times when we make the PC's and start the campaign on the same night.  We've tried almost every combination of this that I can think of.



I suppose a difference here might be how many campaigns you've started from scratch.  I've only started three.  

The first was the classic "you all meet in a bar, hear stories of adventuring needs doing, head off to the southwest and pick up some more people as you go"...pretty simple stuff but I got away with it once. 

The second was a recruitment meeting for a famous adventuring Company - the starting PCs all attended individually, got thrown together into a party and given an assignment; off they went.  None knew any of the others previously.

The third was a Bard and Cavalier (who already did know each other, to the point where each wanted the other dead) roaming up-country gathering recruits from the villages they passed through until the party was built; none knew each other previously except the "Bardalier".



> I get where you are coming from.  There was a time several years ago where individuality was absolutely king in our games.  But like I said when I first jumped into this thread, we arrived at a point where all that backstory was causing too much inter-party friction for too little payoff.  I'm not suggesting that my favorite thing is for the party to be a well-oiled-machine right out of the gate.  In fact the whole "pre-existing conflicts" thing actively encourages some small scale friction among the PC's, which keeps things interesting.
> 
> First and foremost we're gaming to have fun.  We've discovered that we have more fun by not putting the individual characters first and placing some semblance of party unity for the sake of gaming efficiency at the front of the line.  We still have fun moments of internal strife brought on by roleplaying.  But it is almost always done by the character raising some objection to the direction of things while the player is winking at the rest of the group telling us that we need to convince them in some other manner that the proposed idea is to their benefit.



Different play styles, I guess.  Our in-party friction usually involves lots of shouting; sometimes escalating to fists, weapons and spells.  Most recent example was this weekend in the game I play in: party enters a room in which lairs a huge Polar Bear (pet of the Ogres we've already killed); the bear mauls my Cavalier on entry.  The militarist half of the party - led by my very p'ed-off Cavalier - proceed to try and slay the thing while the Naturist half of the party try to charm/pacify/cure it.  The bear dies.  The resulting argument was still ongoing at session's end...no fists or weapons yet, but lots of yelling, glaring, and threatened withholding of cures (which my oft-injured Cavalier all too frequently needs).  Lots of laughing about it the next morning at brunch too.  

Lanefan


----------



## Rel (Sep 20, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'm not at all saying this can't work, but I find that if the characters have to get to know each other *while* adventuring it makes for more RP opportunities.




Well our characters are generally "getting to know one another" while adventuring too.  Just because they are presumed to have known each other prior to the start of play doesn't mean that we, the players, have a sense of how our (brief) backstories are going to be roleplayed at the table.



> Question, though: are your PCs generally all the same race, or from the same town, etc., to explain how they all pre-know each other?




Depending on the setting, there hardly need be any notion that we are all of the same race even if we come from the same geographical area.  D&D has a long history of racially mixed settlements.  But really this problem is largely solved by our supposition that the first adventure played needn't be the first for each character or even for the party as a group.  4e in particular presumes that the PC's are "heroes" even at 1st level.  So we might have come from all over the world and are only now arriving as a group in the area where play begins.  It's really up the GM.

I will relate a humorous anecdote about our current game however:  The GM wanted us to make our characters in isolation so that everybody played exactly the type of character they wanted, without taking into consideration what the other players might be playing.  Three of the four of us made Dwarves.  The fourth made a Githzerai Monk.  Also interesting was that, without any consultation, we covered all the roles in the party.

The GM had a pretty easy time putting together our backstory with input from the players:  The three Dwarves are all from the same predominantly dwarven city.  The Gith fled through a portal from another plane into the Underdark where he was later discovered by one of the dwarven patrols (including other members of the party) and he was brought back to the city and nursed back to health.  The Duke that runs the city asked us to undertake a search for his missing brother and voila!:  Party goal.



> I suppose a difference here might be how many campaigns you've started from scratch.  I've only started three.




Oh man I've lost count.  We've got a very stable gaming group for the most part (now that everybody is done having new babies).  But we like our campaigns to run 6 months to a year on average.  That's about how long it takes for us to enjoy exploring an individual character and a particular setting before moving on to something else.  So there have been dozens of campaigns over the 20 years we've been playing together.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I suppose a difference here might be how many campaigns you've started from scratch. I've only started three.




Like most things, I think it's play experience that makes the most difference.  I've started three different campaigns in the last year.    Granted, this was intentional - short campaigns, kinda like short stories, where beginning, middle, end was pre-determined to be 12 sessions at most.  A different kind of exercise than the standard campaign for us.

But, before that, in 3e and 3.5, I've started two Scarred lands campaigns, The World's Largest Dungeon and Savage Tide Adventure Path.  That would be four campaigns in about 6 years.  

Obviously there's some variance in mileage.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 21, 2010)

If a player says "my character wouldn't do that", then it only makes sense if it's a reply to "your character does X".

And nobody should be telling a player what his character does unless there's some sort of physical force making it happen (which includes, for this purpose, mental domination etc).

Now, the other characters can try to cajole or even force a specific behaviour. The DM's NPCs might try to do the same thing. That's fine. How many times did BA Baracus fly, after all?

Also note: conflict or no conflict, independant characters with conflicting goals or a coherent well-formed adventuring team are all questions to be answered before character creation starts. If you violate whatever guidelines were set out, then having the character die ingloriously at the DM's whim is probably the best that you should expect.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2010)

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




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.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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... 

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2010)

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"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2010)

The answer is obvious:  Kill the thief and take his stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The answer is obvious:  Kill the thief and take his stuff.




Heh.  Made me giggle.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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. 

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 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.
> 
> Lanefan




If that's an honest answer and not tongue in cheek, that would get you ejected from my table.  A player tells you in no uncertain terms that he or she is completely not interested in what you're selling and you force the issue to the point of ganking his character?

Oh yeah, out the door.  I got no time for this kind of thing anymore and pretty much zero tolerance for it either.  You tried something (perfectly fine) and someone told you to stop and you didn't?  That's totally not groovy.

It's not up to the player to "lighten up".  It's up to you not to piss in someone else's cornflakes for your own amusement.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 22, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 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.




Seriously?

You genuinely feel that it is ok to harass another player, and when they ask you to stop, blame them for being uptight and proceed to give them a hard time (or take it out on their character?)

I think that is exactly the sort of behavior that this thread is about. In the end, when one person's attitude, or the desires of their character, are running rampant and ruining the game for someone else, that's the point at which an intervention is needed. And whether that consists of finding a way to get their character back on track, or ejecting the problem player from the game, it is far better to try and address the issue in some fashion rather than just leave the problem to fester.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2010)

On the other hand, welcome to my table!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 23, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If that's an honest answer and not tongue in cheek, that would get you ejected from my table.  A player tells you in no uncertain terms that he or she is completely not interested in what you're selling and you force the issue to the point of ganking his character?



In this case, yes.

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.

Note, however, that if it's the *character* who's not interested that's an entirely different thing, and it then becomes up to me as to how my character would react...in character. (the kill-and-loot-it part of my previous response was tongue in cheek, playing along with RC's equally-gonzo suggestion)


> Oh yeah, out the door.  I got no time for this kind of thing anymore and pretty much zero tolerance for it either.  You tried something (perfectly fine) and someone told you to stop and you didn't?  That's totally not groovy.
> 
> It's not up to the player to "lighten up".  It's up to you not to piss in someone else's cornflakes for your own amusement.



So...uh...the other player can tell me to tighten up but I can't tell him to lighten up?

I sense a double standard here...

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2010)

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 (Sep 23, 2010)

S'mon said:


> 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 (Sep 23, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 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 (Sep 23, 2010)

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 (Sep 23, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 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 (Sep 23, 2010)

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 (Sep 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> ...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 (Sep 23, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> 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 (Sep 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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.



Celebrim said:


> 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 (Sep 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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".


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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.




I don't think the issue is one of playing things differently. It is playing in a way that makes other people uncomfortable _and not stopping if they ask you to_. 

If a friend has his character develop a crush on mine, and I find that odd, I wouldn't immediately try and get him kicked from the game. I'd tell him that it bothers me and ask him to stop. 

It is the point at which he decides to either keep going with it, or amp up the uncomfortableness, or try and get in my head to figure out why I won't let him do that, or cause more trouble for me in or out of character in response... that's when I realize he probably isn't a friend, or someone I want to game with. 

Basically, if friends are actually resolved, communication should resolve the issue. Even if that resolution is that we both want to be playing a different type of game, and someone leaves the group to play in a different style of campaign while still remaining friends with everyone in the original group. 

But yeah, being unwilling to back off from harassing someone in character, or feeling that its an appropriate response to ramp things up since they refuse to 'lighten up'? That's not cool, and certainly not the actions of a 'friend'.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> 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".




I guess it depends upon the table, and how far stuff like that is allowed to go.

I trust my players would take the issue in their own hands, long before I would have to get involved.

If a player makes a PC that, for whatever reason, doesn't work well with others, I don't punish the others by mandating that they find a way to fit the PC in.  If they would shun an NPC for some behaviour, they may shun a PC.  If they would kill an NPC for some behaviour, they may kill (or attempt to kill) a PC.


RC


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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.



You may have hit an underlying cause of the disagreement here.

Were the people you're playing D+D with your friends outside the game as well before the game started, or were you strangers before play began?

I always assume (perhaps wrongly) that the people you're playing D+D with are also your friends outside the game beforehand, and that you already vaguely know what makes each other tick.  And, that you are capable of separating in-character actions and emotions from out-of-character actions and emotions.

If you're gaming with strangers I can see how things could go wrong pretty fast, as you don't only have to figure out what makes these various characters tick, you also have to figure out what drives the players behind them...and how capable they are of separating player from character.

And if the DM is also a stranger to most/all of the players, that's a whole third layer to figure out - while a DM can say up-front what type of game she wants to run, the players are still left trying to get a "read" on her gaming style as well as on the world she's running.  Tall order, particularly in a short campaign. 

Lanefan


----------



## Rel (Sep 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If a player makes a PC that, for whatever reason, doesn't work well with others, I don't punish the others by mandating that they find a way to fit the PC in.  If they would shun an NPC for some behaviour, they may shun a PC.  If they would kill an NPC for some behaviour, they may kill (or attempt to kill) a PC.




Other Players:  "Your character dies."

Problem player:  "My character wouldn't do that!"


----------



## Nagol (Sep 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I guess it depends upon the table, and how far stuff like that is allowed to go.
> 
> I trust my players would take the issue in their own hands, long before I would have to get involved.
> 
> ...





That works for group vs. single character.  I've had the experience of a group schism (1/2 go one way, the rest go another).  At that point you can (1) run two separate groups for an indefinite potentially permanent timeframe, (2) "pick a side" and foribly retire the other group, or (3) end the campaign.

I've done all the alternatives and liked none of them.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 23, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I don't think the issue is one of playing things differently. It is playing in a way that makes other people uncomfortable _and not stopping if they ask you to_.




Earlier Pbartender wrote:

"My larger point is, however, that very often this particular problem -- that of one player putting the breaks on the game do to character stubborness in the name of role playing -- very often has to do with a player (NOT the character) willfully deciding to be a jerk about it for whatever reason."

I think the two camps arguing over this issue are largely disagreeing only over who unreasonably "putting the breaks on the game do to...stubbornness" and "willfully deciding to be a jerk about it for whatever reason".  I think you can make a reasonable argument either theoretical player is breaking the implied social contract.  On the one hand, we have a player (or DM) who may be harassing another player through their roleplay.  On the other hand, we have someone who is escallating some situation by responding to it with some OOC stance and special pleading and appeal to emotion.  We are looking to assign blame and find the 'bad player' or 'the jerk'.  

Neither group here is necessarily wrong.  To give an example, in one family you might have a tradition of loudly and raccously arguing over various intellectual trivialities just out of love of debate and thought play.  In another family, loud and raccous debates are always sympomatic of deep underlying divisions in the family resulting from and resulting in family trauma, verbal abuse, domestic violence, and the breakup of the family unit.  Now, in the group you have players who are members of both of these families.  The player from the first family unit initiates a situation that potentially or actually throws the player characters into conflict.  The player from the second family doesn't see arguments as a 'good time', and is immediately made deeply emotionally uncomfortable and very quickly moves to an OOC defensive stance where she accuses the first player of harassment and being a jerk.   Which player is 'in the wrong'?  I don't think that there is any sort of quick and easy answer to that question.  The first player is actually being insensitive.  But, so is the second player.  And moreover, both of their stances are deeply sympathetic in context.  One player finds enjoyment in tension and conflict which is completely natural because tension and conflict are what drives an interesting story.  The other player finds personal tension and conflict overwhelming and tries to hold a party veto over everything that the party does, and that is completely natural too.

Now, if this game - this friendship - is going to work both players are going to have accept some comprimise.  This is in life as it is in the game.  If you can't make that work in game, then forget about making it work when the conflicts are really meaningful.  

I think it is better to instead of trying to drop people in buckets as 'the friend' or 'the jerk' and then throwing temper tantrums where we go, "Oh, I see I put you in the wrong bucket.  You don't actually fit into my good bucket, so out you go.", to actually look for the problem and the real stake people have that is motivating them.  I mean, generally speaking, people didn't suddenly turn into 'jerks' even if they are acting like one now.  People in this thread sound like crusading Paladins to me, only instead of 'detect evil', they've got this whole 'detect jerk' thing going followed by the same sort of 'smite jerk' behavior that we associate in game with 'lawful stupid'.  

Gaming well, like life, takes courage and sensitivity.  It means seeing the situation as other people see it, and it means trying to help everyone have fun.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The player from the first family unit initiates a situation that potentially or actually throws the player characters into conflict.  The player from the second family doesn't see arguments as a 'good time', and is immediately made deeply emotionally uncomfortable and very quickly moves to an OOC defensive stance where she accuses the first player of harassment and being a jerk.




Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're skipping some steps here. The situation posited was:

Player 1 plays character as being in love with Player 2's PC.
Player 2 says, quote: "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."

Now, I'll concede player 2 is not being as diplomatic as s/he could be here (could do without the "creepy" part), but it's hardly flinging accusations of harassment. At this point, neither player has done anything wrong. Player 1 tried introducing a new roleplaying element, which is fine. Player 2 objected, which is also fine. Disagreements happen.

But then we get to the part where:

Player 1 "gives him a bad time and tells him to lighten up," and ganks Player 2's character if he thinks he can get away with it.

See what we're objecting to? Up till now, both players were behaving in a mature and rational way, but now Player 1 is dismissing Player 2's objections out of hand ("lighten up" is one of those things that, if you ever find yourself saying it, should make you question your own behavior), making fun of him/her, and engaging in in-character recriminations for out-of-game disagreements. That's not acceptable.

_Edited to add:_ In regards to the original disagreement, I feel Player 2 has the right to nix any such development regarding his/her character unless PC/PC romance is an explicitly included element of the game. Most folks play D&D to kill monsters and take their stuff and maybe save the world, not find true love. If Player 2 isn't okay with it, it should stop. Player 1 can certainly try to negotiate some kind of compromise, but it's a bit like real-life dating; if you ask somebody out, they have the right to say no and you are not entitled to a "split the difference" solution, though you're free to propose one.

However, the disagreement in itself does not warrant booting anyone from the table. On the contrary, I appreciate that Player 1 is willing to try new stuff and Player 2 is willing to be forthright about objecting to it. It's when we get to the "make fun of you and kill your PC" stage that somebody needs to go.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2010)

Rel said:


> Other Players:  "Your character dies."
> 
> Problem player:  "My character wouldn't do that!"




I have had _that exact experience_.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 23, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Up till now, both players were behaving in a mature and rational way...




I think you are the one skipping steps.  From what has happened up until now, I don't think we can assert that both players were or were not behaving in a mature and rational way.  But I think we can assert that both player #1 and player #2 see each other as playing in some fashion that is wrong and would likely characterize it as immature.  Whether that's a truthful characterization or merely a self-justifying one is entirely a different matter.

I don't think we can assert that player #1 is immune to OOC condemnation for 'harassing behavior' and also player #2 is immune to criticism for being uptight.  I don't think you can issue a blanket statement saying that player #2 has every right to publicly correct player #1 undiplomatically, but that player #1's responce to player #2 is something more than correcting player #2 in an undiplomatic fashion.  I mean, I can probably agree that neither player is handling this in the best possible fashion and with the most mature cue's, but I'm not prepared to agree which one is being 'immature' and a 'jerk'. 

I wish that we could keep gender references out of this, because I think its biasing the conversation in certain ways.  I think by making the 'harrassed' character female, we are engaging in subtle gender bias, not only by making the assumption that women are more likely to be victims, but in making the other player fit into a sterotype of the geek making unwelcome character advances.    Let's make this more general, and try to avoid our biases where we can.  

Suppose both players are males and one is playing a female character?  Does this change how we see things?  Does this change our estimation over whether one players in character play represented unwelcome sexual harrassment?  Does this change or feelings about how 'creepy' this is, or whether someone should 'lighten up'?  Actually, on second thought, I wish some other example was used entirely, because this one is freighted with all sorts of baggage.  I like my example better because it is I think about trying to make the players fit in something other than neatly labelled boxes we have ready made answers for.

I'm personally not prepared to say which is worse - responding to an out of character situation with an in game stance or responding to an in game stance with an out of character one.  You have apparantly decided what isn't acceptable.  But from player #1's perspective, he may have already decided that he's been treated in an unacceptable way.

I'm not one that puts alot of stock in forms over function.  Raised in the South, I know that there is a whole art in being insulting while maintaining the forms of being polite.  Taking a 'victim stance' in response to some small or manufactured slight in order to protect yourself while you seek to savagely slander some one else is one of them. 



> "lighten up" is one of those things that, if you ever find yourself saying it, should make you question your own behavior




That's true, but I would extend that claim to such a large list of phrases* that it would be best to just say, "You should always be questioning your own behavior."

(*"He is a jerk." would be very high on that list.  "I've been wronged." is probably at the top of it.)


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 23, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Were the people you're playing D+D with your friends outside the game as well before the game started, or were you strangers before play began?
> 
> I always assume (perhaps wrongly) that the people you're playing D+D with are also your friends outside the game beforehand, and that you already vaguely know what makes each other tick.




Here, you've hit the nail on the head...  You assumed wrongly.  Not everyone always gets to play with people they know or are friends with.

I have a long established gaming group and currently everyone in our group is friendly with everyone else. But with the exception of my wife, everyone else in the group was mostly a stranger when they joined, and in some cases it took a long time before the rest of us understood what made the other tick.

Rarely, it took a long time before we realized that the new player's personality or play style weren't compatible with the rest of us.  While we always did everything we could to ameliorate the problem, a compromise can't always be found, and there's no other solution but to ask them to leave, so they can find another group they'd be happier with.



Celebrim said:


> I think you can make a reasonable argument either theoretical player is breaking the implied social contract.






Celebrim said:


> I'm personally not prepared to say which is worse - responding to an out of character situation with an in game stance or responding to an in game stance with an out of character one.  You have apparantly decided what isn't acceptable.  But from player #1's perspective, he may have already decided that he's been treated in an unacceptable way.
> 
> I'm not one that puts alot of stock in forms over function.  Raised in the South, I know that there is a whole art in being insulting while maintaining the forms of being polite.  Taking a 'victim stance' in response to some small or manufactured slight in order to protect yourself while you seek to savagely slander some one else is one of them.




That I can grok.  And though I 'm certain you realize I mostly agree with you, it's all very close to what I was getting at...  

That is to say, the overt symptom (characters treating each other poorly in-game) may have a hidden, underlying cause (players treating each other poorly out of game), or vice versa.  Also, that because of that it's not always easy to determine who is actually at fault.

It is best, if possible, to find all the information possible from everyone concerned, and use that to form a peaceable solution.  Sometimes, however, there is no possible solution other than to make the hard decision to let someone go from the group.



Celebrim said:


> *"He is a jerk." would be very high on that list.




It may sound like splitting hairs, but I've found there is a world of difference between "He is a jerk" and "He is acting like a jerk".  In the context of my previous post, I was hypothetically talking about someone who actually is a jerk...  Someone who willfully and maliciously doing things to provoke someone else, no matter if they appear to be instigator or victim (I have seen it come from both sides of the fence -- often both at the same time).


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I wish that we could keep gender references out of this, because I think its biasing the conversation in certain ways.  I think by making the 'harrassed' character female, we are engaging in subtle gender bias, not only by making the assumption that women are more likely to be victims, but in making the other player fit into a sterotype of the geek making unwelcome character advances.    Let's make this more general, and try to avoid our biases where we can.
> 
> Suppose both players are males and one is playing a female character?  Does this change how we see things?  Does this change our estimation over whether one players in character play represented unwelcome sexual harrassment?  Does this change or feelings about how 'creepy' this is, or whether someone should 'lighten up'?  Actually, on second thought, I wish some other example was used entirely, because this one is freighted with all sorts of baggage.




How about an example from another recent thread?  Here's the situation:

Consider a gaming group with six players.

Three of them are young and very new to the game.  They play their characters wild and reckless, always trying crazy stunts in over-the-top gonzo fashion.

The other three are much older, very experienced gamer.  They play in a classic, old-school style.  Always very cautious and almost paranoid, looking everywhere for traps and ambushes, and taking few chances.

During the game, and out of character, the older players ridicule and deride the younger players for their daredevil choices, and attempt to dictate the actions of the younger players' characters. When the younger players ignore the advice, the older players call them "stupid".

Now, behind the scenes, the younger players are plotting revenge...  They approach the DM informing him that they intend to gang up on the older players and kill all their characters in game.

So, the play styles clash horribly, the older guys are trying to tell the younger guys how to play their characters, and the younger guys are gearing up for some PvP.




The DM of the game put the kibosh on it, with the intention of holding a powwow about it out of game...  Which I think is a great start.

With a little luck, the youngsters can dial it down a little bit, the oldsters can kick it up a notch, they can meet somewhere in the middle and both benefit from the other.

But it's tough to see who's actually at fault here...  The youngsters for playing in such a wild style?  The old guys for trying to tall them how to play more cautiously?  The youngster for ignoring them?  The old guys for name calling?  The young guys for planning the in game assassinations?  It sure gets to be a mess if you let it go too far.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 24, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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.



I have found over the years that plenty of friends of the "I love you like brother" variety are not compatible with me in terms of roleplaying. Better to avoid gaming with someone like that to avoid spoiling a friendship over something as trivial as a game. Sometimes it has been me who's left the game, sometimes it was the other person, but a line eventually gets drawn.

--Steve


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2010)

As far as gender biasing anything here, I presumed that both players were male, since that's most likely going to be true.  Might not be, but demographics and all.

And, it doesn't matter what Player 1 wants.  Player 2, without being consulted got included in Player 1's background.  Player 2 objects to this and claims that it is something he/she is totally not interested in.

For that objecting, he/she is ridiculed and his/her character is killed.

But Player 1 is not in the wrong here?  

Let's keep this straight.  Player 2 was minding his/her own business.  Had nothing to do with this whatsoever until Player 1 made it so.  When it came to Player 2's attention, Player 2 responded by saying that the idea was very much not welcome and wants it stopped.

And Player 1 doesn't stop.  

Right there.  Right there, that's the point where I eject someone from my table.  When you've declared that your fun is more important than someone else's, I don't want you at my table.  A player should be well within his or her rights to tell another player that he or she doesn't want to be included in that other player's back story in such a way.

In no way should I be forced to play out someone else's backstory without any consultation beforehand.  

Now, if the players had talked beforehand, come to some sort of agreement during character generation, groovy.  No problem.  Or, if during character generation, one player turns to the other and suggests this, but the other player declines, that should be 100% groovy as well.

But springing this on another player during play against their express wishes?  That's someone I have zero interest playing with.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2010)

Just to add.

I've actually had this happen to me in game.  I was playing with a married couple and some other friends.  The wife of the couple decided to really play up a romance between a short term character that she was running and my character.  Now, that romance didn't actually exist beforehand, it was just something she added in.  

It made me VERY uncomfortable.  It made me uncomfortable to do romance with a woman as I'm married and I'm pretty sure my wife would not approve, it made me uncomfortable to do this in front of the husband and, well, it just made me uncomfortable all the way around.  I did not want to do this.

But, I also didn't want to be a dick.  So, I showed willing.  I played as much as I could.  This lasted for several sessions.  By the final session, I was dreading actually going to the game because I just totally did not want to deal with this.  And I handled it very badly.  I took it out in game and just blew up all over the NPC and I think the player got a bit miffed about my reaction as well.

Thinking about it now, if it happened again, my first reaction would be a quick aside to the other player and let her know I am not interested.

And I would hope that my wishes would be respected on this.  The idea that I should be forced/coerced into role play that I feel very uncomfortable doing is bizarre to me.  

No means no.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 24, 2010)

I really understand where you're coming from now, Hussar, the actual play example helps a lot.

We need, I think, to always approach these issues from a position of trust. Firstly we trust that the idea - the romance in this example - is coming from a genuine desire to improve the game and not any ulterior motive. Secondly when a player says that something is making them uncomfortable, we have to trust that statement too.

Some people are totally fine with an IC romance while their SO is at the table and some people are totally not fine with it. Both attitudes are completely reasonable.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I wish that we could keep gender references out of this, because I think its biasing the conversation in certain ways.  I think by making the 'harrassed' character female, we are engaging in subtle gender bias, not only by making the assumption that women are more likely to be victims, but in making the other player fit into a sterotype of the geek making unwelcome character advances.    Let's make this more general, and try to avoid our biases where we can.




_Biases?  Gender Bias?_ 

In the real world, most RPGers are male.  Most are heterosexual.  Where you get an OOC sexual harrassment situation at a game table, it's usually a male harasser and a female victim.  Not always, you can get a male harasser and a male victim, you can get a female harrasser and a male or female victim.   But those are minority cases.

I don't know whether the genders of harrasser and harrasee matter much, but but talking about reality in terms of bias and stereotyping takes you out of the reality-based community.    Which is a bad thing, IMO.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> As far as gender biasing anything here, I presumed that both players were male, since that's most likely going to be true.  Might not be, but demographics and all.




IME it's fairly likely that the Lanefan/instigator player is male, and about 50-50 whether the player of the unwilling Thief is male or female.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It made me VERY uncomfortable.  It made me uncomfortable to do romance with a woman as I'm married and I'm pretty sure my wife would not approve




What on Earth was she trying to make you do?  

I mean, there are so many different levels of abstraction this can be dealt with, like any other character interaction.  Many games have 'romances' where the players never speak in-character and it's all done off-stage.  At the other end you might be playing through emotional scenes of courtship in-character.  The DM either sets the parameters (eg "some IC play, fade to black in the bedroom") or the player does, by eg being unwilling to speak in-character and just rolling dice.  There's only a problem if the DM demands more than the player wants, eg the DM demands that you respond in-character to the NPC.

Edit:  I see the issue here is that it was not the GM with an NPC courting your PC, but a player with a "short term character", which is a bit of an unusual situation where the game group's social contract may not have established rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> For that objecting, he/she is ridiculed and his/her character is killed.
> 
> But Player 1 is not in the wrong here?




Hold on......I thought the thief was the creepy stalking character?

I was advocating killing the creepy stalker and taking his stuff.  After all, killing creepy stalking things is what one does in a dungeon!


RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2010)

S'mon said:


> What on Earth was she trying to make you do?
> /snip




To be 100% honest, not all that much.  Pretty much standard romance stuff.  Nothing heavy at all.  Probably wouldn't even rate PG.

Still made me uncomfortable as all hell.  I'd never really done romance in RPG's before that (and now, I'm REALLY careful about letting everyone know what's going on and asking very politely if the players would be interested in that sort of thing before treading that ground) and it just really bothered me.



Raven Crowking said:


> Hold on......I thought the thief was the creepy stalking character?
> 
> I was advocating killing the creepy stalker and taking his stuff.  After all, killing creepy stalking things is what one does in a dungeon!
> 
> ...






Got that a bit backward.  Let's recap shall we?

1.  Player 1 creates a character in a vaccuum and decides to make his character in love with Player 2's character.

2.  Player 1 makes sure that this love interest is a secret from Player 2.  

3.  During the course of play, Player 2 (the Thief character) gets wigged out by Player 1 and asks him out of character to stop.  He's not interested in this sort of thing.

4.  Player 1 refuses to stop and continues on, to the point of making light of Player 2's request and, quite possibly, killing Player 2's character.​
And, somehow, during the course of this thread, people are blaming Player 2 in this.  People seem to be saying that Player 2 is equally at fault here for not agreeing to follow Player 1's roleplay lead.  I think that sums it up pretty much.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 24, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> You may have hit an underlying cause of the disagreement here.
> 
> Were the people you're playing D+D with your friends outside the game as well before the game started, or were you strangers before play began?
> 
> I always assume (perhaps wrongly) that the people you're playing D+D with are also your friends outside the game beforehand, and that you already vaguely know what makes each other tick. And, that you are capable of separating in-character actions and emotions from out-of-character actions and emotions.




Yeah, gonna have to say this doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm firmly opposed to your viewpoint, and I'm also of the type that inherently assumes people are generally gaming with folks who are already out-of-game friends. 

That doesn't change the fact that if someone acts badly, those friendships can be damaged. I've seen drama erupt amongst groups of gamers quite a few times, friends or not. 

Its part of the problem, in fact. Player 1 assumes he knows player 2, and so starts up this in-game romance. Player 2 _isn't_ comfortable with it, and so asks it to stop. 

At which point, by your comments, you advocate player 1 ignoring his friend's feelings, and beginning actual harassment of player 2. That's the point at which player 1 is _not_ acting like a friend, and that's going to cause problems both in the game and out of it. And that's what the rest of us are objecting to. 



Celebrim said:


> I don't think we can assert that player #1 is immune to OOC condemnation for 'harassing behavior' and also player #2 is immune to criticism for being uptight. I don't think you can issue a blanket statement saying that player #2 has every right to publicly correct player #1 undiplomatically, but that player #1's responce to player #2 is something more than correcting player #2 in an undiplomatic fashion. I mean, I can probably agree that neither player is handling this in the best possible fashion and with the most mature cue's, but I'm not prepared to agree which one is being 'immature' and a 'jerk'.




That's the point, though - initially, neither is. One of them is an overenthusiastic roleplayer and the other doesn't want to play outside his comfort zone. It is the point at which player one is asked to stop, and their response is not to respect the second player's wishes, but to instead respond by making it worse or taking it out on them in-character. Those are the actions that are meriting the 'immature' or 'jerk' label, and I'm not sure how one can defend it otherwise. 

If the second player didn't respond by asking player one to quite it, but instead responded by insulting him and telling the DM to kick the other player from the game... then yeah, he's the one earning those labels. But that wasn't the example that we had been discussing. 

Just to repeat my position - if one player engages in behavior that makes other people uncomfortable, they have the right to ask him to stop. If he feels really strongly about what his character is doing, maybe he can have the group talk it over and find some sort of compromise. 

But if his response is simply to escalate, and respond by "giving him a bad time", or to "follow the advice of the mighty King Crow" and kill the character and take their stuff... yeah, sorry, you have crossed the line and are most definitely acting in an immature fashion. 

I don't care if your justification is that this is just how your character would act, I don't care if you are just trying to get your friend to 'lighten up' or help them work through some perceived psychological issues. Regardless of reason, what you're doing is most definitely not cool. 



Celebrim said:


> I wish that we could keep gender references out of this, because I think its biasing the conversation in certain ways. I think by making the 'harrassed' character female, we are engaging in subtle gender bias, not only by making the assumption that women are more likely to be victims, but in making the other player fit into a sterotype of the geek making unwelcome character advances. Let's make this more general, and try to avoid our biases where we can.




To be fair, I've been assuming in the theoretical example that both players are male, but one just happens to be playing a female character.

Especially since Lanefan (who was largely the source of the example) made note that the other player would like be a him, since "it's always 'him's who have these issues".

Of course, I might note that this gets into an entirely new area of problems with Lanefan's assumption that female players could never possibly object to unwanted in-character romances from another player. But, uh, that's probably a topic for another thread entirely.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 24, 2010)

I think some of us (ME!) are confused.  I meant to advocate killing the creepy PC and taking his stuff.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But, uh, that's probably a topic for another thread entirely.




I'm certain it's been the topic of dozens upon dozen of other thread already.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think some of us (ME!) are confused.  I meant to advocate killing the creepy PC and taking his stuff.




By "creepy PC," then, you mean the one whose player initiated the PC-on-PC romance?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 24, 2010)

S'mon said:


> _Biases?  Gender Bias?_
> 
> In the real world, most RPGers are male.




My current table is the first game I've ran since high school where all the players are male.



> Most are heterosexual.




And my current table only meets that description for picky values of 'most'. 



> I don't know whether the genders of harrasser and harrasee matter much, but but talking about reality in terms of bias and stereotyping takes you out of the reality-based community.




Speaking of phrases that should make you stop and self-examine, 'out of the reality-based community' is one that definately needs to make the list.  Much like 'narrow-minded' its one of those claims that I find is highly indicative of the claim maker needing to do some serious introspection.  

And just as funny and ironic side note, 'reality-based' means it isn't real.  The stem '-based' modifies something to mean 'partially', in the same way that a 'reality based movie' is only partially a true story.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 24, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> By "creepy PC," then, you mean the one whose player initiated the PC-on-PC romance?




Yes.

Let the PCs react as they would where that character an NPC.

EDIT:  Just to be clear, I advocate that you can make whatever kind of PC you want, subject to GM approval.  This does not mandate that the other players react the way you would like them to.  Should they discover your dishonest/stealing/prima donna/backstabbing/creepy/evil PC is what he is, and then react the way they would if he were an NPC, that's perfectly fine.  Indeed, I have found that this is the best way to discourage dishonest/stealing/prima donna/backstabbing/creepy/evil PCs in a group where they are inappropriate.  I let the other players decide that they are inappropriate.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Jacob Marley (Sep 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Got that a bit backward.  Let's recap shall we?
> 1.  Player 1 creates a character in a vaccuum and decides to make his character in love with Player 2's character.
> 
> 2.  Player 1 makes sure that this love interest is a secret from Player 2.
> ...



​ Are parts 1 & 2 even that relevant? All that matters, IMHO, are parts 3 & 4. Assume, for a moment, that Player 1 creates a character who is in love with Player 2 and Player 2 agrees to that set-up. Now suppose that during the course of play, Player 1 pushes the boundaries of what Player 2 finds acceptable. Player 2 gets wigged out and asks him to stop. He's not interested in that sort of thing. 

In both cases Player 1 is pushing the boundaries of what Player 2 finds acceptable. Is Player 2's knowledge of a "romance" relevant?


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 24, 2010)

Jacob Marley said:


> [/INDENT] Are parts 1 & 2 even that relevant? All that matters, IMHO, are parts 3 & 4. Assume, for a moment, that Player 1 creates a character who is in love with Player 2 and Player 2 agrees to that set-up. Now suppose that during the course of play, Player 1 pushes the boundaries of what Player 2 finds acceptable. Player 2 gets wigged out and asks him to stop. He's not interested in that sort of thing.
> 
> In both cases Player 1 is pushing the boundaries of what Player 2 finds acceptable. Is Player 2's knowledge of a "romance" relevant?




It changes, somewhat, the starting point of the ensuing discussion--from "Is this romance acceptable?" to "What are the acceptable boundaries?" But otherwise, no.

(And even in this situation, Player 2 can decide to nix the whole thing and that should be respected... although in that case Player 1 has a legitimate complaint that Player 2 is yanking him around.)


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Just to add.
> 
> I've actually had this happen to me in game...




Good story.

I think that it would have been perfectly acceptable to wait to some break in the game or end of session to plan out with the other player how this was going to work.  I encourage that.  I don't think that is in and of itself entirely a solution.  I mean, it's going to be great if everyone is perfectly understanding, but ultimately all you are doing is just saying, "No."  No matter how much you say, "This is my problem, not yours.", you've just slapped down some other players idea.  It would be great if everyone could identify ahead of time what would make other players uncomfortable, but alot of the time the very things that make some people uncomfortable are the very things that make some other people most excited and intrigued by the game.

For my part, I learned about 'romance' in RPGs the hard way - from being part of the early days of the MUSH community.  It was virtually impossible to RP for long with out getting propositioned for a little 'ts' - often by some otherwise quite good RPers.  This occurred despite the fact that I went out of the way to create characters that would not (I thought) encourage that line of play - old men, young boys, homely individuals, religious figures.  Naturally, none of that worked to discourage it much.  Other than just breaking character and slapping the person down (which was often very warranted I grant you) there were alot of other gambits I found you could take at that point.

1) You could have the character be uninterested and respond basically with the sort of gentleness you hopefully aspire to respond with when some feels something toward you that you can't recipocate.
2) You could make a point of ignoring it.
3) You could redine the relationship, and offer a new line of RP - "I think of you as just a friend.", "I love you as a daughter.", "You've been a better friend to me than my real mommy.", "Tu est ma soeur"   Ect.  There are alot of different approaches that don't kill the idea of an intimate friendship, while diverting the idea of 'lover'.  It's not like there is only one story here and it involves sexual consumation.
4) Similarly, story book romance rarely involves any sort of immediate recognition of deep feelings.  Good story book romance finds reasons to keep the couple apart, so even if the romance plot line is reasonable for both characters, there is no reason to hurry it at all because almost all story book romance involves a fairly long period of unrequited love.  Male characters in particular are sterotypically completely unaware and clueless about the affections of the female character, no matter how blatant they are.  Likewise, male characters who idolize a female character are sterotypically cowards, unable to express their true feelings and so overcome with nerves that they put there foot in the mouth and derailing the romance at every step.

Now, if I did that, probably 75% of the time it ended the RP.  In many cases you were just dealing with young pervs trolling for a thrill, and if you weren't interested in verbal consummation they weren't actually interested in playing.  But in many cases, you could deflect out of the uncomfortable situation and continue play without going to OOC and saying in effect to someone's face: "There is something wrong with you." Often this was very rewarding.

Granted, face to face is even more intense and more likely to be uncomfortable, but so is rejection when you friend goes face to face: "You are making me uncomfortable."  I mean what are you going to do when that happens to you: "Sorry man. o0O(I'll just go crawl in a hole now.)"?

My first reaction in this situation probably would have been one of #1 to #3, mainly because I'm married and not sure how my spouse would take this.  My second reaction in this situation (had I been more comfortable with it or really trusted all the players or wife is at the table and doesn't seem uncomfortable) would been I think to have tried to throw this into a love triangle along the lines of Cyrano de Bergerac (as an initial inspiration), using the character of real spouse of the other player as my confident and playing the coward and stumbler (for whatever reasons relevant to the character I could invent).  I'd also see if I could subtly push the other player toward a love triangle role where we might end up in a classic case of unrequited affections all the way around.  Shakespearian comedy (or tragedy) hopefully ensues depending on how  the intraparty conflict ends up resolving.

Alot of what informs my perspective on this is that 90% of my play is as the Dungeon Master, and when you are playing as the DM you have to be at least somewhat comfortable with everything.   I have had on several occassions players get 'crushes' on NPCs.   Now, I'm not going to RP out any significant physical details of that, but I think it would be less than gentle to take a player who has become emotionally attached to one of your creations and slap them down for being emersive in a setting that you set out to be emersive.   I mean, just what is the player doing that is 'wrong' in that situation?  Don't you as the DM wan to create characters that are emotionally engaging?  Isn't that somewhat of the point?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Speaking of phrases that should make you stop and self-examine, 'out of the reality-based community' is one that definately needs to make the list.  Much like 'narrow-minded' its one of those claims that I find is highly indicative of the claim maker needing to do some serious introspection.




Actually I did, if not self-analyse, at least reconsider while I was heading home from work today.  And I came to the conclusion I probably shouldn't have made that post.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2010)

Jacob Marley said:


> [/INDENT] Are parts 1 & 2 even that relevant? All that matters, IMHO, are parts 3 & 4. Assume, for a moment, that Player 1 creates a character who is in love with Player 2 and Player 2 agrees to that set-up. Now suppose that during the course of play, Player 1 pushes the boundaries of what Player 2 finds acceptable. Player 2 gets wigged out and asks him to stop. He's not interested in that sort of thing.
> 
> In both cases Player 1 is pushing the boundaries of what Player 2 finds acceptable. Is Player 2's knowledge of a "romance" relevant?




1 and 2 are relevant to this discussion insofar as I was simply recapping the chain of events that were specific to this example.  I wasn't trying to say that this was necessarily the only way this could play out.

There are any number of ways this could happen, I was simply elucidating for those who might have lost track, what the specific example in this case was.

No worries.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I mean, it's going to be great if everyone is perfectly understanding, but ultimately all you are doing is just saying, "No." No matter how much you say, "This is my problem, not yours.", you've just slapped down some other players idea.




And what is the problem with that?  The other player introduced an element that I have zero interest in.  Why should I have to compromise at all here?

Sure, it might be great if I did, but, at what point do any other players at the table get the right to dictate the game to me?  

Remember, Player 2 in this example had no idea that this was coming.  This was totally out of left field.  He or she was not asked beforehand at all and actually, Player 1 specifically tells the DM not to tell Player 2 and let it be a surprise.

Sorry, if someone drops something in my lap, it's entirely within my rights to say, "No, thank-you".  

Let's move the goalposts somewhat.  Instead of Player 1, it's the DM who does this.  The DM introduces an NPC and has the NPC begin stalking the PC.  The PC turns to the DM, and OOC says that this makes him/her feel very uncomfortable, could it please stop.  The DM reacts by having the NPC murder the PC in his/her sleep.

"Oh, well, you brushed off crazy stalker guy, he didn't take it too well.  It's all in character," says the DM.

Would you continue playing with that DM?  I might, but, there'd be some very serious conversations around the coffee table for a while.

I strongly disagree with any viewpoint that says a player HAS to play to someone else's ideas when that player finds those ideas uncomfortable.

Again, no means no.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And what is the problem with that?  The other player introduced an element that I have zero interest in.  Why should I have to compromise at all here?




Why should _they_?



> Sure, it might be great if I did, but, at what point do any other players at the table get the right to dictate the game to me?




I'm sure they are saying exactly the same thing only they are using the word 'dictate' more correctly than you are in that sentence.  



> Let's move the goalposts somewhat.  Instead of Player 1, it's the DM who does this.  The DM introduces an NPC and has the NPC begin stalking the PC.  The PC turns to the DM, and OOC says that this makes him/her feel very uncomfortable, could it please stop.  The DM reacts by having the NPC murder the PC in his/her sleep.




Exactly when did we encourage players to dictate to the DM what dangers and challenges they were to face?  Do you see where this goes?  Why are we giving out out the unlimited right to be outraged, to play the victim, to have your feelings hurt, and to 'wig out'?  That's unlimited freedom to dictate the terms of the game.   Why do you think anyone has the right to 'wig out'? 

I'm sorry, but if you are playing my game, "Getting stalked by the creepy NPC" is part of the assumed consent.  I assume that is implied by the statement that prefaces my games where I explain that my major inspirations are HP Lovecraft, JRR Tolkien and the Grimm Fairy tales.  If you don't want to get stalked by Ringwraiths, horrors out of time, and little hunchbacked fairy men who want your first born child, tough.   If you don't want to handle that, then go find a game that doesn't have a horror or horrorific elements. 

Don't expect your hangups to dictate the game that everyone else is here to play.  



> I strongly disagree with any viewpoint that says a player HAS to play to someone else's ideas when that player finds those ideas uncomfortable.




I do too.  However, I'd just shorten the statement down to: "I disagree that a player has to play."  

I think I've made it very clear what my standards are and how I want to treat everyone.  But if you insist you just can't comprimise then by all means leave and take your petty dictatorial emo self with you, because you will have left me no room for sympathy.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 25, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I do too.  However, I'd just shorten the statement down to: "I disagree that a player has to play."
> 
> I think I've made it very clear what my standards are and how I want to treat everyone.  But if you insist you just can't comprimise then by all means leave and take your petty dictatorial emo self with you, because you will have left me no room for sympathy.



In looking at that, all I can say is "wow." There are a lot of hot-button issues that players can have, whether from real life issues, or from firmly held beliefs. You are not saying that if they're not comfortable exploring those issues in game their only alternative is to leave the game? That seems to be what you mean, but I can't believe that. Perhaps some clarification?

Let me say that I am not married, but currently in a long-term relationship that's likely to go there, and I completely understand Hussar's position. I have been in enough games where in-character romances led to real world problems that I'd definitely say no-thanks immediately.

As I said before, that kind of a conversation is best held (in my opinion) out of the game where an issue is laid out and players can deal with it as an adult. If someone isn't comfortable with something that's going on in the game, I'm going to work to make them feel better about it, so long as it's humanly possible: I don't think someone who doesn't like combat and fighting could really play in a D&D game, for instance.

One of the secrets of "my character would do X" that many tend to forget is that *there is no character*, only a group of people sitting around a table adopting personas, that are entirely under each on of their control. If your character takes an extreme stand on something for roleplay purposes, that's not a refuge: you're choosing to have them do it. I am reminded of the scene in Talladega Nights where Ricky Bobby says all sorts of horrible things but expects to get away with it because he said "with all due respect," first.

The other point about "I'm playing my character," that is quickly forgotten is that, in a group, everyone else has a right to respond to the choices you make, and be playing theirs. I've played in several games where one guy had to be the hidden evil character, and he was absolutely astonished that a group of good characters wouldn't just put up with it!

So we're all adults (or heading that way) why can't these things be worked out before there's a problem?

--Steve


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 25, 2010)

SteveC said:


> In looking at that, all I can say is "wow." There are a lot of hot-button issues that players can have, whether from real life issues, or from firmly held beliefs. You are not saying that if they're not comfortable exploring those issues in game their only alternative is to leave the game?




What do you think?



> That seems to be what you mean, but I can't believe that. Perhaps some clarification?




I spent this entire thread clarifying my feelings on the matter.  It seems to me that this point, any clarification I added would be no less likely to be misunderstood than anything I've already said.  However, I would encourage you to look at exactly what I said again and try to interpret it without adding anything to it.

It's right there in the sentences you quoted what I found objectionable to the point that I would require a player to leave.  It's right there in the sentences I quoted where I encourage you to interpret what I was going to say in the light of all my previous insistance in the thread that people were too quick to resort to the answer of 'throw the jerk out'.   

And its right in the thread you quote from where I outline why the particular stance Hussar takes makes it impossible to deal with the issue in any other manner.



> Let me say that I am not married, but currently in a long-term relationship that's likely to go there, and I completely understand Hussar's position. I have been in enough games where in-character romances led to real world problems that I'd definitely say no-thanks immediately.
> 
> As I said before, that kind of a conversation is best held (in my opinion) out of the game where an issue is laid out and players can deal with it as an adult. If someone isn't comfortable with something that's going on in the game, I'm going to work to make them feel better about it, so long as it's humanly possible: I don't think someone who doesn't like combat and fighting could really play in a D&D game, for instance.




I agree with all of that, and have agreed with all of that in this thread.  In fact, you have said here exactly the very thing that might clue you in to what I just said.

The rest of what you say brings up interesting points, but I think it rambles enough that I can't say I agree with it completely.  But I would like to point out this statement especially because it is one of my pet peeves, and it is an echo of things I said earlier in the thread, and I think you get it exactly backwards:



> I am reminded of the scene in Talladega Nights where Ricky Bobby says all sorts of horrible things but expects to get away with it because he said "with all due respect," first.




Yeah, so in Hussar's example, who is that expect to get away with it because they have prefaced their stance with something designed to get the listener's empathy, and what exactly is it that they are trying to get away with?



> The other point about "I'm playing my character," that is quickly forgotten is that, in a group, everyone else has a right to respond to the choices you make, and be playing theirs. I've played in several games where one guy had to be the hidden evil character, and he was absolutely astonished that a group of good characters wouldn't just put up with it!




See, you are setting out to prove one thing (defend Hussar), and yet persist in your argument to actually agrue against him and for the other side in this debate.



> So we're all adults (or heading that way) why can't these things be worked out before there's a problem?
> 
> --Steve




Hey, and now we are in complete agreement.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 25, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I think I've made it very clear what my standards are and how I want to treat everyone.  But if you insist you just can't comprimise then by all means leave and take your petty dictatorial emo self with you, because you will have left me no room for sympathy.




That seems a bit harsh, and if you're calling Hussar "emo" that's close to a personal attack.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 25, 2010)

Gosh, this thread has gotten complex. I hope I am stepping in at a good place to say how I view PC-on-PC romance:

1. I absolutely do not feel I have to accomodate another player's backstory in my character concept. We were lovers in college? Uh, no. We were not. Please don't write my character.
2. On the other hand, I think in an RPG the assumption is that developments in-story are fair game. As long as the development is relevant to people's interests, does not constitute some type of harassment because of outside-the-game social goals, and fits the characterizations of those PCs, I think it's the player's job to roll with it.
3. On the other hand, if the game wanders outside the comfort zone of the players involved, that should be handled outside the game. Again, I think the default assumption is that the players should be willing to work with the other players, but if that is not fun/feasible/fair, I think it only makes sense for the discomfited player to assert themselves and ask the situation be addressed. The end result might be retconning the situation, agreeing on a future course to the storyline that steers away from problem areas, or one or more players being asked to consider whether they can accept the situation or whether they would prefer to excuse themselves from the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 25, 2010)

S'mon said:


> That seems a bit harsh, and if you're calling Hussar "emo" that's close to a personal attack.




Yeah, that's harsh.  But it needs to be, because I think too much distance is being placed mentally between the dysfunctionality of theoretical stance A and theoretical stance B when in my mind they are the same underlying problem.  Each side is (potentially) convinced that their feelings are more valid than the other side, and each is (potentially) taking their emotions as a basis of a claim of authority to the point of dictating terms to every one else. 

No, I'm not attacking Hussar personally.  I'm describing what I think about this hypothetical player's position, because I want to emphasize that the hypothetical player isn't mildly in the wrong by that point, or isn't merely being 'undiplomatic', is not excused on the grounds of their 'feelings', but has gotten as far into the wrong as they can be.  It's twisted and sick position and it should be exposed as such before we find ourselves in that position and lest we comfort ourselves in the false belief that it is defensible and persuade ourselves to feel and act that way.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 25, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> No, I'm not attacking Hussar personally.  I'm describing what I think about this hypothetical player's position, because I want to emphasize that the hypothetical player isn't mildly in the wrong by that point, or isn't merely being 'undiplomatic', is not excused on the grounds of their 'feelings', but has gotten as far into the wrong as they can be.  It's twisted and sick position and it should be exposed as such before we find ourselves in that position and lest we comfort ourselves in the false belief that it is defensible and persuade ourselves to feel and act that way.




The "I'm not comfortable with your PC being in love with my PC, stop/retcon it" position is "as far into the wrong as they can be" and "twisted and sick"?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 25, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Gosh, this thread has gotten complex. I hope I am stepping in at a good place to say how I view PC-on-PC romance:
> 
> 1. I absolutely do not feel I have to accomodate another player's backstory in my character concept. We were lovers in college? Uh, no. We were not. Please don't write my character.
> 2. On the other hand, I think in an RPG the assumption is that developments in-story are fair game. As long as the development is relevant to people's interests, does not constitute some type of harassment because of outside-the-game social goals, and fits the characterizations of those PCs, I think it's the player's job to roll with it.




That would be my feeling also.  I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with having your PC be in love with somebody else's PC.  It shouldn't normally cause a problem for either player.

However if I ever did this, and the other player said "stop", well I think it'd be ok to think slightly less of them (unless I knew they had good reason* to be uncomfortable with it, in which case I wouldn't have had my PC be in love with theirs in the first place), but I would 'stop', ie it wouldn't ever come up in-play again.  And I certainly wouldn't try to kill their PC, which seems even more dysfunctional.  I'd probably think of my PC as having received some signal that their love would be forever unrequited, but no obvious reaction.

*Either from the player's personal life, or the player had created a PC who obviously would not be a plausible romantic interest.  In either case I would be a bad player if I created a PC in love with theirs.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2010)

Wow.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Why should they?




Just so I'm absolutely clear here, because, like a few others in this thread, I'm a bit taken aback that you would take this position:  In your view, when a player is faced by a situation, in your game, that he or she finds uncomfortable, that player has two choices:

1.  Suck it up and play through.

2.  Leave the game.

Is that accurate?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 26, 2010)

S'mon said:


> The "I'm not comfortable with your PC being in love with my PC, stop/retcon it" position is "as far into the wrong as they can be" and "twisted and sick"?




No. 

My feelings are more valid than your feelings is the beginning of something wrong.  It gets 'as far into the wrong as they can be' when that tilt in to wrongness twists their perceptions, so that things start coming around backwards.  For example, they start defining tolerance as not their own ability to live with the decisions of others, but other peoples ability to live with them.  They start defining respect not as the condition of them treating other people compassionately, but of other people acquiesing to their demands.  And so forth.  They start demanding a unilateral relationship while believing that they now hold the moral high ground.  They think that by going passive aggressive that they've absolved themselves, and woe betide anyone who dares to tresspass on their feelings - nevermind what anyone else feels.

Things moved past the, "I hate to squelsh everyone's fun, but I'm not comfortable with this line of play, can we tone it down or change it", when they became, "I won't comprimise at all and my feelings will trump the wishes of everyone else at the table."  Stop looking at this one example in particular and look at the general case.  There is no evil a person will not do when they tell themselves that they have been wronged.  

Ultimately what I think we are moving toward in this argument where player A is wholly in the wrong and player B fully justified, is an argument that attempts to justify the same disrespect for others player A potentially has provided you only manifest it in a reactive or proactive way instead of an active one.  But that isn't really consensual play, because its unilateral in how it views the flow of authority.  You end up consigning the game to the hands of the person most easily offend and who most quickly becomes indignant, and telling them that they are morally justified in doing so.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2010)

Ok, this post above pretty much answered my question.  

In your opinion, anyone who has any problems with anyone else's ideas has to either suck it up or leave.

Good luck with that.



> Ultimately what I think we are moving toward in this argument where player A is wholly in the wrong and player B fully justified, is an argument that attempts to justify the same disrespect for others player A potentially has provided you only manifest it in a reactive or proactive way instead of an active one. But that isn't really consensual play, because its unilateral in how it views the flow of authority. You end up consigning the game to the hands of the person most easily offend and who most quickly becomes indignant, and telling them that they are morally justified in doing so.




How is the second person not 100% morally justified here?  He's being made uncomfortable by something someone else is doing TO HIM.  

Now, if he was trying to nix something someone was doing to someone else?  I could see that being a problem.  But, he's not.  He's on the receiving end of actions from someone else that he does not want.  

In what way is he not justified in saying, "No thank you."?


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 26, 2010)

Hussar, rather than deal with extremes, I am curious if you will accept a proposition. Would you accept that someone who joins a game but rejects a number of plausible scenarios by their own personal preference is not at least, say, 2% responsible, for their own offense?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Sep 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Five words that never bothered me as a DM.
> 
> "My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.
> 
> Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.




"You must spread some experience points around yadda yadda"

Anyway.  This, what you said, a thousand times over, is the only right answer to the question.

If what the characters are doing is getting in the way of the story you're trying to tell, then you're not a DM, you're Garrison Keillor after a transporter accident involving a remaindered stack of Dragonlance novels.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Hussar, rather than deal with extremes, I am curious if you will accept a proposition. Would you accept that someone who joins a game but rejects a number of plausible scenarios by their own personal preference is not at least, say, 2% responsible, for their own offense?




How is that not an extreme in itself though Pawsplay?  I haven't exactly brought up an extreme example.  The Player 2 in the example is not rejecting a "number of scenarios", he or she is rejecting exactly one scenario.  

Yes, if I sit down at a table and then reject a number of perfectly reasonable scenarios, then of course I would be to blame.  I'm obviously at the wrong table.  But that's a totally separate issue, and, really, your example just clouds things.

Player 2 is not being unreasonable here.  A scenario that involved his character was dumped onto him without any consultation beforehand by another player.  By the DM, I'm probably more willing to cut some slack, because there are all sorts of mitigating factors.  But this was done by another player.

Player 2 didn't blow a gasket.  He didn't freak out.  He turned to player 1 and said, "Stop that, I don't like that."

And apparently, at some tables, that's not allowed.  At some tables the only option that Player 2 has is to either put up and shut up or leave.

I tend to be a tad more respectful of other people's wishes.  If something about my character is making someone else outright uncomfortable (not a simple dislike of the concept, but outright unhappy) it's up to me to fix that.  It's certainly not the right response to completely ignore any complaints and kill someone else's character.

So, yes, it could easily be possible that Player 2 is in the wrong here.  If Player 1 included Player 3 in his background and completely ignored Player 2, then Player 2 doesn't really have a leg to stand on.  Within reason.

Actually, that brings up another thought.  What about the rest of the group?  Say two players want to engage in graphic, hardcore pornographic descriptions of BDSM during the game.  Are the other players entitled to say anything?  Can the other players tell them to cut it out, that the two players are making them uncomfortable?

IMO, yes.  If you have exceeded the comfort level of anyone at the table, it's on you to back off.  

But then, I don't presume that everyone at the table is out to sabotage the game.  In my mind, someone's only going to complain when it ACTUALLY bothers them.  Most players are pretty reasonable people and I make a point of not playing with those who have no respect for other people.

Someone who comes to a D&D game and then complains about the violence is being unreasonable.  It's D&D, of course it's violent.  However, complaining that someone's behavior specifically targeting you is making you uncomfortable should not result in you being ejected from the table.

---------------

Just to recap.

So long as everyone is being reasonable, then I got no beefs at all. 

However, the reaction in this case was to blow off Player 2's concerns and kill his character.

Celebrim is claiming that this is  perfectly reasonable behavior on the part of Player 1 and Player 2 should not have complained in the first place.

I disagree.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 26, 2010)

Let's say you're playing soccer. Player 2 is tired of getting kicked in the shins. It is entirely reasonable to not want to get kicked in the shins, and they are justified in expecting that others try not to kick them in the shins. But it is reasonable to play soccer and blame other people when you get kicked in the shins? If you play soccer, getting kicked in the shins happens. Some players are dirty, others are pretty clean, but either way... kicks to the shins are gonna happen. 

Does Player 2 have a reasonable presumption that in an RPG, other players are not going to have their PCs do things typical of characters in fantasy stories that might bother them personally?

Imagine you are running a supers RPG. Player 1 spends some points on a teenaged sidekick. Player 2 says, "Look, I understand it's part of the genre and all, but I am really uncomfortable with the idea of child endangerment. I don't think it's an appropriate part of what should be light entertainment. No teenage sidekicks." Is Player 2 being reasonable? I think so. Some people object to depictions of rape, torture, drug use... I think child endangerment is fair game. I mean, Robin getting turned into hamburger by the Joker is pretty disturbing, isn't it? But is it reasonable to expect that Player 1 is just supposed to drop the issue? When Player 2 joins a supers game, aren't they tacitly accepting the risk they may have to deal with the issue of teenage sidekicks? 

So... back to the scenario at hand. I think Player 1 may be out of bounds, socially, if they insist on romance or some other scenario Player 2 doesn't like. That's problematic. But from a GM standpoint, I think Player 2 is somewhat problematic. Asking someone to "suck it up" isn't necessarily fair or respectful to their feelings. But I think sometimes people are asked to deal with things. Frankly, both are potentially problem players. I would expect them to resolve the issue together, then if need be with the mediation of the group, and finally, the issue would be resolved, if need be, by one backing down or one of them leaving.



> IMO, yes. If you have exceeded the comfort level of anyone at the table, it's on you to back off.




I believe that RPGs, being  voluntary activity, should allow people to form and seek groups that fulfill their ideal play experience. That means that not every player is meant to play with every group in every game.

If I don't like peanut sauce, that doesn't mean my friends are never allowed to go out for Thai food. It means, sometimes they may go out without me.



> However, complaining that someone's behavior specifically targeting you is making you uncomfortable should not result in you being ejected from the table.




Being given the option to take it or leave it just not the same as being ejected. If I want to go out for margaritas with my friends, the non-drinking friend is not being "ejected," he is choosing not to participate in an activity that is inappropriate for himself.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2010)

But, Pawsplay, you keep changing the scenario.



> Imagine you are running a supers RPG. Player 1 spends some points on a teenaged sidekick. Player 2 says, "Look, I understand it's part of the genre and all, but I am really uncomfortable with the idea of child endangerment. I don't think it's an appropriate part of what should be light entertainment. No teenage sidekicks." Is Player 2 being reasonable? I think so. Some people object to depictions of rape, torture, drug use... I think child endangerment is fair game. I mean, Robin getting turned into hamburger by the Joker is pretty disturbing, isn't it? But is it reasonable to expect that Player 1 is just supposed to drop the issue? When Player 2 joins a supers game, aren't they tacitly accepting the risk they may have to deal with the issue of teenage sidekicks?




Now, let's make this more analogous to what we're talking about.  If player 1 wants to be Player 2's child sidekick, can Player 2 complain and say no?

Nothing in this thread has talked about what one person is doing on their own.  It's entirely about what happens when one player decides unilaterally to include another player in some concept without that second player's concent or even knowledge.

Let's look at your last example:



> Being given the option to take it or leave it just not the same as being ejected. If I want to go out for margaritas with my friends, the non-drinking friend is not being "ejected," he is choosing not to participate in an activity that is inappropriate for himself.




Now, is it okay for the friends to hold the person down and pour margaritas down his throat?  is it okay to force someone to drink when they don't want to?  Is it okay to openly mock someone for not drinking?

Because that's what's going on here.  Lanefan's example has Player 1 KILLING Player 2's character because Player 2 refused to "drink margaritas".  

In the workplace, this behavior would get me charged with harassment and probably fired.  In a social situation, most people would call me an  and rightfully so.  

But, "My character would do that" is being used as an excuse to force something onto another player even after that player has said no.

It's not that a player is doing something that takes another player out of his or her comfort zone.  That might be okay.  It's that the second player has outright said, "This makes me very uncomfortable, please stop doing it TO ME"  

Not, "Please stop doing it entirely."


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, Pawsplay, you keep changing the scenario.




That's not my intention. I'm trying to reply to a variety of issues that have been put forward. The purpose of the analogies in my last post is to step through my viewpoint on several specific issues that provide a foundation for what I have to say about the scenario.



> Now, let's make this more analogous to what we're talking about.  If player 1 wants to be Player 2's child sidekick, can Player 2 complain and say no?




Obviously. In fact, unless the game is predicated on player's having wide authorial control, I would say that Player 2 can absolutely veto that suggestion.



> Nothing in this thread has talked about what one person is doing on their own.  It's entirely about what happens when one player decides unilaterally to include another player in some concept without that second player's concent or even knowledge.
> 
> Let's look at your last example:
> 
> Now, is it okay for the friends to hold the person down and pour margaritas down his throat?  is it okay to force someone to drink when they don't want to?




No, that's not okay.



> Is it okay to openly mock someone for not drinking?




Here we are getting into a gray area. Are we  in a bar? What style of mockery? What relationship do we have with this person being mocked?



> Because that's what's going on here.  Lanefan's example has Player 1 KILLING Player 2's character because Player 2 refused to "drink margaritas".




I already identified Player 1 as a problem player. Is that not sufficient condemnation?



> In the workplace, this behavior would get me charged with harassment and probably fired.  In a social situation, most people would call me an  and rightfully so.
> 
> But, "My character would do that" is being used as an excuse to force something onto another player even after that player has said no.




Keep in mind, however, that we are talking about virtual force. In a typical RPG campaign, the GM is allowed and perhaps even encouraged to attempt to kill the PCs, manipulate them, poison them, and so forth.



> It's not that a player is doing something that takes another player out of his or her comfort zone.  That might be okay.  It's that the second player has outright said, "This makes me very uncomfortable, please stop doing it TO ME"




And that could still be an unreasonable expectation, even if it is reasonable to ask them not to do it. Again, Player 2 has the right to be uncomfortable, but that doesn't trump the social covenant of role-playing.



> Not, "Please stop doing it entirely."




Well, isn't it? "Even though your character would do that, I am insisting you play your character differently." You may view that as an excuse or pretext, but it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the player views things in those terms. Even if they recognize they are being rude, they may feel somewhat entitled. And even though I might condemn their behavior, in some cases I might agree they are, essentially, correct. Just as Player 2 might be entirely justified in their objections, while not automatically justified in insisting the group accomodate their preferences.

Some abstract rationing of rights certainly doesn't absolve the parties from the responsibility to make positive, productive choices. People can and do work together that have differences of opinion and differences in pesonal preference.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Because that's what's going on here.  Lanefan's example has Player 1 KILLING Player 2's character because Player 2 refused to "drink margaritas".



Just to clarify, killing the defending character would not be the automatic result; merely the most extreme of *many* possibilities one of which is the equal in reverse: the instigator is killed by the defender.

Lan-"2 minutes for instigating"-efan


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2010)

> Celebrim is claiming that this is perfectly reasonable behavior on the part of Player 1 and Player 2 should not have complained in the first place.




This thread is getting less interesting as it goes, but just for the record I'm not claiming that nor is there any thing you can quote by me which would indicate I'm claiming that.

I've actually taken a largely agnostic stance to which of these two theoretical players is in the wrong, as I think it could go either way and depends entirely on how you fill in the details.  Personally, I'm not impressed with the summary of either players response and I'm empathetic to the concerns of both players.  As I have said from the beginning, the mature response to a situation like this is going to involve comprimise and understanding on both sides - and so, it's going to be the player who shows the least understanding of the other player and the least williness to comprimise that I'm going to see as the 'problem player' here.

This thread started with a discussion of conflict between the player and the DM concerning who had to the right to play the PC.   We started out discussing, "My character wouldn't do that.", as if it was only addressed to the DM.   But, we aren't off topic.  We are now discussing that phrase used between two players.  Fundamentally, we are still engaged in a discussion of who has authority over the player's character.  In the scenario that is being used as emblematic, both players are telling the other player, "My character wouldn't do that."   The problimatic behavior is that player #1 is trying to enlist another player in a line of play they feel uncomfortable in, while player #2 is responding by OOC dictating to player #1 how they should play their character.  But fundamentally on both sides, the question is how much control can one player have over the entire group.  

I think that for the most part, people have looked at this scenario idealisticly and chosen sides and said essentially, that one player has complete authority over the rest of the group.   Some people in the thread have sympathized with player #1.  They've taken the position that each player has full say over how they play their character without interferance from anyone else at the table whether player or DM.  They've asserted 'fundamental rights' as the basis of play, and to a certain extent I think that this is correct on an ideological level.  A player is fully in his rights to play his character how he sees fit and is right to expect that in character decisions should not cause other mature players to erupt in out of character outbursts.  Other readers have empathized with the feelings of the second player, and so asserted that all play should be fundamentally consensual and that no player should be required to play out anything that they really don't enjoy.  And, they are also right in as far as that goes.

Everyone in this thread is in agreement that if the players behave correctly, this problem will never come up, but what people haven't I think picked up enough on is that by this point in the scenario neither player has behaved perfectly correctly and so the game has come to the point where statements about the guiding principles of the game which aren't in contridiction when players are acting wisely are now in direct conflcit.  To resolve the knot of difficulty that the players have put the game in by virtue of not a priori playing in a 'compassionate' manner, the players are going to have to first restore that missing empathy - not hone cold legalism into weapons to beat each other with.  If one side doesn't comprimise 100%, then some other sort of comprimise is going to be needed and crucially, neither side is being reasonable when it demands the other side just simply give up and let the other player have their way.

There is alot more than can be said on this, but I'm not sure I'm going to find the time to say it.  I did want to make one last attempt to ensure that effigies and scarecrows of me talking with some other posters voice didn't get the last say on this matter.  I think it should be completely clear from a reading of this thread that I'm not saying what many have accused me of saying, but if it isn't clear by this point, then all I can say is that understanding is a two way street and not all of the burden lies on my ability to write.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2010)

Celebrim, your idea of "agnostic stance needs some work.



> This thread is getting less interesting as it goes, but just for the record I'm not claiming that nor is there any thing you can quote by me which would indicate I'm claiming that.
> 
> I've actually taken a largely agnostic stance to which of these two theoretical players is in the wrong,






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think I've made it very clear what my standards are and how I want to treat everyone. But if you insist you just can't comprimise then by all means leave and take your petty dictatorial emo self with you, because you will have left me no room for sympathy.






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Don't expect your hangups to dictate the game that everyone else is here to play.






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> On the other hand, we have someone who is escallating some situation by responding to it with some OOC stance and special pleading and appeal to emotion.






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yeah, so in Hussar's example, who is that expect to get away with it because they have prefaced their stance with something designed to get the listener's empathy, and what exactly is it that they are trying to get away with?






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, I'm not attacking Hussar personally. I'm describing what I think about this hypothetical player's position, because I want to emphasize that the hypothetical player isn't mildly in the wrong by that point, or isn't merely being 'undiplomatic', is not excused on the grounds of their 'feelings', but has gotten as far into the wrong as they can be. It's twisted and sick position and it should be exposed as such before we find ourselves in that position and lest we comfort ourselves in the false belief that it is defensible and persuade ourselves to feel and act that way.




Ok, I think that's enough cherry picking.  

So, exactly how are you not giving Player 1 free reign and not stepping all over Player 2?  Your language condemns Player 2 in nearly every single post you've made in this thread.  In almost every post you've made, Player 2 is out to squash any playstyle that doesn't agree with his, and uses pretty much every manipulative trick he can.

How is that not painting Player 2 as pretty much entirely in the wrong here?

---------------

Let's go back to Pawsplay's example here for a moment.

First off, a couple of assumptions:

1.  Everyone at the table is mature.  No one is intentionally being a dick.
2.  Everyone at the table honestly believes what they are saying.  They are not out to sabotage anything.

Now, the scenario was Player 1 in a superhero game decides to get a very young sidekick a la Batman.  Player 2 objects because s/he doesn't feel comfortable with the child endangerment issues.

Ok, so, what happens next?

I would hope that both players sit down and discuss the issue.  Perhaps a compromise can be made.  Maybe the sidekick could be upped in age to say, 16 and everyone's groovy with that.  I dunno, whatever works.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that a compromise can't be made.  Both players are adamant in their positions.

At this point Player 1 has a choice.  Which is more important?  Playing his character concept or the enjoyment of everyone at the table?

To me, it's as simple as that.  That's the entire issue right there.  And for me, and anyone I would prefer to play with, they'll choose the enjoyment of everyone at the table every single time.  There are ten billion character concepts out there and limiting off one because it's going to make someone at the table feel very uncomfortable seems a pretty easy choice to me.

Apparently, though, some people feel differently.  Apparently, for some people, the enjoyment of other players is secondary to their own enjoyment of the game.  

I don't play with people like that anymore, fortunately.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I think that's enough cherry picking.




Indeed.  



> Now, the scenario was Player 1 in a superhero game decides to get a very young sidekick a la Batman.  Player 2 objects because s/he doesn't feel comfortable with the child endangerment issues.
> 
> Ok, so, what happens next?




They work it out.



> But, for the sake of argument, let's say that a compromise can't be made.  Both players are adamant in their positions.
> 
> At this point Player 1 has a choice.  Which is more important?  Playing his character concept or the enjoyment of everyone at the table?




Yes, I agree.  

However, that's equally true of Player 2.   Player 2 now has a choice.  Which is more important, his hangup about endangering an imaginary pre-teen in a comic book universe, or the enjoyment of everyone at the table?   The responcibility goes both ways.   You can cherry pick from my argument with you and you'll definately prove that I disagree with your assessment, but that doesn't in the slightest cover the whole of my stance - just highlight where I disagree with you.

If both players are adamant, they can't play together.  That's what it means. 



> To me, it's as simple as that.  That's the entire issue right there.  And for me, and anyone I would prefer to play with, they'll choose the enjoyment of everyone at the table every single time.




Yes, but if that is true, then Player 2 must also comprimise.  Because you insist that they should not need to comprimise, and because anyone I prefer to game with also will choose the enjoyment of everyone at the table every single time, you've pretty much stated that not only must I throw you out of the game, you must throw yourself out of the game.   



> Apparently, though, some people feel differently.  Apparently, for some people, the enjoyment of other players is secondary to their own enjoyment of the game.
> 
> I don't play with people like that anymore, fortunately.




Yeah, well, look in the mirror and get back to me about that.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2010)

But, why does Player 2 have to compromise?  Player 1 is the one changing the situation, not Player 2.  For some reason, this is always ignored.

Things are going fine, no problems.  Someone changes the situation and I HAVE to compromise with the new situation?  Why?  I didn't do anything.  You did.  You brought this to the table.  It's on you to sell this to the group, not to me to buy into it.

This has been my position from the start.  Player 2 is minding his own business, no problems at all.  Then someone else dumps this in his lap and he HAS to compromise?  Umm, no.  

It's up to the person who's making the changes to make sure that those changes are acceptable, not the person on the receiving end of the changes.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, why does Player 2 have to compromise?




For the same reason player 1 has to comprimise.  Because he's playing a consensual game as a part of a group of players.



> Player 1 is the one changing the situation, not Player 2.  For some reason, this is always ignored.




I'm not ignoring it.  I'm just acknowledging the right of the player to do so.  Players don't need a license to 'change the situation'.   You don't hold a vote at the beginning of every round where the player says, "Ok, am I allowed to do this?  Do I have a right to influence the game world?   Am I allowed to RP my character?  Is this ok with you?"  Players don't have to ask the DM that, and they certainly don't have to ask other players permission to do that.   No one at the table has a veto over anyone else's choices.

Consider the reverse situation.  Imagine that you don't have a right to 'change the situation'.  



> Someone changes the situation and I HAVE to compromise with the new situation?  Why?




Because that's how you role-play.  Someone throws something out there and you go with it.  You don't throw a hissy fit, go OOC and get in someone's face over it.  Yes, players have a responsibility to think before acting.  They should try to respect other players boundaries.  But basically we can shorten this down to 'Players should respect each other."  Your argument comes down to, "Everyone should respect my wishes and desires, but I shouldn't have to respect their wishes and desires.  My feelings are more important than their feelings."  

As I keep saying, and as you refuse to hear, it has to be a two way street.  Comprimise isn't one way to resolve this, it's the only way.  It's only when you assert that comprimise is impossible that we have to discuss whether this table is right for you, because it's only then that you've literally removed the possibility of your fellow players sympathy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 27, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> They work it out.




That's just crazy talk.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 27, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Things moved past the, "I hate to squelsh everyone's fun, but I'm not comfortable with this line of play, can we tone it down or change it", when they became, "I won't comprimise at all and my feelings will trump the wishes of everyone else at the table." Stop looking at this one example in particular and look at the general case.




I think this is the point where your argument breaks down... or, at least, veers wildly away from what some of us have been trying to discuss. 

It's been said a few times that 'trying to find a compromise' between players 1 and 2 could be an acceptable resolution to player 2 objecting to being involved in player 1's backstory. The point at which player 2 has been undeniably wronged is when player 1 _refused to enter into discussion about the issue_, and instead decided the appropriate response is to take it out either through in-character attacks or out-of-character harassment. Are you really unwilling to acknowledge that player 2, in this example, is the one who was refusing to compromise? 

And that all the people in this thread who have objected to Lanefan's style of play have not been objecting to player 1 wanting to involve another character in his background, but in saying that the appropriate way to react, when asked not to do such a thing, is to harass the player, give them a bad time, and kill their character and take their stuff? 

You've said we should look at the general case. But the general case isn't what people have been discussing, and isn't what you were initially responding to. I don't object to the claim that a compromise can be potentially the best resolution. And I do acknowledge there can be situations where the player wanting to 'veto' certain behavior is the one causing a problem at a table. 

I recall a table where someone was playing a druid or ranger who was devoted to the woodlands. The party was attacked by an evil druid. The PC declared that we shouldn't fight back agaisnt the evil druid, that nature could do no wrong, and that he wasn't comfortable being part of a party that would fight against innocent animals. I don't know how much of that was in-character or out-of-character perspective, but yes, his request of the table was unreasonable, and all the more so when his inevitable decision in-character was to join in the druid attacking the party. 

But... at the same time, I think some areas of comfort need to respected. There is a difference in trying to force the other PCs to go along with your character's beliefs, and in trying to persuade someone not to make you uncomfortable. And trying to involve other characters in unwanted romantic entanglements? Stalking and harassment? Yeah, that is crossing a line. And the other party involved should most certainly have the right to ask you not to cross it. 



Celebrim said:


> There is no evil a person will not do when they tell themselves that they have been wronged.




Yeah, I think this is a kinda random, extreme, unrelated philosophical point. In the example we've discussed, what the 'wronged' person has done is request to not have another player involve them in a form of roleplaying that they find uncomfortable. Tying 'evil' into that is all sorts of problematic. 

I mean, at its core, I think I get what you are saying. That the goal is for everyone to have fun here, and so everyone should try and work with other players to make sure they are enjoying whatever makes the game fun. And so if two views of 'fun' come into conflict, the appropriate response should be to try and compromise. 

But in this specific example, one person's view of fun involves romantically pursuing another character. For some, that isn't a point they are willing to compromise. And maybe the answer is that one of them needs to leave the campaign. 

If the campaign is, up front, all about uncomfortable elements - if mature and disturbing plots is part of the game theme and something expected at the table - than maybe player 2 is the one who is a bad fit, and should decide to leave the game. If the campaign _doesn't_ have that as a theme, though, I think player 1 is the one introducing inappropriate elements. And if his fun requires another player/character to be involved in an unwanted romantic relationship, I'd generally assume he is the one who needs to stop it or leave the game, before matters get completely out of hand.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Now, the scenario was Player 1 in a superhero game decides to get a very young sidekick a la Batman.  Player 2 objects because s/he doesn't feel comfortable with the child endangerment issues.



That's an interesting case but, imo, a different issue to that of the IC romance. This is a question of genre versus realism. Some superhero games adhere more to genre, some are more realistic, most are somewhere in between. I actually think 'They work it out' is the wrong answer to this one. Here I'd very much look to the GM to tell us how realistic or otherwise this game was supposed to be.

I should also point out that child sidekicks are much more a Golden Age thing, and have been out of fashion in superhero comics for about 60 years. Batman is, ofc, a Golden Age character, having first appeared in 1939. If you created a Batman type today he wouldn't have a kid sidekick. For questions of 'Which age are we in?' I would also look to the GM for resolution.


----------



## Mikaze (Sep 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But... at the same time, I think some areas of comfort need to respected. There is a difference in trying to force the other PCs to go along with your character's beliefs, and in trying to persuade someone not to make you uncomfortable. And trying to involve other characters in unwanted romantic entanglements? Stalking and harassment? Yeah, that is crossing a line. And the other party involved should most certainly have the right to ask you not to cross it.




I'd go as far as saying that accusing the player that is uncomfortable being involved against their will in those particular elements smacks of blaming the victim.  I'd always thought that was the standard for the general playing populace.

Some lines you don't cross without the other player's consent. _That_ is part of the RPGing social contract in our neck of the woods at least.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, why does Player 2 have to compromise?  Player 1 is the one changing the situation, not Player 2.  For some reason, this is always ignored.




I am finding that a lot of people seem to have a kind of blinders on here.

To go back to the original concept: Player A decides that his pc secretly loves player B's pc.

Player B gets weirded out and demands he stop it.

Now, I would TOTALLY agree that player A is out of line IF his backstory included _any assumed actions or feelings on pc B's part._ Otherwise, to me, player B is way out of line to tell player A how to run his character.

If pc B gets creeped out, the way to handle it is _in character._ If player B gets creeped out, it's worth talking about the situation; but really, telling player A he has to compromise his pc's emotional attitude is like telling someone that they can't play a halfling because you're uncomfortable with little people, even though you're another player instead of the dm. 

If pc B is too creeped out by pc A, then the party kicks A out of the group. If he insists on following, they kill him and take his stuff or leave him tied to a tree or cripple him or scare him off or... etc ad infinitum. But this whole "Hey Joe, the way you roleplay _the characteristics of your pc that I only know about because you told me out of game_ makes me uncomfortable" thing is just ridiculous. In the original scenario, remember, the pcs (other than pc A) don't know about A's love for B, and he doesn't even really express it (except through sort of strong & silent defense of her honor, etc).

Now, if the PLAYER of pc A is stalking the PLAYER of pc B it's entirely different. That's a whole different story. But really, I'm amazed that so many people seem to have blown up "my pc silently loves another pc" into some kind of "STALKER OMFG OH NOES" scenario.

I'm with Celebrim: if you don't want to be in a roleplaying game- you know, one with players playing characters that have personalities, desires, feelings, etc that are _separate_ from the players'- then god dammit, accept that _the players are going to roleplay, and you do NOT get to decide how the other players play their characters._


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> It's been said a few times that 'trying to find a compromise' between players 1 and 2 could be an acceptable resolution to player 2 objecting to being involved in player 1's backstory. The point at which player 2 has been undeniably wronged is when player 1 _refused to enter into discussion about the issue_, and instead decided the appropriate response is to take it out either through in-character attacks or out-of-character harassment. Are you really unwilling to acknowledge that player 2, in this example, is the one who was refusing to compromise?




I'm not assigning blame either way.  However, I have previously said that I would consider the most obvious marker of the 'problem player' here to be the one that wasn't willing to comprimise (taking a ridiculously extreme position as the starting point of negotiation would be one example, but not the one I'd most expect to see).  

The point when player #2 is undeniably wronged is when player #1 refuses to modify his line of play to address player #2's concerns once he's become aware of them.  But this also has to work the other way.  The point where player #1 is undeniably wronged is when player #2 refuses to modify his line of play to address player #1's concerns.  When you go to the OOC appeal to a player because you are uncomfortable, there should be an understanding that you are taking an extraordinary step.  If a the PC of player #1 'gets fresh' with the PC of player #2, and player #2 has his PC slap the first character and threaten them with physical harm if it happens again, that's a completely acceptable line of play and maybe even what player #1 expected.  This is only pretend conflict between the players.  When player #2 however addresses player #1 out of character, we've gone to real conflict (initiated by player #2).  Likewise, if player #1 fails to 'get the hint' and persists to harrass player #2's character despite the fact that the line of play seems unwelcome both ICly and OCCly, then we've gone to real conflict (initiated by player #1).  

Once we get to real conflict between the players and not intraparty conflict by mutual concent, then there really is no other recourse than to work it out.  It may help to appeal to the authority of the GM if both parties agree to this and are willing to respect the decision, but it may not.  Ultimately, the GM is just another player and all the GM can do is help the players understand the game world and try to arbitrate as best as he's able.  Ultimately, the decision is in the hands of the players.  If they can't agree to how to handle the conflict, one or more may have to abandon the game.



> And that all the people in this thread who have objected to Lanefan's style of play have not been objecting to player 1 wanting to involve another character in his background, but in saying that the appropriate way to react, when asked not to do such a thing, is to harass the player, give them a bad time, and kill their character and take their stuff?




Ironicly, there have been quite a few people in the thread who have argued player #2's appropriate response is to ICly give the player a bad time, kill their character, and take their stuff.   I'm only asserting that if you think that that is a good idea for player #2, you have to accept that player #1 has every right to that approach as well.  

And to be honest, I'm somewhat more empathetic to both claims, than the claim that someone can just go OOC, assert how they don't 'feel comfortable with this', and expect everyone to immediately conform to their desire.   Before I'd empathize with that, it requires a lot more unconsensual and extreme case than anything that has been outlined here.  An example would be essentially character rape, where one player dominated another player and forced them to engage in sexual acts or other perversions against their will, although, in complete fairness for some settings and game systems (VtM for example) that line of play could have implied consent.  In this case, player #1 has taken away all oppurtunity for player #2 to respond except by an OOC appeal. 



> I recall a table where someone was playing a druid or ranger who was devoted to the woodlands. The party was attacked by an evil druid. The PC declared that we shouldn't fight back agaisnt the evil druid, that nature could do no wrong, and that he wasn't comfortable being part of a party that would fight against innocent animals. I don't know how much of that was in-character or out-of-character perspective, but yes, his request of the table was unreasonable...




His request was it was unreasonable mainly because it muddled IC and OOC stances.



> ....and all the more so when his inevitable decision in-character was to join in the druid attacking the party.




No, it was made less so.  Not that I approve of the overall stance, but at least he was getting back into an IC stance and playing his character.



> But... at the same time, I think some areas of comfort need to respected. There is a difference in trying to force the other PCs to go along with your character's beliefs, and in trying to persuade someone not to make you uncomfortable.




I think it's only a matter of degree.  The problem here is that different players are going to have different beliefs as to what is 'over the line'.  Those have to be worked out through comprimise. 



> I mean, at its core, I think I get what you are saying. That the goal is for everyone to have fun here, and so everyone should try and work with other players to make sure they are enjoying whatever makes the game fun. And so if two views of 'fun' come into conflict, the appropriate response should be to try and compromise.




Yes.



> But in this specific example, one person's view of fun involves romantically pursuing another character.




So?



> For some, that isn't a point they are willing to compromise. And maybe the answer is that one of them needs to leave the campaign.




Yes.  And that I believe brings you into complete agreement with me.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 27, 2010)

Mikaze said:


> I'd go as far as saying that accusing the player that is uncomfortable being involved against their will in those particular elements smacks of blaming the victim.  .... Some lines you don't cross without the other player's consent. _That_ is part of the RPGing social contract in our neck of the woods at least.




Right. The lines where you dictate what their pc feels, thinks, says or does.

Just as they shouldn't try to dictate what your pc feels, thinks, says or does.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 27, 2010)

Mikaze said:


> I'd go as far as saying that accusing the player that is uncomfortable being involved against their will in those particular elements smacks of blaming the victim.  I'd always thought that was the standard for the general playing populace.
> 
> Some lines you don't cross without the other player's consent. _That_ is part of the RPGing social contract in our neck of the woods at least.




Indeed. Furthermore, I think the situation can be highly contextual. It may be acceptible for Lanefan to poke the bear when playing with good friends and one gets a bit squeamish about another PC having a crush on him. Friends can often get away with that sort of behavior without hard feelings. With other player dynamics, that may not be the case. It's important to *know your audience*.

It's also important to realize that, in many case, we don't really know where all of those lines are at the start. So set your expectations a bit conservatively until you find where those lines are. Don't poke the bear until you know the player will accept a bit of ribbing gracefully. And on the flip side, don't throw out uncrossable lines for small things and not without talking about them when the game starts to get uncomfortable. But when faced with something seriously uncomfortable (the number of horror stories I'm sure we've all heard about RPG rape comes to mind), don't hesitate to speak up!


----------



## billd91 (Sep 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But in this specific example, one person's view of fun involves romantically pursuing another character. For some, that isn't a point they are willing to compromise. And maybe the answer is that one of them needs to leave the campaign.




Perhaps. And I can see where the greater need to compromise probably is. If this is a consentual gathering of players, it really is player A who needs to back off. Player B is *not* consenting to be the target of that sort of attention from another PC. As long as Player B isn't overplaying his uncrossable lines card, Player A shouldn't be allowed to drive B from the game because he won't compromise on his idea of fun. The burden of compromise, assuming nobody is too prickly in general, falls heavier on the one crossing the line without the target's consent.


----------



## Mikaze (Sep 27, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Right. The lines where you dictate what their pc feels, thinks, says or does.
> 
> Just as they shouldn't try to dictate what your pc feels, thinks, says or does.




I'd suggest the limiters put in place to make sure the game doesn't shoot past the players' comfort levels trumps that absolute freedom. 

Hell, as a GM running an evil campaign, I put down limitations that amounted to "Don't turn this into an escalating depravity war.  No rape." to make sure it didn't go past my boundries. I also checked the players to find out where their boundries are. We set the limits. And they still have plenty of freedom to work with concerning their characters' feelings, thoughts, words, and actions. None of them hinged on those things we put out of bounds.

Theoretical Player 1 on the other hand...



billd91 said:


> Indeed. Furthermore, I think the situation can be highly contextual. It may be acceptible for Lanefan to poke the bear when playing with good friends and one gets a bit squeamish about another PC having a crush on him. Friends can often get away with that sort of behavior without hard feelings. With other player dynamics, that may not be the case. It's important to *know your audience*.
> 
> It's also important to realize that, in many case, we don't really know where all of those lines are at the start. So set your expectations a bit conservatively until you find where those lines are. Don't poke the bear until you know the player will accept a bit of ribbing gracefully. And on the flip side, don't throw out uncrossable lines for small things and not without talking about them when the game starts to get uncomfortable. But when faced with something seriously uncomfortable (the number of horror stories I'm sure we've all heard about RPG rape comes to mind), don't hesitate to speak up!




Exactly. The players should find each others comfort levels early in and respect them. If there are triggering issues that players are particularly sensitive to, that should be respected. Those issues may not be something they should be expected to just "get over".


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2010)

Mikaze said:


> I'd suggest the limiters put in place to make sure the game doesn't shoot past the players' comfort levels trumps that absolute freedom.
> 
> Hell, as a GM running an evil campaign, I put down limitations that amounted to "Don't turn this into an escalating depravity war.  No rape." to make sure it didn't go past my boundries. I also checked the players to find out where their boundries are. We set the limits.




I would suggest that limits placed on player freedom set before the game began are inherently different than ones that come up spantaneously in play.  In the first case, all players had a chance to evaluate whether this was the game for them, and hopefully there was oppurtunity for player input and comprimise ahead of time.  You started out with an agreement, and so when anyone is in violation of that agreement it's understood who is in the wrong.  But in the latter case, you are attempting to change 'the rules' of the social contract midstream and asserting that you have absolute authority to do so.  But not even the GM has that much authority over the social contract.  Not even the GM can dictate to the other players how they should play.  It's not clear who is in the wrong in the general case, and even the specific cases have huge grey areas.  So, when these spontaneous objections occur, you don't really have any choice but to work them out are stop playing.



> Exactly. The players should find each others comfort levels early in and respect them. If there are triggering issues that players are particularly sensitive to, that should be respected. Those issues may not be something they should be expected to just "get over".




I'm not suggesting that they should just 'get over' their issues.  This suggests that 100% of the burden of comprimise lies on the player with 'the issue', and that wouldn't be a comprimise at all.   That's just one side giving up and acquiesing.  But that's not what I said or advocated.  What I said is that 100% of the burden of comprimise doesn't necessarily lie on the guy who has stayed in character and is doing something that makes someone else uncomfortable.  What I said is that in the general case, we can't say who is really the victim here.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 27, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Right. The lines where you dictate what their pc feels, thinks, says or does.
> 
> Just as they shouldn't try to dictate what your pc feels, thinks, says or does.



Does this mean I'm in the right here?



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Dear Blondie,
> 
> I am a male, playing a female character. She is a lesbian ninja who moonlights as a stripper. Another player in the game, who is female, says my character is one-dimensional, at best, and merely designed to pander to the sexual fantasies of an adolescent male. She also says it's implausible that my ninja would wear only a micro-bikini in combat, and that she would receive more than sufficient income from ninja-ing to support herself, without the need for a second job.
> 
> I told her to shut up, cause it's my character! Who is right?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 27, 2010)

@ Doug:

You are both right.  She should kill your character and take her (skimpy) stuff.


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 27, 2010)

the Jester said:


> If pc B gets creeped out, the way to handle it is _in character._ If player B gets creeped out, it's worth talking about the situation; but really, telling player A he has to compromise his pc's emotional attitude is like telling someone that they can't play a halfling because you're uncomfortable with little people, even though you're another player instead of the dm.






Celebrim said:


> When you go to the OOC appeal to a player because you are uncomfortable, there should be an understanding that you are taking an extraordinary step.




Ok, I think I've twigged to one of the two big areas of disagreement here - it looks like some prefer that this sort of thing should always be handled in character. 

For me, I think it is great when such a conflict can be handled in character, and it can even offer some really powerful roleplaying opportunities.

But I think there are also times when OOC is not just acceptable, but is even the more appropriate response. When we're dealing with an issue that is genuinely outside of another player's comfort zone, especially when it is intruding on that player's character directly, and they aren't comfortable playing through _any_ ramifications of it - it just isn't an experience they want as part of their game. I think that's the time when the players need to sit down and talk it out. 

You note that its ok for a group to discuss and determine what is acceptable before a campaign, but that once it starts, that isn't acceptable. I simply... don't see why. It just doesn't seem reasonable to say that because a player didn't specifically mention they don't want other characters romantically pursuing them, they have to accept it and try to compromise with the player initiating such an uncomfortable situation. If a situation comes up in game which crosses their boundaries, they should have the opportunity to speak out and ask that it stops. 

Now, from there you say that Player 1 shouldn't have to curtail their roleplaying experience in order to satisfy the needs of Player 2, and thus both sides should be equally willing to compromise. I'm not sure that is true, either - as some have mentioned, that seems awfully close to victim blaming. Player 2 is in some way 'at fault' for being offended or made uncomfortable by Player 1's behavior. Player 1's roleplaying experience has equal weight as the personal comfort of Player 2. 

Which brings us, I think, to the second big point of disagreement - when a boundary line is truly crossed. 

Like the Jester notes, some demands might be unreasonable ones. If I'm sensitive about my height, is it fair for me to insist that no one is allowed to play halflings? 

On the other hand, Celebrim seems, to me, to be setting the boundary line _waaaay _past what I think is appropriate: "it requires a lot more unconsensual and extreme case than anything that has been outlined here. An example would be essentially character rape, where one player dominated another player and forced them to engage in sexual acts or other perversions against their will".

I think there are plenty of reasons for someone to be uncomfortable with the game content _way_ before it gets to anything this extreme. 

For me, a big part of the line is when another player's roleplaying is involving my character without my consent. Especially when getting into something like romantically pursuing a character which, yeah, can absolutely make people uncomfortable with unwanted attention. And I think someone's discomfort over that sort of behavior does take precedence over how someone else wants to play their character. 

Respecting the boundaries of other player's should be one of the agreements of the game. Now, if one of the goals of the game is specifically to push those boundaries, and the DM has said up-front that this is the case - or if, when conflict arises, all the other players say they are fine with that sort of behavior - then the person being discomforted should probably be the one to leave. But in most games, that isn't the case, and I don't think "not having to deal with harassment" is an unreasonable assumption for most people going into a game. 

From what I can tell, some of the folks here, like the Jester and Celebrim, seem to be arguing that the roleplaying purity of the game should take precedence over the emotional boundaries and personal comfort levels of the people playing the game. Which might work for your groups, and fair enough. 

But for me, the enjoyment and comfort of the players comes way before the 'roleplaying purity' of the game.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 27, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Perhaps. And I can see where the greater need to compromise probably is. If this is a consentual gathering of players, it really is player A who needs to back off. Player B is *not* consenting to be the target of that sort of attention from another PC. As long as Player B isn't overplaying his uncrossable lines card, Player A shouldn't be allowed to drive B from the game because he won't compromise on his idea of fun. The burden of compromise, assuming nobody is too prickly in general, falls heavier on the one crossing the line without the target's consent.




I'm pretty much in full agreement here. If Player B is objecting to _everything_ others do, then the problem may be with them rather than the others. But if that isn't the case, then when issues do come up, the one who is crossing the line should typically be the person that needs to back down.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But I think there are also times when OOC is not just acceptable, but is even the more appropriate response. When we're dealing with an issue that is genuinely outside of another player's comfort zone, especially when it is intruding on that player's character directly, and they aren't comfortable playing through _any_ ramifications of it - it just isn't an experience they want as part of their game. I think that's the time when the players need to sit down and talk it out.




Exactly. When a *player* is uncomfortable with something, it's an out of character issue. Out of character issues should not be handled with in character methods. That just leads to too much aggressive playing such as killing his PC because the other player parked in your spot.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> From what I can tell, some of the folks here, like the Jester and Celebrim, seem to be arguing that the roleplaying purity of the game should take precedence over the emotional boundaries and personal comfort levels of the people playing the game. Which might work for your groups, and fair enough.
> 
> But for me, the enjoyment and comfort of the players comes way before the 'roleplaying purity' of the game.




I don't think that is the argument at all. I don't want to speak for them, but the point as I understand it and to some extent am sympathetic to, is that healthy emotional boundaries and personal comfort have very little to do with sensitivity to particular issues. The presumption is that the players are mature enough to handle the characters as presented in the context as presented. 

Ex: Players are playing Star Wars game. Player 1 is playing a "space cowboy" in leather pants. Player 2 is playing a snooty arisocrat who spends way too much time on her hair in the middle of a civil war. PC 1 hits on PC 2 with some PG-rated banter. Player 2 says, "ZOMG, this is out of my comfort zone. Cease and desist all flirting immediately." Is Player 2 justified in insisting that Player 1 cool it? 

"Blaming the victim" presumes a victim. The implication made above is that Player 2 is some kind of victim, but in fact, they are the social speedbump. In fact, it is Player 1 who is being faced with the charge of being unjustified, bad, and wrong. If the objection is that both PCs are played by males, then in fact Player 1 is likely the victim of homophobia and it is Player 2 who is blaming the victim.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Celebrim, your idea of "agnostic stance needs some work.




Hussar, I'm going to suggest you are a participant in this discussion who could benefit from considering Celebrim's "agnostic stance."



> At this point Player 1 has a choice.  Which is more important?  Playing his character concept or the enjoyment of everyone at the table?
> 
> To me, it's as simple as that.  That's the entire issue right there.  And for me, and anyone I would prefer to play with, they'll choose the enjoyment of everyone at the table every single time.  There are ten billion character concepts out there and limiting off one because it's going to make someone at the table feel very uncomfortable seems a pretty easy choice to me.
> 
> Apparently, though, some people feel differently.  Apparently, for some people, the enjoyment of other players is secondary to their own enjoyment of the game.




Is is possible, even likely, that I can choose to enjoy the game on my own terms. How feasible is it for me to ensure that another player is enjoying the game? Do I have any real control over whether someone else is happy? Hussar, have you ever met any person that you strongly believe is just not going to be very happy, no matter what others do? How do you deal with people like that?

I consider two possible scenarios:
Scenario One: Five people all sitting around the table playing an RPG. Although they would like to individually enjoy themselves, these five have all decided that every time a conflict of interests arises, they will all defer to the enjoyment of others. In other words, each of the five is trying to guess what everyone else wants and provide it for them.
Scenario Two: Five people all sitting around the table playing an RPG. Although they would like the other group members to enjoy themselves, these five have all decided that every time a conflict of interests arises, they are going to assert their own preference. In other words, each of the give is trying to enjoy themselves as best they can, even if the others are unsuccessful in doing so.

Now, who is more capable of understanding what I enjoy, myself, or you? Which of these two groups do you think is likely to be the capable at enjoying themselves? Although both groups consist of reasonable, well-intentioned people, I think the second scenario is going to be more successful. I think people are better at pleasing themselves than being pleased by others, particularly groups of others with competing interests. 

Again, the ideal outcome is for a conflict to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, if perhaps not in the direction they prefer. In the absence of such an outcome, someone must lose. Player 1 may have to modify their character, or Player 2 may have to decide whether or not to leave. Perhaps a compromise is achievable: a compromise essentially means that both parties lose, to some degree acceptable to each. A compromise should never be presumed, because a compromise is not automatically just.

People have the right to play the character the group has already approved them to play. People have the right to leave a group if they don't like it. In the absence of some compromise, player 1 may play their character as imagined, or not, and player 2 may continue to endure the scenario, or not. Unless some consensus arises that the group may dissociate, as a whole, from player 1 ifthe characterization persists, player 2 may be left to "suck it up." But I don't like that phrasing, because it presumes player 2 has to endure something intolerable, which they do not. They may simply leave. 

Unless Player 2 is somehow coerced into remaining the group, they really cannot be a victim of Player 1's actions, provided Player 1 acts in a mostly reasonable fashion.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Ex: Players are playing Star Wars game. Player 1 is playing a "space cowboy" in leather pants. Player 2 is playing a snooty arisocrat who spends way too much time on her hair in the middle of a civil war. PC 1 hits on PC 2 with some PG-rated banter. Player 2 says, "ZOMG, this is out of my comfort zone. Cease and desist all flirting immediately." Is Player 2 justified in insisting that Player 1 cool it?




It depends on the game and the people involved, in the end. Let's take the game out of it, and say I'm hanging out with some friends in real life. One of them starts some flirting with another who isn't really comfortable with it. Are they justified to ask them to stop? I'd say yes, as long as they are civil about doing so. 

Now, of course, in a game we already have all sorts of stuff happen which we aren't likely to do in real life (like, say, killing and looting our enemies.) So does it become ok to have behavior between characters which wouldn't normally be acceptable by social standards?

I'd still say no - because the line between 'pretend flirting in game' is a lot closer to reality than 'shooting someone with a space gun'. If both people are cool with it, then they can go ahead and have fun with whatever banter they want, even if it might cross normal social boundaries. But if one of them isn't comfortable with it, I think those boundaries should be respected just as much as if the flirting was out-of-character.

Of course, this might not be true in an 'anything goes' sort of game. Or maybe the rest of the group really did just want to show up for a beer and pretzels game, and having to hold back on any raunchy jokes or comments out of fear of offending someone will ruin their own gaming experience. So the solution might be for the offended player to be the one to leave. 

On the other hand, if that isn't the case, and the initiator is going to continue their unwanted flirtation despite the obvious discomfort of the other player, I'd say the problem definitely isn't with the person being offended, but with the gamer who doesn't have any respect for their friend's feelings.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Ex: Players are playing Star Wars game. Player 1 is playing a "space cowboy" in leather pants. Player 2 is playing a snooty arisocrat who spends way too much time on her hair in the middle of a civil war. PC 1 hits on PC 2 with some PG-rated banter. Player 2 says, "ZOMG, this is out of my comfort zone. Cease and desist all flirting immediately." Is Player 2 justified in insisting that Player 1 cool it?




Yes. Pretty much end of story, really. Player 2 shouldn't get his nose seriously out of joint about it (unless Playser 1 already knew about that particular line, then I think a bit more upset would be justified), but Player 1's responsibility at this point is to back off the subject area with Player 2.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> . Player 2 is in some way 'at fault' for being offended or made uncomfortable by Player 1's behavior...
> 
> ...And I think someone's discomfort over that sort of behavior does take precedence over how someone else wants to play their character.




My feeling is that on the initial situation described*, Player B probably *is* "at fault" for being weirded out by another PC being in love with their PC.  At the same time, this weirded-outness is a relatively minor character failing, the kind we normally learn to tolerate in our friends and associates.  And the appropriate mature response to this character failing by Player A is to respect that Player B has issues, and not push it further.

*Or in the real-life situation Hussar described upthread.  Likewise there, I think that on the facts Hussar gave, the player of the female short-term PC in love with Hussar's PC could not reasonably be expected to know that Hussar would be weirded out by the short-term PC's affections.  It would be reasonable for her to think that Hussar the player had a minor character flaw.  Yet she should *still* have respected his feelings and not pushed the matter.

There's a phrase in English law:  "Concession to human frailty."  I think it fits well here.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> it looks like some prefer that this sort of thing should always be handled in character.
> 
> For me, I think it is great when such a conflict can be handled in character, and it can even offer some really powerful roleplaying opportunities.
> 
> But I think there are also times when OOC is not just acceptable, but is even the more appropriate response.




I don't disagree with any of that.  I prefer it, because I think dealing with things IC is less harsh and more appropriate to an issue raised by someone else's in character play, but I do agree that there are exceptions where OOC communication are appropriate or even required.  I want to highlight however that a person is perfectly right to expect IC responces to IC actions, and if you are the one who has to respond to an IC action in an OOC way the burden is on you to justify it.  If I ever have to do that to another player, I'm probably going to start off with an apology and an explanation.  I'm also going to prefer to try an IC approach first, and then if I think there is OOC communication to make I'm going to want to wait until a game break to make it, otherwise I'll probably be apologizing to the DM and other players as well for disrupting play.  

It's not going to be my default stance that I'm being victimized here and people ought to be chagrined and falling in line with my perceptions and feelings.  That's going to be true even if I'm very uncomfortable with the line of play (and if I'm very uncomfortable with the line of play, I'm thinking I may be the outlier in the group in terms of comfort zone and I might need to be the one that needs to get out).



> You note that its ok for a group to discuss and determine what is acceptable before a campaign, but that once it starts, that isn't acceptable.




I didn't say it was unacceptable.  I said it belonged to a different class of problems.  And in particular, I've contended that no one person's opinion and feelings about what is acceptable ought to over rule anyone else's opinions.  I am asserting only that you don't automatically get a say over how any one else plays their character.



> It just doesn't seem reasonable to say that because a player didn't specifically mention they don't want other characters romantically pursuing them, they have to accept it and try to compromise with the player initiating such an uncomfortable situation.




Why are 'accept it' and 'try to compromise' treated as synonyms here?  'Trying to comprimise' means you don't accept it.  It means you try to effect change to something you could accept.   Why is that unreasonable?  Why is it reasonable to suggest that you don't have to comprimise and that everyone else must respect and accept your feelings on every matter?  Why indeed is does requirement to be accepting and tolerant only go in one direction.



> If a situation comes up in game which crosses their boundaries, they should have the opportunity to speak out and ask that it stops.




I didn't say that they didn't.  I just said that they can't expect that their feelings of discomfort are a unilateral and absolute veto on play.



> Now, from there you say that Player 1 shouldn't have to curtail their roleplaying experience in order to satisfy the needs of Player 2, and thus both sides should be equally willing to compromise. I'm not sure that is true, either - as some have mentioned, that seems awfully close to victim blaming. Player 2 is in some way 'at fault' for being offended or made uncomfortable by Player 1's behavior. Player 1's roleplaying experience has equal weight as the personal comfort of Player 2.




This is the real heart of the disagreement.  I don't think player #2 can claim to be a victim necessarily, nor do I agree that even if they can claim to be a victim that it gives them absolute moral authority of some higher order than anyone else at the table.   Let's back up a second.  Player #2's claim to victimhood status is based on what exactly?  That they were made to feel uncomfortable by some imaginary situation occuring in a game?   Why should we treat that as being a victim?  So some other player had thier pretend persona flirt with your pretend persona, and all the sudden you are claiming to be a victim?   Who granted you the right to get outraged, angry, or uncomfortable in that situation and why should I grant that because you feel outraged, angry, or uncomfortable that you have some right to justice and recompense?  

Set aside flirting a second.  Look at the general case here.  In this thread we've had claims to victimhood based on the following examples: two other players were arguing in character, another player was adopting a youthful ward, another player playing a 'little person', having to kill an imaginary animal, and others.  And we can imagine many many more things that might make someone uncomfortable but where its hard to see where the harm was done to the person who is complaining.  Don't you see any of these cases as spurious claims of victimhood?  Don't you think that even in the case of one player having his character romantically attracted to another player's character the claim of victimhood can be spurious?

In fact, the claim that you have been made a victim can be itself a form of passive aggression.  What you are really saying is, "The other player is doing me injury, and we should condemn his actions as being in the wrong."  When you claim to be a victim, you are claiming someone else is abusive.  This is an attack on a person's character and a direct attack on that person's freedom, and it can well be spurious and unmerited regardless of the attacker's feelings.  So can we really say who is being victimized here?  Player #1 may be innocently pursuing a line of play, only to have player #2 in his face claiming he's abusive.  Unless you have really been victimized, this is slander. 

No one gets a blank check to claim to be a victim.



> On the other hand, Celebrim seems, to me, to be setting the boundary line _waaaay _past what I think is appropriate: "it requires a lot more unconsensual and extreme case than anything that has been outlined here. An example would be essentially character rape, where one player dominated another player and forced them to engage in sexual acts or other perversions against their will".




Sure, but what constitutes appropriate play is an opinion.  No one should expect there own opinion to trump anyone elses.  When a conflict over where the boundaries should be occurs, you shouldn't immediately expect that the boundary is going to be drawn exactly where you want it.  Instead you should expect that you might want it here, and another player might want it there and you are going to have to work out where to put it that everyone is going to be happy with or else stop playing together.



> I think there are plenty of reasons for someone to be uncomfortable with the game content _way_ before it gets to anything this extreme.




Absolutely.  But the question is, do those necessarily require you to treat going OOC and being confrontation as a first recourse of dealing with your discomfort?  Maybe, but not to me clearly so. 



> From what I can tell, some of the folks here, like the Jester and Celebrim, seem to be arguing that the roleplaying purity of the game should take precedence over the emotional boundaries and personal comfort levels of the people playing the game.




I don't think you even get what I'm saying yet.



> But for me, the enjoyment and comfort of the players comes way before the 'roleplaying purity' of the game.




Has it not occurred to you that the enjoyment and comfort of the player may well be linked to the 'roleplaying purity' of the game?  That is to say, not only may many of the players enjoy the game more when there is 'roleplaying purity', but they may become deeply uncomfortable and feel boundaries are being cross when there isn't.  That is to say, from their perspective, they might find it deeply uncomfortable when someone breaks character, starts dumping their real life problems on them, and starts harranguing them about protecting their feelings. 

To make a ludicrously extreme example, how would you feel in a game of Monopoly if when you asked for rent from another player, they launched into a tirade about the oppression of the capitalist system, how they'd once lost their house to an unscrupplous bank, how big money'd interests served to keep people oppressed and dependent on large landowners, and then accused you perpetuating an oppressive system founded on slavery?  Wouldn't you want to reply, "Look, it's just a game.  My actions in the game aren't necessarily reflective of my real world feelings about anything, much less my real feelings about you as a person.  Can't we just play the game?"


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 27, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> This is the real heart of the disagreement. I don't think player #2 can claim to be a victim necessarily, nor do I agree that even if they can claim to be a victim that it gives them absolute moral authority of some higher order than anyone else at the table. Let's back up a second. Player #2's claim to victimhood status is based on what exactly? That they were made to feel uncomfortable by some imaginary situation occuring in a game? Why should we treat that as being a victim? So some other player had thier pretend persona flirt with your pretend persona, and all the sudden you are claiming to be a victim? Who granted you the right to get outraged, angry, or uncomfortable in that situation and why should I grant that because you feel outraged, angry, or uncomfortable that you have some right to justice and recompense?




Yeah, I think this really is at the heart of the matter. And it is a tricky question, again, where to draw that line - especially since it will likely be in a different place for different people. 

But... we are starting to get into the sort of victim-blaming mentality, aren't we? It's not a far reach from the line of thinking you propose to similar lines of thinking to justify actual harassment. "Oh, just because the guy made some inappropriate sexual comments about you, you don't get to claim to be a victim?"

No one needs to be granted the 'right' to be made uncomfortable by someone else, or the opportunity to speak up when that occurs. And no one is asking for 'justice and recompense' - they are asking another player to stop the behavior that makes them uncomfortable. There are any number of reasons why one might bring up such concerns, and there are any number of ways to potentially resolve them. 

But in this case, one player engaged in behavior that directly involved another character and caused immediate discomfort to them. I'd say the burden is on that first player to try and respect his friend's boundaries - at least, based on the example we started from. 

You bring up some other examples: 



Celebrim said:


> two other players were arguing in character, another player was adopting a youthful ward, another player playing a 'little person', having to kill an imaginary animal, and others. And we can imagine many many more things that might make someone uncomfortable but where its hard to see where the harm was done to the person who is complaining.




As I think several people have mentioned, the main point when the line was crossed was when involving another player/character. Like I said, I don't think it would be reasonable for someone to demand that no one can play halflings because they were sensitive about their height. But I _do _think it would be reasonable for them to ask another player not to constantly hurl height-based insults at them directly if it bothered them in real life. 



Celebrim said:


> In fact, the claim that you have been made a victim can be itself a form of passive aggression. What you are really saying is, "The other player is doing me injury, and we should condemn his actions as being in the wrong." When you claim to be a victim, you are claiming someone else is abusive. This is an attack on a person's character and a direct attack on that person's freedom, and it can well be spurious and unmerited regardless of the attacker's feelings. So can we really say who is being victimized here? Player #1 may be innocently pursuing a line of play, only to have player #2 in his face claiming he's abusive. Unless you have really been victimized, this is slander.




I'm going to say that I am not a fan of this line of thinking. Yes, there are degrees of behavior here, but I think it saying, "This behavior of yours is creeping me out, please stop" is very different from saying, "You are abusing and victimizing me, and need to be condemned."

Asking someone to stop disruptive behavior is not "a direct attack on that person's freedom". If Player 2 has been made uncomfortable, they can bring this up without 'slandering' Player 1. Where things go from there... that's a trickier question. But sharing your honest feelings and concerns about a situation? The second you condemn that as a problem is the second you are _encouraging_ actual harasshment and _discouraging_ people speaking out against it. 



Celebrim said:


> Sure, but what constitutes appropriate play is an opinion. No one should expect there own opinion to trump anyone elses. When a conflict over where the boundaries should be occurs, you shouldn't immediately expect that the boundary is going to be drawn exactly where you want it. Instead you should expect that you might want it here, and another player might want it there and you are going to have to work out where to put it that everyone is going to be happy with or else stop playing together.




Like I said - the general code I've been suggesting here is that if another player is initiating uncomfortable behavior that directly involves your character, the burden is on them to step back from that behavior. That won't always be true, and there are groups where it will outright not be the case. 

But saying that someone should always be open to compromise... I just don't agree. If Player 2 is upset because Player 1 is constantly insulting him, it isn't an acceptable compromise to say that Player 1 will only insult him half as often. That doesn't actually solve the problem.



Celebrim said:


> Absolutely. But the question is, do those necessarily require you to treat going OOC and being confrontation as a first recourse of dealing with your discomfort? Maybe, but not to me clearly so.




I think you're reading more into 'being confrontational' than any of us are suggesting. Going OOC, to me, means first trying to resolve things as peacefully as possible - telling someone why the behavior bothers you and asking them to stop. If you instead resort to in-character retribution, that strikes me as far more confrontational - and far more dangerous in the long run.



Celebrim said:


> Has it not occurred to you that the enjoyment and comfort of the player may well be linked to the 'roleplaying purity' of the game? That is to say, not only may many of the players enjoy the game more when there is 'roleplaying purity', but they may become deeply uncomfortable and feel boundaries are being cross when there isn't. That is to say, from their perspective, they might find it deeply uncomfortable when someone breaks character, starts dumping their real life problems on them, and starts harranguing them about protecting their feelings.




Yes. That's exactly what I just said. You feel that someone's enjoyment of being immersed in the pure roleplaying of the game should be weighted equally with another player's personal comfort zone of acceptable behavior. And if that is how your group feels, that is fine. 

For me, that isn't the case. With the groups I'm in, it is generally friends first, gamers second. 



Celebrim said:


> To make a ludicrously extreme example, how would you feel in a game of Monopoly if when you asked for rent from another player, they launched into a tirade about the oppression of the capitalist system, how they'd once lost their house to an unscrupplous bank, how big money'd interests served to keep people oppressed and dependent on large landowners, and then accused you perpetuating an oppressive system founded on slavery? Wouldn't you want to reply, "Look, it's just a game. My actions in the game aren't necessarily reflective of my real world feelings about anything, much less my real feelings about you as a person. Can't we just play the game?"




Not a good example - someone going into a Monopoly game should expect that rent is part of the game, after all. And, as I've said several times - if one player's issue with a campaign is an irreconcilable one, the burden will likely be on them to leave the game. If a game is up-front designed for an evil party to do terrible things, and will deal with mature themes and content, then someone who will be disturbed by that behavior shouldn't be playing the game. 

But in most games, that isn't the expectation. 

Like I said, the line can fall in various places. Each group needs to find out for themselves where it lies. And when conflict comes up between two different players, there is no guarantee of who will be in the right. But when they activity is initiated by one player, and involves another player against their will or desire, I'd say the burden is on the first player to back down. 

That won't always be the case, but it certainly is on the topics that started out this discussion, with behavior that can easily trigger real world comfort zones about relationships, harasshment and unwanted attention.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 28, 2010)

Pawsplay said:
			
		

> Is is possible, even likely, that I can choose to enjoy the game on my own terms. How feasible is it for me to ensure that another player is enjoying the game? Do I have any real control over whether someone else is happy? Hussar, have you ever met any person that you strongly believe is just not going to be very happy, no matter what others do? How do you deal with people like that?




Well, when someone else specifically tells me that what I'm doing is making them unhappy, it's pretty easy to know that what I'm doing is not contributing to everyone having fun at the table.

Now, as far as someone never being happy, well, I don't play with people like that.  Obviously.

But, that's moving the goalposts.  No one is claiming that you should bow down to someone who is being totally unreasonable.  What is being claimed is that someone who takes the extraordinary step of actually complaining about someone's behavior to their face in a social situation probably isn't doing it just to squash someone else's fun.

People keep trying to make this apply in all cases, coming up with scenario after scenario where it might not be true and pointing, "See!  It's unreasonable to listen to Player 2 here, so, we should never listen to Player 2."

No.  If a player at the table has honestly drawn the line at some behavior, you have two choices and only two choices.  

You can choose to ignore their concerns or you can respect their concerns.

Again, I don't play with people who would willingly put their own fun ahead of anyone else at the table.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 28, 2010)

S'mon said:


> /snip
> *Or in the real-life situation Hussar described upthread.  Likewise there, I think that on the facts Hussar gave, the player of the female short-term PC in love with Hussar's PC could not reasonably be expected to know that Hussar would be weirded out by the short-term PC's affections.  It would be reasonable for her to think that Hussar the player had a minor character flaw.  Yet she should *still* have respected his feelings and not pushed the matter.
> 
> There's a phrase in English law:  "Concession to human frailty."  I think it fits well here.




Oh, totally.  I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought she had done anything wrong.  She hadn't.  I didn't let it be known that this line of play was making me uncomfortable.  I tried to play through it.  But, I spent about six, seven sessions, being very, very uncomfortable all the time as this was coming up just about every scene.

In the end, I tried to solve the issue "in character" and it led to rather hurt feelings as I way over reacted.

This is why I feel it should have immedietely been taken OOC.  If I had made it known up front that I wasn't having fun, I know she would have backed off and respected that.

My bad for not being up front in the first place.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Yeah, I think this really is at the heart of the matter. And it is a tricky question, again, where to draw that line - especially since it will likely be in a different place for different people.




Yes.  Now we are at almost full agreement.



> But... we are starting to get into the sort of victim-blaming mentality, aren't we? It's not a far reach from the line of thinking you propose to similar lines of thinking to justify actual harassment. "Oh, just because the guy made some inappropriate sexual comments about you, you don't get to claim to be a victim?"




This is going to get political if we don't watch it, but I hold to a strict definition of blaming the victim.  Sometimes "blaming the victim" is brought up as a defense by people who adopt spurious passive aggresive stances and then are called on it.  This is unfortunate, because it makes it harder for actual victims to defend themselves.

Actually "blaming the victim" is something like: "If you didn't want to recieve cat calls, you should have dressed more modestly." or "You shouldn't go to clubs dressed like that, you were just asking for it."  Now, there may be some truth to those statements, however they are not in any way excuses for the behavior of the attackers.   However, suggesting that someone had no real grounds for taking offense, is not blaming the victim.  For example, if I have two colleagues at work who in a private conversation good naturedly rib each other about their personal appearance, or even touchy things like race or gender, if I overhear that, what real grounds do I have for taking offense at comments not directed at me and which the parties in the conversation thought amusing.  I'm asserting a right to be offended that I don't actually have.  No real harm came to me.   The people I observed were clearly tolerant of each other, what grounds do I have for injecting my intolerance?  Granted, this is not a clear cut bright line sort of thing, but that is exactly my point.

Out in the real world, friends tease each other all the time.  It is a means of testing whether or not you are the sort of person that goes all to peices over little and makes big emotional scenes, and sometimes its a means of finding out where your boundaries are.  "So and so has issues with X, so let's avoid bringing that up when they are around."



> No one needs to be granted the 'right' to be made uncomfortable by someone else...




I'm not even going to argue this one because I don't know how to go there within the rules and now I'm having to skirt the line already.



> And no one is asking for 'justice and recompense' - they are asking another player to stop the behavior that makes them uncomfortable.




Yes, just like I said.  In the real world, you go to court to bring injunctions against people.  They are very much asking for 'justice' when they bring this up, and failing justice I think it's very clear that people in this thread have been quick to assert their right to retribution. 



> But in this case, one player engaged in behavior that directly involved another character and caused immediate discomfort to them. I'd say the burden is on that first player to try and respect his friend's boundaries - at least, based on the example we started from.




I would agree that the first person has a burden on them to recognize that they have made the other player uncomfortable and to find a way to back off.  I don't agree that there is some absolute standard that says, "Ok, now you have been wronged, so sound you hue and cry of 'Justice' as loud as you like."  We are after all supposed to be among friends.   Nor do I agree that your right to play your character gives you the absolute right to determine when and how anything else in the game world, and most especially the other PC's, interacts with you.



> But I _do _think it would be reasonable for them to ask another player not to constantly hurl height-based insults at them directly if it bothered them in real life.




Sure, that would be reasonable.



> Yes, there are degrees of behavior here, but I think it saying, "This behavior of yours is creeping me out, please stop" is very different from saying, "You are abusing and victimizing me, and need to be condemned."




Can you explain how?  And in particular, can you explain how in a way that justifies the assertion that it is fully incombant on player #1 to change and not at all on player #2?



> Asking someone to stop disruptive behavior is not "a direct attack on that person's freedom".




Yes it is.  Freedom doesn't mean anything if it isn't freedom to occasionally cause offense.  It's precisely offensive speach that is protected by the first ammendment.  It's precisely the things that other people might object to that define whether we have any freedom at all. 



> If Player 2 has been made uncomfortable, they can bring this up without 'slandering' Player 1.




I can think of only one way how.



> But saying that someone should always be open to compromise... I just don't agree. If Player 2 is upset because Player 1 is constantly insulting him, it isn't an acceptable compromise to say that Player 1 will only insult him half as often. That doesn't actually solve the problem.




This is probably just a momentary lapse by you, but I really want to hammer on it anyway.  If Player 2 is upset because Player 1 is constantly insulting him, we have a totally different class of problem than what we've been discussing.  If Player 2 is upset because Player's #1's character is constantly insulting player #2's character, then we first have to make sure that both player #1 and player #2 haven't forgotten that they are not their character.  And if player #2 is playing a role-playing game for crying out loud, then that there are things that might make them uncomfortable is I think taken with about as much given as that there will be rents and payments in monopoly.  The proper course of action is for player #2 to work out the situation in a way that is fun for everyone involved.

That said, as a DM, I'm not going to give prior approval to a character concept that involves being a jerk to the other player character's unless I really know and trust the player and have reason to believe that the how the party conflict will be handled has been worked out in advance and that all the players at the table are mature and secure enough in themselves to handle it.  And if we have a player who spontaneously starts having his character act like a jerk, I'm going to pay very close attention to emotional spillover from OOC into the IC game just like I watch out for IC spilling over into the OOC game.



> I think you're reading more into 'being confrontational' than any of us are suggesting. Going OOC, to me, means first trying to resolve things as peacefully as possible - telling someone why the behavior bothers you and asking them to stop.




Sadly this is not usually true.  In my experience, players that have been made to feel uncomfortable tend to have all the beliefs about that that you and others here have outlined - namely, that they have been wronged, that the person who has wronged them has no recourse but to apologize/retcon/back off/etc., that they have a right to be angry and upset, and that if an apology is not forth coming that the person should be thrown out of the group.  People holding to these convictions do not actually in fact try to resolve things peacefully when they go OOC.  They don't feel that they have a responcibility to do so.  They feel instead entitled to something, and so they don't confess this as a small character flaw, they don't apologize, they don't try to empathize with the other players position, or anything of the sort.  "Why should they have to do so?" as so many people in this thread have immediately forcefully proclaimed.  "My feelings were hurt."  "You did something to me."  "You made me uncomfortable."  None of these things are the basis of a peaceful resolution.

In point of fact, switching to OOC publicly and in front of the group is an immediate escalation of the situation.  Even the most mature player who is jolted out of an IC state where he's holding on to the thought, "These actions don't reflect my assessment of my friends, or my friends assessment of me", is going to be immediately thrown on the defensive and probably made quite angry by someone taking the in game events as personal attacks.  And this is particularly true because by making the appeal in front of the group, you are putting the other person on trial in front of the rest of his friends - who themselves are very likely to unconsciously or even openly begin playing the roles of judge and jury.

If I see this, and I'm DMing, I'm going to try to immediately shut it down because there is just about no good that can come out of people snipping at each other IC and 9 times in 10 if I can get peoples heads back in the game we can move on with no more hard feelings and people will cool off.

Besides all the other reasons I've outlined, I think I can justify my position on this grounds alone - if you believe as I have suggested, you are more likely to make a diplomatic and tactful appeal to another player to resolve a conflict peacefully than if you think you have no responcibility at all to comprimise with that player.



> If you instead resort to in-character retribution, that strikes me as far more confrontational - and far more dangerous in the long run.




Only if the player is severely confused about the difference between IC and OOC.  In my experience, there isn't any OOC conflict that can't be worked out ICly by the same sort of methods (and then some) by which people work out conflict in the real world.  And if it can't be worked out IC neatly, then it certainly isn't going to get worked out OOC neatly.  Personally, as DM, I find brawls between the player characters are alot easier to deal with than brawls between the players themselves.  YMMV, but I find IC arguments tend to be alot less tense than OOC ones, even when some element of that IC argument reflects OOC tensions.  



> For me, that isn't the case. With the groups I'm in, it is generally friends first, gamers second.




Mine too.  Which I why I've got the standards I do, so that conflicts in the game can be left in the game, and disappear when we get up from the table.  I've tried it the other way, and it just makes for a painful real life soap opera, rather than an amusing in hindsight now you can laugh about it in game one.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 28, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> For example, if I have two colleagues at work who in a private conversation good naturedly rib each other about their personal appearance, or even touchy things like race or gender, if I overhear that, what real grounds do I have for taking offense at comments not directed at me and which the parties in the conversation thought amusing. I'm asserting a right to be offended that I don't actually have. No real harm came to me. The people I observed were clearly tolerant of each other, what grounds do I have for injecting my intolerance? Granted, this is not a clear cut bright line sort of thing, but that is exactly my point




Harrassment laws would like to have a word with you.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I consider two possible scenarios:
> Scenario One: Five people all sitting around the table playing an RPG. Although they would like to individually enjoy themselves, these five have all decided that every time a conflict of interests arises, they will all defer to the enjoyment of others. In other words, each of the five is trying to guess what everyone else wants and provide it for them.
> Scenario Two: Five people all sitting around the table playing an RPG. Although they would like the other group members to enjoy themselves, these five have all decided that every time a conflict of interests arises, they are going to assert their own preference. In other words, each of the give is trying to enjoy themselves as best they can, even if the others are unsuccessful in doing so.




The gaming table is not a Prisoner's Dilemma. When decision points arise no one is splitting the group up, locking you in separate rooms, and demanding that you make you decision without input from the rest of the group.

By playing a game you are already engaged in a social activity.

_Talk to each other_.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> People keep trying to make this apply in all cases, coming up with scenario after scenario where it might not be true and pointing, "See!  It's unreasonable to listen to Player 2 here, so, we should never listen to Player 2."




People who? You responded to my post, yet I have not advocating ignoring Player 2, or anyone else.



> No.  If a player at the table has honestly drawn the line at some behavior, you have two choices and only two choices.
> 
> You can choose to ignore their concerns or you can respect their concerns.




The problem with this proposition, is that while undoubtedly true, it does not tell you what to _do_. Essentially everyone has agreed to respect their concerns, but not everyone agrees on how the situation should be handled.



> Again, I don't play with people who would willingly put their own fun ahead of anyone else at the table.




Not even someone, let's call them Player 3, who is just rarely happy with anything you do? Someone who complains and insists people accomodate their sensitivities? Because me, if I were playing with a jerk, I would kick them out of my game. You seem to be saying you wouldn't do that, because that would be putting your fun ahead of theirs. If you can clarify why that's not true, let me know. 

So, according to you, Player 2 should put up with Player 1's behavior, because they should put Player 1's fun first. But Player 1 should modify their behavior, because they should put Player 2's fun first. So, in conclusion...

if Player 1 does something Player 2 objects to, Player 2 should say nothing and Player 1 should halt the behavior. I kind of see a logical problem there, but maybe you can help me out.

Really, this comes down to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The prerequisite, which many people miss, is that you must treat yourself with respect. It doesn't say to do BETTER unto others than you would do unto yourself, because frankly, that leads to an inconsistent position, as explored above, and in the end benefits no one, which is the opposite of benefitting everyone. 

A truly, radically ethical person who believed in altruism would put their fun EXACTLY EQUAL to the fun of every other person in the group. Yes?


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> The gaming table is not a Prisoner's Dilemma. When decision points arise no one is splitting the group up, locking you in separate rooms, and demanding that you make you decision without input from the rest of the group.
> 
> By playing a game you are already engaged in a social activity.
> 
> _Talk to each other_.




I am a big fan of talking. Five people not communicating their own personal interests is indeed a prisoner's dilemma, as they are all prisoners of a perverse system.  Feel free to read my previous posts in this thread, in which I repeatedly explain that the ideal situation is for everyone to talk about the issue and come to a consensus.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 28, 2010)

> "My character wouldn't do that!"
> 
> The five words that make every GM's blood run cold. It could be an unbitten adventure hook, a intriguing story twist, or simply a refusal to except the majority vote on which hall to turn down. What we have here is a power-struggle between player and GM, using the only narrative tool a player has; control of his character, to utterly stop any forward momentum the GM may have.
> 
> How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?




I've never had a player say that to me because I've never told a player what his character was doing- its his or her PC, after all.  I set up the environment and ask the players what they're going to do.

Even when the campaign dictates that a PC is mind-controlled or has been replaced by a doppelganger or some such, I don't run the player's PC.  Instead, I talk to the player whose PC has been affected.  I then tell them to play the PC with this in mind.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

I harness Fritz Perls, gestalt psychotherapist, to articulate some ideas relevant to gaming:



> I do my thing and you do your thing.
> I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
> And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
> You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
> If not, it can't be helped.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> .... And, as I've said several times - if one player's issue with a campaign is an irreconcilable one, the burden will likely be on them to leave the game. If a game is up-front designed for an evil party to do terrible things, and will deal with mature themes and content, then someone who will be disturbed by that behavior shouldn't be playing the game.



Yet to go back to my original example, one PC having a crush on another PC does not come under any of "evil"*, "terrible things", or "mature themes and content".  Or, dare I suggest that if it does there's a bigger problem rearing its head.

* - assuming for this purpose that both PCs are non-evil



> Like I said, the line can fall in various places. Each group needs to find out for themselves where it lies. And when conflict comes up between two different players, there is no guarantee of who will be in the right. But when they activity is initiated by one player, and involves another player against their will or desire, I'd say the burden is on the first player to back down.



Perhaps, thoguh I'd say the second player also needs to ask the mirror why such a simple thing makes him-her so uncomfortable.  Maybe there'll be a legitimate answer, and that's fair enough.  But far too often there won't be...
[ 







			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Really, this comes down to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.



Absolutely.  If I'm giving out a bad time in the game I always expect to get it back, or worse - and usually do. 

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Sep 28, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Perhaps, thoguh I'd say the second player also needs to ask the mirror why such a simple thing makes him-her so uncomfortable. Maybe there'll be a legitimate answer, and that's fair enough. But far too often there won't be...




Legitimate to who?  To Player 1?  To Player 2?  How do you judge "legitmacy"?

The player has complained to you, that what you are doing is making him/her uncomfortable.  Not that the campaign is bad, or that you are bad or anything else.  The player has complained about this specific element.  

Your response is to tell him to go "ask the mirror"?  

I already posted why I wouldn't want to engage in this.  I have zero interest in playing out romance in an RPG.  It's not something I would enjoy.  I don't like romance fiction and playing it out in a game would make me very uncomfortable.

Now I need more reason than that to make you stop?  

If we were playing in a romance campaign, then fine, I'm to blame.  No question.  If you had asked first and I said ok, then, again, I'm totally to blame.  Got no issues there.

But, you dumped this on me (or rather Player 1 dumped this on Player 2) without any consultation.  Player 2 says no thanks.

Why is this even an issue?

Note, if you then turned to Player 3 and asked if it was ok, and Player 3 said fine, then, sure, I'd have no problem with Player 2 sitting down and being quiet.  In game romance is not a terrible thing and it's probably not something that will make people uncomfortable to watch.  

At least, it wouldn't bother me.  If you want to engage in a PC romance with another PC, and that PC is ammenable, go for it.  I'd have a lot less sympathy for Player 2 for trying to stop two other players.  Again, within reason.  There are certain topics that might be difficult - politics, abuse, that sort of thing.

But, if a player does not want to engage with you on something you have brought to the table then that should always be the end of the story.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, if a player does not want to engage with you on something you have brought to the table then that should always be the end of the story.




Why? And I'm not going to buy "respect," since you do not have a monopoly on that quality. Why isn't it the beginning? Why does it mean drop it, rather than the player dropping out? You keep stating this as if it were a natural law, and your reasoning is simply not clear to me. Help me out here.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Why? And I'm not going to buy "respect," since you do not have a monopoly on that quality. Why isn't it the beginning? Why does it mean drop it, rather than the player dropping out? You keep stating this as if it were a natural law, and your reasoning is simply not clear to me. Help me out here.




Because you are the one changing the game.  You are the one who has changed the gaming environment, not the other person.  The other person hasn't done anything.  He's sitting there, minding his own business and it's your actions which are causing him to be uncomfortable.  

Sure, it should be talked out.  And 99 times out of a 100, some compromise will be reached and everyone is happy.  That's the way it should work.

But, in that one other time, when there can be no compromise, it's the person who's actively making the other person uncomfortable that has to give way.

Driving someone from a gaming table because I refuse to amend some new idea I bring to the table is bad play, IMO.  

Or, put it another way.  If you didn't bring this new element to the game, everyone would be happy.  Your happiness likely doesn't depend on this new idea.  You think it's a good idea and something you'd like to try.  Great.  But, that, in no way obligates anyone to accept that new idea.

The new idea is causing problems.  Since it's a new idea, it's not something that is required for what we are doing.  Therefore, it's better to drop the new idea than kick someone out of the game for not accepting it.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Why? And I'm not going to buy "respect," since you do not have a monopoly on that quality. Why isn't it the beginning? Why does it mean drop it, rather than the player dropping out? You keep stating this as if it were a natural law, and your reasoning is simply not clear to me. Help me out here.




1) If player B drops out because of some topic, you've lost a player rather than losing a topic to include in the game. Topics are easier to replace. Players are more valuable.

2) If Player B drops out because Player A included him in action that crossed his lines, the game loses both Player B *and* the connection Player A was trying to establish anyway. Might as well reduce the losses to just the connection.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2010)

I recall when GMing I once had a situation where the PC of a newly joined male player immediately started a hail of derogatory remarks about the abilities of the female PC (only female PC in the group) of the only female player.  The new player was a stranger to the group.  The new player's PC was heavily min-maxed, the female player's PC was normally competent.  I told him to stop, and he said "It's my character".  The female player never objected, but it made *me* uncomfortable, and I ended up asking him to leave the game.  

I know there's probably not information to judge, but in principle do you think that's reasonable behaviour from the GM?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 28, 2010)

My previous gaming circle tended to shy away from ooc discussions of problems, preferring to handle everything in character. My current circle is quite prepared to raise issues ooc. I prefer the latter approach.

In one game, Chris had a problem with Ryan's PC going too far in insulting his PC. He raised the issue in the middle of the session. Ryan immediately toned it down. Ryan did not ask Chris why he was so uptight, insult Chris's PC more, or try to kill Chris's PC. The reason for this is that Ryan isn't a dick. I enjoy gaming with both Chris and Ryan.

In a pirate game, with three players, Kev, also in the middle of a session, raised a problem - the PCs were too far apart morally. Kev's PC was a good guy, Jon's was very evil and I was in between the two. We all agreed that this was a problem as the party must be able to work as a team. We agreed to all get closer to the middle ground. We did not try to solve the problem by ejecting the most evil PC from the group or by killing him, or by me and Jon's PC ganging up to kill Kev's PC and take his stuff.

These are, I think, signs of a group with a good social dynamic.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 28, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I told him to stop, and he said "It's my character".



He was clearly a dick. Sometimes the "I'm just playing my character" defence is a passive-aggressive cover for anti-social behaviour.

That said, I fully accept that in some groups, like Lanefan's, and to a large extent my former gaming circle, that kind of thing can be perfectly fine. The players are all mature, they know what they like, and have been playing the "what starts with the character ends with the character" way for a long time.


----------



## Kerranin (Sep 28, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I recall when GMing I once had a situation where the PC of a newly joined male player immediately started a hail of derogatory remarks about the abilities of the female PC (only female PC in the group) of the only female player.  The new player was a stranger to the group.  The new player's PC was heavily min-maxed, the female player's PC was normally competent.  I told him to stop, and he said "It's my character".  The female player never objected, but it made *me* uncomfortable, and I ended up asking him to leave the game.
> 
> I know there's probably not information to judge, but in principle do you think that's reasonable behaviour from the GM?



If it makes people around the table uncomfortable, then it is a problem, even when the uncomfortable person is the GM.  You asked him to stop, he refused. I don't see anything wrong with asking him to leave.

RP Games require a level of cooperation, interaction and trust that needs everyone to be comfortable with what is being said and done. If people start feeling uncomfortable, the whole group dynamic can be affected, the game goes downhill, and in the worst case, it can bring an end to the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Harrassment laws would like to have a word with you.




Yes, but, I'd like to have a word with them.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 28, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I know there's probably not information to judge, but in principle do you think that's reasonable behaviour from the GM?




Yes.


----------



## Rel (Sep 28, 2010)

I always like it when I learn something from a thread, even if it's a small thing.

What I learned in this thread was that, by constantly being borderline offensive, I've managed to attract a group of gamers to my group (and friends to my circle of friends) who don't give me a hard time when I'm somewhat offensive.  That's good for all of us I think.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 28, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Yet to go back to my original example, one PC having a crush on another PC does not come under any of "evil"*, "terrible things", or "mature themes and content". Or, dare I suggest that if it does there's a bigger problem rearing its head.




Oh, sure - that's the point. Someone up thread said one reason why a player wouldn't be entitled to object in your scenario was if the campaign was explicitly about mature themes and content. 



Lanefan said:


> Perhaps, thoguh I'd say the second player also needs to ask the mirror why such a simple thing makes him-her so uncomfortable. Maybe there'll be a legitimate answer, and that's fair enough. But far too often there won't be...




I think this is part of the core disagreement here. At least from your earlier comments (that someone should simply 'lighten up') you seemed to find it unlikely that someone could be genuinely made uncomfortable by another player's character directing romantic attention towards them. But... I'm generally of the view that if you are friends with someone, you should respect their hang-ups, rather than assume they are groundless or that they need to be forced to confront them.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Because you are the one changing the game.  You are the one who has changed the gaming environment, not the other person.  The other person hasn't done anything.  He's sitting there, minding his own business and it's your actions which are causing him to be uncomfortable.




Not so. The game includes possibility of PC-PC romance. Player is 2 changing the game: "I decree there will be no romancing of my PC."


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Why? And I'm not going to buy "respect," since you do not have a monopoly on that quality. Why isn't it the beginning? Why does it mean drop it, rather than the player dropping out? You keep stating this as if it were a natural law, and your reasoning is simply not clear to me. Help me out here.




I'm having a hard time breaking it down any further, other than what has been already said about one character being the initiator and the one who chose to involve another player's character in an uncomfortable sitation. 

You really see these two lines as equivalent?

"I'm uncomfortable having your character romantically pursue mine, and I'd like you to respect my feelings in the matter and not continue with this idea."

"I am enjoying being able to romantically pursue your character, whether you desire it or not, and I'd like you to respect my feelings in the matter and let me continue doing so."

I very much doubt that behavior like that will ever be the only way someone can have fun in the game. But behavior like that _can_ ruin the game for someone else. Saying that someone should either allow their friends to engage in behavior that makes them uncomfortable, or they should leave the game... those don't seem reasonable options for any group of friends. 

Now, there may be cases where the person should back out of the game. If the behavior is something that is assumed to be part of the game, or that everyone else in the group indulges in, maybe they just aren't a good fit. If there is something going on that doesn't even involve them, but goes past their comfort zones, the burden might be on them to leave the group. 

But I think if another player is the one who is introducing an uncomfortable game element that is specifically tied to them, that first player is the one who bears the burden of backing off.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I'm having a hard time breaking it down any further, other than what has been already said about one character being the initiator and the one who chose to involve another player's character in an uncomfortable sitation.
> 
> You really see these two lines as equivalent?
> 
> ...




Again, the scenario already presumes the players tried to work it out. That's what should happen first. Assuming they don't, I don't see why the negatory player is more justified. Both players are potential problems if they have fixed ideas of what the game should be.  I have, at various times, GM'd for Christians who objected to D&D "gods," players who want to play psychopaths, players who are obsessed with paladin/Jedi/the Lone Ranger/Superman/whatever, players who want to play Fantasy Clint Eastwood, thieves, barbarians, what-have-you. And generally, it has worked out okay. The key has been that the players accept each other.

If Player 1 cannot accept Player 2's sensitivity, and Player 2 cannot accept Player 1's desire to roleplay their character in a certain way, conflict is inevitible.

As a GM, I would expect both players to come to an accord. But failing that, I don't really care which player decides to bite their tongue and deal with it. I know someone has to. While I am sensitive to the issue of not having players, and of wanting to include people in a given social circle, it simply isn't reasonable to accomodate people all the time. As a GM, I am somewhat inclined to say, "Look, if you aren't willing to stretch a bit and really experience something, I'm not sure this game is right for you." As rare as players are, a good game is rarer, and it's hard to run a good game walking on eggshells. If I remove difficult to accomodate players, I may, from time to time, be without a group. If I include them, I have a dissatisfactory group every time a difficult to accomodate player is present.

As the saying goes, Bad gaming is worse than no gaming at all.

It's not difficult to imagine the speech.

"Look, Player 2, here's the deal. I asked Player 1 to tone it down, and he said he will, but he is really fixed on the idea his character would feel a certain way. I asked you to play along, but you said you wouldn't, even if it was understood your PC was not interested and Player 1 was going to tone it down. I've tried to work out a compromise. Here's the deal, though. Player 1 is willing to play with you. It is you who have decided you can't play with Player 1. By extension, you're saying you can't play with this group if Player 1 continues to roleplay in that direction. 
"If you didn't have the issue, this wouldn't be an issue. In any other situation, Player 1 would be allowed to play his character as he sees fit. So the problem is basically between you and Player 1. As I said before, Player 1 is essentially willing to play the game, whereas you are not.
"So if yo are really serious that you are saying not even a hint of PC-on-PC romance, period, I think it's time to think about whether you are ready to hang with this group. This isn't exactly the Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company, but we are here to roll some dice and have a good time, and I think playing characters with actual personalities is something I want to encourage in my games. Given that 90% of the human race eventually has at least one permanent mate, and given that every character has parents, I'm not sure how I can essentially allow you to forbid in-character-romance if we want the game to graduate beyong the eleven-year-old level.
"Now, next time I start a campaign, we can have a little discussion and head things off at the pass. I think it's fine to set some ground rules. But I expect this game to run at least another six months. So it's really up to you to decide whether you can deal with this. Maybe you and Player 1 can even have a talk, again, about how this can be worked out so everyone is satisfied, but that can't happen unless everyone comes to the table.
"Do you need some time to think about this?"


----------



## billd91 (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Not so. The game includes possibility of PC-PC romance. Player is 2 changing the game: "I decree there will be no romancing of my PC."




I don't believe that's what he means by "changing the game". It's not changing the nature of the games rules or anthing like that. It's introducing the change to that particular instance of the D&D game and away from its default state (pre-PC romance). So yes, I'd agree with Hussar. The PC responsible for changing the relationship of the PCs, changing the default state of the game, is the one responsible to back off when it's not well-received.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I don't believe that's what he means by "changing the game". It's not changing the nature of the games rules or anthing like that. It's introducing the change to that particular instance of the D&D game and away from its default state (pre-PC romance). So yes, I'd agree with Hussar. The PC responsible for changing the relationship of the PCs, changing the default state of the game, is the one responsible to back off when it's not well-received.




I see two problems with that approach.

1. It's sometimes hard to anticipate when something will not be well-received.
2. I cannot be responsible for your feelings. 

Also, I disagree with your conception of "the default state of the game." In my view, the default state of the game is that a PC can do anything that is conceivable. 

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


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 28, 2010)

I've spoiler-blocked out my response to Celebrim below, just because... it got really long, and I figured I'd let anyone who wants to avoid the length do so. 

[sblock]


Celebrim said:


> This is going to get political if we don't watch it, but I hold to a strict definition of blaming the victim. Sometimes "blaming the victim" is brought up as a defense by people who adopt spurious passive aggresive stances and then are called on it. This is unfortunate, because it makes it harder for actual victims to defend themselves.




Fair enough about the actual background for the term. 

Still, whatever one calls it, I think it is a bad attitude to vilify or discourage someone speaking out against behavior that makes them uncomfortable. Or accusing it of being passive-aggressive. Nothing like that is going on here - we're talking about someone directly approaching the problem and asking someone to stop the behavior that bothers them. That's pretty much the exact opposite of being passive-aggresive!



Celebrim said:


> However, suggesting that someone had no real grounds for taking offense, is not blaming the victim. For example, if I have two colleagues at work who in a private conversation good naturedly rib each other about their personal appearance, or even touchy things like race or gender, if I overhear that, what real grounds do I have for taking offense at comments not directed at me and which the parties in the conversation thought amusing. I'm asserting a right to be offended that I don't actually have. No real harm came to me. The people I observed were clearly tolerant of each other, what grounds do I have for injecting my intolerance? Granted, this is not a clear cut bright line sort of thing, but that is exactly my point.




Well, I think there are still boundaries that could be crossed even by conversation that you aren't intended to be part of. If I overhear two colleagues harmless flirting, there is little reason for me to be bothered by it. If I hear them engaging in really explicit sexual talk? That might make me uncomfortable, and the appropriate response might be for me to speak up and point out people can overhear them. Asking them to take the talk elsewhere isn't trying to claim victimhood - it is simply trying to resolve an uncomfortable situation that has arisen!

And if their talk is actually something offensive - if I overhear them making derogatory comments about other coworkers, or about my race or gender, for example - then yeah, I think I may have grounds for being offended!

Of course, the example doesn't really match the situations we've been discussing, which have been focused not on someone objecting to behavior between other people at the table, but behavior they've been involuntarily involved in. If a coworker comes up to me and starts engaging in talk that makes me uncomfortable, then yeah, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to stop!



Celebrim said:


> Out in the real world, friends tease each other all the time. It is a means of testing whether or not you are the sort of person that goes all to peices over little and makes big emotional scenes, and sometimes its a means of finding out where your boundaries are. "So and so has issues with X, so let's avoid bringing that up when they are around."




I don't think it is particularly cool to imply that anyone who might object to someone crossing their boundaries is "the sort of person that goes all to peices over little things and makes big emotional scenes". Especially since, from the beginning, we've been saying the appropriate response when presented with something that bothers you is to simply ask the person to stop that behavior!

You keep trying to reimagine the situation. As though when Player B is bothered by the actions of Player A, Player B will inevitably respond with some sort of huge scene where they accuse Player A of stalking them and making them a victim and Player A needs to 'pay recompense' and answer to justice and... all sorts of other nonsense that no one, other than you, has really suggested. 

All that we have been talking about, in those situations, has been for Player B to speak up and say, "Hey, dude, I find this behavior kinda creepy, and would really like you to stop." 

Finally, for myself... yeah, my friends and I tease each other about stuff. But we don't do it to try and find out what someone's boundaries are. We do it to have fun. If we _do _find out a boundary line, we respect it. The idea that you _need_ to poke at someone until you find out what upsets them, or that someone is flawed if they have topics they aren't comfortable with... that seems a pretty weird definition of friendship to me. 



Celebrim said:


> I'm not even going to argue this one because I don't know how to go there within the rules and now I'm having to skirt the line already.




Ok, let me just say - I'm not trying to upset you or cause you any sort of anger or frustration, if something I said crossed the line. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth - all I was doing was responding to your direct quote of, "Who granted you the right to get ... uncomfortable", and noting that being made uncomfortable has nothing all to do with 'rights.' If that isn't the problem with responding, and you instead can't say anything because it would instead stray into some sort of political talk or discussion that isn't appropriate here - fair enough, and I'm willing to leave that thread be.



Celebrim said:


> Yes, just like I said. In the real world, you go to court to bring injunctions against people. They are very much asking for 'justice' when they bring this up, and failing justice I think it's very clear that people in this thread have been quick to assert their right to retribution.




Ok, yes, some people have suggested in-character retribution as a response. I... seem to recall that you were one of them. 

Those responses have also been completely seperate from those of us advocating resolving things out of character. And I don't think any of us have been advocating 'justice' or 'retribution'. All we've been looking for is for someone to stop the behavior that is making someone else uncomfortable. That isn't asking for someone to be punished for their behavior - that is saying, "I'm not comfortable with the direction this is going, can we drop this idea, put it behind us, and move on as normal?"



Celebrim said:


> I would agree that the first person has a burden on them to recognize that they have made the other player uncomfortable and to find a way to back off. I don't agree that there is some absolute standard that says, "Ok, now you have been wronged, so sound you hue and cry of 'Justice' as loud as you like."




You are the only one who has been phrasing things like that!!!

Yes, it is possible for someone to get upset over trivial things. There is no absolute standard. But we aren't suggesting anyone should be constantly shouting out that they have been victimized and crying for justice. All we are suggesting is that when someone _does _cross their boundary lines, the best approach is to mention that this does bother them and ask the one responsible to stop. 



Celebrim said:


> Can you explain how? And in particular, can you explain how in a way that justifies the assertion that it is fully incombant on player #1 to change and not at all on player #2?




Player 1 initiated a behavior involving another character in an uncomfortable situation against their will. It is very unlikely that behavior is vital to their enjoyment of the game. Player 2, however, will absolutely have their enjoyment of the game diminished by any form of this behavior continuing. 

That all says to me that Player 1 is the one with the burden of backing down. 

Now, that doesn't mean Player 1 has to do so. He could say, "NO, this plot is absolutely important to me. If I can't stalk Player 2, then the game just isn't as fun to me." In which case Player 1 is probably a jerk, and I imagine things will get worse until the game is disrupted entirely or Player 1 gets tossed from the game. 

But in most cases, when Player 1 crosses the boundary lines of Player 2, it isn't out of intentional malice, it is because they didn't realize it would be a problem. And usually, when Player 2 points out that it is an issue, most friends will simply back down and find some other RP element that they can enjoy. 

Of course, sometimes it _will _go the other way. Player 2 might be bothered by the situation, but realize it wasn't malicious, and simply suck it up and try and tough it out through the uncomfortable experience. Isn't that exactly what happened in Hussar's example? 

And it meant Hussar sat through one miserable session after another. Where if he had spoken up, the other player involved would probably have been able to find some other approach to take that wouldn't have bothered him. I find it very unlikely that their enjoyment of the game _required_ romantically pursuing his character. And if it did, then I'd say there may be much more serious issues in play that need to be addressed. 



Celebrim said:


> Yes it is. Freedom doesn't mean anything if it isn't freedom to occasionally cause offense. It's precisely offensive speach that is protected by the first ammendment. It's precisely the things that other people might object to that define whether we have any freedom at all.




A direct attack on someone's freedom would involve trying to physically prevent them from speaking. Or perhaps passing a law that forbid them from being romantically involved with another PC. Or any number of other approaches. 

Asking someone to stop behavior that bothers you? That isn't an attack in any way. If the player chooses to respect your wishes, then that is a choice they have made. If they don't, you can't stop them... but it is the sort of conflict which might result in someone having to leave the group. 

And note that you don't necessarily have any 'right' to play in someone's D&D game. It is usually a private activity taking place among individuals who desire to be part of it, usually in a personal residence. If you do cross the line and act like enough of a jerk to get kicked out, they aren't 'attacking your personal freedoms'. You are free to go off and play D&D and be a jerk somewhere else. 



Celebrim said:


> "If Player 2 has been made uncomfortable, they can bring this up without 'slandering' Player 1."
> I can think of only one way how.




Ok, I'm a little confused here. You genuinely feel that someone saying, "This behavior makes me uncomfortable, would you please stop it?" is 'slandering' Player 1? That it is "claiming [Player 1] is abusive", and is a personal attack on his character and is potentially victimizing him?

Cause I think that's nonsense. 

All the examples we've given have largely been directed at the behavior, rather than the person behind it. And usually assuming that aren't _intentionally_ trying to creep someone else out. That they are unintentionally crossing someone's boundaries, and the best way to resolve that is to _point this out_ and ask them to stop it. 

Again, speaking out honestly about something that makes you uncomfortable isn't _remotely_ a form of passive-aggresiveness. It is nearly the opposite - trying to resolve a situation by honestly sharing your concerns about it, rather than letting it simmer unspoken. 

Despite everything else you responded to, you seem to have missed my main point here: Speaking up when something makes you uncomfortable is a good thing. The second you condemn this as a problem is the second you are _encouraging_ actual harassment and _discouraging_ people speaking out against it. 



Celebrim said:


> If Player 2 is upset because Player's #1's character is constantly insulting player #2's character, then we first have to make sure that both player #1 and player #2 haven't forgotten that they are not their character. And if player #2 is playing a role-playing game for crying out loud, then that there are things that might make them uncomfortable is I think taken with about as much given as that there will be rents and payments in monopoly.




I don't buy this _at all_. It is a _given_ that during a role-playing game, one should expect to encounter behavior that bothers them and makes them uncomfortable? No way. Not in my game, and not in most. If that _is_ an assumption of your game, then fair enough, but it is most certainly not a default assumption of the genre. 

And again, I also don't buy the idea that everything is forgiveable if it is in character. If someone else wants to play a bard who, for whatever reason, singles my character out and is constantly insulting me... even if it is in game, that could well become frustrating. I'd like to think that if I was playing with friends, I'd be able to ask him to stop and he'd respect my wishes. 



Celebrim said:


> Sadly this is not usually true. In my experience, players that have been made to feel uncomfortable tend to have all the beliefs about that that you and others here have outlined - namely, that they have been wronged, that the person who has wronged them has no recourse but to apologize/retcon/back off/etc., that they have a right to be angry and upset, and that if an apology is not forth coming that the person should be thrown out of the group.




Ok, things finally make sense. If this is the behavior you deal with... fair enough. I think your comments may be much more applicable to such behavior. 

But that is a very different thing that what pretty much anyone in this thread has suggested. You say that myself "and others" have outlined these behaviors, but that's not true. YOU are the only one who has brought them up. No one has suggested that apologies need to be handed out, or that anyone needs to be kicked out of the group if they don't apologize, or that anger and claims of being wronged should be the first recourse. 



Celebrim said:


> People holding to these convictions do not actually in fact try to resolve things peacefully when they go OOC. They don't feel that they have a responcibility to do so. They feel instead entitled to something, and so they don't confess this as a small character flaw, they don't apologize, they don't try to empathize with the other players position, or anything of the sort. "Why should they have to do so?" as so many people in this thread have immediately forcefully proclaimed. "My feelings were hurt." "You did something to me." "You made me uncomfortable." None of these things are the basis of a peaceful resolution.




Well, my sympathies that you've had to deal with whatever situations have made this so personal for you. For myself, that isn't what I'm advocating or what I generally would expect from most gamers. 

I do think that your last few lines there are wrong. I absolutely think that someone can honestly speak up and say, "My feelings are hurt," or "You made me uncomfortable" and expect to resolve the issue peacefully from there. 

I'm actually starting to again be confused by what you are recommending. You've had a lot of lines attacking this as being passive-aggressive. But it isn't. Instead, what you actually seem to be suggesting - not saying this honest opinions, and instead trying to swallow up one's uncomfortableness and deal with it - seems much more likely to lead to passive-aggressive sniping and frustration. 

I just don't see why you feel that there is something wrong with honestly speaking up when someone is making you uncomfortable. 



Celebrim said:


> In point of fact, switching to OOC publicly and in front of the group is an immediate escalation of the situation. Even the most mature player who is jolted out of an IC state where he's holding on to the thought, "These actions don't reflect my assessment of my friends, or my friends assessment of me", is going to be immediately thrown on the defensive and probably made quite angry by someone taking the in game events as personal attacks. And this is particularly true because by making the appeal in front of the group, you are putting the other person on trial in front of the rest of his friends - who themselves are very likely to unconsciously or even openly begin playing the roles of judge and jury.
> 
> If I see this, and I'm DMing, I'm going to try to immediately shut it down because there is just about no good that can come out of people snipping at each other IC and 9 times in 10 if I can get peoples heads back in the game we can move on with no more hard feelings and people will cool off.




Again, I just don't get this. If I say, "Hold up, I don't like where this is going, can be back off on this plot thread," I'm not trying to escalate the situation and put someone on trial. I'm trying to stop an uncomfortable sitation before it gets worse. 

A DM who shuts that down and insists we need to proceed with it anyway... again, that's where we will see passive-aggressive frustration creeping in. We're not looking for people to spend time sniping at each other as a means of resolving thing - we're hoping that if someone is doing something that bothers you, a simple request to stop that behavior will be taken to heart. 

You genuinely feel that if another character starts stalking my own, and I ask him to stop OOC, that the best approach is to overrule me and insist we play it on IC? That won't cause me to 'cool off' - that will make me a lot more concerned and creeped out. 



Celebrim said:


> Only if the player is severely confused about the difference between IC and OOC. In my experience, there isn't any OOC conflict that can't be worked out ICly by the same sort of methods (and then some) by which people work out conflict in the real world. And if it can't be worked out IC neatly, then it certainly isn't going to get worked out OOC neatly. Personally, as DM, I find brawls between the player characters are alot easier to deal with than brawls between the players themselves. YMMV, but I find IC arguments tend to be alot less tense than OOC ones, even when some element of that IC argument reflects OOC tensions.




I guess on this we just have to disagree. Again, you are the only one suggesting 'brawling between players' as some sort of approach of resolution. I'm thinking that peaceful discussion in real life is appropriate when real life concerns are the ones at hand, and a lot easier to resolve than forcing something to get resolved by in-character fighting in the game itself. 



Celebrim said:


> Mine too. Which I why I've got the standards I do, so that conflicts in the game can be left in the game, and disappear when we get up from the table. I've tried it the other way, and it just makes for a painful real life soap opera, rather than an amusing in hindsight now you can laugh about it in game one.




If it works for you, all to the good, I suppose. But if something in the game crosses someone's boundaries, I'd rather know about it and avoid that topic, rather than insist they get over it and laugh about it later. 
[/sblock]


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> If Player 1 cannot accept Player 2's sensitivity, and Player 2 cannot accept Player 1's desire to roleplay their character in a certain way, conflict is inevitible.



It has to be resolved by Player 1 changing because -



> Player 2's sensitivity




is stronger than



> Player 1's desire to roleplay their character in a certain way




It can't really be explained any more than that. To me it's a pretty fundamental social rule. Player 2 can't change. You can't change feelings, any more than you stop having an allergic reaction. Player 1 can change his or her behaviour. It's a relatively easy thing to do.

If I was Player 1, and I was asked to stop the romance then I like to think I would. I certainly should. And I can't imagine why that would be a difficult or problematic thing. It would be a difficult and problematic thing for Player 2 to stop feeling the way he does.

If it wasn't an IC romance but some other issue, I can see how Player 1 might be viewed as being overly sensitive. Grow a thicker skin and all that. But with this particular issue I think P1 is perfectly reasonable. People often do have strong feelings about the areas of romance and sex.

Is Player 1 acting in bad faith? Claiming to be more hurt than he or she actually is, in order to exert power over others? Maybe, but let's assume not in this hypothetical example. We assume that Player 2 is acting in good faith so must assume the same of Player 1.

What about the issue of Player 1 having tacitly signed up for this by agreeing to play in an rpg? Rpgs are so open-ended that I don't think we can assume that much about what someone has signed up for, and must leave the possibility of raising an objection if things develop in an unexpected area. That's both a great strength of rpgs, but also a potential pitfall.

There are certain things I would expect, like a player signing up for D&D shouldn't have too many objections about the lack of realism. They shouldn't be continually complaing that hit points are stoopid, dragons can't fly and the like. They should also not play a pacifist, or someone who isn't prepared to risk their life going down monster-infested holes.

Romance, and the whole sexual area, otoh, are not typical D&D. If anything, D&D teaches us to fear women. Kiss them and they drain a level. Hug them and they turn into giant snakes. God knows what happens if you have sex with one! Something terrible, that's for sure.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 2. I cannot be responsible for your feelings.



If Person 1's activity X produces feeling Y in Person 2, then X is causing Y. It might be possible for Person 2 to stop feeling Y in response to X. Or it might not be. But it's usually easier to stop activity X.

One could say that both activity X and Person 2 are responsible for feeling Y. However I think X is easier to change.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> I just don't see why you feel that there is something wrong with honestly speaking up when someone is making you uncomfortable.



Yeah, I'm not understanding that either. It seems, to me, to be fundamental to human interaction.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I see two problems with that approach.
> 
> 1. It's sometimes hard to anticipate when something will not be well-received.
> 2. I cannot be responsible for your feelings.
> ...




How about putting this in context with the rest of the discussion. If the player's uncomfortable with something another player is trying to involve him in, he darn well should have a veto. That's consent. Otherwise it's involving the player in something without his consent. That's inappropriate. Ideally, they're ironing it out and Player A is respecting Player B's wishes while B isn't being overly sensitive (as we've been discussing throughout this thread).

A player may be able to do anything conceivable, but each thing done or additional development added changes the state of the game... the default state being "nothing has been done or developed yet". If the new change to that state seriously isn't welcome, it gets removed and the state reverts back to what it was before that element was introduced. That's what I think we're seeing when Hussar refers to "changing the game".


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Not so. The game includes possibility of PC-PC romance. Player is 2 changing the game: "I decree there will be no romancing of my PC."




Sure - but just as in real life, when Player 2 says, "No, not interested", that should be the end of it. 

I mean, yes, technically the game also includes the possibility of just about anything that could happen in real life also happening in the game. But I don't think most people have the expectation that the game might include another player's character stalking and pursuing an unwanted romance with your own. 



pawsplay said:


> Again, the scenario already presumes the players tried to work it out. That's what should happen first. Assuming they don't, I don't see why the negatory player is more justified. Both players are potential problems if they have fixed ideas of what the game should be. I have, at various times, GM'd for Christians who objected to D&D "gods," players who want to play psychopaths, players who are obsessed with paladin/Jedi/the Lone Ranger/Superman/whatever, players who want to play Fantasy Clint Eastwood, thieves, barbarians, what-have-you. And generally, it has worked out okay. The key has been that the players accept each other.




It's true that one can't force one's needs on everyone else in the game. But I think when someone else's character concept creates unwanted attachments to your own, you should have the right to veto it.

Basically, what I'm thinking is this - if another player's enjoyment of the game requires that they are stalking me in character, and they aren't willing to back down on that point, I think that something is really, really wrong. And either they are intentionally trying to bother me, or there is something underlying this that is even more uncomfortable. 

Remember, we're not talking about someone acting out their character seperate from me. Maybe in real life I'm very religious and don't approve of pre-marital hanky panky - that shouldn't give me the right to get upset if someone else has their character sleeping around. But if they insist on pursuing my character, even after I've asked them to stop, then I think we have a problem. 



pawsplay said:


> As a GM, I am somewhat inclined to say, "Look, if you aren't willing to stretch a bit and really experience something, I'm not sure this game is right for you." As rare as players are, a good game is rarer, and it's hard to run a good game walking on eggshells.




But we aren't talking about avoiding all sorts of topics out of fear of offending someone. We're talking about respecting someone's desires when they speak up about something making them uncomfortable. If they are complaining constantly about all sorts of trivial things, then sure, they might not be a good fit for the game. 

If a DM did indeed insist that I let my character be romanced by my friend Bob, whether I like it or not, I admit - I'd probably agree this group isn't one I want to be a part of!



pawsplay said:


> "Do you need some time to think about this?"




If a DM told me I had to let another character stalk and harass my PC, and that this was _vital to the game_, and that another player insisting on this is perfectly cool with him... then yeah, I'm gona from that game. 

If you are instead saying I just need to let his character ask mine out, and I can then go ahead and say no and he'll leave it at that... no problems there. 

If the DM is instead saying that I have to respond to PC-on-PC romance that I'm not interested in, then sorry, I'm going to be getting out of the group even faster. Since now I'm both being pushed past my comfort level _and_ you're telling me how to play my character, which seems to be the worst of both worlds.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 28, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> What about the issue of Player 1 having tacitly signed up for this by agreeing to play in an rpg? Rpgs are so open-ended that I don't think we can assume that much about what someone has signed up for, and must leave the possibility of raising an objection if things develop in an unexpected area. That's both a great strength of rpgs, but also a potential pitfall.
> 
> There are certain things I would expect, like a player signing up for D&D shouldn't have too many objections about the lack of realism. They shouldn't be continually complaing that hit points are stoopid, dragons can't fly and the like. They should also not play a pacifist, or someone who isn't prepared to risk their life going down monster-infested holes.




I think signing up for an RPG gives implicit consent for certain genre-based things, and for a wide variety of things to at least be proposed. I wouldn't fault Player 1 (or A) for trying to include Player 2 (B)'s PC in a romance. But once the line gets exposed and consent is withheld, I would expect Player 1 to back off.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think signing up for an RPG gives implicit consent for certain genre-based things, and for a wide variety of things to at least be proposed. I wouldn't fault Player 1 (or A) for trying to include Player 2 (B)'s PC in a romance.



Yeah, I agree, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact it's a good thing, initially. 







> But once the line gets exposed and consent is withheld, I would expect Player 1 to back off.



Yeah.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 28, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> To me it's a pretty fundamental social rule. Player 2 can't change. You can't change feelings, any more than you stop having an allergic reaction. Player 1 can change his or her behaviour. It's a relatively easy thing to do.





Welcome to the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

(1)  Player 1's desire to play Character X is also based on emotions.

(2)  It is not your emotions which are critical, but it is how you react to them that is.

(3)  It is untrue that you cannot change how you feel.  Emotions are complex things, and sometimes exploring what one feels does indeed change how one feels.

(4)  Acceptance of points (2) and (3) are, in a very real way, determinants of maturity.

Yes, if something makes someone truly uncomfortable, it is going to have to be addressed.  Addressing it should follow this progression, IMHO:

1.  Deal with it in game if possible.  I.e., spiders bug me, but I can play that out by slaying the giant spider and taking its stuff.
2.  Talk about it.  Attempt to compromise.  EDIT:  Obviously, this is something that is bothering you more than simply not liking spiders.  AFAICT, no one in this thread has suggested that "there is something wrong with honestly speaking up when someone is making you uncomfortable", so that is a straw man -- IMHO and IME generally damaging to the conversation, rather than helping achieve understanding or agreement.
3.  If no compromise is possible, decide who or what you wish to drop (as a group).


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> It can't really be explained any more than that.
> To me it's a pretty fundamental social rule. Player 2 can't change.




I just don't accept that. To me, it's a fundamental social rule you don't coerce people into doing things for your benefit. I don't impose my preferences on a social group activity by fiat. That's an aggressive act and I disapprove.



> You can't change feelings, any more than you stop having an allergic reaction. Player 1 can change his or her behaviour. It's a relatively easy thing to do.




First of all, no one is being asked to change their feelings. Second, feelings are not like allergic reactions. Feelings come from the way we perceive a situation, and it is possible to modify our perception. You are correct, there is no way to simply deactivate a feeling. However, simply because we have a feeling does not mean it has to control us.

I may feel _as if_ I could not stand it if another player has their PC fall in love with mine. However, that feeling is an illusion. In fact, I could stand it, and I would suffer very little harm. I would be uncomfortable. Most likely, over time, I would become more comfortable. However, I will continue to be uncomfortable and may become more uncomfortable if I continue to think, "This should not be." If the issue is simply my discomfort, I really wonder why I can't simply work through it. If you want to claim it is actually ethically wrong to roleplay an PC-on-PC romance and I have a good reason to be uncomfortable, that is a different situation.

The word "stalker" has been thrown around and I don't think the word likely applies to the original situation described, nor to most RPG situations. If you actually have a stalker, the fact that they are in a D&D group with you is the least of your problems. I don't think labeling one person as the good person and the other person as the bad person is helpful in this situation, or even in most situations. I do not accept that Player 2 necessarily has a personal, hurtful intention. They may, but again, that implies a larger problem than the unwanted PC interaction.

I believe I have a pretty good handle on human interactions. Apart from having years of experience as a GM and being in a very fulfilling marriage, I also have a BA in Psychology and all but thesis on my Masters in Rehabilitation Counseling Psychology. What I am saying about getting along with people is the same sort of information I might say to a client, or teach in a psychoeducation class. Telling other people what to do is largeless fruitless unless you are reasonably asserting your personal rights, and in any case is more likely to lead to frustration that satisfaction.

"You must accept me, and you must not offend me" is a mythical statement, and it does not work any better in the RPG world than it does in other situations. 

Again, it would be better to work it out, but if not, ultimately it's a choice of everyone involved whether to be in the game or not. Whether they like what other people like, or not.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I may feel _as if_ I could not stand it if another player has their PC fall in love with mine. However, that feeling is an illusion. In fact, I could stand it, and I would suffer very little harm. I would be uncomfortable. Most likely, over time, I would become more comfortable. However, I will continue to be uncomfortable and may become more uncomfortable if I continue to think, "This should not be." If the issue is simply my discomfort, I really wonder why I can't simply work through it.




Again, I think it unreasonable to insist that someone should suffer through a situation which makes them uncomfortable. Especially when the player causing the discomfort should have plenty of other avenues of roleplaying which don't involve pursuing this approach with a player who doesn't want it. 

And I think we've seen at least one anecdote in this thread where someone _did _try and suffer through it, and only became more uncomfortable, and the situation was all the worse when it came to a head. 



pawsplay said:


> The word "stalker" has been thrown around and I don't think the word likely applies to the original situation described, nor to most RPG situations. If you actually have a stalker, the fact that they are in a D&D group with you is the least of your problems.




I think the use of that term has primarily been to the character's behavior, not the player. And, yes, behavior has been discussed that the word definitely fits - either a character continuing to pursue another character after being rejected, or the initial scenario where the character is in love with another PC and pursues them 'behind the scenes'. There are plenty of reasons why someone would find that sort of behavior in game uncomfortable.

And of course, one argument against that is that you should be able to seperate your character from yourself - it doesn't bother you when your character gets horribly killed by lizard people, right? But honestly... it is a lot easier to put distance betwen yourself and something like, versus something that more closely mirrors a real world situation. And when its another player pursuing a romantic agenda in a disturbing fashion, yeah, that's going to go past the boundaries of some people. 



pawsplay said:


> I don't think labeling one person as the good person and the other person as the bad person is helpful in this situation, or even in most situations. I do not accept that Player 2 necessarily has a personal, hurtful intention.




I don't think most of us are labelling one person as good and one person as bad - at least, not at the initial point. At that point, all we have is the instigator - the person whose actions caused the situation - and the responder, the person responding to the situation. 

Now, if the instigator is asked to not pursue this game element, and chooses to do so anyway, or responds by making things worse for the other player or taking it out on them in game... yeah, at that point I'm calling them a bad person. 

And, similarly, if the person who was made uncomfortable immediately becomes completely unreasonable, and insists the initiator must be thrown of the game whether they intended offense or not - at that point, they are being the bad person. 

But at the point at which someone has simply been asked to stop their behavior that is bothering someone else, no one is inherently the bad guy. 



pawsplay said:


> I believe I have a pretty good handle on human interactions. Apart from having years of experience as a GM and being in a very fulfilling marriage, I also have a BA in Psychology and all but thesis on my Masters in Rehabilitation Counseling Psychology. What I am saying about getting along with people is the same sort of information I might say to a client, or teach in a psychoeducation class. Telling other people what to do is largeless fruitless unless you are reasonably asserting your personal rights, and in any case is more likely to lead to frustration that satisfaction.




Credentials aside, I can't put too much weight in the suggestions you've given. They've come across a bit too much as, "If something upsets someone, its their responsibility to get over it". And that seems, at least to me, both insensitive and a poor approach for a group of friends to have. People getting along should involve respecting one another's boundaries and trying to reach a common solution when conflict arises. And yes, sometimes compromise will go one way, sometimes it will go another way. But, generally, I've found that personal feelings and a respect for someone's boundaries should trump someone wanting to pursue one specific uncomfortable roleplaying element for their pretend character.



pawsplay said:


> "You must accept me, and you must not offend me" is a mythical statement, and it does not work any better in the RPG world than it does in other situations.




That seems a bit of a distortion of what is being said. No one is saying you need to somehow know in advance what will bother someone, and avoid it. They are saying that if you do happen to make someone uncomfortable, and are alerted to this fact, you try to avoid that behavior. 

It's Rule 1: Don't be a dick. 

The key to realize is that it isn't that initial behavior that is being a dick. Saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if our characters fell in love?" That's perfectly fine. 

It's continuing to pursue that line of thought when the other player says, "No... I'm not really comfortable with that." Or viewing it as a personal attack when they bring it up. Or deciding that if they won't let your characters fall in love, you need to kill their character off. Or to harass them OOC until they 'lighten up'. Or, essentially, continuing with any other behavior in-character that you certainly don't _need_ to do, and that you _know_ makes your friend uncomfortable, but you insist on doing anyway.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Again, I think it unreasonable to insist that someone should suffer through a situation which makes them uncomfortable.




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



> Especially when the player causing the discomfort should have plenty of other avenues of roleplaying which don't involve pursuing this approach with a player who doesn't want it.




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. 



> And I think we've seen at least one anecdote in this thread where someone _did _try and suffer through it, and only became more uncomfortable, and the situation was all the worse when it came to a head.




I certainly don't advocate trying to suffer.



> I think the use of that term has primarily been to the character's behavior, not the player. And, yes, behavior has been discussed that the word definitely fits - either a character continuing to pursue another character after being rejected, or the initial scenario where the character is in love with another PC and pursues them 'behind the scenes'. There are plenty of reasons why someone would find that sort of behavior in game uncomfortable.




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?



> And of course, one argument against that is that you should be able to seperate your character from yourself - it doesn't bother you when your character gets horribly killed by lizard people, right? But honestly... it is a lot easier to put distance betwen yourself and something like, versus something that more closely mirrors a real world situation. And when its another player pursuing a romantic agenda in a disturbing fashion, yeah, that's going to go past the boundaries of some people.




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.



> I don't think most of us are labelling one person as good and one person as bad - at least, not at the initial point. At that point, all we have is the instigator - the person whose actions caused the situation - and the responder, the person responding to the situation.




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.



> Now, if the instigator is asked to not pursue this game element, and chooses to do so anyway, or responds by making things worse for the other player or taking it out on them in game... yeah, at that point I'm calling them a bad person.




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. I'm not comfortable labeling someone as a bad person for:

Wishing to do something that somebody else doesn't like, who does not have a really reasonable basis for insisting they stop.



> And, similarly, if the person who was made uncomfortable immediately becomes completely unreasonable, and insists the initiator must be thrown of the game whether they intended offense or not - at that point, they are being the bad person.




Maybe. Sometimes it may be productive to ask if other people in the group would also like to remove the person, or to set a personal limit: I will not play if this continues.



> But at the point at which someone has simply been asked to stop their behavior that is bothering someone else, no one is inherently the bad guy.
> 
> Credentials aside, I can't put too much weight in the suggestions you've given. They've come across a bit too much as, "If something upsets someone, its their responsibility to get over it". And that seems, at least to me, both insensitive and a poor approach for a group of friends to have.




I can appreciate your skepticism. Most people are not taught to take responsibility for their emotions and it may sound strange to hear it spelled it so explicitly. But you seem to be picking up a message, "get over it," which I am not saying. The person offended has a choice. 



> People getting along should involve respecting one another's boundaries and trying to reach a common solution when conflict arises. And yes, sometimes compromise will go one way, sometimes it will go another way. But, generally, I've found that personal feelings and a respect for someone's boundaries should trump someone wanting to pursue one specific uncomfortable roleplaying element for their pretend character.




I agree. I've taught classes on setting healthy boundaries.

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.

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.



> That seems a bit of a distortion of what is being said. No one is saying you need to somehow know in advance what will bother someone, and avoid it. They are saying that if you do happen to make someone uncomfortable, and are alerted to this fact, you try to avoid that behavior.




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?"



> It's Rule 1: Don't be a dick.
> 
> The key to realize is that it isn't that initial behavior that is being a dick. Saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if our characters fell in love?" That's perfectly fine.
> 
> It's continuing to pursue that line of thought when the other player says, "No... I'm not really comfortable with that." Or viewing it as a personal attack when they bring it up. Or deciding that if they won't let your characters fall in love, you need to kill their character off. Or to harass them OOC until they 'lighten up'. Or, essentially, continuing with any other behavior in-character that you certainly don't _need_ to do, and that you _know_ makes your friend uncomfortable, but you insist on doing anyway.




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.

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. I don't want Player 1's rigidity or pushiness, but I don't want Player 2's sense of entitlement either. 

Again, all you are saying is that it's best if people can work the situation out. Every person in this entire thread, without any exception I am aware of, agrees it would be better if Player 1 and Player 2 simply made an agreement both were happy with. If that's all your saying, you are not providing a script for the situation where they can't agree. If, on the other hand, you are saying this MUST be done, you are providing a script I do not accept, and that I would view as more likely harmful to a long-term group among friends who know each other well and view RPGs as a diversion worth investing some thought into. 

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.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I just don't accept that. To me, it's a fundamental social rule you don't coerce people into doing things for your benefit. I don't impose my preferences on a social group activity by fiat. That's an aggressive act and I disapprove.






> Telling other people what to do is largeless fruitless unless you are reasonably asserting your personal rights, and in any case is more likely to lead to frustration that satisfaction.
> 
> "You must accept me, and you must not offend me" is a mythical statement, and it does not work any better in the RPG world than it does in other situations.



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

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. Lanefan's suggested course of action - to mock Player 2 and not change his behaviour - is, I think, wrong.



> The word "stalker" has been thrown around and I don't think the word likely applies to the original situation described, nor to most RPG situations.



Yes, I think you're right. Just as we assume Player 2 is acting in good faith we must also see Player 1 as doing the same.

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.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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.




Hyperbole isn't really helping your argument. Nobody's characterizing Player 1 backing off as "folding like a card". That's a very confrontational way of stating it. 



pawsplay said:


> 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. I don't want Player 1's rigidity or pushiness, but I don't want Player 2's sense of entitlement either.




Since a lot of us have been including the caveat that Player 2 isn't just throwing out uncrossable lines willy nilly, I don't think it's fair to characterize him as "erecting lots of barriers to common, relatively safe emotions." If he's doing that, then he's the dick in this scenario, remember?



pawsplay said:


> 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.




Well that's not for you to decide for him, is it? But we're not just talking about unilaterally working in a little romance into the story. Some posters have been suggesting that we take a broader view of the whole thing... so we are. Would you be so willing to dismiss Player 2's emotional response had Player 1 worked a rape or other abuse into the backstory? A little romance is pretty innocuous for most people (though not all), but the principle we're working with would be the same up and down the continuum of potential relationships between Player 1's PC and Player 2's PC.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> If I'm Player 1, and I don't fold like a card when Player 2 complains about X, that makes me a dick.



Not for all values of X, but in this situation certainly. If Player 1 doesn't comply with a reasonable request, and I think that this is a reasonable request, then yes, he's a dick.

I don't think the term 'fold like a card' is helpful. The non-dick Player 1 accedes to the request because it's the right thing to do, there are no control/dominance issues. Or we should assume that there are none.



> 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.



Eh, humans are weird that way.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 28, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


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




To the extent that it was all these things, I was perfectly happy with it and saw it as productive.  

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.



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




Yes.  I've always said that.  However, I've also always said that the form of the request must be as non-confrontational as possible.  Exactly what form that least confrontational and most diplomatic version of the request may be depends on the circumstance, but I've offered I think a very wide variaty of possible approaches that can be used and which will be appropriate under different circumstances.

Stopping the session to say, "You are making me uncomfortable.  Please stop.", while it is sometimes quite appropriate and may in some cases be your only recourse, is not the least confrontational approach IMO.  



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




With full empathy and respect for the concerns and distress of other player at the table.

This however does not necessarily mean that that player  is required to just shut up and back off, although, though if he is comfortable with doing so then he is certainly free to do so.  If it costs him nothing to give up, then almost certainly he should do so.  



> 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.




Frankness is a valuable trait.  There are situations in life where frankness is wanting and lacking and it takes some courageous to speak up and out about the thing that no one wants to say.  And frankness beats dishonesty all around the ring.  However, being frank is not the be all end all of communication, nor is it always the most sensible approach.  In real life, people are seldom frank precisely because they know that it is confrontational and likely to lead to the airing of all sorts of emotions in unproductive ways.  It's great when you have a situation among friends where complete frankness causes no hard feelings, but that is highly highly unusual.

There is this other equally valuable trait called tactfulness, and it must be paired with frankness.   Tactfulness is the skill of conveying your real empathy and goodwill toward the person while telling them things that might make them uncomfortable.  Its hard to do.  Go to far one way and you seem condescending.  Go to far in another direction and you seem dishonest. 



> Once the request is made I think Player 1 should accede to it.




Then, it's not really a request is it?



> It's surely no great trouble to Player 1 to do so.




I think player #1 should be the judge of that.



> Lanefan's suggested course of action - to mock Player 2 and not change his behaviour - is, I think, wrong.




Oh certainly, but that's not all that is on the table here.

To be exact, if someone just blurted out how they were uncomfortable and asked me to stop, I'd probably:

a) Offer an apology for making them uncomfortable, and assure them that I certainly had no intention of doing so.  Try to be as humble and non-threatening as possible.

b) Try to discover exactly what it is that I was doing that made them so uncomfortable, and once I'd discovered it offer my sympathy for their feelings whatever they are and apologize again if necessary.

c) Try to suggest a line of play which extricates our characters from whatever situation that has made them uncomfortable as gracefully as possible.

d) If there seems to be some confusion, remind the player that they have full control over their character and are not required to do anything in response to any overature by myself as a player or by my character.  I can't (or won't) force them into anything, whatever overatures I may make.  Remind them that I'm in charge of my character and that I only wish to jointly create a story with them within the framework of the game.  As such, however their character responds to my character, I will always try to respond to their lead in such a way that it allows the game to continue.  My character is therefore safe to insult, condemn, punch or whatever they feel their character needs to do to signal to the character (and to me the player) whatever their character feels.   In effect, my character is - regardless of the pretence in the relationship between the characters - an absolutely loyal friend in the end, except where we might mutually agree otherwise for the fun of it.  The relationship should be treated like those of a TV show or story, where the characters fight, sometimes work cross purposes or to selfish interests, occasionally put each other down, but always manage to be for each other in the end.   This is in my opinion a meta-rule to a game like D&D which requires party dynamics.  Intraparty conflict occurs, but never to the point that it splits the party unless we all agree that is the most interesting thing to happen.

e) If there seems to be any confusion, remind them that I was in character, and that my in character self does not reflect my real beliefs and opinions about anything necessarily.  It would be a dull game indeed if I could only play myself.

f) If the situation persists and I find myself continually offending people unwittingly or the available range of emotions I can display constrained to the point that its all meta-game because RP makes the players too uncomfortable, find as gracious of an excuse as possible for not attending future sessions and wish them all the best of luck with the game.

But, to the extent that I heed a request, I do so because I'm trying to be gracious - not because I'm required to obey them or to subjegate my own feelings, desires, and preferences to theirs.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 28, 2010)

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 (Sep 28, 2010)

Good post, Celebrim.



Celebrim said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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: 
Don't be a dick.
Your fun is not to come at the expense of another player.
Your fun may come at the expense of the DM's fun.
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 (Sep 29, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

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


----------



## steenan (Sep 29, 2010)

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 (Sep 29, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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.  



pawsplay said:


> 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. 



pawsplay said:


> 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. 



pawsplay said:


> 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'. 



pawsplay said:


> 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. 



pawsplay said:


> 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!



pawsplay said:


> 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. 



pawsplay said:


> 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. 



pawsplay said:


> 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. 



pawsplay said:


> 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. 



pawsplay said:


> 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. 



pawsplay said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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!



pawsplay said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

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


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 29, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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. 



Celebrim said:


> 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.
> ...




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. 



Celebrim said:


> 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. 



Celebrim said:


> 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. 



Celebrim said:


> 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_. 



Celebrim said:


> "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_. 



Celebrim said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2010)

*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:


			
				Posts 74 said:
			
		

> Lanefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 30, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 30, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 30, 2010)

"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.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 30, 2010)

If you are doing something to someone else's character - you know, _not your own -  _they are fully within their rights to both ask you and expect you to stop.  It is no different from when one player suddenly decides to steal from, or attack, or kill another person's character without their permission.  Worst, in fact, since in this case they explicitly told you to stop.  It's jerk behavior, it's anti-social behavior, and it has no place not just in this game, but in the hobby as a whole.

The idea that roleplaying games should make you feel uncomfortable is utter and complete nonsense.  We aren't playing Therapists and Cigars, here.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 30, 2010)

Vegepygmy said:


> 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 said:


> I could kiss him for the last paragraph.



You're both making me very uncomfortable!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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.



In a case where there's only that one character to consider in only that one game, then yes; it's an easy enough change.

But there's also the very real possibility that what is being asked is much more than just a change to a single PC's motivations: that P2 is in fact subtly (or not so subtly, perhaps) asking P1 to change his entire style of play.

The original example I gave never got into whether P1 and P2 had gamed together before, or the ongoing dynamics of the rest of the group, or any of the rest of all that; mostly because I was originally merely trying to dream up a quick-and-easy way to get an otherwise-antisocial character into a party and it was the first idea that leaped to mind.  I certainly never thought it'd lead to all this! 


> 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?



This brings up another assumption: that there *are* other targets.  If I'm playing a female Elf and P2 is playing a male Elf, in a party otherwise full of Dwarves, my options are somewhat limited.

But if there's lots of other options and everyone else at the table also refuses to engage then I'm probably done with that crew; as if they can't handle IC romance they probably don't like a bunch of other things that I see as integral and fun parts of the game...

And for the original example here's yet another variable to boot around: how much (if any) other romantic activity is or has been already present in the party/campaign?  If I'm P1 chasing P2's character and I know P2 has another character currently in a fling with P3's character, P2's OOC "not interested, creeps me out" denial suddenly loses a whole lot of steam.

Lan-"romance is a pit trap?"-efan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 30, 2010)

Change the context for a minute.

The entire argument, AFAICT, is similar to my saying that certain topics on a messageboard make me very uncomfortable....And then asking that no one engage them in a thread I am participating in, at least not to me.

That can be reasonable, but it might not be.  It might be easy to grant, but it might not be.  It might be possible to compromise, but it might not be.  What I definitely cannot say is that I have an absolute right to demand this, and that, if you do not agree, it is your fault.



RC


----------



## billd91 (Sep 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Change the context for a minute.
> 
> The entire argument, AFAICT, is similar to my saying that certain topics on a messageboard make me very uncomfortable....And then asking that no one engage them in a thread I am participating in, at least not to me.




I don't believe they're very similar at all. The change in context from a group of players in the same RPG to posting on an open message board changes that dynamic.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 30, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> But there's also the very real possibility that what is being asked is much more than just a change to a single PC's motivations: that P2 is in fact subtly (or not so subtly, perhaps) asking P1 to change his entire style of play.




If your "style of play" requires you to do things to other players that make them uncomfortable, absolutely it should change.



> This brings up another assumption: that there *are* other targets.  If I'm playing a female Elf and P2 is playing a male Elf, in a party otherwise full of Dwarves, my options are somewhat limited.




It *does not matter*.  If you are doing something to a player and it makes them uncomfortable, you cease doing it.  This is the basic rule of social engagement.  "Do not be a creep" is not a difficult social rule.



> And for the original example here's yet another variable to boot around: how much (if any) other romantic activity is or has been already present in the party/campaign?  If I'm P1 chasing P2's character and I know P2 has another character currently in a fling with P3's character, P2's OOC "not interested, creeps me out" denial suddenly loses a whole lot of steam




*It doesn't matter*.

It doesn't matter why Player 2 asks you to stop.  It's really none of your business in the slightest.  If you are doing something to another player that makes them uncomfortable, you back off.  You don't need to know why they're uncomfortable - it has no bearing on the issue at all.



Raven Crowking said:


> Change the context for a minute.
> 
> The entire argument, AFAICT, is similar to my saying that certain topics  on a messageboard make me very uncomfortable....And then asking that no  one engage them in a thread I am participating in, at least not to me.
> 
> ...




Let's not change the context like that because it is a strawman at  best.  You are implying that D&D games all have to involve PC  romance.  They do not.  

But let's do change the context, albeit in another way.  The entire argument is similar to my  saying that my character habitually steals from other PCs.  Every night I  try to steal their items, their weapons, and their armor.

It is _never_ unreasonable for the other PCs to tell me to cut it out.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 30, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I don't believe they're very similar at all. The change in context from a group of players in the same RPG to posting on an open message board changes that dynamic.



OK, make it a private or semi-private message board.

Now what?

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 30, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> If your "style of play" requires you to do things to other players that make them uncomfortable, absolutely it should change.



Where I, on the other hand, would be disappointed if they (or the game itself) didn't somehow make me uncomfortable now and then; I'd rather push envelopes than live within them.  I don't subscribe to this "lowest-common-comfort-denominator" theory.



> It *does not matter*.  If you are doing something to a player and it makes them uncomfortable, you cease doing it.  This is the basic rule of social engagement.  "Do not be a creep" is not a difficult social rule.
> 
> *It doesn't matter*.
> 
> It doesn't matter why Player 2 asks you to stop.  It's really none of your business in the slightest.  If you are doing something to another player that makes them uncomfortable, you back off.  You don't need to know why they're uncomfortable - it has no bearing on the issue at all.



Yes it does.  If they're affording me so little trust to assume I'm a "creep" then why should I afford them enough trust to assume the stated "discomfort" is real and not just an act intended to annoy me?


> But let's do change the context, albeit in another way.  The entire argument is similar to my saying that my character habitually steals from other PCs.  Every night I try to steal their items, their weapons, and their armor.
> 
> It is _never_ unreasonable for the other PCs to tell me to cut it out.



Ah, but here you hit on the key.  *The other PCs* can do and say what they bloody want, and if they catch my PC stealing from them it's probably - in fact, quite likely - the end of the line for him.  But it's kept in character, exactly where it should be.

But my PC attempting an in-character romance should not so quickly lead to me-as-player being labelled a real-life creep.

Sure, the PC I'm chasing can ask me to stop, or tell me to get lost, whatever; and I'll react in character in one of an infinite possible number of ways depending on the characters and circumstances.  That's what roleplaying is.

But the thought of something as banal as this making a *player* uncomfortable enough to stop a session (other than to crack a few jokes) is just beyond my experience.  Hey, maybe my crew is just a bit more liberated than some...

Lanefan


----------



## billd91 (Sep 30, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> OK, make it a private or semi-private message board.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> Lanefan




I think taking it down to the level of a private conversation between a few people, particularly a face to face one, gets us as close to the gaming context as we're going to get with any of these analogies. The reason I say face to face is because most gaming situations where these lines would come up are going to be face to face as well. Plus, with any sort of electronic communication, chances are that I have some tools to stop interacting with you (ignore list, kill files) while still participating in the general group.

But if we were in a private conversation and, out of the blue, you started talking about your admiration of NAMBLA or how sexy my 72 year old mother is and I was uncomfortable with the conversation, I'd have no trouble asking you to find something else to talk about.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 30, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 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.




Again, I am advocating against suffering. Going through an unpleasant situation does not necessarily lead to suffering. It can lead to gain, pleasure, or enlightenment. Examples: Rock climbing, falling off a bicycle, asking someone out for a date. I would not suggest anything that simply leads to continued suffering, nor am I likely to advise anyone to hold out any "vague hope" although I cannot decide that for other people. But it would be irresponsible of me to suggest that people purposefully aviod things that are uncomfortable but not harmful; that does tend to lead to suffering. 



> if Player 1 backs down... he keeps playing the game and has one roleplaying approach changed or removed.




Imagine you ask a kid what they want for their birthday. They say, "A dog." You say, "Anything besides that." The child is saddened. Do we reassure them that numerous other options exist?



> I am having a lot of trouble resolving your claims of counseling with the sort of sentiments you are advocating.




Perhaps I am a very bad counselor. Or then again, perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with some ideas with which I am familiar that explain my reasoning.





> 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.




I said I do not think it is useful to assign blame. If making the situation someone's "fault" unfairly bothers you, I wonder why it doesn't bother you that Player 1 is being blamed for Player 2's emotions. 



> 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.




If I wanted to be really daring, I could observe that I was offended by their remark. 



> 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.




That's a very different situation. You've already stated that Player 1's "shove" was not problematic. That is, their roleplaying was not inherently out of bounds.

It is different because I do not choose whether I am shoved. Whether I wish to be or not, whether I am aware of it or not, shoving is a physical act imposed on me and I cannot help but respond as any other physical objects met with force.

I do choose whether to be offended. (At some level; I don't necessarily make a conscious choice "I will be offended right now" but whether I am offended or not depends on how I view the situation). There is no statement or action that is inherently offensive. It gains that property only by offending someone. If I offend you, it is because you have chosen to be offended. I am not saying you should not be offended, nor am I saying you should. But the meaning of offense is that you are not happy with my behavior. I could engage in a similar behavior with someone else who may not be offended. 

So in other words, whether I have done something wrong or not does not depend on a feeling. Simply because you feel offended does not mean I have wronged you. Simply because I do it knowing you will feel offended, and you do not wish me to do it, does not mean I have wronged you.

In order to determine whether you have been wronged, you and I have to agree on what constitues ethical behavior. "I have the right not to be offended" presumes you have some control over whether I am. In fact, I can be offended even if you try not to offend me, and I could refuse to be offended even if you purposefully try to offend me. The right not to be offended is based on the myth that you have control over my emotions. "I hold you responsible for my feeling offended," is just a nonsense statement. 

Imagine a group of five players. Player 2 doesn't like PC-on-PC romance, Player 3 doesn't like same-sex player-on-player romance roleplay which includes the GM in a number of pairings, Player 3 doesn't like remorseless slaughter of creatures for loot, Player 4 doesn't like moral justifications for using force against others, and Player 5 doesn't think violence should be glorified at all. Player 1 wants to play a little romance, a little adventure, a little of this, a little of that; they don't like scheming.

So do the five players figure out some way they can get along? Or do they create a game that has no romance, no violence, no moralizing, no violent heroism, and no elaborate scheming?

So, again, this is not assigning blame. This is about assigning responsibility. Player 2 is responsible for their desire to participate or not, and is responsible for their own fun. Dealing with Player 1 is probably not beyond their capacities. Player 1 is responsible for doing actions they know bother player 2, but they may decide, "Ok, I acknowledge that, but so what? Player 2 is asking for something I don't think is reasonable." Player 2 may be left with a choice: do I remove myself from a game I decide is not right for me, or do I acknowledge I can deal with something? 

there is no "universal law" that says Player 2 is allowed to glom onto an existing game and insisting the group change play styles. That's not a real social rule. That's like a football player joining a soccer club and picking up the ball.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 30, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Where I, on the other hand, would be disappointed if they (or the game itself) didn't somehow make me uncomfortable now and then; I'd rather push envelopes than live within them.  I don't subscribe to this "lowest-common-comfort-denominator" theory.




It has nothing to do with the "lowest common comfort denominator," and your smugness is not helping your argument.  This is D&D, not Adventurers: the Angsting.



> Yes it does.  If they're affording me so little trust to assume I'm a "creep" then why should I afford them enough trust to assume the stated "discomfort" is real and not just an act intended to annoy me?




Maybe they don't trust _this player in the example_ because, hey, they're acting like a creep?

If a player tells you "stop doing that to my character, it makes me uncomfortable" and you refuse, guess what?  That's creep behavior.  Literally, that is the definition of a creep.



> Ah, but here you hit on the key.  *The other PCs* can do and say what they bloody want, and if they catch my PC stealing from them it's probably - in fact, quite likely - the end of the line for him.  But it's kept in character, exactly where it should be.




So if I changed "PC" to "player" it would completely be horrible and unjustifiable?  Players aren't allowed to be mad at another player who is disrupting the game?



> But my PC attempting an in-character romance should not so quickly lead to me-as-player being labelled a real-life creep.




No, but *trying to force the romance when the other player doesn't want you to* does.



> Sure, the PC I'm chasing can ask me to stop, or tell me to get lost, whatever; and I'll react in character in one of an infinite possible number of ways depending on the characters and circumstances.  That's what roleplaying is.




And sometimes *not being a creep* is telling the roleplayer to step back because they're intruding on personal bounderies, as it is in _every_ social convention.  Roleplaying doesn't exist in a bubble.  Playing with others is a social contract just as most things are, and intruding on boundaries or purposefully intruding on someone else's space is creep behavior, no matter where you're doing it.



> But the thought of something as banal as this making a *player* uncomfortable enough to stop a session (other than to crack a few jokes) is just beyond my experience.  Hey, maybe my crew is just a bit more liberated than some...




What works for your group works for your group.  It _doesn't matter_.  Your group is fine with it - great!  It works out fantastic for you!

But when someone is _not_ ok with it, it's creep behavior to tell them to suck it up and deal with it.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 1, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> What works for your group works for your group. It doesn't matter. Your group is fine with it - great! It works out fantastic for you!
> 
> But when someone is _not_ ok with it, it's creep behavior to tell them to suck it up and deal with it.




What you are saying is that Lanefan would be wrong to create a group that enjoyed his playstyle, if it meant excluding any person. Would it be creepy for every person in that group to simply leave the game, then form a new group without Player 2? Why is it okay to tell Player 1 to suck it up and deal with it when Player 2 won't roleplay a situation out?

The position you are arguing for has been phrased as something along the lines of, "Any time you do something that makes someone uncomfortable, withdraw." But someone who simply stated that position would make some people uncomfortable. There is simply no way to square such a rule with logic. It's a "rule" based on very limited experiences. It makes no admissions of context.

Certainly, I think most people would agree that if Player 1 were a long-time, valued group member and Player 2 is a newcomer who wants to change the group's style, Player 2 does not have a solid basis in etiquette or justice. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" describes what I would consider the most common interpretation for how to proceed from a social standpoint. And ethically, I think most people would agree we do not have a right to compel others to form groups to play games that fit our preferences. 

This has been stated and restated in various ways throughout this thread. I am kind of frustrated that a supposed "rule" has been stated several times without any justification as to why it is a rule or where it is come from, whereas I think I and others have pointed out ways in which it leads to self-contradiction, suggesting it doesn't cover all situations, only some situations. Certainly, I can think of nothing, off-hand, in the major ethical systems and religions of the world that suggests you should not offend people simply because they are offended, and numerous examples of when it is suggested that people may have to simply accept being offended. The Golden Rule suggests that the situation should be dealt with in a way that benefits everyone equally, not to the sole benefit of the person who chooses to be offended.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 1, 2010)

You missed kinda heavily what I've been saying.

There will come topics or moments in game where not everyone is on board.  These you hash out with the group.  Certain topics are pretty much _never_ ok (if you hear or think about rape and tabletop gaming coming together and you think "Hey sounds good," please leave my hobby).  Others are a bit iffy - the players encounter a large group of evil spiders, woops one of the players is arachnophobic.  On the iffy ones, you have to ask just how _important_ that subject is to the game to yourself (Can I ditch evil spiders and the game is still fine?  Most likely yes.  Ok, time to leave behind the spiders).  Likewise, if romance between others is going to be a major theme in game, and the person doesn't like that, you should probably tell them it's going to be a major theme and let them decide if they want to stay or not.

But no, what I've been talking about is this idea that if PC A hits on PC B, it's Player B's fault of they find it uncomfortable, and that they should just get over it.  I'm sorry, but no.  If you are actively doing something to someone else's character and they find it uncomfortable and want you to stop, _you stop_.  It's that simple.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2010)

I wanted to add to this thread, but ProfC has pretty much said everything I wanted to say and I can't posrep him again.  But, just to reiterate:



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Yes it does. If they're affording me so little trust to assume I'm a "creep" then why should I afford them enough trust to assume the stated "discomfort" is real and not just an act intended to annoy me?




You are not a creep for trying something new.

You are a creep for forcing elements onto another player when that player has said no.

Let's break down the steps here:

1.  P1 decides to do the romance thing with another PC.  - No problems.
2.  P1 decides to keep this secret from the other PC's.  - Possibly problematic.  For one, it's dishonest and can cause problems down the road.  But, possibly fine.  There is certainly room for characters with secrets.
3.  P1 acts on his background.  - No problems.
4.  P2, the recepient of the actions, doesn't like where this is going and asks player 1 to stop.  - No problems.  ((And this is the one place I think everyone agrees))
5.  P1 ignores or over rules P2's concerns and continues as before.  - Problem.  Isn't this the definition of "griefing"?  It's harrassment at the very least.
6.  Situation continues and P1 kills P2's character.  Problem.  Does anything think this isn't a problem?

Up until Step 4, there's no problems.  But, at Step 5, it all comes down to cost/benefit in the end.  Is it worth losing a player over this?  Is this element so important that one (or possibly more) player should be excluded from the game, either voluntarily or not?

In this specific case, I would say absolutely not.  Not allowing you to romance another PC is not any reason for anyone to leave a game.  Note, nothing has been said about not allowing any romance, but, since romance is not an expectation of a D&D game, it's an additional element that can be dropped.  Just because you can't romance a PC this campaign, shelve the idea and try again next time around.

As I've always said, this sort of thing never happens at my table anymore.  We create our characters as a group, precisely to avoid any of this kind of drama.  We never get the "I steal from other PC's" crap, or killing other PC's or any of the other things like that.  Is it playing to the "Lowest Comfort Level"?  Maybe.  Then again, I play with people who have pretty high tolerances and share my playstyle, for the most part.

On a mechanical end, Chronica Feudalis has the best solution I've ever seen to this.  In CF, you have what is called "Backgrounds".  This isn't character history.  What it is, is elements of your character that are true in the game world, but are not brought up at the table by anyone other than that player.  So, if you put, "I have a big family" in your Background, the DM can never kidnap your family or otherwise make them the center of the scenario.  But, as a player, I can bring up staying with my family, tell anecdotes about my family and generally use "My big family" in any reasonable way.

To me, "I have a romance" is a perfect Background element for a group that is not comfortable playing out romance during the game.  The player who wants the romance sticks it in his background, he can reference it from time to time, but, it's never actually played out.

Makes for a nice compromise.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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.




Never yet in thirty + years of gaming has anyone - male, female, young, older - ever mentioned being uncomfortable with it, or even noticing it enough to comment about it. If they did, every single one of them held their tongues, sometimes for decades. 



Celebrim said:


> 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.




Nope, it's not.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Oct 1, 2010)

Boy this thread got weird.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 1, 2010)

> What works for your group works for your group. It doesn't matter. Your group is fine with it - great! It works out fantastic for you!
> 
> But when someone is not ok with it, it's creep behavior to tell them to suck it up and deal with it.




and



> What you are saying is that Lanefan would be wrong to create a group that enjoyed his playstyle, if it meant excluding any person.




and



> You are a creep for forcing elements onto another player when that player has said no.




Let me just say this: if you create a situation in game that makes someone uncomfortable enough _after _ they have explicitly stated that such a situation would be extremely upsetting, you're not just being a creep, you're potentially opening yourself up for liability.

I'm not kidding- its called "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

If you feel that the situation you wish to interject into the game is important enough to the campaign that you intend to do so over someone's explicit protest, you're far safer (legally) and on better moral/ethical turf if you explain to them that you intend to put that situation into the game, and if they don't like it, they can leave.  Permanently, if needs must.  If you don't give them the heads-up?

Well, you've been warned.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Certainly, I can think of nothing, off-hand, in the major ethical systems and religions of the world that suggests you should not offend people simply because they are offended, and numerous examples of when it is suggested that people may have to simply accept being offended. The Golden Rule suggests that the situation should be dealt with in a way that benefits everyone equally, not to the sole benefit of the person who chooses to be offended.



I'm surprised. Maybe you're not looking in the right place.

Tort law has a concept called a "dignity tort." Back in the old days, battery and assault constituted dignity torts. They're a kind of intentional tort. 



			
				Restatement of Torts 2d said:
			
		

> § 8A Intent
> 
> The word "intent" is used throughout the Restatement of this Subject to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.



The important part is that last clause, that the person committing battery doesn't desire the result of the tort, but believes that the consequences are substantially certain.

The Restatement of Torts is an attempt to catalog, in a scholarly fashion, the common law (or judge made law) of various jurisdictions in the U.S. It's part amalgamation of the law of all the states, part reform effort. To my knowledge, the Restatement's definitions of intent, battery, and assault are fairly accurate.



			
				Restatement of Torts 2d said:
			
		

> § 18 Battery: Offensive Contact
> 
> (1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
> (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
> ...



Note the idea of harmful or offensive contact. It doesn't have to cause injury, it can simply be offensive to the person. 

The American Law Institute (the body that writes the Restatements) comments on the various sections that are supposed to constitute "the law." One of the comment to section 18 is particularly interesting. (It also contradictions something I said earlier.)



			
				Restatement of Torts 2d said:
			
		

> d. Knowledge of contact. In order that the actor may be liable under the statement in this Subsection, it is not necessary that the other should know of the offensive contact which is inflicted upon him at the time when it is inflicted. The actor's liability is based upon his intentional invasion of the other's dignitary interest in the inviolability of his person and the affront to the other's dignity involved therein. This affront is as keenly felt by one who only knows after the event that an indignity has been perpetrated upon him as by one who is conscious of it while it is being perpetrated.



So, if someone offensively touches someone and they don't find out till later, that person is still on the hook.

But battery requires touching, what if there's no touching? Is someone who makes a move to offensively touch someone still libel under a dignity tort? Yep, the tort of assault.



			
				Restatement of Torts 2d said:
			
		

> § 21 Assault
> (1) An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if:
> (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
> (b) the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.



In this case, almost the entirety of the tort is in the person's mind. If the person feels imminent apprehension, then assaulter is libel. If there is no imminent apprehension, there is no assault.

Of course, both of these torts involve either physical contact or the threat of physical contact (neither are something covered by Lanefan's original scenario).

So what about non physical contact? Can someone be libel under the law for causing someone emotional distress? Yes. It's a newer tort, but it's available in many jurisdictions.



			
				Restatement of Torts 2d said:
			
		

> § 46 Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress
> 
> (1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.



Notice that bodily harm isn't necessarily a requirement. (Though some states might require that.) Also, I believe that recklessly isn't an element in many states that have this tort. Still, it exists.

Fortunately, American Law Institute has helped us with example about what, in their opinion, would constitute outrageous conduct.



			
				Restatement of Torts 2d said:
			
		

> Illustrations:
> f. The extreme and outrageous character of the conduct may arise from the actor's knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, by reason of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity. The conduct may become heartless, flagrant, and outrageous when the actor proceeds in the face of such knowledge, where it would not be so if he did not know. It must be emphasized again, however, that major outrage is essential to the tort; and the mere fact that the actor knows that the other will regard the conduct as insulting, or will have his feelings hurt, is not enough.
> 
> 11. A, who knows that B is pregnant, intentionally shoots before the eyes of B a pet dog, to which A knows that B is greatly attached. B suffers severe emotional distress, which results in a miscarriage. A is subject to liability to B for the distress and for the miscarriage.



Pretty bad stuff. In case you are reading this posting thinking "that's outragious, I've cause people 'emotional distress' a million times!" Note that the conduct has to be _really_ outrageous. Your typical hijinx aren't enough.



> 13. A is an otherwise normal girl who is a little overweight, and is quite sensitive about it. Knowing this, B tells A that she looks like a hippopotamus. This causes A to become embarrassed and angry. She broods over the incident, and is made ill. B is not liable to A.



The notion that you shouldn't offend people simply because that they would be offended is found in law that's been around for literally centuries.

Mind you, I'm not talking about crimes. Yes, there is a crime called battery, but I'm talking about torts. If Player 1 intentionally hits Player 2 and Player 2 is offended, Player 2 can sue for battery. The standard of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" it's more likely than not, or about 51%.

While I'm at it, don't forget about libel and slander. 

Also, I'm not a lawyer, no one reading this is my client. This is about as close to legal advice as my cat is to being a martian.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 1, 2010)

There is a big difference between intentionally and knowing inflicting distress on an unsuspecting person, and simply offending or bothering them. If you want to talk tort rubbish, I'll call you and raise you a "consent;" roleplaying is a reasonable and expected hazard of, you know, playing a role-playing game. Sure, if Blackleaf's player kills herself because of something you did, and you have reason to suspect said player would be strongly effected, I guess there might be some kind of lawsuit in there. But we really, really aren't talking about that.

This is a thread about a player's ability to define their own character's existence. As I think has already been established, for the most part a player has the right to define their character's past and their attributes, within whatever parameters are agreed upon in the group. The question is whether another player can decide their PC is in love with this player's PC without their consent. 

Not whether a player is allowed to intentionally inflict significant psychological harm on someone else. That is a different topic, and I hope we can all agree that that is not permissible.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 1, 2010)

IOW, when in doubt, DMs should be guided by Wheaton's Rule: Don't be a dick.

Suppose you have a player whose background includes events that makes him extremely sensitive to plotlines about kidnapping...and _knowing_ this, you kidnap his PC in game.

You've just violated Wheaton's Rule.  Furthermore, for purposes of illustration, you also trigger a PTSD event that lands the player in the hospital.  Guess what?  Your odds of losing a civil trial are high.

And for what?  A game.

Now, fact of the matter is that this is one of those areas of the law that is HUGELY fact sensitive: actions that may lose one case may not rise to the level of being able to support a different one.

But why take the chance?  Especially for so small a payoff.



> The question is whether another player can decide their PC is in love with this player's PC without their consent.




I'd follow the same guidelines above: if you know or strongly suspect that such a plotline would seriously offend or negatively affect the other player, Wheaton's Rule applies.  If you _MUST _have that aspect of the PC, make that love the kind that is secret and unrequited.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 1, 2010)

Yeah, I'm going to start carrying legal insurance when I GM, because that could totally happen.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 1, 2010)

Amusing, but there's no need...unless you simply can't avoid violating Wheaton's Rule.

Courts are still fairly hostile to IIED cases, but the climate is changing, and rapidly.

While I seriously doubt any gamer is going to bring such a case for stuff at the table, why take the risk of being the first DM ever to get sued?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2010)

Ok, let's not get too far into left field here.  The odds of getting sued are, I hope, pretty remote.

But, Wheaton's Law is pretty much the deciding factor here.  If you KNOW that what you are doing makes someone else uncomfortable, AND that person has asked you to stop, then you stop.  

I have to admit, this thread has really been eye opening.  I honestly have never given this a whole lot of thought.  This is what you do when you are asked to stop bothering someone.  

Yes, there might be cases where that isn't true, but, that doesn't change the underlying idea.  When someone is bothered by something you are doing and let's you know that what you are doing is bothering them, you stop.

End of story.  To me, anyone who lacks that basic level of respect for their friends is not someone I really want to associate with.  That someone would put their imaginary person ahead of my personal feelings tells me exactly how important my feelings are to them.

By all means, try new things at the table.  But, don't ram them down my throat please.  If I say no, then that should be the end of it.

Let's turn it around a second.  Can I declare that my character is your character's long lost older brother?  I want to do a whole Cain and Abel sort of thing.  Not only that, but, that family heirloom sword that you have?  That's not really yours.  You are honor bound to hand it over to me, thankyouverymuch.

Is this acceptable behavior?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Not whether a player is allowed to intentionally inflict significant psychological harm on someone else. That is a different topic, and I hope we can all agree that that is not permissible.



Well, nothing in the example of unwanted PC on PC romance raises to level of a tort, true. But just because you can't get the courts involved doesn't mean it's ok.

My point, and I think this is a big one, is that as a society we understand that there are some situations where our feeling are the direct result of other people's actions. Why else is it illegal to threaten people? Why teach our children to say please and thank you?

Telling a person that they are responsible for their own feeling is great in one on one counseling, when people need tools to take control of their lives. It's great in an anger management class when you need to teach people how to control their emotions because they've let them get out of control. But it fails as general rule for evaluating this situation because we're not talking to an individual. I'm not telling Player 1 that he can't have his secret romance. But it does come with hazards if he's not careful. Also Player 2's response isn't unreasonable. 

It's possible that one of those players isn't right for the group. Player 2 may genuinely be to uptight for the group. Player 1 may really be a creep by the groups standards. Is that a bad thing? Does every player have to fit into every group? If a player doesn't fit in with a group, maybe that player should be kicked out, no matter how reasonable the Player's conduct is to someone else.

Do all reasonable people get along? Do they all have the same preferences? Can Player 1 and Player 2 both be reasonable, but not belong in the same group? I think so. It's possible that, like the example you gave above, that the two can work out something quickly and easily. 



> This is a thread about a player's ability to define their own character's existence. As I think has already been established, for the most part a player has the right to define their character's past and their attributes, within whatever parameters are agreed upon in the group. The question is whether another player can decide their PC is in love with this player's PC without their consent.



Yes, a player can do that. But doing so may come with consequences. As with so many of the thing adults have to deal with in the real world, actions may have unintended consequences. Lanefan certainly didn't expect the thread to be about this, for example. Fortunately, all that's at stake is fun. If you're not having playing D&D with this group, maybe you find another. If you can't find another, maybe you can have fun doing something else. 

Fairly low stakes.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Let's turn it around a second.  Can I declare that my character is your character's long lost older brother?  I want to do a whole Cain and Abel sort of thing.  Not only that, but, that family heirloom sword that you have?  That's not really yours.  You are honor bound to hand it over to me, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Is this acceptable behavior?



I'll play. (though I'm unfamiliar with Cain and Abel, not being a Bible-reading sort) (let's assume the heirloom sword has some enchantment, but not artifact-grade or anything)

"My older brother, are you?  I've heard about you, though long ago; and I suppose you kinda look like him. {_verify a few family facts_}  As for the sword, I'll yield it to you ::_hand over sword_:: with this reminder: as I am honour-bound to give it to you as you are the elder son, *you* are now honour-bound to defend me with it, even unto cost of your own life.

You sure you know how to use it?  Or should I be using it to defend you?"

Lan-"this very thing, without the sword, just happened in my game!"-efan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 1, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> If your "style of play" requires you to do things to other players that make them uncomfortable, absolutely it should change.




Gee whiz, though.  Your player says to you, "I'm uncomfortable with my character losing.  I'm uncomfortable with my character not having a gazzillion gold pieces.  I'm uncomfortable with DMs using modules, playing in a published campaign setting, or not designing their own monsters from scratch.  In fact, I am uncomfortable with using published rulesets; I expect my DMs to recreate the rules from scratch."

Now, my question is, is it still true that "It *does not matter*.  If you are doing something to a player and it makes them uncomfortable, you cease doing it."?

And, hey, if "This is the basic rule of social engagement" why isn't is it applicable to forums?  Why is that a straw man?  If you are going to say that "Do not be a creep" is not a difficult social rule, and is "the basic rule of social engagement", where being a creep is -- apparently -- making someone uncomfortable......Well, we all know that any mention of D&D makes some people uncomfortable.  There are people out there who think the game is Satanic or otherwise problematic.  

*It doesn't matter*.  If you are doing something and it makes them uncomfortable, you cease doing it.  Really?

It doesn't matter why Player 2 asks you to stop.  It's really none of your business in the slightest.

It doesn't matter why Jack Chick asks you to stop playing D&D.  It's really none of your business in the slightest.  You don't need to know why they're uncomfortable - it has no bearing on the issue at all.



> You are implying that D&D games all have to involve PC  romance.




Out of left field much?  Where did I imply that?

What I am saying is that a basic social rule, where the person who is making someone else uncomfortable must stop, and where why that person is uncomfortable not only does not matter, but has no bearing on the issue at all, can be applied to other circumstances.



> But let's do change the context, albeit in another way.  The entire argument is similar to my  saying that my character habitually steals from other PCs.  Every night I  try to steal their items, their weapons, and their armor.
> 
> It is _never_ unreasonable for the other PCs to tell me to cut it out.




Ah, but no one is arguing that it is unreasonable for the other _*PCs*_ to tell you to cut it out.  

All that is being argued is that the most appropriate first response is that the *PCs* deal with the behaviour.  Personally, I would advocate sending the stealing PC away from the party, or killing him and taking his stuff.  IF that is not sufficient, it is then discussed.  Perhaps the solution is to drop the player.  Perhaps the PC is, unknown to you, acting under impulse of a curse or geas, and needs help.

Oh, wait, the reason doesn't matter, and has no bearing on the issue at all.  

I can't even decide whether or not I'd prefer an "offensive" D&D game, or a game which is Jack-Chick-Approved?



ProfessorCirno said:


> Certain topics are pretty much _never_ ok




Wrongbadfun?

Never okay in the foreground, never okay in the background, or never okay in the deep background?

If anyone is doing something that makes you uncomfortable they must stop?  It doesn't matter why ProfessorCirno asks you to stop?  It's really none of your business in the slightest?

I can't even decide whether or not I'd prefer a game with the "offensive" material, or if I'd prefer a game with ProfessorCirno?


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Again, I am advocating against suffering. Going through an unpleasant situation does not necessarily lead to suffering.




Not always. But you still shouldn't get to decide that for someone else. And... yeah, if they aren't enjoying the experience, they will have to suffer through it. 



pawsplay said:


> I said I do not think it is useful to assign blame. If making the situation someone's "fault" unfairly bothers you, I wonder why it doesn't bother you that Player 1 is being blamed for Player 2's emotions.




Again, no one is blaming Player 1 initially! We're blaming Player 1 for continuing with unwanted behavior after being made _aware_ of Player 2's feelings.  



pawsplay said:


> Imagine a group of five players. Player 2 doesn't like PC-on-PC romance, Player 3 doesn't like same-sex player-on-player romance roleplay which includes the GM in a number of pairings, Player 3 doesn't like remorseless slaughter of creatures for loot, Player 4 doesn't like moral justifications for using force against others, and Player 5 doesn't think violence should be glorified at all. Player 1 wants to play a little romance, a little adventure, a little of this, a little of that; they don't like scheming.




Again, no one is advocating that each person should be able to veto the full nature of the campaign for all players. Just, generally, have a stronger voice _where it concerns their own_. 

So in the above scenario? Those attitudes aren't ones I'd especially support. But the following, however, are much more what we are talking about:
-Player 2 doesn't want to be _involved_ in PC-on-PC romance _that they aren't interested in_. 
-Player 3 doesn't want to be _involved_ in same sex PC-on-PC romance.
-Player 3 doesn't want to personally be the one to kill enemies for loot.
-Player 4 doesn't want to personally use force against others. 
-Player 5 doesn't want to be claim any glory from any battle they are involved in. 

Now, those last three are pretty hard to handle in many games. Player 3 and 4 might build pacifistic characters who focus on healing/buffing their friends; or who use attacks that hinder but don't damage enemies; or who fight, but to subdue their opponents. As a whole, they will probably have a group that tries to avoid fighting where necessary, and rarely kills opponents unless they have no other choice. 

Now, if you have a player that says, "I forbid anyone in our group from ever killing an enemy" - yeah, that's a problem, and not a reasonable thing to demand. But saying that you personally don't want to kill people, and will try and take captives where you can? I've seen plenty of players make that approach work.  



pawsplay said:


> there is no "universal law" that says Player 2 is allowed to glom onto an existing game and insisting the group change play styles. That's not a real social rule. That's like a football player joining a soccer club and picking up the ball.




And, again, no one has argued that someone should walk into a new game and demand they completely change their style of play. And yes, we've acknowledged that sometimes Player 2 should just leave the group if whatever bothers them is a core part of the experience. If I join a group, and am promptly told that a requirement of playing is having my PC sleep with other PCs whether I like it or not, I will gladly pick up my stuff and back away!

Do you really see no difference between "I don't want your PC to romantically pursue my own when I am not interested" and "I don't want this game to have any PC-on-PC romance"?



pawsplay said:


> The position you are arguing for has been phrased as something along the lines of, "Any time you do something that makes someone uncomfortable, withdraw." But someone who simply stated that position would make some people uncomfortable. There is simply no way to square such a rule with logic. It's a "rule" based on very limited experiences. It makes no admissions of context.




Ok. I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly have never said that. I think most of us involved in this debate have had several posts indicating that: yes, there are times and places where Player 2 doesn't have the right to tell Player 1 how to act, and that yes, there are times when the actions that bother Player 2 are central enough to the game that the best option may be for Player 2 to leave. 

And you know what? For myself, at least, I'm not trying to lay down any sort of "rule". I'm not worried about the legal issues of this. All I've been trying to say is, basically, how I would act, and how I would expect any decent person to act, in this sort of situation. 

Look, context absolutely does matter. From the start, we've said that Player 2's request should be respected if it is reasonable. 

And I think that is the core of the debate - there is no absolute definition to what is or is not reasonable. So Celebrim and others keep pulling back to the general debate, and insisting we can never make a general rule over whether Player 1 or Player 2 is the one who should back down. 

Which is true - if Player 2's request is that all other PCs should give them all of the treasure, I don't think anyone in this thread would consider that a reasonable request. 

And no one was ever trying to say that is the case. What we've said is that we expect, when someone does raise an objection, that there is a greater likelihood that it _is_ a genuine issue. And the person causing that should usually respect their friend's boundaries. I've focused on the specific example that sparked this - romantically pursuing the PC of an unwilling player - because that _is_ a situation where I feel Player 2 is absolutely in the right. And where I feel the response suggested by Lanefan - to respond by griefing the person who complained - is not one I'd like to see in any game I would ever play in. 

I'm not sure what more to say. I feel like people are really starting to just talk past each other here, or getting pushed more and more to the extremes. 

I think that in general, some topics are absolutely sensitive ones, and you probably want to clear them with the group before introducing them. (Rape, for example. Excessive brutality or horrific moral choices. Etc.) Even these limits may change from one group to the next. 

Beyond that, I think people should in general be willing to stop behavior that bothers their friends, especially where it directly _involves_ someone. Whether in-game or out-of-game. If someone wants to have their PC pursue mine, and I say no, the appropriate response really should be to have them back off. If I find myself cramped into one corner of the table and ask if people can make some more space for me, it would be nice if they can do so. If someone keeps dropping their dice, and grabbing and using mine with cheeto-stained fingers without asking me, and I ask them to stop - or at least to clean their hands first - I think it would be reasonable for them to do so. 

Now, this doesn't mean one is guaranteed these things will be possible. Maybe there just _isn't_ more room available at the table. If you are the only one who brought dice, you can't really avoid other people borrowing them. 

But one would hope people would still make an honest effort to respect your wishes. Try and make as much space as they can. Try and remember dice next time. And not insist on an uncomfortable roleplaying experience for you if they can easily shift away from it. 

This is not some universal rule or law or requirement. No one can force you to behave like this. But it is how I would try to act in such a situation, and how I would hope my friends would act as well.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2010)

Hussar said:


> By all means, try new things at the table.  But, don't ram them down my throat please.  If I say no, then that should be the end of it.
> 
> Let's turn it around a second.  Can I declare that my character is your character's long lost older brother?  I want to do a whole Cain and Abel sort of thing.  Not only that, but, that family heirloom sword that you have?  That's not really yours.  You are honor bound to hand it over to me, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Is this acceptable behavior?




I'll play, because this illustrates I think exactly how amorphous the complaints, and to be frank silly, I think they are getting.  

1) Would this make you 'uncomfortable'?  We've spent alot of time focusing on this issue of whether not player #2 is uncomfortable with something, but this example doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sudden on set of post-traumatic stress syndrome or something.  This is precisely a player objecting to a scene that harms his 'prowess' in the game or makes some difficulty for him.  This to me is fundamentally no different than objecting to a trap, a villainous scheming bureacrat, or a band of ogre barbarians.  Let's turn this situation around again, what if the character who claims to be your long lost brother is an NPC?  If the DM introduces such a character, do you have a right to shout the DM down and demand a retcon?   Do players have a right to be immune to role-playing complications, and especially do they have a right to be immune to them when they don't involve situations that as others have identified them 'make someone uncomfortable'?

2) Most of this is going to be handled at character creation time.  Generally speaking, I'm not going to approve a character concept that involves being a part of another player's background without consent of both parties.   If this actually happens in a game,  then player #2's problem isn't with player #1 - who is I think fairly innocent here unless this motivated by actual OOC dislike of player #2 - but with the DM who introduced this plot into the game.

3) But, I would like to heavily emphasis that the case we have been discussing is entirely different than this.  We've been discussing the case of a PC that is - as a result of secret feelings of love for another PC - fanatically loyal to them.  This might be a part of player #1's backstory (but it doesn't have to be, it could just as easily be invented in play) but it is certainly not part of player #2's backstory.  It is a part of player #2 forestory, that is, not who the character _is_ (which I think should be something largely under the control of the PC) but rather what happens to the PC (which is not something anyone has full control over).  I can't promise to protect a player from what happens to the PC.  Bad things may happen to the PC.  Things may and almost certainly will happen to the PC that were they to happen to the player would be terrible, traumatizing, and yes deeply uncomfortable.  That's implied by any RPG.  If you set down to play an RPG you understand that bad things may happen your character.  And what makes focusing on whether something is 'uncomfortable' so absolutely silly IMO, is that on a scale of traumatic and traumatizing things, finding out that another character has secretly held you in the deepest of affections and that has been the motivating force in that character's life is not very high on them.

I want to insist on three things as being highly important here:

a) A role-playing game is inherently the exploration of themes of conflict, and as such it is impossible to protect everyone completely from feelings of discomfort.  How much a group intentionally seeks out uncomfortable themes for exploration is a matter of taste, but depending on how sensitive a player is, any game may be potentially overwhelming.  This is directly related to role-playing being, before it was most commonly associated with leisure activities, most commonly associated with psychotherapy.

b) What's really at issue here isn't something vague like whether player #2 feels uncomfortable.  Naturally, the rest of the group should be trying to take those feelings in to account, but the group should not be expected to necessarily see those feelings as being overriding in any situation.  I have previously written at length about how I feel player #1 should respond in situations like this, and it should be clear from that is that I don't agree with how player #1 has chosen to respond to player #2.  I have previously tried to spark conversation on how we should expect player #2 to behave in this situation, but no one really seems interested in discussing that in any depth.  I think it would be instructive, because my conflict in this situation is partly over the fact that I don't think as described player #2 is behaving appropriately either - and that's absolutely true in the case of the 'stubborn uncomprimising' version of player #2 that seems to be implied by some people model of idealized player behavior at the table.

c) Rather than being about a question of player #2's feelings, this is and has always been an issue about the ability to separate the IC frame from the OOC frame.  And, rather being about than evaluating how legitimate someone's feelings all, resolving this is always about the question of playing in such a way that the IC and OOC frame remain intact and aren't easily confused.

To emphasis how important these things are, let's back up to that wierd conversation where some asserted that if we don't give in to player #2 we are openning ourselves up to a lawsuit.  

And to think, some apparantlly thought I was being and unreasonable when I said one side of this had a judicial/legalistic mental model of this event, or when I asserted that the entire scope of this thread was a question of what consituted moral behavior.

If you want to insist that uncomfortable situations aren't an inherent part of RPG's, and that this is not both implicit and explicit to any RPG's, then I think you have to accept that DM's need to take out liability insurance policies lest a player sue them for intentionally causing extreme emotional distress.  The full range of nightmarish sitatuations that a player character can find themselves in, in many cases quite without any sort of planning on the DM's part, is too extensive to be listed here.  It is sufficient to say that everyone who has ever played D&D (and probably any other RPG) has a 'funny story' about about what happened to their PC which would be anything but funny if it had really happened to the player.   We don't normally respond to those situations as being uncomfortable, because they don't normally leak from the IC frame into the OOC frame.   We label them 'part of the game' and we don't think too deeply on them.   We normally label them as 'just fun'.  And that is fine, because they are.  But it is also perfectly fine to think deeply on the issues raised by what is going on in the game.   It's perfectly fine to find part of the fun in being emersed deeply enough in the game that it can scare you or make you uncomfortable in some other way.   Playing an RPG contains the inherent risk that you are going to think deeply about something (intentionally or accidently) and suddenly find yourself uncomfortable.   If that happens, you have only limited ability to blame someone else for it.  

The situation that makes player #2's feelings about this particularly relevant isn't that those feelings are strong or that player #1 caused the feelings, but that it can be very difficult to separate pretending to have a romantic affair from actually having one.  And to the extent that it becomes difficult to separate the game from reality, we always have a problem.   To the extent that it we can find a way to separate the game from reality or the feelings and beliefs of the character from our own feelings and beliefs, we never have a problem.

And that lies at the heart of why I think player #2 is going about this wrong and so shares the fault with player #1.  In fact, from my perspective as a DM, it's not player #1 that is most likely to be the 'instigator' but player #2.  It's player #2 that is most likely making that division between player feelings and character feelings less clear and so creating 'the problem' .  Now, if I had reason to believe that player #1 actually secretly did desire romantic involvement with player #2 and was acting out those feelings in proxy, then yes player #1 is the 'instigator' here, but even then speaking as a DM I really don't want to see player #1 and player #2 iron out there feelings for each other at my table and while I'm even more sympathetic to player #2 in this situation than otherwise I still don't think its a fair way for player #2 handle player #1's feelings.  If player #1 and player #2 have a consensual blossoming romance either started at the table or else being acted out at the table, that's a different matter and I've seen it happen before and that's fine.  The worst I might have to say there is (jokingly), "Get a room."


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> -Player 2 doesn't want to be _involved_ in PC-on-PC romance _that they aren't interested in_.
> -Player 3 doesn't want to be _involved_ in same sex PC-on-PC romance.
> -Player 3 doesn't want to personally be the one to kill enemies for loot.
> -Player 4 doesn't want to personally use force against others.
> -Player 5 doesn't want to be claim any glory from any battle they are involved in.




Then they shouldn't.

In all five of those cases, the player has the opportunity to play the character the way he wants to.

If he doesn't want to be involved in an IC romance, then he shouldn't.
If he doesn't want to be involved in a same sex IC romance, then he shouldn't.
If he doesn't want to kill enemies for loot, then he shouldn't.
If he doesn't want to use force against others, then he shouldn't.
If he doesn't want to claim glory from any battle, then he shouldn't.

Nothing allows another player to force you to play a character in a certain way.  You always have the freedom to respond and shape your character.

Technically, though, it isn't a question of what the 'player wants', but what the character wants.  It's called a role-playing game because while I might personally be a pacifist, I have the freedom in game to play a violent criminal.  While I might personally be a person prone to or approving of violence, I have the freedom to play a pacifist.  My IC stance doesn't necessarily reflect my out of character beliefs, and on some level shouldn't reflect my out of character beliefs.  That's why it's called RPing.  

So the real question that should be raised in the mind of a player confronting a situation is, "How should I play my character?"  That's both a IC and OOC question, where the IC question determines what the character does and the OOC question determines the in game communication path for sharing that information - personally, impersonally, by summary, by dwelling on the details, first person, third person, meta-game, or whatever seems appropriate to the content and standards of the group.

It's highly important that you don't get player and character confused.

Let's jump back to Hussar's very instructive example:



> Can I declare that my character is your character's long lost older brother? I want to do a whole Cain and Abel sort of thing. Not only that, but, that family heirloom sword that you have? That's not really yours. You are honor bound to hand it over to me, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Is this acceptable behavior?




Let's suppose that this has happened and let's pass for now over the question of whether it should happen.   You find yourself in this situation as a mature role-playing gamer.  What is your internal mental state like?  If it is immediately moved to blame another player or the DM and to start negotiating the situation OOC raising points of fairness or some such, then I can say nothing more clearly and compassionately (though not tactfully) to you than move back to remedial school please and stop playing with the adults until you are willing to act like one.  Your surest path to happiness, growth, and contentedness with the game will be to accept a reprimand and correct your behavior because you are fully in the wrong here.

Your proper responce is to put yourself in the shoes of your character and handle this in game event in the way you'd really handle it if your long lost brother was suddenly found.  That's going to depend very heavily on the nature of your character, their character, and and the relationship between them, but virtually anything could happen here.

Possible responses:

1) You?  I thought I killed you? *draw sword* I guess I'm going to have to do a better job this time.
2) Where have you been?  I've been working for the past 12 years to take care of mother and our sisters after dad died, and now all the sudden you show up and think you are part of the family again?  I don't think so.  Dad gave me this sword on his deathbed with his own hands.  You forfieted your right to it when you left the family to go on that damn fool crusade.  It's mine by right of inheritance and I don't owe you anything.
3) My brother died at sea 5 years ago.  He was murdered by pirates that never take prisoners.  I don't know you stranger.  
4) John!! *rushes up and hugs him*  We thought you were dead!
5) Brother?  I'm an only child, stranger.  Go about your business, or I'll give you more of the business end of this sword than you'll find to your liking.

No one controls your character, or can (or even should) be able to browbeat you into playing your character in a certain way no matter what they say OOC.  You have a right to play your own character.   You have a responcibility to play well and with full consideration toward the other players, but that is the result of your right not the means of abbrogating it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Generally speaking, I'm not going to approve a character concept that involves being a part of another player's background without consent of both parties.




So if my character's background was the secret admirer and protector of another player's character without their knowledge or consent, you would disallow it?  So basically you acknowledge that you were 100% wrong in your positions on this argument.   Good of you to tell us.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So if my character's background was the secret admirer and protector of another player's character without their knowledge or consent, you would disallow it?  So basically you acknowledge that you were 100% wrong in your positions on this argument.   Good of you to tell us.




Way to quote me out of context.

Let's look at the quote in context shall we?



> ...Generally speaking, I'm not going to approve a character concept that involves being a part of another player's background without consent of both parties. If this actually happens in a game, then player #2's problem isn't with player #1 - who is I think fairly innocent here unless this motivated by actual OOC dislike of player #2 - but with the DM who introduced this plot into the game.
> 
> 3) *But, I would like to heavily emphasis that the case we have been discussing is entirely different than this. We've been discussing the case of a PC that is - as a result of secret feelings of love for another PC - fanatically loyal to them. This might be a part of player #1's backstory (but it doesn't have to be, it could just as easily be invented in play) but it is certainly not part of player #2's backstory.* It is a part of player #2 forestory, that is, not who the character _is_ (which I think should be something largely under the control of the PC) but rather what happens to the PC (which is not something anyone has full control over).



 - emphasis added

Gee, that changes things a wee bit doesn't it?  It seems I'm not actually saying anything you say I'm saying.  In fact, I'm saying the opposite.  What you quoted refers to Hussar's example and is highlighting why his example departs from the case that has provoked so much thought (or lack thereof), and does not refer to the original example at all.  Not only that but the part that immediately follows what you quoted clarifies any misunderstanding that you might have taken from the part you quoted.   This was deliberate.  I recognized that someone might misunderstand my point, and so took extra pains to reiterate that he previous point was intended as contrast.  

Now, you may disagree with me.  You may say player #1 declaring he has always been a secret admirer of player #2 is part of player #2 backstory, and that's fine.  We can have that discussion and I can explain more deeply why I feel it isn't, and where I draw the lines over what requires and doesn't require another player's consent.  Briefly though, it should be obvious the fact that it is in player #1's backstory is irrelevant to the original example.  Presumably if this was invented in the course of play, player #2 would have been just as freaked out.  And there are many other reasons for thinking that a 'secret love interest' is not an inherent part of player #2's backstory and identity if you'll give it a moment's thought.  For example, up until it comes up in play it's never actually had any impact on player #2's character.  Player #1 isn't inventing a backstory that requires any interaction on player #2's character at all.  If he wanted a backstory that said, "My character and player #2's characters were former lovers.", I'd say, "You'd have to talk that over with player #2."   If the backstory has, "My character has always been an admirer at a distance of player #2's character, and when opportunity presented itself to insert himself in that character's life he jumped on it.", that doesn't require player #2's consent.  Heck, on one level it doesn't even really require my consent, because he could move it out of the backstory and play 'love at first sight' or something of the sort out when the game began.  So the whole bit about backstory is just spurious in the original example, because presumably those that hold player #1 is wholly in the wrong to include player #2 in the backstory would hold that player #1 is still wholly in the wrong to involve player #2 even if the backstory didn't exist.

Misquoting me on this level approaches willfully misunderstanding.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Technically, though, it isn't a question of what the 'player wants', but what the character wants. It's called a role-playing game because while I might personally be a pacifist, I have the freedom in game to play a violent criminal. While I might personally be a person prone to or approving of violence, I have the freedom to play a pacifist. My IC stance doesn't necessarily reflect my out of character beliefs, and on some level shouldn't reflect my out of character beliefs. That's why it's called RPing.




Again, there is this outlook that the purity of roleplaying is the most important thing at hand. For me, that just isn't the case. Roleplaying is a part of the game, yes, and my goal is going to be to try and make use of it. But if a roleplaying element comes up against an OOC concern, people's actual feelings, in real life, are absolutely more important to me than what a character wants in the game. I know that isn't quite what you are saying, but I'm trying to really pin down exactly the issue here between IC and OOC concerns.

How a character acts in-game can't ever be totally divorced from the player. That's the problem with the justification of, "This is simply how my character would act" - the only reason the character acts that way is _because the player decided that was the case_. 

A player might decide that their PC isn't romantically interested in another. Maybe because they don't feel it would be someone their PC would be interested in. But they could equally decide that they don't want an in-game romance because that isn't a situation they want to experience.

That's why, in fact, I've been in favor of addressing this sort of thing OOC. Because the issue for Player 2 isn't that they feel the situation is one that could bother their character, it is a situation that bothers _them_. They don't desire playing through a scenario that, to them, resembles being virtually stalked. 

You've indicated that its reasonable to set certain expectations at the start of a campaign. Why is it unreasonable, when a situation comes up that presumably wasn't ever discussed in advance, to try and set the boundaries then?

Especially because expectations may be so totally different. I'd expect, for most campaigns, that certain topics wouldn't crop up without warning (of which several extreme examples have already been mentioned in this thread). I also tend to expect, based on the people I play with, that everyone will make a general effort to work as a group and not undermine each others efforts, though this doesn't preclude some conflict arising and being dealt with during the game. 

Similarly, I might expect that the potential for PC-on-PC romance will exist in most games, but that _unwilling _PC pursuit is _not_ a default assumption for the game. 



Celebrim said:


> Let's suppose that this has happened and let's pass for now over the question of whether it should happen. You find yourself in this situation as a mature role-playing gamer. What is your internal mental state like? If it is immediately moved to blame another player or the DM and to start negotiating the situation OOC raising points of fairness or some such, then I can say nothing more clearly and compassionately (though not tactfully) to you than move back to *remedial school please and stop playing with the adults until you are willing to act like one*. Your surest path to happiness, growth, and contentedness with the game will be to accept *a reprimand and correct your behavior* because you are fully in the wrong here.




Wow. Is this sort of talk really necessary? I've bolded the parts that really bug me.

Once again, though, to make it clear. None of us are advocating immediately launching into blame of another player. I'm not sure when 'fairness' even comes into it. In this example at hand, I'd expect the response of a mature roleplayer, who doesn't like that plot thread, would be to say, "You know, I'm not really interested in this plot thread. I'd really prefer if you don't make a character who is my PC's brother without my consent."

What we are saying is that, if a situation arises where something is making you uncomfortable - and you know, going forward, that it will only bother you more and more - the mature thing to do is _absolutely_ to speak up and try and discuss the situation. 

I mean, earlier you spoke out against passive-aggressiveness, but you now seem wildly opposed to the opposite of it - open and honest communication. 

If something bothers someone, they should feel free to bring it up without being told that they are acting like a child. I mentioned this before, and you have never addressed it - the point at which you condemn someone speaking their honest concerns about a situation, is the point at which you are _encouraging_ an unpleasant environment. Whether it involves actual harassment, or simply unintentional discomfort, those are things that should be addressed, rathen than suffered in silence. 

Again, this doesn't mean the DM and other players need to cater to someone's every whim. But _regardless _of the actual outcome, it seems completely unreasonable to portray someone raising a genuine concern as childlike behavior in need of a _reprimand._


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Gee whiz, though.  Your player says to you, "I'm uncomfortable with my character losing.  I'm uncomfortable with my character not having a gazzillion gold pieces.  I'm uncomfortable with DMs using modules, playing in a published campaign setting, or not designing their own monsters from scratch.  In fact, I am uncomfortable with using published rulesets; I expect my DMs to recreate the rules from scratch."




That has nothing to do with what we're saying.



> And, hey, if "This is the basic rule of social engagement" why isn't is it applicable to forums?  Why is that a straw man?  If you are going to say that "Do not be a creep" is not a difficult social rule, and is "the basic rule of social engagement", where being a creep is -- apparently -- making someone uncomfortable......Well, we all know that any mention of D&D makes some people uncomfortable.  There are people out there who think the game is Satanic or otherwise problematic.




Again, that has no bearing on what we're discussing.  My friend lives in Kansas, she can hook you up for a real cheap price on more strawmen though, if you want.



> *It doesn't matter*.  If you are doing something and it makes them uncomfortable, you cease doing it.  Really?
> 
> It doesn't matter why Player 2 asks you to stop.  It's really none of your business in the slightest.




*If you are doing something to Player 2's character that makes them uncomfortable*, yes.

See, I can bold things too!



> It doesn't matter why Jack Chick asks you to stop playing D&D.  It's really none of your business in the slightest.  You don't need to know why they're uncomfortable - it has no bearing on the issue at all.




You're right about one part of that - this has no bearing on the issue at all.



> Out of left field much?  Where did I imply that?
> 
> What I am saying is that a basic social rule, where the person who is making someone else uncomfortable must stop, and where why that person is uncomfortable not only does not matter, but has no bearing on the issue at all, can be applied to other circumstances.




Ignoring that you _literally _just compared unwanted PC romance to being so important as to be connected to the very core rules of the game in your rediculous strawman?



> Ah, but no one is arguing that it is unreasonable for the other _*PCs*_ to tell you to cut it out.
> 
> All that is being argued is that the most appropriate first response is that the *PCs* deal with the behaviour.  Personally, I would advocate sending the stealing PC away from the party, or killing him and taking his stuff.  IF that is not sufficient, it is then discussed.  Perhaps the solution is to drop the player.  Perhaps the PC is, unknown to you, acting under impulse of a curse or geas, and needs help.




No.

If you are doing something to a person's character, and that person tells you they are uncomfortable, you stop.

Your logic is what leads really creepy dudes to doing horrible things to the characters of female characters.  Your logic is what leads people into leaving this hobby.



> Wrongbadfun?
> 
> Never okay in the foreground, never okay in the background, or never okay in the deep background?




When someone can use rape in a game that is done in a mature, sensitive, and well done manner, I may change my mind.

Until that day comes - and it has not - then yes, it is absolutely wrongbadfun, and it is wrongbadfun because of so many people who are having pretty much the antithesis of fun because of it.  It is wrongbadfun for the same reason FATAL is wrongbadfun.



> If anyone is doing something that makes you uncomfortable they must stop?  It doesn't matter why ProfessorCirno asks you to stop?  It's really none of your business in the slightest?




I can't even decide whether or not I'd prefer a game with the "offensive" material, or if I'd prefer a game with ProfessorCirno?[/QUOTE]

You not wanting to play with me I take as a medal of honor.  Oh no, I don't get to play with someone who's arguing that it's ok for guys to be creepers towards others in their game.  Guess I'll just have to continue enjoying my own games where I don't have to deal with people who assault or attack others through the thin veil of "roleplaying."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 1, 2010)

A question to those claiming that Person B can never feel insulted and just has to deal with it.

You have in your game a few dudes, and a few ladies.  One of the dudes' characters starts really creepily stalking one of the ladies' characters, and talks about spying on her, sneaking around next to her, etc.  He starts giving her "gifts" and then claims he's madly in love with her.

She OoCly tells him that she's severely uncomfortable with this.

He continues doing it.

Are you _really_ going to tell me that she should just sit there and take it?  That the guy in question is doing nothing wrong at all?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> A question to those claiming that Person B can never feel insulted and just has to deal with it.




Quote it or it didn't happen.   Let me see the claim.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 1, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So if my character's background was the secret admirer and protector of another player's character without their knowledge or consent, you would disallow it?  So basically you acknowledge that you were 100% wrong in your positions on this argument.   Good of you to tell us.




Actually, Celebrim has already refuted this exact point, upthread. The fact that Celebrim is being asked to explain and defend points already made says a lot about this thread.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 1, 2010)

pawsplay's Corollary to Wheaton's Rule: If you seem to know a lot of dicks, maybe the problem partly resides in you.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Quote it or it didn't happen.   Let me see the claim.




Please answer the question.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, Celebrim has already refuted this exact point, upthread. The fact that Celebrim is being asked to explain and defend points already made says a lot about this thread.




Yes. Mainly that it's a REALLY LONG thread.


----------



## anest1s (Oct 2, 2010)

I am not reading all 20 pages o.0 (I plan to read it later though)

All I have to add, is that "My character would never do that" is usually followed by a player asking an other player to roll initiative. It has happened more than once in evil parties. And definitely more often than one would expect.

The point is, that if your character wouldn't do that, then you have to consider if other characters will do what you are about to do. And if they don't; be ready to roll initiative.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Your logic is what leads really creepy dudes to doing horrible things to the characters of female characters.  Your logic is what leads people into leaving this hobby.



I'm guessing you mean the characters of female *players*, above...

I have to assume stuff like this sometimes happens.  Fortunately, I've managed to miss out on it so far.

That said, you're also making some assumptions here:
 - that female players always play female characters
 - that it's always a male (N)PC chasing a female (N)PC
 - that it's male players driving the chasing.

In my own long-term experience, it's mostly - not always, but mostly - the female PCs and-or PCs run by female players that do the chasing.  To, I might add, the immense benefit of the game.



> When someone can use rape in a game that is done in a mature, sensitive, and well done manner, I may change my mind.



Why does rape keep coming up in this discussion, other than to add to the hyperbole quotient?  Romance does not mean rape.  I thought this was obvious.



> You not wanting to play with me I take as a medal of honor.



In that case, have another one. 


> Oh no, I don't get to play with someone who's arguing that it's ok for guys to be creepers towards others in their game.  Guess I'll just have to continue enjoying my own games where I don't have to deal with people who assault or attack others through the thin veil of "roleplaying."



By the same token, I can avoid dealing with those who can't (or won't) separate IC from OOC on some pretty basic levels.  Benefits all round, I suppose.

Lan-"dare I mention the Gnome-Gnome-Leprechaun threesome?"-efan


----------



## Rel (Oct 2, 2010)

This thread has gotten really long and it feels to me like the same ground is getting plowed again and again, only the tension seems to be rising.  So keep politeness at the forefront or we're going klunk.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 2, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Why does rape keep coming up in this discussion, other than to add to the hyperbole quotient?  Romance does not mean rape.  I thought this was obvious.




Because it is where the conversation leads.  Also, I'd like it if you could answer my question from the last page.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Let's turn it around a second.  Can I declare that my character is your character's long lost older brother?  I want to do a whole Cain and Abel sort of thing.  Not only that, but, that family heirloom sword that you have?  That's not really yours.  You are honor bound to hand it over to me, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Is this acceptable behavior?




Besides the RP responses listed above- all cool with me, FWIW- there is also the RW response "No, my PC has no siblings, for reasons X, Y and Z," any of which could be a simple as "because that's the way I envision him" or "for reasons yet to be revealed."

And if any form of "No..." is the answer given, the respectful response should be some form of "OK, I'll do something else with my PC."

Now, as a DM, if that happened, and the second player secretly made his PC the first player's PC's sibling, I wouldn't disallow it.  However, if it ever got revealed and it caused some kind of blowup, I'd side with the player who didn't want his very own "Racer X" as part of his PC's history.

By doing so- even secretly- you've effectively discounted the other person's will and creativity 100%, and overridden/overwritten his character sheet with your own.

You've just done the RPG equivalent of grabbing his character sheet, editing it- in pen- and putting a smiley at the top next to the annotation, "FIFY!"


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 2, 2010)

Man, never let real life get in the way of a good thread!

Ok, as the OP, I gotta add my two coins to the dual topics considered: Do players have veto power over elements of the DM's world, and does he have veto power over elements pertaining to his own PC?

First things first. The Original Post assumes a basic level of assumption many sandboxers proudly thump their chest and declare as "poor DMing". However the original "my character wouldn't do that" doesn't have to be the end result of a railroad-to-hell. That isn't always true. For example, a player might decide they don't want to bite on a module hook for a module the DM has bought and others want to play. Rather than express his feeling maturely, he opts that his "character doesn't want to do X" where X is the plot hook. It has nothing to do with the DM forcing or overriding the actions of the PC, merely the PC acting as roadblock, citing "his character" as the excuse. 

The latter example is much more disturbing, imho. There are PLENTY of reasons why Player 2 might feel uncomfortable. For example, he's a male and is uncomfortable with the concept of acting-out sexual/romantic scenarios with another man, or she's a female in a relationship uncomfortable with acting out sexual/romantic scenarios with another man not her sig-other. I've seen both. Usually, a knock-it-off is enough to change player 1's notion. He can justify it anyway he wants; he found someone better, he refuses to act and becomes the model of courtly love, etc. IT DOESN'T MATTER! Player 2 said no, you respect that.

Failing to respect that becomes harassment. Period. If you cannot respect those boundaries, you have become the problem. I come to play D&D to slay orcs, gain lewt, and have fun. If your character's background gets in the way of me doing any of the following, we have a problem. Its easier to ret-con a backstory than find a new player...

IMHO, of course.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 2, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> First things first. The Original Post assumes a basic level of assumption many sandboxers proudly thump their chest and declare as "poor DMing". However the original "my character wouldn't do that" doesn't have to be the end result of a railroad-to-hell. That isn't always true. For example, a player might decide they don't want to bite on a module hook for a module the DM has bought and others want to play. Rather than express his feeling maturely, he opts that his "character doesn't want to do X" where X is the plot hook. It has nothing to do with the DM forcing or overriding the actions of the PC, merely the PC acting as roadblock, citing "his character" as the excuse.



Generally speaking, if one PC doesn't want to follow the plot hook and the others do, I let them work it out. If I sense that the player is constantly rejecting adventures that the other players want to engage in, then it's possible the player is incompatible with the group. Not a big deal, really.

If the PCs, as a group, reject a plot hook and go off to do something else, I'm fine with that as the DM. Running the game (i.e., the actual act of playing out the NPCs, adjudicating actions, and running the various challenges the PCs face) is where I derive most of my fun. The preparation isn't as much fun for me, and I don't care how the PCs interact with the world, so long as they do. A player who does the minimum amount to get through an adventure (basically just checking things off a list) isn't as much fun for me to play with as one who goes out and looks for things to do in the world I created.



> IMHO, of course.



Ditto.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2010)

I gotta give you guys props.  I write an example where someone, as DannyA puts it, takes someone else's character background, and rewrites it, and you're okay with that.

I'll admit, I'm pretty impressed.  I'd never, ever play with another player who did it, but, hey, you stuck to your guns.  No lines can ever be drawn and anything is perfectly acceptable.  Even to the point where Raven Crowking is claiming that nothing can be too offensive at the table.  

I'll lend him my copy of FATAL.    And my collection of Gor novels too.  

But, hey, whatever floats your boat.  To me, this would be a deal breaker.  A DM who re-wrote my character's backstory without any prior notice or discussion would not be my DM for long and another player who would not respect being told that his/her behavior was making me uncomfortable and stop would not be someone I'd want to spend time with.

To me, a player's character is the only thing in the game that wholely belongs to that player.  It's thiers.  No one gets to rewrite anyone's character without discussing it first.  

Hey, since it's fine to introduce a NPC older brother that can tell me what to do because I'm playing a Samurai style character, maybe you could just take care of my character sheet too while you're at it.  Seems to be that I shouldn't even bother playing since anything I do can be over written by anyone else at the table, simply by them introducing a new element.  And, my only recourse is to leave the group.

I'd be taking that option thanks.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 2, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because it is where the conversation leads.  Also, I'd like it if you could answer my question from the last page.





*No amount of logic leads to rape.  Period.  

Let us have no more insistence that such vile acts can be in any way based in logic, or that anything like "reasoning" is behind it.*


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I gotta give you guys props.  I write an example where someone, as DannyA puts it, takes someone else's character background, and rewrites it, and you're okay with that.




This doesn't logically follow.  It is such a wierd jump of logic that I invite you to consider if you are being any more honest than the guy who says, "I'm just playing my character."  In what way does the introduction of a older brother, whether one previously thought dead or simply one introduced into the amorphous undetailed spaces of a background, "rewrite someone else's character background"?  There are a few backgrounds where such an introduction doesn't make sense, but even a background written with classic 'older brother tropes' would allow something like a secret illegitimate brother as a plot complication.

I think all those things sound pretty fun, nor if they happened to me would I see them as 'rewriting my character background'.  I would only see things as rewritnig my character background as you know, _things that actually rewrote my character background._

And the really interesting thing is,* I didn't even say I would permit this sort of thing.*  In fact, no one said 90% of the things you accuse them of saying in that rant, and its no secret that I'm a conservative evangelical christian so how well do you think I'd tolerate or encourage FATAL or Gor play at my table hmmm?  And you aren't being fair to RC either, because that's not what he said and I don't think based on what he's posted over the years that's how he plays.  When you go there, it has no basis in what anyone in this thread has said.  It's like the repeated claim that I'm encouraging player character rape at my table or that I'm being hostile to female roleplayers.  It's just bunk.  It hyperbole to the point of being silly, and would be offensive if I didn't actually have +5 natural armor bonus skin.  I've played with more female RPers than most DMs.  I've never had complaints that I'm mysognist or encouraged that at the table.  

I got to tell you.  Female RPers on the whole dig this small melodrama stuff more than male players do.

Depending on the circumstances, I might introduce an older brother to a PC as the DM, but as I said _I wouldn't let another player be another player's older brother without player consent_ and that is especially true if I thought the real motivation of the player was to 'mess with someone', 'order another player around', or 'take the heirloom sword'.

But as the DM, I feel perfectly free to introduce any NPC that is implied by the character background pretty much at will and I don't expect to be shouted down about it.  In my current campaign, I've already introduced a sister and nephew to the game and I didn't hear any whining about a sister not being in the backstory from the player - and it's my player most likely to get snippy and emotional at the table (also one of my most experienced and skilled RPers).  

I might as well come out and say it, but I don't think you are being honest with yourself.  You wrote this diatribe where you loudly proclaimed your rights to keep your character intact and free from outside control.  It was all stirring and idealistic and made you sound like you had some legitimate complaint, but it's bunk.  No one is suggesting rewriting your character sheet.  I'd never do that.  I'm probably one of the most outspoken posters on the proper division between the DM and player.  Read my first few post on the thread.  And I seriously doubt that you are actually troubled by the general idea of relatives of the player being introduced to the game.  No, I think you are actually bothered by something else and it shines through despite all your protests that this is about character integrity for two reasons.  First, your character integrity isn't actually being threatened, and secondly when you muster your actual complaints they are about something else.

What you actually complain about when outline how wrong this is the possibility that you'll have to turn over your magic sword or obey someone else.  But that's ridiculous on several levels.  It would be like complaining how unfair it was for the DM to introduce your Leige Lord or father into a samurii campaign.  I mean both of those have a greater ability to command your allegiance than an older brother, and yet I would think if you really want to play a 'samurii campaign' it would be precisely these shifting family, clan, and feudal loyalties that would make it interesting.  I've already shown sufficiently I think that you can play right into the brother hook even if it were to happen without having to be brow beat by anyone.  Your still your own character no matter what NPC shows up, never mind that I suggested I'd never let your original example happen in the first place. 

I really hate that this thread is coming crashing down, because its one of the most interesting threads we've had in the past year (at least).  And probably the admins are going to think I'm upset with you are something and this is going to get the thread banned, but that's not the case.  There are very few posters out there over the years that have gotten more XP from me than you, but I don't even know where you are coming from with this but I don't think its logic that is motivating you.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I got to tell you.  Female RPers on the whole dig this small melodrama stuff more than male players do.



Over the long haul, on average, I'd have to agree with this.  That said, IME it's also usually been the case that the male player(s) will happily participate in whatever "melodrama" (probably not the best term for it, but it'll do for now) the female player(s) might instigate; and will sometimes instigate it themselves.


> I really hate that this thread is coming crashing down, because its one of the most interesting threads we've had in the past year (at least).



Seconded.

Lan-"this discussion needs beer"-efan


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 2, 2010)

Wow, this has been an interesting thread.  This is my first post to this forum so I figured I would start off on an easy, softball, non-controversial thread!

When I first started playing D&D as a teenager in the 80's, my friends and I were somewhat immature, so I could see one of them creating a female character and hitting on one of mine to try and annoy me.  Being teenage boys, I wouldn't try to talk to him and explain this is annoying me, simply say, "Shut up, Jackass" and move on with the campaign.

Now, I am attempting to get back into running a game and will most likely find players I don't know personally, so the idea of one player getting offended by another player's role-playing style is a very real one I might have to contend with, thus my interest in this thread.

First off, it seems a large part of the confusion/misunderstanding/disagreement stems from the fact that this whole scenario is mostly fictitious players and fictitious instances.  There are so many gray areas that people are filling in the blanks to support their particular viewpoint.  However that does lead to interesting scenarios and how they might be handled.

For instance, there is the subjective opinion on whether Player 1's desire to role-play outweighs Player 2's desire to not be offended or not.  Is Player 1 restricting Player 2 by forcing him into a situation he finds uncomfortable, or is Player 2 restricting Player 1 by not allowing certain role-playing options.

What is interesting is more people in this thread agree than disagree.  For example, when the situation was first mentioned, most people reacted not to the idea of PC on PC romance, but to Player 1 saying he would deride, belittle Player 2 and possible gank his character.  Not one person, to my knowledge, said that was appropriate behavior.  Also, no one has said that Player 1 was wrong in attempting a new role-playing style.

Personally, I lean toward not offending people, but with limits.  Unless the DM specifically said it would be a non-violent campaign I don't think it is realistic to object to combat, for example.  If you are playing in a Good campaign and you are in a 24-like situation where you have to torture someone to extract crucial, even life saving, information, I can see someone objecting either in character or out of character.  And if the DM didn't state this would be a romantic themed campaign, a player could realistically object if he is forced into a PC on PC love interest.  If a player wants to explore a romantic role-playing tack, the DM could simply introduce an NPC (who could then get kidnapped and give the player his own personal Legend of Zelda storyline).

I think the long lost brother was a bad analogy because that is definitely a tack a DM could take.  I don't think the issue is messing with a character's back story, of course the DM has the right to do that.  Hell, the DM could state that your entire life was a memory implant caused by a spell and you are really a secret agent for the drow empire.  So introducing a long lost brother NPC or PC is certainly valid, in my opinion.  It would create new in-game conflict for the character, but I don't think would create the potential for offense like an unwanted PC on PC romance would.

Because of all the gray area in this scenario, it is hard to point to an absolute one player is right, one player is wrong answer.  In general it seems everyone agrees that belittling someone that expresses discomfort to a particular role-playing style is bad, but could a situation come up where someone is being overly sensitive and might deserve to be put back in place?  Possibly.

This is why I rarely, if ever, introduce romance into a D&D campaign.  Sometimes a character might visit a house of ill repute, but unless the woman is an assassin or has valuable information, I tend to cut to black with them going up the stairs to her room.

So, fascinating discussion.  I know I haven't really contributed anything new, but wanted to express an outside opinion.  Thanks!

Ed


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 3, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> Because of all the gray area in this scenario, it is hard to point to an absolute one player is right, one player is wrong answer.  In general it seems everyone agrees that belittling someone that expresses discomfort to a particular role-playing style is bad, but could a situation come up where someone is being overly sensitive and might deserve to be put back in place?  Possibly.
> 
> This is why I rarely, if ever, introduce romance into a D&D campaign.



OK. Now let's say a player introduces it, even if only in a PC-NPC form.  What then?  Do you run with it in character, ignore it, ban it, or ...?

Lanefan


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> A question to those claiming that Person B can never feel insulted and just has to deal with it.
> 
> You have in your game a few dudes, and a few ladies.  One of the dudes' characters starts really creepily stalking one of the ladies' characters, and talks about spying on her, sneaking around next to her, etc.  He starts giving her "gifts" and then claims he's madly in love with her.
> 
> ...




No takers?  Really?

Come on guys, you just said you didn't want this thread crashing to the ground.  You're opinion is that roleplaying comes before all else, regardless of how others are offended.  Would you agree with this statement, then?


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 3, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I got to tell you. Female RPers on the whole dig this small melodrama stuff more than male players do.
> 
> ...
> 
> But as the DM, I feel perfectly free to introduce any NPC that is implied by the character background pretty much at will and I don't expect to be shouted down about it. In my current campaign, I've already introduced a sister and nephew to the game and I didn't hear any whining about a sister not being in the backstory from the player - and it's my player most likely to get snippy and emotional at the table (also one of my most experienced and skilled RPers).




Ok, a few things I wanted to comment on, and ideas that may be worth thinking about: 

You've indicated that, in your experience, female players tend to be more open to this sort of element than male players. 

You've indicated that you have, in your own game, introduced backstory elements for characters without the players objecting to this. 

I imagine both of these are true. Despite all the disagreements in the thread, I suspect we both are involved in games where these issues rarely if ever come up and everyone is pretty much happy with the style of play. Most of our complaints here are largely just virtual finger shaking at imaginary tables over the internet. 

But... that doesn't mean these situation won't happen. 

So the question is, what happens if they _do_? For myself, I certainly don't believe that backstories should be off limits. As a DM, I've had characters discover secrets about their past - I tend to believe that secrets like that can be one of the strongest parts of the game. And if two players wanted to come up with joint background between their PCs, I'd absolutely encourage it. 

But what happens if the player doesn't want it? 

Say you introduce an NPC into the game that is one player's sister. The player doesn't 'shout you down about it' (and portraying it like that really isn't fair to what anyone has been saying.) But they do seem bothered by it. They say, "Oh. It was... kinda important to me that my character was an only child. I felt that was an important part of her background. Do you really have to change that?"

They aren't accusing you of anything malicious. They aren't shouting you down, or attacking you, or 'playing the victim'. You had no way of knowing this was going to bother them. But now that you do know?

Well, where do you go from here? 

Or what happens if a female player _doesn't _end up liking some 'small melodrama' that develops? Going back to that initial example. One player's PC is pursuing hers, and she isn't comfortable with it. And she says so: "I don't really like where this is going. Could you really not have your character fixated on mine?"

The other player says no. His PC is going to pursue her, whether she or her PC wants it or not. 

It might defy your expectation of female gamers, but nonetheless - I'm confident there are many players out there, male or female, who wouldn't want to play through that scenario. So what do you do, as a DM, when they turn to you and say so?


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 3, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Say you introduce an NPC into the game that is one player's sister. The player doesn't 'shout you down about it' (and portraying it like that really isn't fair to what anyone has been saying.) But they do seem bothered by it. They say, "Oh. It was... kinda important to me that my character was an only child. I felt that was an important part of her background. Do you really have to change that?" ...
> 
> Well, where do you go from here?




Generally that situation would not happen to me, because I would never add an element to a PC's backstory without consulting the player first. It wouldn't even occur to me as a possibility--I simply don't think of that as something that I as DM have the power to modify, any more than I have the power to write in different feats on a PC's character sheet. As a player, I would find it tremendously disconcerting to have the DM introduce something like that about my character. "Wait... I have a sister? How come I didn't know that?"

I suppose it could happen that I might take an _established_ background element in an unexpected direction and that could cause problems. For instance, say the PC's back story includes a sister; but when I bring her on stage, the way I play her is unintentionally contrary to what the player had in mind. In that case, upon finding out, I'd sit down and get a better idea of what the player was envisioning, then either retcon the sister's behavior or work out some in-game reason for it (she's a doppelganger, she's been mind-controlled, et cetera).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

> Are you really going to tell me that she should just sit there and take it? That the guy in question is doing nothing wrong at all?




Well, you already know how I feel; here's how I'd react:


OoG discussion w/all parties involved
Offer solutions: quit violating Wheaton's Rule or quit the game.  If the aggrieved party quits the game (preemptively or because enough is enough), warn the offender that if it happens again, there will be repurcussions
The consequence should be cessation of gaming with that person, either by kicking them out of the group or by leaving the group yourself.

I went through this on a bowling team.  After years of bowling together, one of my oldest buddies- and a bowler of near-pro skill- started letting his occasional mistakes release truly volcanic outbursts of cursing, aggressive acts and all-around poor sportsmanship.

Not only did it disturb other bowlers, it disturbed everyone on the team...including his younger sister and brother.  After one night in which a tantrum featured my 6'3" buddy spiking his 16# ball, his brother kicked him off the team.

It was years before I bowled with my pal again, even socially.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Say you introduce an NPC into the game that is one player's sister. The player doesn't 'shout you down about it' (and portraying it like that really isn't fair to what anyone has been saying.)




One of the rules I tried to set for myself as a player is that I wouldn't argue with the DM during a session, even if I thought the DM was wrong.  If the DM was wrong, about say some rule, I might question the DM briefly, but if the DM didn't want to hear me I wasn't going to make a big point of it.  Likewise, if I felt the DM treated me unfairly, I wasn't going to argue about it, but I might bring it up privately with the DM after the session.   That's because I've been the DM and nothing is more frustrating than the player who is always asking for retcons, arguing with you over points of interpretation, and generally seeming to think that its debate club.  Sometimes I'm wrong as the DM, and if someone catches it, then great.  But if a player brings something up, and I don't agree with him, I just don't want to get in a debate about it least of all in the middle of the session while I have 3-5 other players trying to have a game.  That just based on my experience, because I've also been the player thinking, "Gee, enough, it's not worth arguing over.  Can we just get back to the game?"  

I've been to tables that packed 30 minutes of fun into 5 hours of gaming because they were always off topic or in an argument.  It's just not fun.  So when I say, "shouting the DM down", I mean anything from literally that down to pretty much any sort of behavior that amounts to stopping play and arguing with the DM.  YMMV on that, and I agree that it's nice both ways for the DM to get some help, because I'm absent minded sometimes and when you have alot of things going you just forget.  So there is a fine line here. But I hate getting in an argument in the middle of play.



> But they do seem bothered by it. They say, "Oh. It was... kinda important to me that my character was an only child. I felt that was an important part of her background. Do you really have to change that?"




First of all, if it really was stated in there background that they were an only child, it's highly unlikely that I'm going to contridict that with some introduced element.  It's much more likely that you end up with family to 'didn't know you had' (as a player at least) if you leave it open in some fashion, either by not mentioning your family or else by introducing siblings that died an ambigious death (although technically, in a world with raise dead, that's just about all of them). Second of all, if it is highly important to someone's background, it should be in the background.  If you say nothing about your family, and then raise the objection that you think you should be an only child after I've introduced a sibling, I'm going to have alot less sympathy than I would if you'd detailed your family.  And if you'd actually written a background in which it was clear that being an only child was critical to your background, I'd just respect that.  We're more talking about my right as a DM to 'fill in the blanks'.  And as I said, while I think I have a right to fill in the blanks with NPC's, I wouldn't do that with a PC without your permission.



> You had no way of knowing this was going to bother them. But now that you do know?




"I'm sorry, I had no way of knowing this was going to bother you.  It's not in the background you submitted on this character.  Why don't you talk with me after the session and we'll try to work out how to handle this problem?"

If that doesn't smooth it over immediately, then I'll try to work it out mid-session looking for some comprimise that doesn't require me to retconn.  First, I'd try to assure her that I'd work something out without telling her what it was.  But if that didn't work, I'd accept any of the following comprimises:

1) The sibling is a half-sibling. 
2) The sibling is an imposter.
3) The sibling will be killed off quickly.
4) The sibling is an illusion created by some nefarious spell-caster with an ulterior motive.  Any memory you have of a sibling have been implanted, and you'll soon realize that you've acquired some mysterious enemy.

That's just off the top of my head.



> Or what happens if a female player _doesn't _end up liking some 'small melodrama' that develops? Going back to that initial example. One player's PC is pursuing hers, and she isn't comfortable with it. And she says so: "I don't really like where this is going. Could you really not have your character fixated on mine?"




Some combination of the following...

"Please try to stay in character, people."

"Keep in mind everyone that whatever you do, you really shouldn't be escallating any party conflict to the level it permenently splits the party so take whatever cues the other players are giving you.  It's a team game and everyone should be participating.  Intra-party conflict needs to be consensual on some level, and I really don't want to see it spilling out in to player conflict."

"Kim, I hope you understand you don't have to reciprocate in any romantic/flirtious play.  You can just in character shoot that down, snub the other character, or ignore it.  Just think of all the TV shows you've seen where a character is recieving unwelcome attention from another character and how its handled in the scene.  'Firefly' is a good example of characters that work together, but don't always get along smoothly.  Imagine how River, Zoe, or Kaylee might handle unwelcome attention from Jayne."

"Kim, if you really uncomfortable even in character snubbing or putting the brakes on a romantic relationship.  We'll hold off on this and talk with me after the session about it."



> The other player says no. His PC is going to pursue her, whether she or her PC wants it or not.




See above, in some variation, emphasising 'Kim's' freedom of choice.  Also emphasis that I don't like how a character conflict has been escalated up to a player conflict, and that's one of the many reasons it's best to stay in character.  Also, take the male player aside after the game and talk to him about consensual play.  Also, if I have suspicions, tell him that if he's doing this because he has a real life crush on the player, that it's not a particularly smooth move and unlikely to help his case any.



> It might defy your expectation of female gamers...




I think we are getting some confusion here.  My expectation of female gamers is that they enjoy small drama, that they are likely to develop crushes on NPCs.  (Neither trait is exclusive to females.)  My expectation is NOT that they enjoy having their character romanticly pursued by another player that they don't have an existing IRL romantic relationship with.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> OK. Now let's say a player introduces it, even if only in a PC-NPC form.  What then?  Do you run with it in character, ignore it, ban it, or ...?
> 
> Lanefan




If a player asked about an NPC love interest I would be fine with it.  I would definitely use it as a plot line using mind control, doppleganger, kidnapping, etc.  This could lead to interesting discussions with the other party members (why should we rescue her, she's not our girlfriend).

What I would put the kibosh on would be overly graphic descriptions of affection by the player.  Again, walk up the stairs or go into their tent and.....scene.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No takers?  Really?
> 
> Come on guys, you just said you didn't want this thread crashing to the ground.  You're opinion is that roleplaying comes before all else, regardless of how others are offended.  Would you agree with this statement, then?




If I remember this part of the thread, possibly the reason no one took you up on it is that they felt their position didn't quite fit the extreme portrayal you were presenting.  I don't recall ever reading in this thread anyone saying a player never has the right to get offended by another player's role-playing.

It is not a mathematical formula, 2 units of discomfort outweighs 3 units of role-playing.  Like all other aspects of social interaction it is a judgment call.  And even with all the 'What If' scenarios bandied about we can never really know until the situation happens in front of you.  How upset is Player 2?  How into the role-playing is Player 1?  Would Player 2 be more into it if Player 1 was of the right gender/appearance?  Could Player 2 be ok with it as a player and just role-play his character as not interested?  Can the DM divert Player 1's attention with an NPC love interest?  

Basically there are too many unknowns in this pretend scenario for us to determine an absolute course of action.  Assuming we are all playing to have fun, and this conflict between players is making everyone at the table have less fun, then a resolution has to be made, and it might be the DM simply ruling in one player's favor (telling Player 1 to knock it off or Player 2 to just roll with it......cwhatIdidthere?)


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Generally that situation would not happen to me, because I would never add an element to a PC's backstory without consulting the player first. It wouldn't even occur to me as a possibility--I simply don't think of that as something that I as DM have the power to modify, any more than I have the power to write in different feats on a PC's character sheet. As a player, I would find it tremendously disconcerting to have the DM introduce something like that about my character. "Wait... I have a sister? How come I didn't know that?"
> 
> I suppose it could happen that I might take an _established_ background element in an unexpected direction and that could cause problems. For instance, say the PC's back story includes a sister; but when I bring her on stage, the way I play her is unintentionally contrary to what the player had in mind. In that case, upon finding out, I'd sit down and get a better idea of what the player was envisioning, then either retcon the sister's behavior or work out some in-game reason for it (she's a doppelganger, she's been mind-controlled, et cetera).




Just once I would like to take a player with the finely written, detailed, 8 page character background and pull a Wolverine, basically telling them in the 3rd gaming session that their entire life was a magical memory implant and that they are actually...

Just to see how they would react.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 3, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> If I remember this part of the thread, possibly the reason no one took you up on it is that they felt their position didn't quite fit the extreme portrayal you were presenting.  I don't recall ever reading in this thread anyone saying a player never has the right to get offended by another player's role-playing.




On the contrary - that has been what the last few pages have _entirely_ been about, that if Player A's character is doing something to Player B's character that Player B finds OoCly uncomfortable, she has to handle it ICly, and talking to them about it outside of the game is somehow "bad"

I would say the question is being ignored precisely because it cuts away all the "what ifs" and provides a simple and clear situation.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> On the contrary - that has been what the last few pages have _entirely_ been about, that if Player A's character is doing something to Player B's character that Player B finds OoCly uncomfortable, she has to handle it ICly, and talking to them about it outside of the game is somehow "bad"
> 
> I would say the question is being ignored precisely because it cuts away all the "what ifs" and provides a simple and clear situation.




The question is being ignored because while you might get a few takers on roleplaying coming before all else, I have yet to see a single person espouse "no matter what." The deafening silence you hear is no one defending a position which you have invented.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Depending on the circumstances, I might introduce an older brother to a PC as the DM, but as I said I wouldn't let another player be another player's older brother without player consent  and that is especially true if I thought the real motivation of the player was to 'mess with someone', 'order another player around', or 'take the heirloom sword'.




Huh.  Why are ascribing motives to any of the players?  I certainly didn't have any in the example.  We're supposed to assume that everyone in the situation is behaving well and no one is actively trying to screw the other over.

How is it any different that I can play a character that I KNOW makes another player uncomfortable to the point where that other player might actually leave the game, but I can't play a character that takes away someone's imaginary friend's imaginary sword?

This is what I just don't get.  The whole argument hinges on the fact that Player 1 KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt (because player 2 told him) that his behavior is making player 2 uncomfortable.  Apparently that's fine and Player 2 should deal with it in character and never let it go out of character.

But, it's not okay for me to play a character that takes away someone's magic sword?

Why not?  

As far as rewriting someone's background goes, well, if someone has written that their family was killed, that's a pretty strong signal that they're not interested in playing out family relations in the game.  Now, let's say that's the background.  Bob's character has no family because they were eaten by vampiric wombats.

You introduce an NPC family member.

Bob, after the session, because he's a good player and doesn't want to derail things, says, "Dude, I'm so not into this.  I don't want to do this.  This whole plot line you've introduced that contradicts my character background does not interest me in the slightest.  Can we stop?"

What is your response?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

I'll put it this way: why is it _ever_ OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?*



* besides the obvious need of the DM to ensure the PC fits the campaign world, e.g. "No, you can't play the child of a cybermage from Antares in my 10,000 BC low- magic, low-tech campaign!"


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll put it this way: why is it _ever_ OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?*
> 
> 
> 
> * besides the obvious need of the DM to ensure the PC fits the campaign world, e.g. "No, you can't play the child of a cybermage from Antares in my 10,000 BC low- magic, low-tech campaign!"




Because people don't always get to determine the exact circumstances of their own birth.  I've always done character backgrounds as a collaborative process between Player and DM.  In the campaign I am designing now there is a pretty detailed and established world.  My plan is to find out the personality and general flair of their characters from each player and provide a background that fits the kind they want to play and fits in with my world.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> Because people don't always get to determine the exact circumstances of their own birth.  I've always done character backgrounds as a collaborative process between Player and DM.  In the campaign I am designing now there is a pretty detailed and established world.  My plan is to find out the personality and general flair of their characters from each player and provide a background that fits the kind they want to play and fits in with my world.




Birth?!?

This is an RPG in which THAT RW fact does not apply- PC design is _precisely_ about playing God On a micro level.  The player determines race, attribute allocation, class, skills & feats...and you (the DM) want to hijack his family history?  Why not just hand out worksheets with targets a given PC must meet...or pre-gens?

Doesn't the responsibility of creating an interesting campaign world present enough challenges that you don't need to edit the creative designs of the other consenting adults at the table?


Collaboration between DM & player is one thing, overriding someone else's expressed veto is another thing entirely...its dictatorship.

If a DM told me the PC I wanted to play as an orphan was being re-written as the middle child of 6 with all my siblings & parents living happily in the shire- or vice versa- I'd either rip that PC up (in full view of all) and start anew or I'd get up & leave.

Yes, I've done both.

Unless the revision is clearly better to me in that it:

Fits better within the campaign
Models my PC concept better
It's nobody's darn business what background I want for my PC, and I won't put up with pointless meddling.

If the DM really wants a PC in the party who is rebelling from being part of a big, happy and suffocatingly nosy family, he's got the option of talking to other players about THEIR PCs backgrounds before mucking about with mine.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll put it this way: why is it _ever_ OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?*
> 
> * besides the obvious need of the DM to ensure the PC fits the campaign world, e.g. "No, you can't play the child of a cybermage from Antares in my 10,000 BC low- magic, low-tech campaign!"




I might be contradicting myself a little here, but there is editing, and there is EDITING...

First off, I'd never allow another PC to do the editing. Not because they would necessarily do a poor job of it, but because it creates a fair-play field. A player's choices about his PC are HIS, and I don't think its any fairer to let another player make an character history edit (I'm his secret sibling or ex-lover) than I would allow another player to roll his HP when leveling up (or similar mechanical change). 

If both players agree (We want to play brothers! or Our characters hook up. I've actually DONE both) then I allow. I NEVER would hide such info from my players though; they're mature enough to know how to play dumb on things like trolls/fire or Strahd's a vampire, they can handle a not-so-secret secret admirer. 

HOWEVER, the PC backstory editiing rules don't necessarily apply to the DM, as long as its done in fairness and to further the "story". I usually seek the player's permission first (hey, are you willing to take a little tinkering for a really cool plot point?) and I do it very sporadically (It was cool when we learned Vader was Luke's father all along, it was less so when we learned Leia was his sister all along...) I've introduced a few such elements, but usually what I do is ask players for backgrounds and twist them a bit to make either cool adventures out of it or to fit better with my world. I'm also not afraid to back-track a bit (or ret-con) to fix problems if someone complains. 

Lastly, you GOT to understand your audience. Lanefan's audience obviously doesn't care about things like secret admirers, party-assassins, or the like. I've had players (male and female) who objected to worshipping non-Christian gods (they either avoid clerics or worship non-specific "goodness" in the world) and others who were uncomfortable with the idea of a role-playing a relationship with someone that wasn't their BF. I've also had homophobic players who didn't like the idea of two dudes (one of which was playing a female) RPing a "relationship" and didn't want anything to do with it. In each case, we found work-arounds, or dropped the idea utterly on first objection. 

In NO case was anyone's character built around the idea, or felt the need to pursue it beyond the first objection. I'm sure anyone trying to do so would get you booted so fast from the table you wouldn't have time to grab up all your dice! We gave up on using D&D for head-games/revenge/stealth dating in high school and DON'T miss that element of drama.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

You missed the key phrase, "against their will."

All that talk of going to your players and seeking permission is cool, but what happens when the player gives an unequivocal and emphatic "No!" to your proposals?

Do you respect the creativity of your fellow human being or do you trample on it?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You missed the key phrase, "against their will."
> All that talk of going to your players and seeking permission is cool,  but what happens when the player gives an unequivocal and emphatic "No!"  to your proposals?
> Do you respect the creativity of your fellow human being or do you trample on it?






Remathilis said:


> In NO case was anyone's character built around the idea, *or felt the need to pursue it beyond the first objection. I'm sure anyone trying to do so would get you booted so fast from the table you wouldn't have time to grab up all your dice! *We gave up on using D&D for head-games/revenge/stealth dating in high school and DON'T miss that element of drama.




Bolded Quote for Emphasis.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

As a DM, you have all the power.  Players can only do what you permit.  PC creation is the fundamental bit of player creativity from which all of their subsequent decisions will flow.

If you are prepared to take away some of that, are you equally willing to make concessions in campaign structure to compensate for that power grab?  Would you let a player sit down at the table with a Minotaur PC in your Humans & Halflings only game?

After you told him it was Humans & Halflings only?


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Collaboration between DM & player is one thing, overriding someone else's expressed veto is another thing entirely...its dictatorship.




To be fair, that wasn't really the question as originally stated.  I was replying to, "why is it _ever_ OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?"  Editing a background, in my view, is different than changing a core element of the character without Player input.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If a DM told me the PC I wanted to play as an orphan was being re-written as the middle child of 6 with all my siblings & parents living happily in the shire- or vice versa- I'd either rip that PC up (in full view of all) and start anew or I'd get up & leave.
> 
> Yes, I've done both.




Well, that's certainly a calm, rational, not-at-all overreaction to the situation.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Unless the revision is clearly better to me in that it:
> 
> Fits better within the campaign
> Models my PC concept better
> ...




It is the business of the person who is playing God and everyone in the world not being run by you and your party.  And there are other concerns besides simply balance issues.  What if orphans are raised in a way that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for you to become an adventurer?  Or in the vice versa example of the middle of 6 kids, what if no one ever has more than 2 kids?

As for the campaign, the DM might have plans for your family in the campaign.  You want your father to be a famous war hero, but the DM had planned for him to have been accused of treason, or cowardice and a potential plot point for you to clear his name.  Should the DM have to explain every possible plot point and modify his campaign to fit into your back story, potentially revealing things he shouldn't, or should he look at your back story and calmly explain that he is going to have to change a few things?

I agree that the DM should never tell you how to act, what your personality is.  If your intention is to be the dark brooding loner, or the friendly womanizer or the quiet but wize mage, you can do that regardless of your background and the DM should not modify that.

Perhaps a good compromise is to be more vague.  This allows you to play the character you want, but allow specific details to be made by the DM for balance, story or realism aspects.  So you say you want a background marred by personal tragedy and loss, or a generally happy upbringing but with some family skeletons, or whatever, and let the DM fill in the gaps to fit his campaign.  You get the character you want and the DM gets the campaign he wants.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Bolded Quote for Emphasis.




Oh, I read that, but I also read:



> *HOWEVER, the PC backstory editiing rules don't necessarily apply to the DM, as long as its done in fairness and to further the "story". I usually seek the player's permission first (hey, are you willing to take a little tinkering for a really cool plot point?) and I do it very sporadically* (It was cool when we learned Vader was Luke's father all along, it was less so when we learned Leia was his sister all along...) I've introduced a few such elements, but usually what I do is ask players for backgrounds and twist them a bit to make either cool adventures out of it or to fit better with my world. I'm also not afraid to back-track a bit (or ret-con) to fix problems if someone complains.



(emphasis mine)

It sounds like you're leaving yourself some wiggle room to edit over objections...and it's just that circumstances have worked out in such a way that you haven't needed to.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You missed the key phrase, "against their will."
> 
> All that talk of going to your players and seeking permission is cool, but what happens when the player gives an unequivocal and emphatic "No!" to your proposals?
> 
> Do you respect the creativity of your fellow human being or do you trample on it?




Are those the only two options, or is there any room for middle ground?  You seem to be implying that any attempt by the DM to affect character creation or background is tantamount to hijacking or handing out pre-gens (as you state in your previous reply).

The choice is not giving the player 100% authority to dictate everything about their character without any DM input...or handing out pre-generated characters to the players with fully fleshed backgrounds.  I truly believe there is a middle option of letting the players decide core elements of their characters, especially personality and behavior, but with the DM adding elements to fit his campaign as well.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As a DM, you have all the power.  Players can only do what you permit.  PC creation is the fundamental bit of player creativity from which all of their subsequent decisions will flow.
> 
> If you are prepared to take away some of that, are you equally willing to make concessions in campaign structure to compensate for that power grab?  Would you let a player sit down at the table with a Minotaur PC in your Humans & Halflings only game?
> 
> After you told him it was Humans & Halflings only?




I know what my answer would be, but let me ask you, is the DM telling the player that is dead set on playing a minotaur in a humans and halflings only campaign that he cannot play a minotaur restricting that player's creativity and hijacking the character creation process from that player?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> To be fair, that wasn't really the question as originally stated.  I was replying to, "why is it _ever_ OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?"  Editing a background, in my view, is different than changing a core element of the character without Player input.




Why do you see PC background as a non-core element?



> Well, that's certainly a calm, rational, not-at-all overreaction to the situation.



I'm a musician, artist, jewelry designer, as well as an entertainment lawyer, so I see the creative process up close & personal from a variey of perspectives.  While editing is necessary in every creative process, there is also a point beyond which editing becomes invasive, usually when the editor is supplanting his creative vision for that of the creator's.  At that point, the process must be restarted or the relationship must be severed.

In those situations where I shredded a PC or walked out, it had become so.



> It is the business of the person who is playing God and everyone in the world not being run by you and your party.  And there are other concerns besides simply balance issues.  What if orphans are raised in a way that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for you to become an adventurer?  Or in the vice versa example of the middle of 6 kids, what if no one ever has more than 2 kids?




So...orphans become completely loyal slaves incapable of running away?

I can buy into the other, to a point- it IS about fitting into the campaign world, and could be made to work by scaling back family size a bit.

But the rest is micromanaging.



> As for the campaign, the DM might have plans for your family in the campaign.  You want your father to be a famous war hero, but the DM had planned for him to have been accused of treason, or cowardice and a potential plot point for you to clear his name.




Then _talk to some other player_ about doing this if I'm not interested, don't overrwrite my character sheet.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

This was going too slowly on my iTouch...had to move to a real computer...



Edvamp said:


> Are those the only two options, or is there any room for middle ground?  You seem to be implying that any attempt by the DM to affect character creation or background is tantamount to hijacking or handing out pre-gens (as you state in your previous reply).
> 
> The choice is not giving the player 100% authority to dictate everything about their character without any DM input...or handing out pre-generated characters to the players with fully fleshed backgrounds.  I truly believe there is a middle option of letting the players decide core elements of their characters, especially personality and behavior, but with the DM adding elements to fit his campaign as well.



No, there is a middle ground.  Editing is permissible, and as I stated in another post, often required, in every creative process.

However, there comes a point when the creator of something- even something as minor as a PC in an RPG- has to be respected.  If the player feels that something is an essential part of their PC's design and there is no *compelling* rules or campaign reason why you should exercise power as a DM and change it, you should leave it alone.  If you don't that's a violation of Wheaton's Rule.



Edvamp said:


> I know what my answer would be, but let me ask you, is the DM telling the player that is dead set on playing a minotaur in a humans and halflings only campaign that he cannot play a minotaur restricting that player's creativity and hijacking the character creation process from that player?



Its clearly a restriction but its a restriction with meaningful ramifications for your campaign structure, so it has a real purpose for existing.

If you as the DM say "No", you're holding the line on what you consider to be an essential characteristic of your campaign's structure.  If you choose to let the player play the minotaur, that's cool too...as long as your other players have similar options.  If ALL of your players then want to play minotaurs, perhaps they as a group are the last (or first) of their kind.  And if all of a sudden, you have players presenting you with minotaurs and shardminds and everything BUT humans or halflings...well, you may just re-evaluate your position again.

And in that, it is no different than a player telling you that being an orphan or a member of a happy family is an essential quality of their PC.  If that is the player's position, respect it.

Discussion is the key.  Perhaps you'll convince the player that your background idea is better.  But if you don't, why bigfoot his PC concept?  You control EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE GAME- you should be able to find other ways to work desirable plot elements into the game with your NPCs and other players without overruling someone's PC background or design decisions on things _THEY _consider vital.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 3, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Why does rape keep coming up in this discussion, other than to add to the hyperbole quotient?  Romance does not mean rape.  I thought this was obvious.




It's about a general approach to the question - not merely about romance. It's about doing something to another character's PC without their consent, whether it's romance or other relationship. 

And, unfortunately, it's not merely hyperbole if you observe many gaming horror stories threads. There are far too many people whose gaming experiences have been marred by that act, though usually as an element of play rather than being inserted into their backstory.

There's a tremendous difference in the severity of the offense between unwanted romance and unwanted rape. But they sit on the same issue - one player messing with another player's PC without that player's consent.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why do you see PC background as a non-core element?




The core elements, to me, are the character's stats and the personality the player runs the character with.  You can play a PC without an established background (hell, in a straight dungeon crawl you can play without a personality but that doesn't seem like as much fun).  A PC background certainly adds depth and I encourage them, but they don't have to dictate your character's personality.  More on that below.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm a musician, artist, jewelry designer, as well as an entertainment lawyer, so I see the creative process up close & personal from a variey of perspectives.  While editing is necessary in every creative process, there is also a point beyond which editing becomes invasive, usually when the editor is supplanting his creative vision for that of the creator's.  At that point, the process must be restarted or the relationship must be severed.
> 
> In those situations where I shredded a PC or walked out, it had become so.




I work in the music industry myself (used to work for the band Suffocation).  It almost seems like you are describing the role of the producer in the studio.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> So...orphans become completely loyal slaves incapable of running away?




Yeah, not my best bout of creativity, just trying to show that what might be simple flavor text for your background could be a major reality disconnect for that campaign.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can buy into the other, to a point- it IS about fitting into the campaign world, and could be made to work by scaling back family size a bit.
> 
> But the rest is micromanaging.
> 
> Then _talk to some other player_ about doing this if I'm not interested, don't overrwrite my character sheet.




Absolutely communication between DM and player is essential, and if it was a general discontinuity between what the player wants in his background and the reality of the general campaign world, that is one thing.  But if it would conflict or remove a plot element the DM plans on introducing he shouldn't be forced to reveal it to the player to justify making the change.  The Player should trust the DM that whatever changes he makes to the PC background are not malicious attempts to restrict the player, but necessary changes that could play out at a later date.

As for personality, you should be able to justify any type of character archetype or personality regardless of his background.  Whether you want to play the tortured loner or the jovial prankster that should be doable.  That is kinda what I meant in my previous post about keeping things vague enough so that you can play how you want without inadvertently interfering with the DM and both of you are happy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> The core elements, to me, are the character's stats and the personality the player runs the character with.  You can play a PC without an established background (hell, in a straight dungeon crawl you can play without a personality but that doesn't seem like as much fun).  A PC background certainly adds depth and I encourage them, but they don't have to dictate your character's personality.  More on that below.



To me, the overarching core element is the character conception: everything else is subordinate to that.  Every decision about race, class, power, skill, weapon, etc. follows from that.  When you edit my background, you run the risk of excising or altering what _I_ consider essential.

And that is KEY.  What you consider incidental may not be to your player, so overruling a creative decision over an expressed objection is, again, disrespectful to some extent, unless you can successfully convince the player otherwise.  And if you can't, _back off._



> I work in the music industry myself (used to work for the band Suffocation).  It almost seems like you are describing the role of the producer in the studio.




(Cool!)
At some point, even a producer won't cross a line because he knows the band will walk out.

When that occurs, the label has the choice of not releasing the album or letting it find its way in the market.  If they make the edits over and above band's objections and release the album, there could be a lawsuit.  Especially if the band actually negotiated for "artistic control" over their recordings. 



> The Player should trust the DM that whatever changes he makes to the PC background are not malicious attempts to restrict the player, but necessary changes that could play out at a later date.




There are _precious few_ people I trust that well, and they've earned it.  And even so, I make those people justify the change.  If I remain unconvinced, I may still go along with it, because I know and trust that person.  If I don't, however, that's it- I won't play the altered PC.

But not for every DM just because he's the DM.



> As for personality, you should be able to justify any type of character archetype or personality regardless of his background.




That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO.  A kid raised to adulthood by wolves is probably NOT going to be able to fit seamlessly into high society on Day 1, even if he were the long lost child of Lord Whitehunter, what with wolves being unlikely to teach their man-child when to raise the pinky while drinking or when not to sniff butts.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, there is a middle ground.  Editing is permissible, and as I stated in another post, often required, in every creative process.
> 
> However, there comes a point when the creator of something- even something as minor as a PC in an RPG- has to be respected.  If the player feels that something is an essential part of their PC's design and there is no *compelling* rules or campaign reason why you should exercise power as a DM and change it, you should leave it alone.  If you don't that's a violation of Wheaton's Rule.
> 
> ...




I think we are pretty close in our thinking, the main question that started this line was basically what reason could there be to make changes to a PC background and we have both established that there are legitimate reasons, and I do agree with Wheaton's Rule as well.

Here is what I think is the best way to allow both sides to get what they want and not derail the campaign before it even begins:

Step 1: DM explains campaign concept and any in-world things that could affect character creation such as races, social mores, laws, etc.
Step 1a: DM receives Player input, answers questions, etc.
Step 2: Players create their characters and, if they wish, make up backgrounds that fit into both the anticipated campaign and the established world.
Step 3: DM reviews character backgrounds and only makes changes if there is a campaign or world conflict, but hopefully takes elements from the backgrounds and incorporates them into the campaign.

To expand on your halfling vs minotaur example, I am writing up a campaign for players to be working for the Church.  The PCs for this particular campaign must be Good aligned, with at least one Cleric.  The players will know this when I ask them if they want to play in this campaign (Step 1).

Now if a player asks if he can play a Chaotic Evil Assassin, I would have to say no.  There is no way I could fit that into this campaign (although I might make a second campaign in the same game world for an Evil party).  If the player asks if he can be a Chaotic Good Thief, that I can work with.  Maybe someone working for the Church to make up for past misdeeds, like Leverage.

We both agree communication is essential.  The DM has to know that the players might be attached to their characters and care about how the backgrounds are treated, but players also need to realize that just because it is written on a character background sheet does not make it Canon.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To me, the overarching core element is the character conception: everything else is subordinate to that.  Every decision about race, class, power, skill, weapon, etc. follows from that.  When you edit my background, you run the risk of excising or altering what _I_ consider essential.
> 
> And that is KEY.  What you consider incidental may not be to your player, so overruling a creative decision over an expressed objection is, again, disrespectful to some extent, unless you can successfully convince the player otherwise.  And if you can't, _back off._
> 
> That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO.  A kid raised to adulthood by wolves is probably NOT going to be able to fit seamlessly into high society on Day 1, even if he were the long lost child of Lord Whitehunter, what with wolves being unlikely to teach their man-child when to raise the pinky while drinking or when not to sniff butts.




I edited your post (no pun intended) to focus on these points.

Let me ask you, do you come up with character conception before you roll for stats?  What happens if you come up with the idea of the massive, muscled Grag the Almighty and then roll a strength of 6?

Second, you state that a change the DM makes that might to him seem incidental could be a big deal to you.  But the example of a character that you wanted to be high society and the DM decides to be raised by wolves is hardly incidental to anyone's notion.  Yes, if you wrote up a Cavalier who you envisioned to be high born, snooty, sophisticated, cultured, etc. and I, as the DM, made him raised by wolves, then you would definitely have a point.

If the DM needed a character to have that drastic of a background, then he should have announced to the players before character creation and maybe asked for a volunteer, or something of that nature.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

> To expand on your halfling vs minotaur example, I am writing up a campaign for players to be working for the Church. The PCs for this particular campaign must be Good aligned, with at least one Cleric. The players will know this when I ask them if they want to play in this campaign (Step 1).
> 
> Now if a player asks if he can play a Chaotic Evil Assassin, I would have to say no. There is no way I could fit that into this campaign (although I might make a second campaign in the same game world for an Evil party). If the player asks if he can be a Chaotic Good Thief, that I can work with. Maybe someone working for the Church to make up for past misdeeds, like Leverage.




We're pretty much in agreement there, though I can think of a couple of ways to work the Assassin in...at least for a short time.

Ultimately, the question is where is the line between what the DM should rightfully control and what he should leave to the players.  Where that line lies can only be discovered by communicating with each other.

When one party or the other says, "NO!" is a pretty good indicator, IMHO, and should only be crossed with great care.  And neither side should be surprised if, when that line is crossed, feelings get hurt.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> Let me ask you, do you come up with character conception before you roll for stats?  What happens if you come up with the idea of the massive, muscled Grag the Almighty and then roll a strength of 6?




Depends upon the campaign.  When the DM uses point-buy, its not an issue.  Ditto rolled stats when you can choose their distribution.

If, as you posit, we're rolling up stats applied in order- a rare campaign- I'll simply come up with a different PC concept and go from there, and make a different series of decisions.



> Second, you state that a change the DM makes that might to him seem incidental could be a big deal to you.




Absolutely.



> But the example of a character that you wanted to be high society and the DM decides to be raised by wolves is hardly incidental to anyone's notion.  Yes, if you wrote up a Cavalier who you envisioned to be high born, snooty, sophisticated, cultured, etc. and I, as the DM, made him raised by wolves, then you would definitely have a point.



That example was in response to your bald assertion:



> As for personality, you should be able to justify any type of character archetype or personality regardless of his background.




Which really isn't the case, at least not on Campaign day 1, when PCs are low-level and just starting out.  An experienced PC, OTOH, may indeed have a history like that.  Would you really say that a Wolf-boy raised to adulthood in the wild could start off as a Cavalier...even if that was the _player's_ design?

Amazing as it may seem, I wouldn't.  Its too much of a stretch to say that Wolf-Boy, at lvl 1, has been in high society long enough to get a full grasp of the niceties of the cultured lifestyle.  If/when he reaches 2nd level and takes a level of Cavalier, I'm cool with that. (See _Brave New World_, for instance.)



> If the DM needed a character to have that drastic of a background, then he should have announced to the players before character creation and maybe asked for a volunteer, or something of that nature.



Yep, and if nobody steps up, its time for him to come up with a new plan instead of forcing someone to take that background.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 3, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> Let me ask you, do you come up with character conception before you roll for stats?  What happens if you come up with the idea of the massive, muscled Grag the Almighty and then roll a strength of 6?



So many people (not including me) use point-buy these days it's not so much of an issue as it once was.  That said, I've had this happen too - come up with a character idea then have the dice demolish it before takeoff...usually by rolling a bunch of very average stats instead of something with highs and lows I can work with.


> Second, you state that a change the DM makes that might to him seem incidental could be a big deal to you.  But the example of a character that you wanted to be high society and the DM decides to be raised by wolves is hardly incidental to anyone's notion.  Yes, if you wrote up a Cavalier who you envisioned to be high born, snooty, sophisticated, cultured, etc. and I, as the DM, made him raised by wolves, then you would definitely have a point.
> 
> If the DM needed a character to have that drastic of a background, then he should have announced to the players before character creation and maybe asked for a volunteer, or something of that nature.



With very few exceptions, this is part of the reason why we don't usually worry about character backgrounds at all until they've survived a few adventures and become relevant.  The rest of the reason mostly revolves around spending ages on an elaborate background only to have the character get killed in its first significant battle...why bother?

If background becomes relevant during play - e.g. a PC gets teleported to her birthplace by a random effect and we now need to know where said birthplace is - we spend 30 seconds on dice-rolling and come up with it then and there.  Otherwise, once a character becomes relevant I'll sit down with its player and hash out a rough background if asked.

Otherwise, if a player wants to make stuff up about their family, background, etc. I'm cool with it - unless the background tries to overlap with known game elements.  Arbitrarily deciding "My father was a farmer, that farm was his kingdom and he was a tyrant; I couldn't wait to run away" is great.  But I'm going to step on* an arbitrary "My father is Borneus II, Emperor of [the land where the PCs are]", in part because one's chance of being (or being related to) nobility is something determined during initial roll-up.

* - I won't step on a character saying it, but I will step on it being true. 

======================

On a different tangent, and wondering if I've perhaps been mis-representing our fun bunch of people, I ran the gist of this discussion - the reaction-to-romance-in-game branch of it - past some of my crew last night and got back what amounted to a collective "what is their problem?!"; which only serves to make it clearer than ever to me that my/our gaming community must be considerably different from many of yours.

Lanefan


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Huh.  Why are ascribing motives to any of the players?




Huh, indeed.  



> How is it any different that I can play a character that I KNOW makes another player uncomfortable to the point where that other player might actually leave the game, but I can't play a character that takes away someone's imaginary friend's imaginary sword?




Huh?  



> But, it's not okay for me to play a character that takes away someone's magic sword?
> 
> Why not?




Huh?  

I'm afraid you are just confused, and little is going to be gained by attempting to correct you. 

My standard with regards to backgrounds is pretty simple, and I've outlined it several times before.  If it's not clear now, I have little hope it will ever be clear to you.  But, once again:

I won't let you create a background that implies or requires explicitly or implicitly any interaction, association, or action on the part of another players character.  You don't get to determine how some one else's character behaved in the past any more than you get to determine how another character will behave in the future.  Thus, you don't get to create a background that involves a relationship with another PC - whether sibling, lover, or simply just friend - without that PC's permission.  Players are encouraged to work together to come up with ties between their characters, but I won't approve a background like that without the consent of both parties regardless of the motives and intentions of the players.

Now, if you wanted to create a background that involved a purely unidirectional relationship - you don't know the character but you've always admired some other character at a distance - then that might not be the wisest idea but it is at least in your rights as a player.  Indeed, such a one directional relationship is not something I as a DM have much control over, because it can just as easily be an in play artifact as it could be a background and as the DM I can't tell anyone how to play there character because that would be overstepping my authority.

A 'secret' sibling that you never knew about skirts the line here.  Technically the relationship is unidirectional, but blood ties like that are so personal that I'd probably nix it without consent of all parties.  On the other hand, I might create a secret background that neither player knew about that made them both related if I think their backgrounds warranted it and it would make for an interesting story.  If you can immagine the Star Wars characters as a PC party, the Darth Vader character and the relationship between Luke and Leia is a secret background of this sort.  Hense, the reason that if you really don't want me to 'mess' with you, create a family - don't create think that you are going to get away from story complications by being an orphan.

The rest of my standards on character background aren't really relevant to the thread, but just for the record.

a) You have to play a character who is willing to have adventures. 
b) You have to play a character who can get along with the rest of the party at least sufficiently well that the party doesn't split.
c) Your character has to work in the setting of the campaign.
d) Your character can't draw any significant benefit from his background without spending a trait to gain the appropriate advantage.  You can be the King's son, but you have to either pay for it or expect to gain no benefit from it (you've been disowned and you are an outcast in a foreign land, whatever).



> As far as rewriting someone's background goes, well, if someone has written that their family was killed, that's a pretty strong signal that they're not interested in playing out family relations in the game.  Now, let's say that's the background.  Bob's character has no family because they were eaten by vampiric wombats.
> 
> You introduce an NPC family member.




If you write a background in which your family is killed by vampiric wombats, it almost 100% certain that some point I'll introduce a vampiric wombat to the game that just happens to be one of your dead relatives.  If you write that background, I'll see it as practically begging for that plot line.  It's like hanging a rifle on the wall in scene 1.  You ought to know that its going to be fired by scene 3.



> Bob, after the session, because he's a good player and doesn't want to derail things, says, "Dude, I'm so not into this.  I don't want to do this.  This whole plot line you've introduced that contradicts my character background does not interest me in the slightest.  Can we stop?"
> 
> What is your response?




a) "Thanks Bob for waiting after the session to discuss this.  Now we can talk about this at length without boring everyone else."

b) "First of all, I haven't done anything that contridicts your background.  I'm simply filling in blanks in the story based on cues in your player background.  I'm doing this to help you develop your character, and not for any other reason."

c) "Secondly, if you are really not interested in it, I'll drop the story line quickly and we can move on to something else.  I'm sorry this plot development doesn't interest you.  I thought based on what we'd talked about before the campaign regarding your goals and character conception and based on how you filled out the campaign questionaire that you'd really be into this, but I guess I was wrong.  Maybe we should talk some more about what sort of stories you are interested in."


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It sounds like you're leaving yourself some wiggle room to edit over objections...and it's just that circumstances have worked out in such a way that you haven't needed to.




Here is where I go back to trust. So far, my players have trusted me that when I make an edit to a backstory by introducing a twist, its for the better of the campaign and the game. If I ever find a player uncomfortable with this, then I would simply never edit his background, cept to fix obvious contradictions with the game world (IE cyberknights in a low-magic feudal world). The net gain is that you will have the backstory and PC you want; the net loss is I will never introduce a plot-hook focusing on said backstory. Fair trade, IMHO.

(For the record, I usually don't change things willy-nilly. Its probably happened only 1/2 a dozen times in 15 years and dozens of campaigns, and always with player permission).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 3, 2010)

> Here is where I go back to trust.




Which, as I've said, is earned, and still won't get you carte blanche. Even my favorite DM isn't going to win this one every time.  There are simply aspects of each PC that I won't compromise on...and its different for each PC.



> I would simply never edit his background, cept to fix obvious contradictions with the game world (IE cyberknights in a low-magic feudal world).




With which I agree.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We're pretty much in agreement there, though I can think of a couple of ways to work the Assassin in...at least for a short time.




Short term, it could work.  A PC needs time to recover from injury or is off on a solo quest, so the player plays the assassin for a session or two since his goals temporarily coincide with the party, or some such.  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ultimately, the question is where is the line between what the DM should rightfully control and what he should leave to the players.  Where that line lies can only be discovered by communicating with each other.
> 
> When one party or the other says, "NO!" is a pretty good indicator, IMHO, and should only be crossed with great care.  And neither side should be surprised if, when that line is crossed, feelings get hurt.




Obviously each group is going to be different.  When I was gaming as a teenager we had virtually no character backgrounds, we were essentially 'born' that first session and took it from there.  Now that I am older I would add a little more flavor.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That example was in response to your bald assertion:
> 
> Which really isn't the case, at least not on Campaign day 1, when PCs are low-level and just starting out.  An experienced PC, OTOH, may indeed have a history like that.  Would you really say that a Wolf-boy raised to adulthood in the wild could start off as a Cavalier...even if that was the _player's_ design?
> 
> Amazing as it may seem, I wouldn't.  Its too much of a stretch to say that Wolf-Boy, at lvl 1, has been in high society long enough to get a full grasp of the niceties of the cultured lifestyle.  If/when he reaches 2nd level and takes a level of Cavalier, I'm cool with that. (See _Brave New World_, for instance.)




I see what you are saying, and I didn't edit what you were replying to as a way to get one over on you, I was just going with the overall idea that we are discussing DM meddling in character backgrounds.

If the DM does it right, the changes or meddling to a PC's background should not affect how you roleplay the character.  If a DM wants to insert a sibling into the campaign, and your background heavily emphasizes that you were an only child growing up, then saying you grew up with a brother would change your character's dynamic.  However, he could introduce a long-lost brother you never knew you had.  So, to you, your background is unchanged but the DM still introduces his plot device.

As for the wolf-boy scenario, taking a PC background of the rich, spoiled, cultured kid who becomes a cavalier and suddenly deciding he was raised by wolves would be bad DM meddling in my opinion, and shouldn't be done.  If I were that DM I would see if another player was rolling a barbarian or ranger and see if that would be of interest to them.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep, and if nobody steps up, its time for him to come up with a new plan instead of forcing someone to take that background.




Something that drastic should not be forced on a player.  If nobody wants to play wolf-boy then he would probably be introduced as an NPC that the party adopts or something.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

> Short term, it could work. A PC needs time to recover from injury or is off on a solo quest, so the player plays the assassin for a session or two since his goals temporarily coincide with the party, or some such.




Or:


He's a spy
He's questioning his moral compass (is possibly going to make an alignment change)
He is under some kind of compulsion
He has made a vow that is strong enough to be an exception to his otherwise chaotic nature 
It's a job- he's the proverbial devil with whom a deal was made
He's been sentenced to community service/rehabilitation under the guidance of the group in question


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> So many people (not including me) use point-buy these days it's not so much of an issue as it once was.  That said, I've had this happen too - come up with a character idea then have the dice demolish it before takeoff...usually by rolling a bunch of very average stats instead of something with highs and lows I can work with.




I don't think I could ever do a point buy system.  I just like the idea of not knowing what the character is going to be and having him develop before my eyes...and then developing a back story.



Lanefan said:


> With very few exceptions, this is part of the reason why we don't usually worry about character backgrounds at all until they've survived a few adventures and become relevant.  The rest of the reason mostly revolves around spending ages on an elaborate background only to have the character get killed in its first significant battle...why bother?




I lean towards thin back stories, at least placing them in some context of the world and campaign.  I certainly avoid Chosen One type characters or having someone be too integral to the story who is too important to die.



Lanefan said:


> Otherwise, if a player wants to make stuff up about their family, background, etc. I'm cool with it - unless the background tries to overlap with known game elements.  Arbitrarily deciding "My father was a farmer, that farm was his kingdom and he was a tyrant; I couldn't wait to run away" is great.  But I'm going to step on* an arbitrary "My father is Borneus II, Emperor of [the land where the PCs are]", in part because one's chance of being (or being related to) nobility is something determined during initial roll-up.




If a player of mine ever had their parents be farmers or something else as mundane I would be ecstatic.  I have to explain to players that there are only so many runaway/freed gladiators or nameless soldiers of death wandering in from the wastelands in the world.




Lanefan said:


> On a different tangent, and wondering if I've perhaps been mis-representing our fun bunch of people, I ran the gist of this discussion - the reaction-to-romance-in-game branch of it - past some of my crew last night and got back what amounted to a collective "what is their problem?!"; which only serves to make it clearer than ever to me that my/our gaming community must be considerably different from many of yours.
> 
> Lanefan




This just in, people have different opinions on stuff.  News at 11.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or:
> 
> 
> He's a spy
> ...




Exactly, all of which would fall under 'or some such.'

For #2, if he does make an alignment change, would he still have the skills of an assassin?  How would you run a reformed assassin, thief, warrior, starts over at level 1?  Just curious as I have never played with or used one before.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> Exactly, all of which would fall under 'or some such.'
> 
> For #2, if he does make an alignment change, would he still have the skills of an assassin?  How would you run a reformed assassin, thief, warrior, starts over at level 1?  Just curious as I have never played with or used one before.




Well, in certain versions of D&D, there is no such thing as an Assassin base class, so that couldn't occur.  In those where a base Assassin class exists, typically, they only have to be non-good.  Then, of course, there is the idea that assassin is a job description, not a class.

A reformed Assassin could be done a variety of ways, depending upon what kind of Assassin he is/was.

If it's a class thing, the class probably has rules about what happens if the PC reforms.  He may not be able to advance any further as an assassin; he may lose his powers, or not.

If being an assassin is just a RP thing, then playing a reformed one is equally about RP.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, in certain versions of D&D, there is no such thing as an Assassin base class, so that couldn't occur.  In those where a base Assassin class exists, typically, they only have to be non-good.  Then, of course, there is the idea that assassin is a job description, not a class.
> 
> A reformed Assassin could be done a variety of ways, depending upon what kind of Assassin he is/was.
> 
> ...




Ah, my bad, I was referring to the player class Assassin, as opposed to any class that just accepts money for killing people.

I don't have my books in front of me, but I know Assassins had special rules and skills, but had to have an Evil alignment.  So I would presume, like a Paladin, if he changed alignment he would lose his Assassin skills.  But other than that I don't know what other penalty he might face, such as just becoming a thief or losing levels, etc.  

Role playing wise he would definitely face penalties, first and foremost any clients he betrays plus the social stigma of having been an Assassin in the first place.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll put it this way: why is it _ever_ OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?*
> 
> 
> 
> * besides the obvious need of the DM to ensure the PC fits the campaign world, e.g. "No, you can't play the child of a cybermage from Antares in my 10,000 BC low- magic, low-tech campaign!"




I think the GM can do it under some circumstances.

1) It has to serve a useful purpose for the game.
2) It has to be done in the best interests of that player. That involves some guesswork, but with good intent, you can get away with some mistakes, and without it, you won't be excused for anything.
3) It has to be the kind of element that can only be introduced in this way. If it's an element the player could logically present for themselves, leave it up to the player.

An example would be a scenario where the PC turns out to be a clone/victim of memory alteration/etc. First of all, it should lead to something interesting. I don't think there's any justification for the old, "You're not who you think you are," with all the loose ends, emotional ramifications, and possible annoyance of the player unless you're doing something interesting. Second, you need to make sure you are dealing with a player who is possibly interested in such existential issues, probably won't object to that level of meddling, and trusts you are going somewhere worthwhile with it. Third, in keeping with the first point, this shouldn't be one of those "Isn't that interesting?" situations. If the player wanted to be a clone, they could let you know up front. This scenario only makes sense if you are offering something they can't provide by themselves. If the scenario lets them recognize previously misunderstood plot elements, surprises and amuses the players, and leads to an interesting situation ("No, Luke. I am your father.") then we're in business.

As far as I am concerned, a player should effectively never rewrite another player's PC. There are some corner cases. In some games, some of the narrative duties are shared, in that the players are sort of co-GMs. In that case, each player has whatever authority is given to them to use in the same way a normal GM would. A similar situation would be a play-by-post game where a lot of the dialog is going to be written in chunks; in that case, I think each player logically has veto around elements concerning their character or related story factors, but it's probably okay for a player to guess around a little within the parameters of narrating non-critical events. A third, somewhat different situation, is when a lot of meta-elements are actually part of the game. If the game has some kind of pass-the-talking-stick kind of mechanic, dramatic editing or the like, or you establish up front an informal process that is similar, then the playstyle itself admits to tampering by the other players and of course background elements may well be fair game according to the rules or customs of your group.

But in a traditional roleplaying scenario, I think roleplaying freedom is a central tenet. Freedom to define your own background, freedom to pursue uni-directional actions toward other characters, freedom to choose your PC's actions within whatever parameters of reality have been set.

I have to say, apart from some places where the discussion kind of derailed, this has got to be one of the most fascinating and informative threads I have ever read on dealing with interplayer conflict, authorial privilege, and the social dynamics of play.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No takers?  Really?
> 
> Come on guys, you just said you didn't want this thread crashing to the ground.  You're opinion is that roleplaying comes before all else, regardless of how others are offended.  Would you agree with this statement, then?




Ok, now that the thread appears to have regained some hit points, I'll take the risk of answering your question.

The reason you aren't getting alot of takers is I imagine that most people recognized your question as both pointless and useless.  No one agrees with that statement, nor are you going to find a single quote on the board that sufficiently explains why you think that there might be some 'Yes' responses to the post.  Not only that, because the question is phrased in such absolute terms that any response to tells you nothing of the naunces between different persons.  I mean we all basically disagree with that statement and would affirm our disagreement with that statement, but that agreement doesn't mean that we don't have fundamental or important disagreements.

So the question doesn't accomplish anything except to get people irritated at the insinuation of the question.

Now let further get myself in trouble by risking a stab at how you came to ask such a useless question.  I'm guessing that you got there by making a straw man of my claims. 

First, I have said and still maintain that immediate direct frank OOC dissent from a line of play wasn't always the best and wisest course of action when you felt uncomfortable.  This is no where near the same as saying that OOC discussion is always bad.  I've previously asserted that in some cases it might be the wisest course, and I have previously said that in some cases you might have no choice but to do so.  But this is also by no means the same as saying you should always do that.   I maintain for what I think are very good reasons that you should prefer to try all of the following first:

a) Try to resolve the situation in a way that you are comfortable about through IC play.
b) Try to resolve the situation OOC after the session and privately.
c) Try to get the DM or some other player that the other player respects to mediate, either with you present or without.

The reason I suggest this is pretty simple.  Both sides agree that if everyone is being mature, these situations will pretty much never come up.  But the fact of the matter is that we all have bad moments.  We all can be jerks from time to time.  We all can get emotional and irrational.   We all have buttons that can be pushed.  That's just a simple recognition of our human nature.  You have a table with six or eight people at it, and even if they are all pretty good or even really good close friends, tempers can flare at any game much less at a highly social game like an RPG.  I've seen Monopoly turn into loud shouting matches and permenently hurt feelings on several occasions.  

Now, a lot of people have asserted things like, "Well, I would never play with people like that." or "My friends aren't like that." and that's fine and I can only take your word for it.  But I'd like to suggest that the situation that developed near the beginning of this thread is in some fashion archeatypal of how this interaction typically goes down in the real life.  You see, the basic problem in this exchange is that both sides very quickly hit the stance: "Conform to my wishes our I'm going to take my marbles and go home."  They left no room for comprimise and they immediately put the situation into as confrontational mode as possible.   

Whether it is logical or not, player #2 feels 'uncomfortable' and puts the responcibility for their own feelings on someone else.  They respond to the situation emotionally, and they assert their entitlement and the superiority of their wants and desires over anyone else.  They don't feel inclined to or that they have any need to comprimise or empathize with the other person.

Whether it is logical or not, player #1 responds to player #2's assertion that they are being made 'uncomfortable' as an attack, as rejection, and as an accusation.  They in other words respond emotionally, and even if they do change their line of play they are likely to feel resentment.  They don't feel inclined to or that they have any need to comprimise or empathize with the other person, and like Lanefan (who was it should be said mostly joking) will probably respond to player #2's passive aggression with passive aggression of their own.

I don't want to argue who is justified here.  It could be that neither is justified.  It could be that both are.  It could be that one or the other is being unreasonable.  I'd have to be at the table to judge, and even then I really wouldn't to because none of that is really important.  What's really important is not letting the game derail the friendship.  And to do that, both sides have to back down from where they've gotten.

So my advice is that if you feel uncomfortable, to not immediately say any of things that people are suggesting being said because it just gets you immediately into the possibility of a confrontation.  In ideal world, maybe it will work, and in an ideal world maybe you aren't being overly senstive, or prude-ish, or a control freak when you say it.   

Instead I would focus humbly on the possibility that the feelings I'm feeling are my own, and my responcibility, and that if I'm asking someone to change their otherwise harmless behavior to conform to what may be my weaknesses, that I should look on that as asking some one a favor and by no means state it as a demand or expect that in making the demand that I'll get a particular outcome.

And I would first, in character, try to suggest some other alternate and hopefully fun of play.  Because if there is one thing I know about geeks it is that they love it when someone says, "Do you want to play?", and they get uncomfortable when someone says, "No you can't play with me." or "I don't want to play."   I would try to cultivate skill as a roleplayer because that's ultimately what makes other people at the table happy and comfortable and it can serve to defuse all sorts of uncomfortable situations if you make people laugh or smile.  Too often I see players think that they are well served by cultivating skills as a debater - which are typically well honed in geeks - and their first instinct is always to start a debate on what should be happening, bang the gavel, and put court in order.   Some of these are what we call 'rules lawyers', but that's not the only form this behavior can take.  

Try not to be that guy who instead of playing is continually trying to start up a jury trial over whether someone else at the table is playing right.  I honestly can't think of a situation I was ever in where it was necessary (or wise) as a player to tell another player flat out in the middle of the session, "I'm not comfortable with this line of play."  And this is coming from a guy who still doesn't use demons and devils in his campaign because the occult overlap makes him uncomfortable, and who has also gamed with open practicing Satanists.  

Don't be that player who gets offended and then says, "You are making me uncomfortable" as if its some other person's fault.  Sure, there are times when things are going to happen that are legitimately offensive, or which you rightly don't feel you can participate in.  But even when you are completely in the right, you still need to practice diplomacy in whatever situation you find yourself in.  In my opinion that is not always best served by a OOC challenge.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

> An example would be a scenario where the PC turns out to be a clone/victim of memory alteration/etc.




Sorry, but IMHO, that's not good enough to override player control.

While it is true that this is the kind if thing that needs to be done via PC background, generally speaking, it* is not* something that can only be introduced via_ one particular_ PCs background over player objections.  Talk to another player about this kind of revision if your original plan is deemed unacceptable- doing otherwise is a violation of Wheaton's Rule.

And if NOBODY is interested in having this particular background twist...well, as Bill Engvall would say, "There's your sign!"



> Second, you need to make sure you are dealing with a player who is possibly interested in such existential issues, probably won't object to that level of meddling, and trusts you are going somewhere worthwhile with it.




If the player were interested in this kind of thing, they probably wouldn't object, and alterations over objections are what I'm talking about.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

> I don't have my books in front of me, but I know Assassins had special rules and skills, but had to have an Evil alignment




In earlier editions, non-evil was the Assassin's alignment restriction- my still-active dual classed human Assassin/Illusionist is Lawful Neutral, for instance- but in 3Ed, they stiffened the requirement to evil.

However, a quick glance at the PrCl in the SRD shows no consequences for an alignment shift for the class.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> First, I have said and still maintain that immediate direct frank OOC dissent from a line of play wasn't always the best and wisest course of action when you felt uncomfortable.  This is no where near the same as saying that OOC discussion is always bad.  I've previously asserted that in some cases it might be the wisest course, and I have previously said that in some cases you might have no choice but to do so.  But this is also by no means the same as saying you should always do that.   I maintain for what I think are very good reasons that you should prefer to try all of the following first:
> 
> a) Try to resolve the situation in a way that you are comfortable about through IC play.
> b) Try to resolve the situation OOC after the session and privately.
> c) Try to get the DM or some other player that the other player respects to mediate, either with you present or without.




A lot would also depend on when Player 2 was made aware of Player 1's intention (another thing not determined in this scenario).  If Player 1 approaches Player 2 before the session then a confrontation in front of the other players could be avoided.

However, your suggestion of trying to resolve it IC leads me to ask: if Player 2 is uncomfortable with the role-play OOC but tries to resolve it IC, does that act as a tacit approval of Player 1's actions?  Presumably, Player 1 is doing this for role-playing purposes, so Player 2's character actually responding to the romantic advances positively or negatively is irrelevant.  The important thing is Player 2 is responding in game, and therefore role-playing the scenario.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> A lot would also depend on when Player 2 was made aware of Player 1's intention (another thing not determined in this scenario).  If Player 1 approaches Player 2 before the session then a confrontation in front of the other players could be avoided.




Sure.  I've no problem with that.  That's probably a good idea especially when a potential problem can be foreseen.



> However, your suggestion of trying to resolve it IC leads me to ask: if Player 2 is uncomfortable with the role-play OOC but tries to resolve it IC, does that act as a tacit approval of Player 1's actions?




Only if IC rejection can be construed as tacit approval.  And let's keep in mind.  The majority of people have asserted that they though the original line of play 'harmless', and only objected to the player's failure to accede to player #2 request once they knew player #2 was uncomfortable.  So is this a situation where we necessarily want to be communicating disapproval at the out of character?  Does player #2 need to communicate disapproval at that level?  Moreover, consider that everyone who disliked player #2's approach of going OOC has asserted that they would have been fine with player #2's rejecting the line of play IC.  So what are we left with that is a problem?  Sterotypical dysfunctionality on the level of Knights of the Dinner Table and not much else.



> Presumably, Player 1 is doing this for role-playing purposes, so Player 2's character actually responding to the romantic advances positively or negatively is irrelevant.  The important thing is Player 2 is responding in game, and therefore role-playing the scenario.




I'm not sure I follow.  That I have validated your play by responding to it in no way means I've left open the possibility of it continuing which was I thought the real issue.  So long as we are talking about something that involves in character consent, so long as that consent is withheld then the line of play is dead.  I think I've made many suggestions for how to deflect this, and I think a mature player is going to pick up on OOC preferences that are expressed IC.  If that communication path isn't fully working out it would be nice if after the session player #1 said to player #2, "This isn't bugging you is it?", or failing that if player #2 said to player #1 after the session something like, "You were doing a great job in there, but I just don't feel comfortable doing exploring romantic themes.  Where did you see that line of play going?"  So long as player #1 isn't acting out real feelings for player #2 through his character, I don't foresee a problem.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If the player were interested in this kind of thing, they probably wouldn't object, and alterations over objections are what I'm talking about.




Is it ever permissible to overwrite a character's background over their objections? I'm going to say yes, in some situations. I don't recommend it if avoidable, but sometimes the GM has to make things work and the problem may not be noticed until after things have been put into play. The clone/memory wipe scenario is not something I would press in like a Conan-inspired game, but it might be an integral plot element in another kind of game. If one or more players object enough to leave the game, I guess that could be it for the scenario, but that is not really distinct from other situations where the players reject the GM's scenario and leave the game. Assuming the scnerio makes some kind of sense within the context of the game, I think it's possible for the players to object to and even be offended by the premise, with there not being much left to do other than the GM saying, "Well, this is basically what's on the menu. How do we proceed?"

I never want that to happen, but it certainly can. Some examples I can think of are some Vampire games I played a number of years ago. I was in one game, where the GM decided to juke the character creation rules and hand out Generation according to the sires she assigned us based on our backgrounds. I got stuck as a 12th gen, while another player, who happened to be her boyfiend, got 9th gen with a character concept I thought was a problem in the first place (note for non-Vampire players: 9th generation is significantly powerful for a starting character). But I decided to deal with it. When his PC got into some trouble, I and another player had our PCs assigned to him to babysit, and when he continued to do problematic things, well... at some point, we ended up staking him and leaving him in a closet overnight, for safekeeping. He was incensed at being staked, I think he was miffed that his powerful PC was one-upped through some quick thinking, etc etc. I can certainly understand his frustration. But I don't think he had a right to complain about being babysat, or the consequences that followed, because the GM was trying to deal with the situation as it developed. So basically, I and a couple of other players were dealing with being handed weaker character sheets than he, while he was dealing with being put, ultimately, in a socially inferior position, as a sort of balance. His PC was lower generation, but less experienced. Right? But it wasn't an element of his choosing and I think the way he responded was not helpful. 

Similarly, if you're playing a variant supers setting, like Paragons or Wild Talents or whatever, and you're playing a wizard, you can cry all you like when it turns out your powers are psionic or mutant or whatever, but it's kind of written into the setting that the GM, if anyone, knows the ultimate truth for the setting. Whining about your powers not really being magical, or I guess conversely about all superpowers coming from magic or divine blood or whatever, is not helpful. I don't think there's a reasonable justification for complaining.

And if you're playing D&D, and you find out your character's father was not really his father, well, that might cheese you off, but since it doesn't affect your backstory as you originally wrote it, nor the actions your character takes, but effectively only future events leading from that revelation on, well, that's pretty fair game, I think. I would try to work with a player who objected to something like that, but if I'm in a corner, I would probably have to say, "Look, can you work with me here?"

If a player digs and just refuses to accept something in the game, I can sympathize, and they are within their rights to quit, and I recognize in many cases there are real personal issues that might make that necessary, but you know, that happens sometimes. It is, in the end, just a game. If you're married and you really don't want to deal with any hint of romance toward your PC, I would suggest dealing with it in IC, then trying to see if something can be worked out OOC, and if the situation is still uncomfortable.... well, don't waste any time looking for a new group with a more compatible style. 

So going back to your post, it presupposes refusal. Whether I would override someone's wishes who absolutely refuses is kind of a non-question, since if they refuse, I have no ability to compel them to cooperate. They might derail the game or quit or argue others into making concessions, but my belief about whether they have a right to do so is quite theoretical at that point. Which is one reason I prefer not to deal with players who are ofen, or even more than rarely, inclined to argue about stuff that happens that makes reasonable sense within the scope of the game.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> a) "Thanks Bob for waiting after the session to discuss this. Now we can talk about this at length without boring everyone else."
> 
> b) "First of all, I haven't done anything that contridicts your background. I'm simply filling in blanks in the story based on cues in your player background. I'm doing this to help you develop your character, and not for any other reason."
> 
> c) "Secondly, if you are really not interested in it, I'll drop the story line quickly and we can move on to something else. I'm sorry this plot development doesn't interest you. I thought based on what we'd talked about before the campaign regarding your goals and character conception and based on how you filled out the campaign questionaire that you'd really be into this, but I guess I was wrong. Maybe we should talk some more about what sort of stories you are interested in."




So, despite everything you've claimed, you do exactly the same thing I've stated should be done all the way along - you take the other person's claim into account and stop doing what makes the other person uncomfortable.

You do it with a lot more words, but, at the end of the day, that's what you're doing.

You try something, the other person says stop and you stop.

Why are you disagreeing with me then?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Now, a lot of people have asserted things like, "Well, I would never play with people like that." or "My friends aren't like that." and that's fine and I can only take your word for it. But I'd like to suggest that the situation that developed near the beginning of this thread is in some fashion archeatypal of how this interaction typically goes down in the real life. You see, the basic problem in this exchange is that both sides very quickly hit the stance: "Conform to my wishes our I'm going to take my marbles and go home." They left no room for comprimise and they immediately put the situation into as confrontational mode as possible




And that's the basic point where we diverge.  You claim that it's being confrontational.  I say it's basic social interaction.  And, when it happens, as you said yourself, you stop.  It doesn't matter about anything else.  No, I don't have to subject myself to discomfort merely because you are ignorant of what's making me feel uncomfortable.  

Nor should I be forced to remain silent when I'm being made to feel uncomfortable.  When someone does something that you are not comfortable with, who cares why?  That person is uncomfortable.  That person is not having fun.  Not only is that person simply not having fun, that person is outright having a bad time.

If it was simply a case of being bored, then fine, that happens.

But this person is actually feeling bad.  This person is being made to feel uncomfortable by something that can be stopped quite easily.  

And, it should never have gotten to that point in the first place.  As you said, campaign questionaires, group character generation, that sort of thing, nips all that in the bud before it gets started.

But, let's assume that the group didn't bother with all of that.  Lots of groups don't.  They should, but, like Lanefan said at the outset, he deliberately kept this fact a secret from the other player.  Now, I'm not ascribing any ulterior motives to Lanefan here.  He honestly believes (I think) that this would be fun and would add to the game.

However, it turns out that he's wrong.  If it was fun and added to the game, no one would complain.  The fact that someone actually felt strongly enough to say something means that it has achieved the opposite effect.  It might be more fun for Player 1, but it's outright ruining Player 2's fun.

So, yes, Player 1 should stop.  You should always stop when someone tells you that what you are doing makes them uncomfortable in a social situation.  No one should be forced to endure things that make them outright uncomfortable just to make the "game" better.

------

And, please, can we stop with the whole "You just don't understand what I'm saying" thing?  Because, from where I'm sitting, there are about half the people in this thread who are saying pretty much exactly the same thing as I am.

I understand what you're saying.  I just disagree with it.  You think that the game should come first.  That people should just suck it up for the good of the game.  I don't.  I think that as soon as another player crosses your comfort line to the point where you feel you should complain, then that player should stop.  And I couldn't care less about maintaining the game fiction.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Only if IC rejection can be construed as tacit approval.  And let's keep in mind.  The majority of people have asserted that they though the original line of play 'harmless', and only objected to the player's failure to accede to player #2 request once they knew player #2 was uncomfortable.




Absolutely, the initial attempt at role-playing is not what Player 1 did 'wrong'.  However, how can Player 2 let Player 1 know that this is making him personally uncomfortable OOC if he role-plays the scene, even if rejection, in character?  Player 1 might interpret Player 2's willingness to role-play the scene as acceptance.



Celebrim said:


> So is this a situation where we necessarily want to be communicating disapproval at the out of character?  Does player #2 need to communicate disapproval at that level?




I would think so, for the reason mentioned above.  It is the best way to explain to Player 1 without miscommunication that the Player, not the character, is not comfortable with this scenario and would prefer not to role-play it at all.



Celebrim said:


> I'm not sure I follow.  That I have validated your play by responding to it in no way means I've left open the possibility of it continuing which was I thought the real issue.  So long as we are talking about something that involves in character consent, so long as that consent is withheld then the line of play is dead.




Player 2's character not consenting to the romantic overtures is not the same as Player 2 consenting to play out romantic role-play.  Let me see if I can try to explain (breaks out the puppets).

Player 1: My character makes romantic advances towards Player 2's character.
Player 2: My character rejects the advances and shows he/she is not interested.
Player 1: Hey, he wants to role-play this out.

Player 2's character rejecting the advances does not express to Player 1 that Player 2 does not want to role-play this type of action.

Try, instead:

Player 1: My character makes romantic advances towards Player 2's character.
Player 2: Hey, Player 1, I really don't want to go there, it's kinda making me uncomfortable, let's just stick to the campaign.

If I was the DM or another player at that table and the exchange was that polite and it stopped there, I would not feel uncomfortable or felt that a line had been crossed.  Player 1 tried something, Player 2 expressed himself maturely and politely (no insults or sexually denigrating remarks) and that was it.  In that situation I don't breaking character for a moment to politely express discomfort would be all that traumatizing.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And that's the basic point where we diverge.  You claim that it's being confrontational.  I say it's basic social interaction.  And, when it happens, as you said yourself, you stop.  It doesn't matter about anything else.  No, I don't have to subject myself to discomfort merely because you are ignorant of what's making me feel uncomfortable.
> 
> Nor should I be forced to remain silent when I'm being made to feel uncomfortable.  When someone does something that you are not comfortable with, who cares why?  That person is uncomfortable.  That person is not having fun.  Not only is that person simply not having fun, that person is outright having a bad time.




To play Devil's Advocate I think what some people might have objected to was the absolutist position that a person stating they are uncomfortable always trumps role-playing.  While it probably will 9 times out of 10, I could see situations where someone was just being overly picky or sensitive, or worse, trying to gain an advantage over or manipulate the group.

Just throwing that out there.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, yes, Player 1 should stop.




Or Player 2 should quit.



> You should always stop when someone tells you that what you are doing makes them uncomfortable in a social situation.




If that rule were kept, there would be far less justice in this world, for sure.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> To play Devil's Advocate I think what some people might have objected to was the absolutist position that a person stating they are uncomfortable always trumps role-playing.  While it probably will 9 times out of 10, I could see situations where someone was just being overly picky or sensitive, or worse, trying to gain an advantage over or manipulate the group.
> 
> Just throwing that out there.




Right. Or Player 2 isn't the problem, per se, but there's just no reasonable way to accomodate them.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, yes, Player 1 should stop.  You should always stop when someone tells you that what you are doing makes them uncomfortable in a social situation.  No one should be forced to endure things that make them outright uncomfortable just to make the "game" better.




Would you argue this if the player was made uncomfortable by depictions of non-Christian religions, demons, angels, etc.? 

What if the player was made uncomfortable by playing out combat against humans or other "good guy" races?

What if the player was made uncomfortable by the fact that I use a funny voice for my character?

What if the player was made uncomfortable by the fact that I, a male, am playing a female character?

Seriously, there's a point at which "legitimate concern" becomes "Whoa drama overreaction wtf??". That point is different for each group, but the romantically-interested-in-secret hook is way over the line of "Whoa drama overreaction wtf??" for my game. 

Now, I absolutely would back up player 2 if she objected to player 1 having inserted a past affair or other connection with her pc. Player 1 does NOT get to write player 2's pc's background, period. But in the case in question, it's a completely internal matter for pc 1, and unless there are some weird OOC issues between the players- in which case they probably want to resolve them OOC as well, or one of them might need to leave the game- I really think it's an unreasonable position for player 2 to take (I see it as essentially "You must tailor your background around me!").

Like I said, every group is different, but this kind of objection would be met with disbelief, possibly followed by scorn, in my group.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Or Player 2 should quit.




You don't think that is a pretty gross overreaction to the situation, and detrimental to the entire group?  Of course it would be better if everyone in the group liked every role-playing idea brought to play, but that is pretty unrealistic.  Not every idea is going to fly, and having a player quit over it seems just seems out of sync.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Now, I absolutely would back up player 2 if she objected to player 1 having inserted a past affair or other connection with her pc. Player 1 does NOT get to write player 2's pc's background, period. But in the case in question, it's a completely internal matter for pc 1, and unless there are some weird OOC issues between the players- in which case they probably want to resolve them OOC as well, or one of them might need to leave the game- I really think it's an unreasonable position for player 2 to take (I see it as essentially "You must tailor your background around me!").
> 
> Like I said, every group is different, but this kind of objection would be met with disbelief, possibly followed by scorn, in my group.




But it isn't a completely internal matter for PC 1 the moment he tries to role-play it out with PC 2.  And we don't know if this is a part of PC 1's background or not, it could have been a spur of the moment idea he had to spice up the game a little.  We also don't know how this side story deals with the main campaign story line.  

And Player 2's concern doesn't have to reflect issues between Player 1 and Player 2.  Player 2 can just say that he/she came to play D&D, not Romeo and Juliet.  And unless they were told in advance that this would be a romance involved storyline, that is a pretty legitimate viewpoint.

So someone is going to lose.  Either Player 1 ditches his idea, Player 2 sucks it up and deals with it, or one of them leaves the group.  More than likely, depending on how strongly each Player feels about their position along with other social dynamics of that particular group, it would be one of the first two options.  Now if this kind of thing constantly happens involving one or both of these players, then maybe one of them leaving might be a solution.  But it shouldn't be the first one out of the bag.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

> I think it's possible for the players to object to and even be offended by the premise, with there not being much left to do other than the GM saying, "Well, this is basically what's on the menu. How do we proceed?"




You can probably guess my answer: I'm out.  Why would I want to play in a game or campaign whose premise offends me?

Re: Vampire, etc. & randomization

I have no problem with randomized generation of their age, despite it's effects on PC power, nor in games like Wild Cards.  In the former, it's ostensibly part of the campaign texture, in the latter, it's essential to the nature of the setting from whence it sprang.  Those are valid reasons for editing.

Besides, I've been through that with games like Stormbringer, Heroes Unlimited and Traveller.

Re: "Who's your daddy?"

I'm not with you at all on this one 90% of the time.  I wouldn't dare tell a player his PC's dad isn't who he said it was unless the player is claiming a rationship that cannot be, as in claiming to be a royal bastard of someone who is an important NPC whom I as DM have declaired is childless.  As someone else said, he can make the claim, but I decide the statement's veracity.

But other than that, I wouldn't make that change in ancestry over a player's objection, and I won't play long under a DM who does so.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Oct 4, 2010)

What I find most interesting about this long exercise in defending the indefensible is how the positions seem to split broadly down edition wars lines. Coincidence?


*Mod edit:*

I know you are on record asking folks to not stop edition wars - but the moderation staff is not behind you on that one, and we don't appreciate people actively trying to stir up strife along edition-lines.  So, let's not go there please. 

~Umbran


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

You're seeing something I'm not.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying I haven't noticed a correlation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

> But other than that, I wouldn't make that change in ancestry over a player's objection, and I won't play long under a DM who does soBut other than that, I wouldn't make that change in ancestry over a player's objection, and I won't play long under a DM who does so.




And upon further reflection, that's probably a good thing.

Were I to stay, I'd probably trash my old PC and the next PC would be an impossible fit for the foisted-upon plot twist in the PCs background- Lord Whitesnake is going to have a devil of a time explaining how he fathered a Shardmind, for instance.

Hmmmm...

Perhaps that will be my main response to DM meddling in the future: civil disobedience.  Muck with things essential to my PC in ways I don't like and I'll play my PC in a way you don't like.  My warrior will specialize in the Sap;  my cloth-armored spellcaster will charge into battle with non-proficient weapons.  My bard will become the Uber-Don Rickles/Andrew Dice Clay and insult every sentient being the party encounters.

There it is, that's my position: override my legitimate concerns at your own risk.  Let's call it "RPG Chicken" and see who flinches first.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That has nothing to do with what we're saying.




Sure it does.  Either "It makes me uncomfortable" has qualifiers, or it doesn't.  If my examples are irrelevant, then it is because there are qualifiers.  What it is and why it makes Player 2 uncomfortable is either relevant or not.

If it isn't relevant, then "Not having a gazillion gold pieces makes me uncomfortable" is perfectly valid.  You are denying that character a gazillion gold pieces, and it makes him uncomfortable.  Stop it.

If it isn't relevant, then "The game is D&D, and playing D&D makes me uncomfortable" is perfectly valid.  You are making people uncomfortable.  Stop it.



> See, I can bold things too!




Dude, the bolded parts were from cut & pasting from your post.  That bolding?  Your bolding.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No takers?  Really?




I think we're waiting for "those claiming that Person B can never feel insulted and just has to deal with it" to show up so that they can answer it.  

Although, actually, Celebrim did an excellent job answering this.

However, following all the way down to the rape point:  Because a person argues that X is okay in a game, it doesn't follow that Y is.  This is a direct result of considering qualifiers when determining the proper response to "Z makes me uncomfortable".  It is those qualifiers that make some actions simply not occur in-game, while other actions do not occur "on screen" in-game (but may be part of the background), while still other actions occur "on screen" and the players may either deal with it or jump ship.  You cannot get out of fighting a giant spider simply because spiders make you kinda uncomfortable.  For some people's specific reactions to spiders, however, I might eliminate the encounter -- or even mention of cobwebs.  I haven't actually met anyone so phobic of spiders (that I know of, anyway), however.

Likewise, imagine that you are playing in a campaign world modelled after Middle Earth, post-LotR.  That world includes a history of implied rape (Saruman's breeding of half-orcs), as well as the implication of humans hunting other humans for sport (the woses were hunted by the Rohirrim).  Likewise, Wormtongue has eaten at least one hobbit.  If those ideas make you uncomfortable, you should perhaps choose a different setting.  But accepting that the world included Saruman breeding orcs with stolen women doesn't mean that the same will (or should!) happen to the PCs.  Nor does it mean that Wormtongue is going to consume your hobbit PC.  (OTOH, Eowyn's love for Aragorn made him uncomfortable, and was eventually resolved.)

If you are uncomfortable with the idea of the Ewoks eating stormtroopers, or with the idea that Our Heroes are invited to the feast and seem to think nothing untoward of it (either ignorance is bliss, or they truly don't care), then perhaps you should choose a different setting.  (However, Luke's infatuation with his sister has led to some uncomfortable moments around Casa Skywalker for sure....probably long after she was having little Hanlets.)

Oddly enough, romance has been a common topic/element in fiction for as long as fiction has existed.  As such, it seems that anyone engaging in a work of fiction -- including the fictional space created by a role-playing game -- should expect some element of romance to exist.  It would be a shallow world indeed where romance was _a priori_ dismissed as "uncomfortable"....or even, Cthulhu forbid, "indefensible".

And, please note, it is quite possible to have an element of romance in a game without ever actually playing out a romantic scene.  John Carter's love for Deja Thoris is conveyed quite effectively without ever descending (or ascending) to the bedroom, nor does Aragorn ever have a romantic scene with Arwen in the novel.  Wesley and Buttercup do very little actual romancing between life-threatening perils (although there is some).  Lusty as he is, all of Conan's actual romancing takes place off-screen as well -- we get a statement of mutual admiration and intent at best.  

Romance has often been used in fiction to provide motivation without ever being realized "on screen".  He gets the girl, she gets the guy, and then the sun sets.  Cut.  That's a wrap.

The last time I was a player, it was in a Star Wars game set during the Rebellion Era.  My Jedi character was a survivor of the Purge, and had been secretly in love with his Master (a female Twi'lek).  She obviously didn't know; Jedi are forbidden to love, and his feelings were therefore dishonorable.  After her death in the Purge, he vowed to live up to her ideals....to be the perfect Jedi.  It was an impossible task, of course, but well in keeping with the teen-angst-ridden Star Wars universe.  He was also unduly influenced by anyone that reminded him of his former Master.

As it turned out, no one was playing a female Twi'lek Jedi, or even a female Twi'lek.....but if a replacement character came in that was obviously similar to my PC's former Master, the character's background wasn't going to suddenly change.  Someone telling me it _*must*_ would make me.....uncomfortable.


RC


.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Would you argue this if the player was made uncomfortable by depictions of non-Christian religions, demons, angels, etc.?
> 
> What if the player was made uncomfortable by playing out combat against humans or other "good guy" races?
> 
> ...




Actually, I agree.  There is a point where "legitmate concern" becomes over reaction.

But, let's not forget two things.  First off, timing.  All of the things you bring up would occur in the very first session of the game.  Most of them would absolutely be known before the first session of the game.  Someone who agreed to join a role playing game would know, and probably give tacit approval, of any of the things you list.  And, any problems would be occuring within the first ten minutes of the session.

The example that we're talking about is way down the line.  

Which brings me to my second point.  The reason this is way down the line, time wise, is because Player 1 INSISTED that Player 2 not be consulted in any way about this idea.  In fact, he insisted that it be kept secret.

Now, let's use your examples, but, presume the same set up.  Someone comes to a D&D game, doesn't know what D&D is about, and is not told a single thing about what can happen during a regular game session.

The player sees the stuff you list and gets weirded out.  

All of that could be avoided just by TALKING to the player beforehand.  Let that player know what's to be expected in the session and in the game.  THEN that player can make a conscious choice as to whether or not he wants to play this game.

Otherwise, it's just asking for bad situations.  Hiding the nature of the game, whatever that nature is, is not going to help anything.  If someone is really uncomfortable about, say, gender bending players, that comes out during character generation when you do it as a group.

Now the player can make informed decisions. 

Instead, he's being held hostage.  If he disrupts the game because he's uncomfortable, he causes bad feelings and he's a bad player.  If he sits through it, he has a miserable time and, let's face it, it's not going to be a good session for everyone else either unless this player is a REALLY good actor.

ALL of this can be resolved by a very simple rule:  before you do anything that directly impacts another character at the table, ask.  Take a couple of minutes and ask if this would be a good idea.  It's a good idea to you, sure, but, if the other person is going to be uncomfortable, then no, it's not a good idea for the table.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2010)

DannyA - Honestly, thinking about the whole "Who's your Daddy" thing, I think I came to a realization.  The reason that so many players come to the table with a blank slate character background, Man With No Name, character who's family is dead and just got off a ship from a continent that sank into the ocean ten minutes after he set sail, is because of DM's that can't keep their mitts off other people's characters.

Seriously.  If you include family members in your background,  you can guarantee they will either be kidnapped, murdered, or will betray the PC.  No one's family will ever just live nice, quiet lives with their hero child dropping by once in a while.  Spouse or loved one?  Succubus.  Have an heirloom suit of armor?  Thieves will steal it, or rust monsters will charge you first every single time, despite the fact that your heirloom suit of armor is actually hide.  

So on and so forth.

I truly believe that most players have been trained almost from the get go that anything they put in their backgrounds will just be ammunition for the DM to screw them around with.  So, they put nothing in their backgrounds.  I know in my online games, the vast majority of the PC's I see are orphans.  If I lived in a D&D world, the second my child began training as a cleric, I'd drown the little bastard before someone offed me.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> You don't think that is a pretty gross overreaction to the situation, and detrimental to the entire group?




Very likely, but I can't insist someone endure a situation they consider intolerable.



> Of course it would be better if everyone in the group liked every role-playing idea brought to play, but that is pretty unrealistic.  Not every idea is going to fly, and having a player quit over it seems just seems out of sync.




It would, which is why, given the choice between losing the player and banning in-character behavior, neither being a great choice, I'm kind of inclined to lose the player. I guess my solution would be that over time I would like the group to evolve toward being flexible and handling things in a mature fashion. Until that happens, I would rather people quit and retain their liberty than squash roleplay at my table. When it comes to player freedom, my style is to say "yes." Given that, I think people would have few reasons to feel abused at my table. At worse, someone quits over their personal issue with a certain theme, which is sad, but probably for the best in many cases.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> DannyA - Honestly, thinking about the whole "Who's your Daddy" thing, I think I came to a realization.  The reason that so many players come to the table with a blank slate character background, Man With No Name, character who's family is dead and just got off a ship from a continent that sank into the ocean ten minutes after he set sail, is because of DM's that can't keep their mitts off other people's characters.




I wouldn't call that training, but experential aversion. After all, a blank character sheet practically invites GM meddling. So it is an understandable but futile response to a hostage-taking GM.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, despite everything you've claimed




Despite?  I went back and reread this thread from the beginning over the weekend and I've been absolutely consistant in my position from start to finish.



> you do exactly the same thing I've stated should be done all the way along - you take the other person's claim into account...




Yes.



> ...and stop doing what makes the other person uncomfortable.




Maybe.  I have never claimed that player #1 is under an absolute obligation to stop making the other person uncomfortable.  Nor have I ever claimed that player #2 should have the expectation that if they are uncomfortable, other people must accomodate them.  Instead, I said that the two players should try to find a way to work out their differences and look for an acceptable comprimise to all parties.  I have never suggested that either player #1 or player #2 in the specific scenario being described is fully justified in expecting the other player to 'give in'.  Instead, I've suggested that there are a huge number of variables involved here and that when the conflict arrises the individual players and the table as a whole will either have to comprimise or go their separate ways.  I've suggested alot of ways to achieve the former so as to avoid the later.



> You do it with a lot more words, but, at the end of the day, that's what you're doing.
> 
> You try something, the other person says stop and you stop.




No it's not, and no that's not an accurate summary of my position.



> Why are you disagreeing with me then?




In brief, it's because we disagree something.  Your position summarizes to:



> And, when it happens...you stop. It doesn't matter about anything else.




I disagree.



> And, please, can we stop with the whole "You just don't understand what I'm saying" thing?




Can you please stop putting words in my mouth?  Because you know what, I'll stop saying you don't understand what I'm saying when its no longer clear that you don't have a clue what I'm saying. 



> No, I don't have to subject myself to discomfort merely because you are ignorant of what's making me feel uncomfortable.




No one has suggested that. 



> Nor should I be forced to remain silent when I'm being made to feel uncomfortable.




No one is being forced to do anything.  I'd be curious exactly how anyone could force anyone to remain silent at the table.  



> When someone does something that you are not comfortable with, who cares why? That person is uncomfortable. That person is not having fun. Not only is that person simply not having fun, that person is outright having a bad time.




This is the real heart of our disagreement.  You continue to insist on a right to be uncomfortable and continue to persist in disowning your own feelings and making them the responsibility of someone else.  It very much does matter why someone is uncomfortable and real friends are concerned with more than just shutting up when someone tells them they are uncomfortable, to say nothing of the fact that you might not be gaming with close friends.  I have suggested that the way to resolve this is introspection, mutual compassion and understanding.  I have not suggested and never will suggest that if someone says that they are uncomfortable that that gives them absolute authority to squash whatever it is that makes them uncomfortable.  True mutual compassion and understanding might lead to player #1 forgoing something, but if the compassion and understanding is truly mutual it might simply mean that some comprimise is hit upon that addresses the real reasons for player #2's discomfort and allows everyone to have fun.  Exactly what resolution should be achieved for any given conflict is not something I'm prepared to suggest, but I have suggested many different possible resolutions that could be achieved.... as for that matter so did Lanefan.

I would say that that position is a bit far from:



> And, when it happens...you stop. It doesn't matter about anything else.




Now, I'm going to risk addressing that position.  You've previously said that you had a truly uncomfortable roleplaying experience that ended in a really ugly way because you kept your silence, tried your best to participate, and didn't speak up.  I really admired that you told that story and tried to give you XP for it (but failed because I've apparantly given you XP too recently).  That position that you took within the story I would fully disagree with as well, whether I was a DM or a marriage councilor.   But as a result of the experience, you seem to have taken the exact opposite stance - that when you are uncomfortable not only should you immediately speak out but that everyone else ought to be immediately and fully accomodating to your feelings.   You've vacillated from thinking that in effect you had to be fully accomodating of someone else, to claiming that everyone else has to be fully accomodating of you.  Neither is I think particularly healthy. 

Now, I could be being completely unfair to you in that.  But is it possible that the problem here is that you've got a bias coloring your stance that is rooted in your own personal experience?   Because I'm otherwise finding it very hard to explain how in the same post you can say we wildly disagree and that I'm saying what you've been saying all along.   Nor do I understand how, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, you persist in saying things like:



> You think that the game should come first. That people should just suck it up for the good of the game.




No, I think I've made it perfectly clear that I don't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2010)

Another excellent post, Celebrim.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

> DannyA - Honestly, thinking about the whole "Who's your Daddy" thing, I think I came to a realization.  The reason that so many players come to the table with a blank slate character background, Man With No Name, character who's family is dead and just got off a ship from a continent that sank into the ocean ten minutes after he set sail, is because of *DM's that can't keep their mitts off other people's characters.*




It's been commented on before, and you are undoubtably right.  I disagree with the assessment of what constitutes 'keeping mitts off other people's characters', but I do agree that some people see it that way.



> Seriously.  If you include family members in your background,  you can guarantee they will either be kidnapped, murdered, or will betray the PC.




Possibly.  Certainly every NPC you ever encounter is going to be in some fashion a role-playing complication.  I generally feel that players who consider this to be a violation of the separation between the PC and the DM to be simply stating a preference for a game without alot of low drama, or possibly a preference for a game without DM plots.  I think both are valid preferences, but I'm not sure that you can validly claim the DM doesn't have a right to invent, use, or play NPC's as he sees fit.



> I truly believe that most players have been trained almost from the get go that anything they put in their backgrounds will just be ammunition for the DM to screw them around with.




If having an innocent used as a plot hook is 'the DM screwing them around', then truly I say to you that playing as an orphan is not going to result in the DM not being able to 'screw you around' much less keep you safe from plot hooks baited with innocents in distress.  Look at what happened to Luke - the villain turned out to be his father, his mentor turned out to be dispassionate liar who was using him for his own ends, and his damsel in distress love interest turned out to be his sister.   That goes way beyond any thing I've ever came up with.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I honestly can't think of a situation I was ever in where it was necessary (or wise) as a player to tell another player flat out in the middle of the session, "I'm not comfortable with this line of play."




I have, unfortunately, seen such situations.  Not among stable gaming groups with fairly set members, but in more pickup-game situations and live-action play: at least three different jerks who didn't know how to behave around ladies.  I can go into gory details if you like.

I understand what you're saying, but given my own experience I'd modify it - it is quite possible that someone could make you mildly uncomfortable, and maybe direct and immediate confrontation on the matter wouldn't be called for.  But there are some cases where swift and direct raising of the issue is the best option.

For example: if player 1 (player, not character) is _physically touching_ Player 2 in any why that makes player 2 uncomfortable, it is okay to say so, right then and there, and it is probably best to do so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2010)

If one of the players in question is someone that one would generally not wish to game with anyway, I will note that the resolution to the problem ought to be crystal clear.

EDIT:  Also, I hope you realize that your post blurs the distinction between something happening to the character, and to the player.  Many, many, many things can happen to the character without them being okay to happen to the player.  Being attacked by large rats, for instance, is a D&D trope that should probably not be extended to the actual player.  IME, anyway.  

So, if that becomes the bar, I suspect that most sane individuals would be uncomfortable with having what happens to their characters happen to them.  I know I would be, well before the first spiked pit trap.


.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Instead I would focus humbly on the possibility that the feelings I'm feeling are my own, and my responsibility, and that if I'm asking someone to change their *otherwise harmless behavior* to conform to what may be *my weaknesses*, that I should look on that as asking some one a favor and by no means state it as a demand or expect that in making the demand that I'll get a particular outcome.
> 
> ...
> 
> Don't be that player who gets offended and then says, "You are making me uncomfortable" as if its *some other person's fault*. Sure, there are times when things are going to happen that are legitimately offensive, or which you rightly don't feel you can participate in. But even when you are completely in the right, you still need to practice diplomacy in whatever situation you find yourself in. In my opinion that is not always best served by a OOC challenge.




I think I find most of what you are saying entirely reasonable, but these (bolded parts) are where I'm still in disagreement. I think my main objection here is that you are assuming that it is a weakness in Player 2 to be offended by something, and that you are making the judgement call _for them_ that what they are objecting to is actually harmless. 

I _still _find it really inappropriate to say it is a personal failing of someone when they become offended or are made uncomfortable. Removing the responsibility from the offender seems to be very close to condoning inappropriate behavior on many levels. It sounds like that is a fundamental difference in philosophy between us, though, so I'm not sure we can ever resolve that disagreement. 

I _do _understand why you prefer dealing with events IC or waiting until after the session to handle it OOC. I agree that if an event can be easily handled IC, all the better. And if a situation genuinely doesn't bother someone, no reason why they can't play through it and discuss their thoughts on it after the game. 

But I think there can be many situations where that will only make things worse. Where the option for IC resolution won't be there (or will involve delving further into the uncomfortable situation), and the experience is unpleasant enough that it is best handled immediately. Like we saw in the initial example, where an uncomfortable situation arose _without_ player 2 having the opportunity to handle it IC - hence the two options were either to ask it to stop OOC right then, or to let it play out through the rest of the session, in which player 2 would have a miserable experience for the rest of the game. 

I said it before, and I'll say it again - honest and open communication is a big sign of mature behavior. Discouraging that is not a good thing. Telling people that they should swallow their emotions and sit through an unpleasant experience, solely to avoid a momentary disruption to the roleplaying of a session, just doesn't sit well to me. 

I mean, when I play, we have disruptions all the time - someone breaks to go to the bathroom, food arrives, some comment sounds like a Monty Python quote and everyone laughs and/or groans. I mean, you might play differently, and fair enough. 

But staying in character, to me, and preserving the roleplaying intensity of the game, is not something that is more sacrosanct than the enjoyment of the game itself. If things are getting weird or unpleasant for a player, the mature response is to _discuss the issue_, not pretend it isn't there or swallow one's emotions and suffer through the situation. 

Honestly, if I did something that bugged another player, I'd much prefer they tell me about it up front. The alternative - keeping silent, and instead eventually having it poison things in character and between us as friends - is the sort of thing that leads to group-breaking drama. 

Sure, if one does bring it up OOC, one should do so as diplomatically as possible. But avoiding honest communication just leads to tension building up in the group - and by the time it does come to resolve all that lurking anger and discomfort, it can often be too late.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> For example: if player 1 (player, not character) is _physically touching_ Player 2 in any why that makes player 2 uncomfortable, it is okay to say so, right then and there, and it is probably best to do so.




Yeah, I would say that we've definately already crossed the line between IC and OOC there.  You can't make an IC objection to a OOC action and the complaint that something is making the player uncomfortalbe is slightly but importantly different than 'something that is happening to my character is making me the player uncomfortable'.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2010)

Actually, Celebrim, I don't think you've made it "perfectly clear".  You stated rather strongly that if someone had a problem in the game that was making them uncomfortable, they should wait until after the session to bring it up.  I thought you were pretty clearly stating that doing it during the game was a bad thing - the best thing would be to role play through it.

How does that not constitute basically telling someone to suck it up?

The reason I feel that someone should immedietely tell the other person is because holding it in means that someone is not enjoying the session.  Not just that they're bored, but they are outright having a bad time.

Why should they wait to tell the other player?  

The other player, in good faith, is trying something that he thinks is a good idea.  The problem is, he's wrong.  It's not a good idea because the other person is not happy.  I would be much more worried about a player who insisted on continuing even though that player knows that it's a bad idea and the other person isn't enjoying what's going on.

If the other player tries to wait until the end of the session, that sends a very mixed message.  Player 1 tries something, and Player 2 plays to that concept.  Tries to show willing despite really not enjoying any of it.  After the session, Player 2 tells player 1 that he just had a terrible time during the session because of what Player 1 did and doesn't want Player 1 to do it anymore.

This is actually better than just speaking up immedietely?

Like I said upthread, all of these problems go away when you are open and up front with the players.  In the Luke Skywalker example, if I was Luke's player, and all those things happened without any consultation first, I'd be right out the door.  Writers can get away with that because the characters in their stories can't leave the game.  DM's shouldn't.  



> but I'm not sure that you can validly claim the DM doesn't have a right to invent, use, or play NPC's as he sees fit.




I would say that a DM has the right to invent, use or play NPC's that have no ties to the PC's as he sees fit.  As soon as something directly impacts a PC, I ask the player.  After all, what's the point of doing all the work of coming up with plot ideas and whatnot, just to have the player turn around and shoot it down because the player has zero interest in what you've brought to the table?  The player wrote the background that his parents are dead, he has no family now that the Empire has slaughtered his adoptive parents and he is totally cut loose from any familial entanglements.

The DM turns around and rewrites his background so that his father isn't dead, and his love interest turns out to be his sister.  I'm thinking that's a bit overstepping DM authority there.  

Again, this is why I adore the Chronica Feudalis system of Backgrounds.  I can put whatever I like in there, bring it to the table when I choose to, and know that the DM is constrained by the rules against using what I put there against me.  Love, love, love the idea.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I think my main objection here is that you are assuming that it is a weakness in Player 2 to be offended by something, and that you are making the judgement call _for them_ that what they are objecting to is actually harmless.




Before I even begin to address your post, let me ask you a question.

Did I actually say that?

Because if your main objection turns out to be about something I didn't say, then that changes things a bit wouldn't you agree?

What exactly did I say.  Don't paraphrase.  Don't surmise.  What exactly did I say.   I suggest that in the context of your objection you are bolding the wrong part of that sentence.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Yeah, I would say that we've definately already crossed the line between IC and OOC there.




If we allow consideration of live-action play, the line's a whole lot more hazy.



> You can't make an IC objection to a OOC action and the complaint that something is making the player uncomfortalbe is slightly but importantly different than 'something that is happening to my character is making me the player uncomfortable'.




It is only the extreme example to make the point that sometimes it does make sense to just state the issue baldly.  

One of the trouble cases I alluded to before included no touching - just a guy who repeatedly leered, spoke too suggestively, and otherwise harassed female players.  He made them fearful for their actual physical safety.  He haunted several conventions I went to, but since nobody ever spoke up during game, no official report ever got filed on it, so none of the conventions or individual GMs could ban him.

He was an extreme case, I admit.  But he wasn't the only one.  I've seen enough folks willing to be complete jerks that I wouldn't make the same generalization as you, is all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> If we allow consideration of live-action play, the line's a whole lot more hazy.




Yes.  And, if you find yourself hiding in the steam tunnels below the university, perhaps Mazes and Monsters isn't for you.  



> It is only the extreme example to make the point that sometimes it does make sense to just state the issue baldly.




In your example, though, the problem was related to the player, and it shouldn't have been each individual player's problem to deal with it -- there should have been an official report, and the player should have been banned.

Also, the same steps still apply:

Can I deal with this IC?  Answer:  No.
Can there be a compromise?  Answer:  No.
Can we deal with this as a group?  Answer:  I certainly hope so.​
Because there are corner cases where the answers Questions 1 & 2 (the ideal first and second ways of dealing with the issue) are so obvious that they don't need to be consciously asked doesn't somehow negate their general relevance.

Indeed, had the people involved followed the line of reasoning above, one would hope that an official report would have been filed.

No one is claiming that there is no legitimate reason for making a complaint OOC.  The argument is merely that simply making a complaint OOC doesn't automatically validate that complaint.


RC


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> But it isn't a completely internal matter for PC 1 the moment he tries to role-play it out with PC 2.




What is at issue here is player 1's ability to decide on his motivations. His actions are always up to him too. Telling the other pc he's romantically interested _isn't even really part of the original scenario._ Still, I'll chew this one over for you. The answer is the same. PC 1 can say or do what he likes in game as long as he is willing to face the in-game consequences. 

Honestly, what it all boils down to is- for my table, anyway- it is completely ridiculous to try to place your character "above" or "outside" of the campaign setting and the events of it, which include betrayal, death, murder and yes, romance. I would no more make PC 1 untouchable by romance than I would by evil cultists ("I'm uncomfortable with non-Christian religions in game), demons and devils ("I'm uncomfortable with the existence of Satanic imagery in game"), spiders ("I'm an arachnaphobe, and I'm uncomfortable with giant spider attacks") or any other element. 

If any of those are deal-breakers, by all means, _leave the table._ Quit the game. It's not for me to force you into an uncomfortable game, but neither is it for you to dictate how other players play their characters. 




Umbran said:


> For example: if player 1 (player, not character) is _physically touching_ Player 2 in any why that makes player 2 uncomfortable, it is okay to say so, right then and there, and it is probably best to do so.




But now you're stepping way outside of the parameters of the discussion. Has anyone argued that it's okay if:

-One player tries to molest another?
-One player tries to beat up another?
-One player tries to force another to eat or drink his favorite snack?

We are quite clearly talking about an entirely different matter here because, instead of it being the actions of _characters_ that are in question, it's the actions of the _players_ that are in question. 

Put another way, while I wouldn't let one player stop another pc from having a background that included mass murder, I wouldn't want a mass murderer as one of my players. (And a smart group of pcs will _not recruit_ pcs unsuitable to their party. If someone insists on making a character that won't fit in, the _characters_ handle it- and ultimately, the player makes a new character or sits on his heels waiting for the 20% of the time that he's going to get vs. the rest of the time that the others get. The idea that every pc _must be allowed to join the party simply because he is a pc_ is a terrible fallacy.)



MrMyth said:


> But staying in character, to me, and preserving the roleplaying intensity of the game, is not something that is more sacrosanct than the enjoyment of the game itself.




Do you at least recognize that player 1 might have his fun spoiled by having player 2 tell him that his pc's motivations need to be re-written? 

In the original situation being discussed, I think player 1 has a much more legitimate case for being upset than player 2 does. Again, each table is different, but my table includes 'adult themes' and the like. Heck, in a discussion after Book of Vile Darkness came out, my campaign was adjudged to be "vile" in its content- because it includes "vile" elements (human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc), not because those things happen all the time or constantly to or by pcs. If a player is uncomfortable with those elements- which indeed MAY come to affect a pc directly- he has no more place at a table like mine than a player who objected to non-Christian religious portrayals would (or worse, one who objected to parodies of Christianity or elements thereof, which occur aplenty in my game as well).

I guess I fall firmly on the "Game is more important than any one player" side of things- or perhaps a more accurate way of putting this is "Each player should find the right table for him or her comfort zone, but should NOT try to change an established table's social contract to suit themselves."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2010)

Can someone XP the Jester for me?  Thanks.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> If we allow consideration of live-action play, the line's a whole lot more hazy.




Allow me to roll my eyes.

YMMV... but... any group that is LARPing ought to have worked the 'rules' on these things out in advance. 



Umbran said:


> One of the trouble cases I alluded to before included no touching - just a guy who repeatedly leered, spoke too suggestively, and otherwise harassed female players.  He made them fearful for their actual physical safety.  He haunted several conventions I went to, but since nobody ever spoke up during game, no official report ever got filed on it, so none of the conventions or individual GMs could ban him.




Why was this guy in the group anyway? If he was that creepy, _why in God's name didn't anyone ever report him?_ If he made _anyone in the group_ fearful for their safety, the GM should have stepped up immediately and given him the boot. And "no individual GM could ban him" is a total and complete cop out. A GM can exclude _anyone_ from his game. In fact, a GM is _obligated_ to be picky about his players if he doesn't want a load of creeps, asstards and idiots joining up. Hello again, geek social fallacy!

If an organized play group 'forces' you to be with someone that you don't want to be with in game, either stop playing, step out of the organized play group or expel the real offender. And sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever for "My gaming boss made me" as an excuse to let poopy people in your game poop all over it.

You see, you're talking about a largely different topic than the rest of the thread. You're talking about creepy players whose OOC actions are creeping out other players. OOC, not IC. The discussion here, at least to me, seems to be more about IC issues that a single player gets weirded out by- and really innocuous IC issues at that (IMHO). 

If LARPs blur the lines so much, perhaps GMs that run LARPs should be even more careful than pen & paper GMs about who they let in their games.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It is only the extreme example to make the point that sometimes it does make sense to just state the issue baldly.




I have at several points indicated that are cases where OOC communication might be your best resort.

For example:

"I prefer it, because I think dealing with things IC is less harsh and more appropriate to an issue raised by someone else's in character play, but I do agree that there are exceptions where OOC communication are appropriate or even required." - Me

And there are other quotes, but its a long thread and I don't want to write an index for it.

Most of those cases where I think OOC communication are 'appropriate or even required' fall however in to the 'extreme' side of the spectrum, and the cases you outline qualify.  The cases that come to mind would be cases like 'character rape' where the possibility of IC freedom has been removed, actual OOC issues unrelated to the player's IC conduct (touching for example), and situations where its clear that IC responses won't work because the underlying problem is that the other player is letting his OOC feelings govern his IC play (a player whose character is attracted to another PC primarily because the player is attacted to another player and inappropriately communicating his real feelings).  

For example, if your character is being abused verbally or physically by another PC, and you figure out that this is happening because the other character's _player_ is currently annoyed with you it is definately time to try to resolve that issue OOC.  But that may mean not speaking up immediately (while the character is still stewing in his anger) and toughing it out for a while, or it may mean that if you don't address this OOC right now that its just going to explode or get worse.   Exactly how you should respond then depends alot on your assessment of the player.  Maybe if you say, "Hey, you are making me uncomfortable.", he'll realize he's being a jerk and stop.  Maybe he's acting like that because he thinks you are being a jerk, and "Hey, you are making me uncomfortable." is just going to set him off.

And it should be clear that if you are actually being verbally or physically abused by another PC, its a different case that your characters being in conflict.  The reason that someone acting out there real emotions is an extreme case is precisely because it blurs the line between what is happening to your character and what is happening to you.  The intention of the other player is therefore important in how you percieve and respond to the IC play.

I think if you go back and read what I've said, far more important to me from the start has not been the particular solution you hit on, but the attitude in which you undertake to resolve the matter.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No one is claiming that there is no legitimate reason for making a complaint OOC.  The argument is merely that simply making a complaint OOC doesn't automatically validate that complaint.




Exactly.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I wouldn't call that training, but experential aversion. After all, a blank character sheet practically invites GM meddling. So it is an understandable but futile response to a hostage-taking GM.




There seems to be quite a bit of conflict between players and DMs on this issue.  I guess I can't speak for all DMs but isn't the main reason they would want to meddle in character backgrounds is to help enhance the campaign and make it a more fun experience for all involved?


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Before I even begin to address your post, let me ask you a question.
> 
> Did I actually say that?
> 
> ...




"Whether it is logical or not, player #2 feels 'uncomfortable' and puts the responsibility for their own feelings on someone else. They respond to the situation emotionally, and they assert their entitlement and the superiority of their wants and desires over anyone else. They don't feel inclined to or that they have any need to comprimise or empathize with the other person."

"So my advice is that if you feel uncomfortable, to not immediately say any of things that people are suggesting being said because it just gets you immediately into the possibility of a confrontation. In ideal world, maybe it will work, and in an ideal world maybe you aren't being overly sensitive, or prude-ish, or a control freak when you say it."

"Instead I would focus humbly on the possibility that the feelings I'm feeling are my own, and my responsibility, and that if I'm asking someone to change their otherwise harmless behavior to conform to what may be my weaknesses, that I should look on that as asking some one a favor and by no means state it as a demand or expect that in making the demand that I'll get a particular outcome."

I really can't see any way to read the above quotes other than as heavily suggesting:
-That when someone is uncomfortable, it is their own fault and comes from their own "entitlement", and lack of willingness to emphathize with the person making them uncomfortable. 
-That when someone is uncomfortable, they should remain silent and avoid any possibility of a confrontation, and that speaking out load as I have suggested could mean they are "overly sensitive, or prude-ish, or a control freak".
-That when someone is uncomfortable, the behavior that is bothering them is likely "otherwise harmless" and that the source of the offense is from their own feelings and their own weaknesses. 
-And, finally, that asking someone to stop making you uncomfortable is asking a _"favor" _of them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> There seems to be quite a bit of conflict between players and DMs on this issue.  I guess I can't speak for all DMs but isn't the main reason they would want to meddle in character backgrounds is to help enhance the campaign and make it a more fun experience for all involved?




I agree.

But if you're foisting off an unwanted twist on someone, you've jus imposed a "fun tax" on one of your players; someone will already be starting from a negative point.

(Which is why I never do to anyone's PC what I'd object to being done to one of mine...in substance or method.)


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> If having an innocent used as a plot hook is 'the DM screwing them around', then truly I say to you that playing as an orphan is not going to result in the DM not being able to 'screw you around' much less keep you safe from plot hooks baited with innocents in distress.  Look at what happened to Luke - the villain turned out to be his father, his mentor turned out to be dispassionate liar who was using him for his own ends, and his damsel in distress love interest turned out to be his sister.   That goes way beyond any thing I've ever came up with.




And yet nowhere near as far as some Luke & Leia slash fic out there, but anyways...

If the DM is intent on screwing with you, he will do so, regardless of whether you give him openings in your character background or not.  If a player creates a character background of the man with no name, dead or unknown family, no friends and even the other PCs as 'allies of convenience' just to create a dark and brooding role-playing experience then that is one thing.  Horribly cliched, but ok.  If the player does that to avoid having any implied emotional attachments that the DM can use against him, then he is opening himself up.  Then the DM might go after the next thing a character might care about, his equipment!

Besids, should a player really be going out of his way to avoid DM plot hooks?  Isn't that why he's there playing D&D?  He should allow the DM every opportunity to try and engage his interest, whether it is simple quest for gold and plunder, rescuing the princess or the DM going through the PC's entire family until he is kidnapping the PC's favorite second cousin....and that's a big mistake.  (points for reference)


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 4, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Do you at least recognize that player 1 might have his fun spoiled by having player 2 tell him that his pc's motivations need to be re-written?




Sure - as I've said several times already, it's possible that this might reduce the fun for Player 1. But I also feel that the loss of fun for him is likely to be significantly less than the loss of fun for Player 2 if the unpleasant situation continues. And if that isn't the case - if Player 1's fun _actually requires_ forcing an uncomfortable situation on another player - than there may be more serious issues at play. 

The difference is that Player 1 should have countless other options available that they find entertaining. If they want their character to be motivated by some sort of romance, they should be able to talk to the DM and see if they can come up with an NPC for the role, or see if any other PCs are interested. 

Going back to the original scenario. If Player 2 lets things happens, it means they get to sit through the rest of the session watching as another player's character performs actions, directed at their character, that feel like stalking. This is an unpleasant experience and ruins the rest of the sesion for them. 

If Player 1 backs down, instead, it means... they find a different romance to pursue. I just can't see any scenario in which that holds the same emotional value for them as the consequences for Player 2. If they _must_ pursue Player 2's character in order to enjoy the game... again, it seems like there may be a much bigger problem going on. 



the Jester said:


> I guess I fall firmly on the "Game is more important than any one player" side of things- or perhaps a more accurate way of putting this is "Each player should find the right table for him or her comfort zone, but should NOT try to change an established table's social contract to suit themselves."




And if it was declared to someone at the start of a campaign that being unwilling pursued by other PCs was part of the game - or if a player objected, and all the other players agreed that this was a central part of the experience for them - than I agree, that's a situation where Player 2 should back out. (As I acknowledged very early on.)

I mean... again, I'm probably approaching this from a different angle than you guys. I game primarily to play with my friends. Say a friend in my game says to me, "Just so you know, I have a severe fear of spiders... big human-sized ones don't bug me because they are obviously unreal, but I don't think I could handle dealing with small, genuine skittering ones."

You know what I would do? I'd avoid throwing swarms of tiny skittering spiders at him! There are so many other things I can use in this game that the loss of one element is easy enough to handle. The Game being more important than the Player is simply a self-defeating concept for me - the entire point of the Game is to have fun with my friends in the first place!

That said... sure, there are limits. And they will change from one group to the next. And when you start getting into broader issues, you may well have no solution available - if one player insists on only playing in monotheistic games and another insists on only playing with the standard D&D pantheon. 

But when it comes to a player's opinion over their own character? I can probably avoid having spiders crawl over them in their sleep, or have them be unwilling pursued when it comes to romance, or force them choosing between two morally-unacceptable decisions (sell your soul to the devil or this child dies!) If I know those will be issues for them. 

Remember, we aren't saying anyone needs to avoid plot elements because they _might_ offend someone. Just that, once you know something is a problem for the player, if that element can be removed without compromising the integrity of the campaign... I, at least, will generally find that a far better choice than losing a player entirely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

> Besids, should a player really be going out of his way to avoid DM plot hooks? Isn't that why he's there playing D&D? He should allow the DM every opportunity to try and engage his interest, whether it is simple quest for gold and plunder, rescuing the princess or the DM going through the PC's entire family until he is kidnapping the PC's favorite second cousin....and that's a big mistake.




I genuinely try to provide plot hooks, so I agree with you, generally speaking.

Where I disagree with some is the amount of deference I grant players who don't like a particular plot hook as it involves their PC.  IOW, I'm friends first, game second.  I won't force plot twists to PC background over someone's expressed objections or known dislikes...

Then again, what do I know but my own experiences?  My 2 main gaming groups have been together since 1986 and 1998.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> For example, if your character is being abused verbally or physically by another PC, and you figure out that this is happening because the other character's _player_ is currently annoyed with you it is definately time to try to resolve that issue OOC.




Now, here's a question. Let's another character is acting like this towards your own, and it _isn't_ rooted in some OOC annoyance on that player's behalf. But that this behavior does bother you and is hurting your own enjoyment of the game. 

For myself, I feel that this case is even _more_ important to speak up immediately OOC. Whereas, I am guessing from some of your previously stated positions, that you feel this would _not_ be a good approach. That what starts in character should get resolved in character. (If that's not an accurate representation of your view, feel free to correct me and/or ignore everything I say following this.)

See, if I react IC, the other player might just take that as me playing along. "Ha, my dwarven bard made fun of the snooty elf wizard, and now the elf wizard is acting all offended. What excellent roleplaying!"

But if the situation actually is distressing to me, I'm guessing that it is usually because the other player _simply doesn't realize_ that what his character is doing is bothering me. And only _by_ speaking up OOC can I make him aware of this fact - at which point he would likely back down, and either try and turn his bard's insults elsewhere, or tone down the vehemence of the profanities or otherwise lessen the abuse to a level I'm ok with. 

And just to be clear - I don't expect this because he's required to do so or anything. I'd expect that to be the outcome because that's how I'd act in his place, and how I would imagine any of my friends would respond. If you are causing unintentional distress, and made aware of it, it just seems the reasonable response to me to try and avoid causing that distress any farther. 

The key is, if you are doing so unintentionally, it is only by having it brought up OOC that you can actually know that. I'd hate if one of my friends allowed me to continue doing something that was bothering them, simply because they didn't feel like they should speak up about it during the game. 

Like I said - honest and open communication just seems the mature approach with these sorts of issues. The other approach - suggesting someone just shouldn't get upset over events that happen in-character, or that they should just tough it out and deal with it later so as to not risk momentarily disrupting the session - just seems to invite a situation where resentment will build up until you have a much more difficult confrontation later.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> "*Whether it is logical or not*, player #2 feels 'uncomfortable' and puts the responsibility for their own feelings on someone else. They respond to the situation emotionally, and they assert their entitlement and the superiority of their wants and desires over anyone else. They don't feel inclined to or that they have any need to comprimise or empathize with the other person."
> 
> "So my advice is that if you feel uncomfortable, to not immediately say any of things that people are suggesting being said because it just gets you immediately into the possibility of a confrontation. In ideal world, maybe it will work, and in an ideal world *maybe you aren't being* overly sensitive, or prude-ish, or a control freak when you say it."
> 
> "Instead I would focus humbly *on the possibility* that the feelings I'm feeling are my own, and my responsibility, and that *if* I'm asking someone to change their otherwise harmless behavior to conform to what may be my weaknesses, that I should look on that as asking some one a favor and by no means state it as a demand or expect that in making the demand that I'll get a particular outcome."






			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> "I really can't see any way to read the above quotes other than as heavily suggesting: That when someone is uncomfortable, it is their own fault and comes from their own "entitlement", and lack of willingness to emphathize with the person making them uncomfortable."




How about now?

When asking the question of what a writer believes, perhaps it would be appropriate to focus on those areas that speak directly to your questions about what they wrote.  In this case, I think your question is, "Do you really believe that when someone is uncomfortable, it is their own fault?"  And I think I made clear my answer, and it should be equally clear what my challenge to that question would be.



> And, finally, that asking someone to stop making you uncomfortable is asking a _"favor"_ of them.




Ok, on that one.  You've got me.  I do believe that asking someone to stop making you uncomfortable is asking a favor of them.  It's either that are you are _telling_ them to stop making you uncomfortable.

Request: "the act of asking for something to be given or done, esp. as a favor or courtesy; solicitation or petition:"


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Now, here's a question. Let's another character is acting like this towards your own, and it _isn't_ rooted in some OOC annoyance on that player's behalf. But that this behavior does bother you and is hurting your own enjoyment of the game.
> 
> For myself, I feel that this case is even _more_ important to speak up immediately OOC. Whereas, I am guessing from some of your previously stated positions, that you feel this would _not_ be a good approach. That what starts in character should get resolved in character. (If that's not an accurate representation of your view, feel free to correct me and/or ignore everything I say following this.)
> 
> ...




I think it is at that point that your theory starts to break down.  If the player in fact simply doesn't realize he's offending you, and has no intention of doing so, and is simply being his dwarven bard, if you turn to him and say, "You are making me really uncomfortable.", I would guess that the odds are better than not that player is going to be hurt and offended and possibly embarassed and possibly therefore angry.  This is doubly true if the player isn't sympathetic to your cause of discomfort.  

I would again hold up this thread as what you should expect to happen.

As to what you two should work out between yourselves and how, there are just too many variables in this for me to judge.   



> And just to be clear - I don't expect this because he's required to do so or anything. I'd expect that to be the outcome because that's how I'd act in his place, and how I would imagine any of my friends would respond. If you are causing unintentional distress, and made aware of it, it just seems the reasonable response to me to try and avoid causing that distress any farther.




This is a false extension of the Golden Rule.  The Golden Rule is applicable to how you should behave, not how you can expect others to behave to you.  It's this very same line of thinking which causes Louisianna to have one of the highest rates of accidents and most expensive auto insurance in the nation.  Simply put, Louisianna drivers are so polite and considerate that they think that their own standards of politeness and consideration are higher than the law, and they expect for example, that because they themselves would stop to allow someone to make a left turn across four lanes of traffic or because they would turn a two way stop into a four way stop in order to let someone turn, that the other driver is going to do so.   And based on that assumption that the other driver is going to happily stop, they turn out right into the middle of traffic.  On the expectation of some one elses considerate behavior, they themselves become inconsiderate and ultimately have more accidents than they would if they were less trivially polite.

Not that I'm advocating impoliteness and aggression.  I'm just merely noting that its not the only way to have an accident.



> Like I said - honest and open communication just seems the mature approach with these sorts of issues. The other approach - suggesting someone just shouldn't get upset over events that happen in-character, or that they should just tough it out and deal with it later so as to not risk momentarily disrupting the session - just seems to invite a situation where resentment will build up until you have a much more difficult confrontation later.




Yeah, because if someone is likely to become more and more resentful over time, it's just assured that if they start a conversation that its going to go swimmingly.

But as for this, yes, sometimes it's worth suggesting that you just shouldn't get really upset or uncomfortable over events that happen in-character, especially if the other guy is - as you have painted in him in this case - acting completely innocently and without malice.  Sometimes the problem is with you, and at the very least you should be open to that possibility.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2010)

Can someone XP Celebrim for me?


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> When asking the question of what a writer believes, perhaps it would be appropriate to focus on those areas that speak directly to your questions about what they wrote. In this case, I think your question is, "Do you really believe that when someone is uncomfortable, it is their own fault?" And I think I made clear my answer, and it should be equally clear what my challenge to that question would be.




Even if you aren't speaking in absolutes, I still don't see why you would need to use such language if that wasn't what you were suggesting. You've said several times in this thread that someone being offended is their own fault. And... I recognize there is some point to what you are saying - if something bothers you, try and make sure it isn't a trivial matter first. 

But... the problem is, a large bulk of your argument in this thread has seemed to indicate that this _is _your expectation. That when someone is made uncomfortable, it may be from being "overly sensitive, or prude-ish, or a control freak" or whatever. I've looked over your posts several times, and while that may not be your intent, the use of such repeated language and suggestion certainly indicates that you feel that is the default. 

If you say that's not the case, I'll take you at your word, but I'm genuinely not sure how to reconcile that with earlier posts. 



Celebrim said:


> Ok, on that one. You've got me. I do believe that asking someone to stop making you uncomfortable is asking a favor of them. It's either that are you are _telling_ them to stop making you uncomfortable.
> 
> Request: "the act of asking for something to be given or done, esp. as a favor or courtesy; solicitation or petition:"




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'.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I have at several points indicated that are cases where OOC communication might be your best resort.




Yes.  I'm not disputing that.  I was merely adding in some personal experience that might suggest that situations where jumping to dealing with it out of character might be better might be a tad more common, is all.  YMMV.

I'm also not disputing that the vast majority of such things could be dealt with in-character.  

I do happen to prefer clear communication between mature adults, I admit.  For mature adults, dealing in-character with a problem that's more OOC seems to me... a tad passive-aggressive.  As in, expecting people to change their behavior when you haven't actually told them what you really want.  But I do recognize that as just my personal preference in management style.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

Offensiveness is a 2-way street: both the offender and the offended have their part in it, and who is most to blame in a given situation is, as they say in my profession, "fact sensitive."

When someone is overly sensitive, they may need to toughen up or find a new group; someone who is overly offensive may need to tone things down.

Odds are high, though, that since all of this info will be passing through individuals' perceptive filters, opinions as to who is most at fault will vary greatly.

So I err on the side of caution...


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Sure - as I've said several times already, it's possible that this might reduce the fun for Player 1. But I also feel that the loss of fun for him is likely to be significantly less than the loss of fun for Player 2 if the unpleasant situation continues. And if that isn't the case - if Player 1's fun _actually requires_ forcing an uncomfortable situation on another player - than there may be more serious issues at play.




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.

But where I disagree is whether the scenario in question is a reasonable one to discomfort a player. I really don't think it is- for my table. In fact, at my table, I think the discomfort that player 1 would feel in having to restrict himself from acting in character would outweigh player 2's issues with it. And my table's play style, while not "right" for everyone, is _absolutely_ "right" _for my table._ I guess basically I don't have any players that would freak out about this, and I really prefer it that way. Just as you shouldn't play basketball with someone who gets bent out of shape if there's a lot of running back and forth involved, you shouldn't play D&D with people that don't enjoy the stuff that happens at the table, and in-game romance is 'stuff that happens at the table' for my group.

Let's look at a slight variant on the scenario: what if the pc's feelings for the other character develop over time in game, are still 'unspoken devotion' and the other player still gets uncomfortable over it. Is it reasonable to ask Player 1 to retroactively change his character's development over weeks or months of play time? I don't think so. 

Again, every table is different. The social contracts we play under vary from group to group, so maybe your answer is different.

Let me also make clear that I fully recognize the difference between IC and OOC motivation. Throughout this discussion I have mostly been assuming IC motivation on player 1's part. If, however, player 1's motivation for the hopeless romance moon-eyes stuff is OOC, then I think that the scenario is entirely different. 



MrMyth said:


> The difference is that Player 1 should have countless other options available that they find entertaining. If they want their character to be motivated by some sort of romance, they should be able to talk to the DM and see if they can come up with an NPC for the role, or see if any other PCs are interested.




You're still missing the point. That's still telling player 1 how to run his character, or rather what he can't do with his character's thoughts and feelings. Hell no.



MrMyth said:


> Going back to the original scenario. If Player 2 lets things happens, it means they get to sit through the rest of the session watching as another player's character performs actions, directed at their character, that feel like stalking. This is an unpleasant experience and ruins the rest of the sesion for them.
> 
> If Player 1 backs down, instead, it means... they find a different romance to pursue. I just can't see any scenario in which that holds the same emotional value for them as the consequences for Player 2. If they _must_ pursue Player 2's character in order to enjoy the game... again, it seems like there may be a much bigger problem going on.




Some players are very invested in their character's personality and emotions, and being forced to run them in a way different than they were conceived and have been played previously can ruin them completely. I have seen players make new characters over having personality elements dictated to them. 



MrMyth said:


> I mean... again, I'm probably approaching this from a different angle than you guys. I game primarily to play with my friends. Say a friend in my game says to me, "Just so you know, I have a severe fear of spiders... big human-sized ones don't bug me because they are obviously unreal, but I don't think I could handle dealing with small, genuine skittering ones."
> 
> You know what I would do? I'd avoid throwing swarms of tiny skittering spiders at him!




I game primarily to play with my friends too. In the last 20 years, I've probably had less than 5 non-friends join our group, and they all became our friends quickly. We go camping together, we party together, we celebrate each others' birthdays and the births of children and go to each others' moms' funerals. But I don't need to game with all my friends, and some of them aren't the type of people I would want to game with. I want to game with people that aren't going to need to be babied with no spider swarms, or no rats, or no romance, or no deaths of innocents. I want people that are ready to avenge the rape of the women of the devastated town, that will fight through icky nasties. I want players who won't get weirded out when the Feywild party turns out to be full of drugs and sex. I want players who can keep their out-of-game issues _out-of-game._

Again, every table is different, and there is certainly a point when it is reasonable to ask a player to knock it off OOC; but that point is generally when that player is already bringing OOC issues into things. Someone too sensitive to handle an unspoken, unrequited love by another pc is too sensitive to sit at my table. 



MrMyth said:


> There are so many other things I can use in this game that the loss of one element is easy enough to handle. The Game being more important than the Player is simply a self-defeating concept for me - the entire point of the Game is to have fun with my friends in the first place!




Like I said, it's all about the types of players you have in your game- and the types you _want_ in your game. I very much do not want to have a player that demands that I drop _any_ elements from my game, up to and including surprising them with a run through _Return to the Tomb of Horrors_ in my regular campaign. 



MrMyth said:


> Remember, we aren't saying anyone needs to avoid plot elements because they _might_ offend someone. Just that, once you know something is a problem for the player, if that element can be removed without compromising the integrity of the campaign... I, at least, will generally find that a far better choice than losing a player entirely.




I guess I wouldn't have that kind of player in the first place. But again, to each their own- every table is different. Whereas you don't want to use plot elements that offend your players, I don't want players that are offended by plot elements. Different strokes and all that.

I don't know if you were around when the Book of Vile Darkness came out, but there was a big discussion about how everyone's campaign rated on the scale of "light" to "vile" or whatever (from the accompanying issue of Dragon). Mine includes cannibalism, ritual sacrifice, drug use, etc- it rated as "vile". So I'm sure that my attitude comes from the "everything goes" style of campaign I run.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I think it is at that point that your theory starts to break down. If the player in fact simply doesn't realize he's offending you, and has no intention of doing so, and is simply being his dwarven bard, if you turn to him and say, "You are making me really uncomfortable.", I would guess that the odds are better than not that player is going to be hurt and offended and possibly embarassed and possibly therefore angry. This is doubly true if the player isn't sympathetic to your cause of discomfort.




I guess we both have different expectations of people. 

The central idea of yours is that you can never inform another person that they are doing something that bothers you without somehow insulting them in the process just doesn't mesh with my experiences. Maybe I just am used to being around more reasonable people. 

But if I turn to my friend and say, "Hey, those insults are getting a bit too much for my tastes, could you tone it back?"

I'd expect him to basically see it as a non-event and gladly do so, rather than become angry or embarassed. 

Sure, if I approach him in an unreasonable fashion, it might turn out different. If I stop the game and, rather than talk to _him_ about it, instead turn to the DM and other players and say, "Hey, guys, Mike is being a jerk and ruining this game. DM, can you tell him to stop his immature, juvenile, childlike behavior and play the game like a decent human being?"

Then... yeah, I'm guessing he'll be upset. But getting upset simply because someone is honestly telling you how they feel about something you are doing? It's possible, I suppose, but I don't see it as 'more likely than not'. 

Now, if the other player isn't sympathetic to the issue? Yeah, there could be a problem. But if you don't say anything at all, then there is a _guaranteed_ problem (one player having the session ruined). Speaking up immediately gives a very good chance of fixing the problem immediately, and at least opens it up to discussion before it is too late. 



Celebrim said:


> This is a false extension of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is applicable to how you should behave, not how you can expect others to behave to you.




I think you are still too focused on rules here. Either way, I've got an expectation for how I would act and how I would assume my friends would act. If they don't act in this fashion, they aren't going to be sent to jail or anything - I'd probably just lose some respect for them. 

I expect most reasonable people to try and avoid behavior that causes distress to their friends. That doesn't mean I can enforce them in doing so or have passed some sort of law requiring it. That's just an expectation I have for how decent people act, myself included. If someone else doesn't live up to that expectation, so be it. 



Celebrim said:


> Yeah, because if someone is likely to become more and more resentful over time, it's just assured that if they start a conversation that its going to go swimmingly.




Well, no, not assured... but yes, a situation is much more likely to be defused _before_ tensions start running high. 

Say I've got a roommate. I do the dishes the first night. The next night, I figure he will - but he doesn't. I could speak up right away... but no, I don't want to risk insulting him, so I decide to just clean it this night. In fact, I figure if I clean it each night, and do a really good job, eventually he'll realize he's not pitching in and start helping out himself!

Of course, my roommate just assumes that I like doing the dishes, so never bothers helping with them. And so is completely taken by surprise when, a month later, I explode and tear into him for being a filthy disgusing human being that never helps with the chores!

Stiffling your discomfort, or assuming that it will simply get better later, typically just leads to greater tension. Speaking up immediately, when you can simply discuss it calmly and openly and set some ground rules, seems the best approach to me. 

And yeah - ideally, you might have set those rules when you decided to be roommates. (Ie, start the campaign). But sometimes an issue comes up that you didn't think to address, and I don't see why it is somehow offlimits to try and discuss the issue when it comes up - before it actually becomes a problem. 



Celebrim said:


> But as for this, yes, sometimes it's worth suggesting that you just shouldn't get really upset or uncomfortable over events that happen in-character, especially if the other guy is - as you have painted in him in this case - acting completely innocently and without malice. Sometimes the problem is with you, and at the very least you should be open to that possibility.




Sure, it is a possibility. Or, even more likely, it may just be a misunderstanding - my friend keeps making a comment that I think is an attack on my religion, but no, he's was talking about _broccoli_, I just misheard him. I've seen stuff like that happen. 

That doesn't change the fact that if I _do _get _genuinely_ upset over something that happens in character, I should speak up about it. If I have decided that yes, this is not a pleasant experience... then I should communicate that fact. Because if it _is _an accidental thing, then my friend can easily stop and everyone is happy. 

And if it isn't accidental, and there is malice behind it... well, maybe we will get a bit of a scuffle at the table. But getting it over with right away is probably better than one player spending the entire session intentionally harassing another player for fun.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2010)

> You're still missing the point. That's still telling player 1 how to run his character, or rather what he can't do with his character's thoughts and feelings. Hell no.




Your right to do _anything_ in a polite & civilized environment typically ends when it interferes with another's quiet enjoyment of that same space.

By asking a player to shift the focus of their PC's romantic intents from the PC of a player who isn't interested in it to a another, more receptive player/PC or an NPC, all you're doing is asking them to pick another target.  IOW, you're saying, "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?"

By allowing the situation to continue unaltered, you're giving tacit agreement to behavior the target may find oppressive, possibly even criminal.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2010)

You know, I could just imagine how that conversation would go down...

Player 2 : I'm playing a tough-as-nails thief who is self-reliant and doesn't like being treated like a girl!
Player 1 : I'm playing a dark-and-brooding ranger who secretly loves the thief and will do anything for her.
Player 2 : Eww! Uh, can you NOT do that?
Player 1 : HOW DARE YOU TRAMPLE MY CHARACTER CONCEPT!!!


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

the Jester said:


> What is at issue here is player 1's ability to decide on his motivations. His actions are always up to him too. Telling the other pc he's romantically interested _isn't even really part of the original scenario._ Still, I'll chew this one over for you. The answer is the same. PC 1 can say or do what he likes in game as long as he is willing to face the in-game consequences.
> 
> Honestly, what it all boils down to is- for my table, anyway- it is completely ridiculous to try to place your character "above" or "outside" of the campaign setting and the events of it, which include betrayal, death, murder and yes, romance. I would no more make PC 1 untouchable by romance than I would by evil cultists ("I'm uncomfortable with non-Christian religions in game), demons and devils ("I'm uncomfortable with the existence of Satanic imagery in game"), spiders ("I'm an arachnaphobe, and I'm uncomfortable with giant spider attacks") or any other element.




What little we know of this specific scenario indicates it wasn't part of the campaign setting, but something wholly initiated by Player 1, so outside the scope of the DM, and nothing that could have been prepared for beforehand.  The examples you mention are all things the DM can prepare players for to make sure no one would be upset by non-Christian imagery, violence or spiders.



the Jester said:


> If any of those are deal-breakers, by all means, _leave the table._ Quit the game. It's not for me to force you into an uncomfortable game, but neither is it for you to dictate how other players play their characters.




Maybe in my neck of the woods since good players are hard to come by I have a bit of bias, but I am shocked by the notion to encourage players to leave a gaming group at the first sign of the slightest interpersonal conflict.  I'd hate to see some of these groups ordering pizza, "Does anyone like pepperoni?  No?  Screw that, I'm outta here!"

Is there no room for conflict resolution?  As I mentioned in my previous post, we don't know how invested each player is in their position, beyond enough to voice them.  Perhaps 5 minutes of discussion can resolve this before you start kicking people to the curb.



the Jester said:


> Do you at least recognize that player 1 might have his fun spoiled by having player 2 tell him that his pc's motivations need to be re-written?




Certainly that is a possibility.  We don't know until we ask him, which is why an immediate quick OOC conversation on the matter lets each party state their case and see how it can be resolved.



the Jester said:


> In the original situation being discussed, I think player 1 has a much more legitimate case for being upset than player 2 does.




Also remember in the original situation Player 1's response to Player 2 mentioning being uncomfortable was to insult, berate and demean Player 2.  It was actually that, not the PC on PC romance, that sparked this line of discussion.



the Jester said:


> Again, each table is different, but my table includes 'adult themes' and the like. Heck, in a discussion after Book of Vile Darkness came out, my campaign was adjudged to be "vile" in its content- because it includes "vile" elements (human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc), not because those things happen all the time or constantly to or by pcs. If a player is uncomfortable with those elements- which indeed MAY come to affect a pc directly- he has no more place at a table like mine than a player who objected to non-Christian religious portrayals would (or worse, one who objected to parodies of Christianity or elements thereof, which occur aplenty in my game as well).




Which is absolutely fine, yet irrelevant.  Again, in this specific situation Player 1 intentionally kept the romantic angle a secret until springing it on Player 2.  It was nothing Player 2 could have been apprised of earlier to allow them to decide if that was the kind of campaign they would like to participate in.



the Jester said:


> I guess I fall firmly on the "Game is more important than any one player" side of things- or perhaps a more accurate way of putting this is "Each player should find the right table for him or her comfort zone, but should NOT try to change an established table's social contract to suit themselves."




Which is just as much as an absolutist mindset in the absence of all the facts as "Avoiding player offense at the exclusion of all else."  How do we know that no PC on PC romance wasn't part of this table's social contract, making Player 1 the offending party?


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> There seems to be quite a bit of conflict between players and DMs on this issue.  I guess I can't speak for all DMs but isn't the main reason they would want to meddle in character backgrounds is to help enhance the campaign and make it a more fun experience for all involved?




Naturally. But of course many people have had bad GM experiences (or committed them), ranging from the clueless and annoying to the truly hurtful.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2010)

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?


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I agree.
> 
> But if you're foisting off an unwanted twist on someone, you've jus imposed a "fun tax" on one of your players; someone will already be starting from a negative point.
> 
> (Which is why I never do to anyone's PC what I'd object to being done to one of mine...in substance or method.)




To be fair, un-asked for is not always unwanted.  If a player hands in a player background, and I see that with some tweaks I can use some elements to help further the campaign and, hopefully, all the players' enjoyment.  Without revealing the reasons (as that would give away plot lines) I suggest those changes to the player and gauge his response.  If he feels it would utterly destroy his PC concept, I would most likely back off.  But he might feel that the changes gives him ideas he hadn't thought of.

Also, on that point, something in the PC background might not be game changing on its face, but conflicts with something in the campaign I can't reveal.  For example, a player says his PC is related to minor nobility.  Nothing that would give him an in-game advantage, just some extra flavor.  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.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Sure - as I've said several times already, it's possible that this might reduce the fun for Player 1. But I also feel that the loss of fun for him is likely to be significantly less than the loss of fun for Player 2 if the unpleasant situation continues. And if that isn't the case - if Player 1's fun _actually requires_ forcing an uncomfortable situation on another player - than there may be more serious issues at play.




This brought a weird corollary in my mind between Player 1 trying to convince Player 2 to role-play romance and other, romantically involved discussions that might occur in real life:

Player 1: Cmon, try it, you might like it.
Player 2: I don't know, it doesn't seem like fun.
Player 1: I'll tell you what, try it once and if you don't like it we don't have to try it again...

All we need now is tequila.

Sorry, odd tangent.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 4, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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?




No. I'd have to say that's not even close.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I think it is at that point that your theory starts to break down.  If the player in fact simply doesn't realize he's offending you, and has no intention of doing so, and is simply being his dwarven bard, if you turn to him and say, "You are making me really uncomfortable.", I would guess that the odds are better than not that player is going to be hurt and offended and possibly embarassed and possibly therefore angry.  This is doubly true if the player isn't sympathetic to your cause of discomfort.




Ultimately it comes down to subjective opinions on what is considered reasonable to get offended by.  And like art and pornography, it is hard to describe, easy to tell when it is happening.

So if I was playing a halfling and my friend was playing a half-ogre and he kept berating my character about being short, I would totally role-play it as it is obvious he isn't really insulting me.

If I am playing a Dwarf and another player kept referring to me by an in game racist term like 'stunty' I would still be ok.

If I was playing a modern game like Vampire or something, and a player role-playing a racist kept using modern racist terms (n word, for example) I would probably have a problem with that.

But that is me.  I am sure there are gaming groups out there that would not be offended by any of the above.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2010)

the Jester said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2010)

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 (Oct 4, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2010)

> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

Too many people to posrep them for great ideas.  



			
				Edvamp said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

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 (Oct 5, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> 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:
> 
> ...




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?


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 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.




Ok, that's good. Is it a matter of degree, or is the issue one of annoyance versus authorial privilege? Or do both enter into the examples you are putting forward? Help me understand where you would draw the line.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 5, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Player A is *doing something to Player B's character*.




I disagree fundamentally with this assessment. Player A is deciding the emotional context for his roleplaying regarding player B's character.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Help me understand where you would draw the line.




We're social creatures, and have all kinds of hardwiring that lets us read each others' emotional states.  I'm pretty sure you can tell if someone is genuinely upset about something.

Because there is no hard & fast line: what one finds offensive another sees as a RP opportunity.  I, for one, don't have problems with intraparty romances, and have even played some out.  My favorite was an unrequited love an alien gladiatrix had for a human gazetteer- he was too frail for her to act upon her feelings.

But, for whatever reason, others would be extremely weirded out Bt that plotline.

So my answer is as it has always been throughout this thread: if someone objects to the plot-twist, respect their objection and ask someone else because while you may be able to detect that it agitates them, you have no way to tell the depth of their agitation but for their own say-so.

And a plotline in a RPG is insufficient justification to disrespect someone's position.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2010)

the Jester said:


> I disagree fundamentally with this assessment. Player A is deciding the emotional context for his roleplaying regarding player B's character.




That's splitting hairs pretty finely.  Considering that, presuming Player A is a good roleplayer, that decision will affect every single interaction these two characters have, to the point where Player A will base decisions on this relationship (which was brought up in the original example), it's not like this is happening in a vacuum. 

Now, if it happens 100% in Player A's head and never comes to the table, well, sure, then Player B obviously can never complain because well, Player B will never know what's going on.  

But, since Player A's actions are predicated upon the presumption of a love interest, even if it's not reciprocated, Player B is forced into this situation.  Player A's character's behaviour towards Player B's character is entirely the issue here.  So, yes, Player A's character is most certainly doing something to Player B's character.

Look how you phrased that.  Player A decides his emotional context for his character's relationship with Player B's character.  That's the whole point.  Player A unilaterally decided this, which does impact Player B's game without any consultation with Player B.  

He did so in the thought that this would make for an interesting game.  

He is mistaken.  It might be more interesting for him, although, I strongly doubt it.  Knowing that his behavior is making the other player uncomfortable and knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's game, how could he honestly claim that it's making the game better and more interesting?

And to me, that's the whole point.  The basic purpose of introducing this was to make the game more fun.  Sure, no problems.  But, it failed.  It did not make the game more fun because it outright ruins someone else's good time.

Anyone who would continue to enjoy their behavior at the expense of others isn't someone I really want at my table.  As soon as I know that my behavior is ruining someone else's fun, why wouldn't I stop?  Sure, I might be having fun, but, fun isn't a zero sum game.  At least it should never be.  Knowing that my fun is ruining someone else's fun is going to make my fun, well, unfun.

Am I wrong for thinking that?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2010)

> He did so in the thought that this would make for an interesting game.
> 
> He is mistaken. It might be more interesting for him, although, I strongly doubt it. Knowing that his behavior is making the other player uncomfortable and knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's game, how could he honestly claim that it's making the game better and more interesting?




In another, RW context, that's the kind of behavior that shows up in the definition of stalking.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 5, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 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?




I agree that Player A should stop once Player B states they are uncomfortable, and I am certainly not portraying A as a victim.

I just believe, "I am uncomfortable" is not an absolute, universal Get Out of Jail Free card without context.  I was replying to the notion that 100% of the time someone saying they are uncomfortable means the other person is wrong or should stop.  I would think that you would need to know the situation, the context, when it was said before making that determination.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 5, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That's splitting hairs pretty finely.  Considering that, presuming Player A is a good roleplayer, that decision will affect every single interaction these two characters have, to the point where Player A will base decisions on this relationship (which was brought up in the original example), it's not like this is happening in a vacuum.
> 
> Now, if it happens 100% in Player A's head and never comes to the table, well, sure, then Player B obviously can never complain because well, Player B will never know what's going on.
> 
> ...




To be fair, Player A (and when did it become Players A & B instead of 1 & 2?  I need a scorecard!) is not mistaken in trying something new, even without consulting Player B.  Sometimes really innovative and fun ideas come from off the cuff, unrehearsed attempts.  The mistake was, as posited in the original scenario, when Player B said he was uncomfortable, Player A reacted by saying he would insult and demean Player B.

Players should be encouraged to try new things and explore new avenues, with the caveat that if it doesn't work as anticipated they be willing to pull back.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 5, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Look how you phrased that.  Player A decides his emotional context for his character's relationship with Player B's character.  That's the whole point.  Player A unilaterally decided this, which does impact Player B's game without any consultation with Player B.
> 
> He did so in the thought that this would make for an interesting game.
> 
> He is mistaken.  It might be more interesting for him, although, I strongly doubt it.  Knowing that his behavior is making the other player uncomfortable and knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's game, how could he honestly claim that it's making the game better and more interesting?




But it is Player B's objection that makes him mistaken. If Player B did not object, Player A would be on solid ground. So is the problem Player A's decision, or Player B's objection?  That is the problem with trying to find fault in this situation. 

If the problem is that Player A's actions are objectionable, and the definition of objectionable is that Player B objects, the "problem" is that Player B objects to Player A's actions. It's circular logic. We need some definition of acceptability outside whether Player B objects. We need some measure of whether their objection is reasonable, and whether their request to remedy the problem is reasonable. That is equally true of asking Player A whether his presumption is reasonable. If the root of the problem is that Player A and Player B simply want different things, that is simply a conflict. It does not seem fair to resolve it in favor of Player B based on the arbitrary criterion that we are considering Player A's stubborn refusal to be the cause rather than Player B's stubborn refusal.

So as a GM, I would ask the players to "come to the table," that is, to act with good intent toward all. If no truly satisfactory solution is available, then I am left wondering, who has the greater willingness? Whichever player is less likely to leave the group despite not getting what they want is my preferred player. If Player A simply opins, "This sucks" when asked to retcon the emotional attachment, while Player B says, "This is unacceptable and you must stop at once," Player B has signalled their willlingess to terminate the group. Player A, however, has only signified they will be unhappy with the decision, as they continue with the group. Since Player A has signalled a willingness to continue and Player B has not... I choose Player A. 

Obviously the context may not fit what I have filled in, but there it is in a nutshell, as I see it. It's kind of a shame that Player A does not have to compromise if Player B quits, as that might be a useful learning experience, but that is Player B's doing by quitting. 

If it turns out Player B is not ready to drop out of the group over the issue, I hope they rephrase their request in a more honest and less manipulative form: "I wish you would not. Please stop." The question must be asked in a matter that invites a real answer. Someone might be unwilling to state this because, "I do not prefer this," is not as aggressive as telling other people what to do. But if you say, "Do not do this," but you actually mean, "Please do not do this," you are being somewhat dishonest, manipulative, and perhaps even fearful. To ask is to invite refusal. If you do not ask and do not invite refusal, about a very ordinary kind of roleplaying situation, I think you are going to have to take responsibility for the fact you are oppressing your viewpoint on others.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 5, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That's splitting hairs pretty finely.  Considering that, presuming Player A is a good roleplayer, that decision will affect every single interaction these two characters have, to the point where Player A will base decisions on this relationship (which was brought up in the original example), it's not like this is happening in a vacuum.




The way I see, unless he actually does something to player B's pc, he's just roleplaying. Of course it's not in a vacuum; it would be silly to say it was. But player A deciding how his character feels about something is no more "doing something" to pc B than I'm "doing something" to a random person if I find them attractive, or for that matter than I'm "doing something" to a good friend that I'm pining over.

Anyway, as I said, each table is different, but clearly my tolerance for EXTREME! sensitivity is far lower than that of others. Because unless, as I keep saying, unless there's something OOC character going on here, I cannot see Player B's reaction as anything but extreme oversensitivity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2010)

Amazing.

You've effectively said that you value a RPG plotline over your relationship with a fellow human being.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2010)

the Jester said:


> The way I see, unless he actually does something to player B's pc, he's just roleplaying. Of course it's not in a vacuum; it would be silly to say it was. But player A deciding how his character feels about something is no more "doing something" to pc B than I'm "doing something" to a random person if I find them attractive, or for that matter than I'm "doing something" to a good friend that I'm pining over.
> 
> Anyway, as I said, each table is different, but clearly my tolerance for EXTREME! sensitivity is far lower than that of others. Because unless, as I keep saying, unless there's something OOC character going on here, I cannot see Player B's reaction as anything but extreme oversensitivity.




I think we've all fairly accepted that Character A is actually _showing_ the romantic desire.

As was stated, if Character A never actually did anything, Player B would've never even known the desire for the romantic plot was there in the first place.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2010)

Pawsplay, I cannot even begin to comment on your post, as you are stating that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being.

It's just mind blowing.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


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



There are?

At times, our games *are* spirited debate/shouting matches.  Some of those times it progresses from there to spirited fists and weapons and spells...

Best part is, the same players who often fight like cats on Saturday night (goody-good PCs vs. a PC Necromancer) are just as often unified on Sunday night in the arguments in another campaign (old age and alcohol vs. youth and enthusiasm).  And much fun is had by all. 

Lan-"beer was there too"-efan


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 5, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Pawsplay, I cannot even begin to comment on your post, as you are stating that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being.
> 
> It's just mind blowing.




On the contrary, I value real relationships far more than a gaming group held together on the pretense of tolerance. As I have outlined, my inclination is to keep the group intact and include everyone as much as they are willing and able to participate. Certainly, any one gaming group is not exactly equivalent to my entire social circle, and I would not force someone into situation they dislike, whether they are Player A or Player B. I don't even know what you mean about valuing somebody's imaginary elf. I think you must have some great misunderstanding of my viewpoint if you think I said anything close to that.

The justification of my position is basically this: I am, customarily, the GM for my circle of friends more often than not. I have had great luck running games for years at a time, both with old college mates as well as with recent acquaintances. Object to my principles under any theory you want. If you want to blow your mind, recognize that you are saying you are literally unable to comprehend a pragmatic, successful approach.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2010)

> There are?




Well, even though our sessions have gotten noisy or testy, nobody's been assaulted or arrested yet.  As always, YMMV.

Anywho, I'm done with this thread because nothing I can think of can bridge the gap in what I think constitutes civil and respectful behavior and a willingness to hold a plot twist in higher regard than a relationship with another person.

AFAIK, I'm not at the table of any of those who feel that way, but if I am, I know how to handle it.  Forewarned is forearmed.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 5, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> But it is Player B's objection that makes him mistaken. If Player B did not object, Player A would be on solid ground. So is the problem Player A's decision, or Player B's objection?  That is the problem with trying to find fault in this situation.
> 
> If the problem is that Player A's actions are objectionable, and the definition of objectionable is that Player B objects, the "problem" is that Player B objects to Player A's actions. It's circular logic. We need some definition of acceptability outside whether Player B objects. We need some measure of whether their objection is reasonable, and whether their request to remedy the problem is reasonable. That is equally true of asking Player A whether his presumption is reasonable. If the root of the problem is that Player A and Player B simply want different things, that is simply a conflict. It does not seem fair to resolve it in favor of Player B based on the arbitrary criterion that we are considering Player A's stubborn refusal to be the cause rather than Player B's stubborn refusal.




You are asking for an objective, universal standard for social situations and interpersonal relationships, and it just doesn't exist.  As I was saying in the last page you cannot account for all situations without knowing the context, the people involved, etc.  There are too many unknowns here for us to decide if Player A is just being stubborn or if Player B is just being overly sensitive.  In some groups or situations, Player A is at fault, in others Player B is at fault.

Among my friends I know we say things that strangers might consider offensive.  For us, "I hope you die on your birthday" is basically Hello.  And sometimes the things said involve race, ethnicity, or whatever, and in most other social situations I would probably consider horrifically offensive.

And, yet again, I would like to bring up that a large reason for the number of responses against Player A was not his attempt to role-play, but rather the response to hearing Player B's taking offense by insulting and demeaning Player B.  



pawsplay said:


> So as a GM, I would ask the players to "come to the table," that is, to act with good intent toward all. If no truly satisfactory solution is available, then I am left wondering, who has the greater willingness? Whichever player is less likely to leave the group despite not getting what they want is my preferred player. If Player A simply opins, "This sucks" when asked to retcon the emotional attachment, while Player B says, "This is unacceptable and you must stop at once," Player B has signalled their willlingess to terminate the group. Player A, however, has only signified they will be unhappy with the decision, as they continue with the group. Since Player A has signalled a willingness to continue and Player B has not... I choose Player A.




No pistols at dawn?



pawsplay said:


> Obviously the context may not fit what I have filled in, but there it is in a nutshell, as I see it. It's kind of a shame that Player A does not have to compromise if Player B quits, as that might be a useful learning experience, but that is Player B's doing by quitting.




If I may put on the Psychologist hat for a moment (knew this degree would come in handy one day), in any group dynamic of two or more people there are going to be varying roles of dominance and submission, winners and losers, with tons of compromises going on constantly.  As conversations and other social aspects flow there are going to be people who control a conversation, then give up control, then re-establish it.  This goes into all manner of aspects, where you go to eat, what movies to go see or what channel on TV, topics of conversation.  And unless you have one really dominating personality this control cycles throughout the group.  So in any group you are constantly compromising, giving up, but also gaining, control of various situations.  And 99% of the time you barely notice it and don't really care.

This situation is just one of those.  We, being the analytical, overly strategic nerds that we are, are examing every possible aspect of this scenario over the past (believe it or not) two weeks.  But in reality, in most groups this 'conflict' might take 30-60 seconds and could be as easy as:

Player A: I profess my love for [Player B's PC]
Player B: Hey, I'd prefer we not go there.  I'm just here to kill orcs.
Player A: Eh, fair enough.  Hey DM, can you throw in a love interest for me at some point?

OR

Player A: I profess my love for [Player B's PC]
Player B: Wait, what?  When did this come about?  I'm not too sure I'm cool with this.
Player A: Let's give it a try, I promise not to get weird but I think it could lead to some fun story lines.
Player B: OK, but just remember I have class.

Or some such.  The majority of times when these kinds of conflicts come about in social situations one side will usually give in, and not really even consider themselves to have 'lost' the conflict.  This is the only way group dynamics can work, otherwise every decision no matter how insignificant could end up as a brawl (what do you mean you got Diet Coke???)


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, even though our sessions have gotten noisy or testy, nobody's been assaulted or arrested yet.




And how many of your spirited debates have ended that way?


----------



## the Jester (Oct 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Amazing.
> 
> You've effectively said that you value a RPG plotline over your relationship with a fellow human being.




No, I've said that I don't have to game with someone to be friends with them, and that not all my friends are the types of people I want to have at my table. 

To repeat: I cannot imagine this happening at my table because I don't game with people with the kinds of thin skins where it would come up, but every table is different and has a different level of tolerance for this. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with my approach.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 5, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 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?




Again, you know that people playing D&D makes some uncomfortable.

If you really believed that this was true, you wouldn't be playing D&D.

Are you playing D&D?

I guess you don't really believe that this is true.  Or else you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being.

It's just mind blowing.


EDIT:  And that's tongue-in-cheek, yes, but I hope it demonstrates the basic problem with assuming that "I'm uncomfortable" actually, by itself and requiring no context or qualifiers, works as you say you think it does.  I can guarantee you that those two words, without anything that makes my discomfort reasonable or more important than other factors, has never gotten me out of work, out of doing homework when I was younger, or out of chores then or now.  In Basic Training, it certainly wouldn't have made the drill sergeant stop training.  "Gee, hon, I'm uncomfortable doing the dishes tonight" would get me a night on the couch at best.

Sometimes a declaration of discomfort is important, and should be heeded.  Sometimes it is not, and should not.  Qualifiers are required to determine which of those times this is.  Even if that qualifier is that you only care about the discomfort of persons with differing viewpoints willing to sit around discussing while laughing, drinking brewskis and generally having a good time.



RC


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Pawsplay, I cannot even begin to comment on your post, as you are stating that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being.
> 
> It's just mind blowing.




Oh good grief.  

Can we stop the hyperbole and holier than thou attacks on people?

Even if that is what he's saying - and its not - then the only difference demonstrated in this thread between you two is which of the two players you'd kick to the curb and possibly how self-righteous you'd feel doing it.  There are two players involved in this argument and they want things which conflict.  The main difference between you two on this matter is which of those players you see as better suited to gaming with the group and how you rationalize it.  

As I said right at the beginning, I see the two stands as being two sides of the same coin.  It is my very strong suspicion that the very people who are standing firmest on player #1's right to not be offended, who would be most likely to become angry if they found themselves in player #2's shoes and player #1 was making a request that they couldn't sympathize with.  Then you'd find them making Pawplay's argument without the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance. 

Consider Hussar's relationship to my position over the course of the thread.   In every part of the thread I'm taking a coherent position that a player should be free from interference and allowed to play his character.  In the first half of the thread, to the extent Hussar can imagine that my position is a defense of him as a player, Hussar is cheering me on and saying 'Give that wise man some XP!' and stuff like that.   But as soon as I take the same coin and show him the other side of it, Hussar is shouting me down as being the sort of cad who values the purity of roleplay more than he does people.  The only real difference I can see those is whose shoes Hussar is imagining himself in.  And that's how people are.  That's not some failing particular to Hussar.  I'm only picking on him because he's been particularly open and honest about his feelings in this thread.  (Some reward for his nobility, huh?)  But that's humanity.  I'd be very surprised indeed if you weren't a member of that class, and look out indeed if you start saying things like, "I'd never do that."

That's the reason I've tried not to pick sides in this.  Because it's my strong suspicion that the two players would trade hats were the situation slightly different.  What would worry me most in either player is simply how unwilling they are to comprimise and how little they consider the feelings of the the other person at the table.  I'm completely uninterested about which side of this situation you take a stand on because IMO, both player #1 and player #2 are saying the exact same thing and the only difference is how they superficially try to justify it.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, you know that people playing D&D makes some uncomfortable.
> 
> If you really believed that this was true, you wouldn't be playing D&D.
> 
> ...




No, it's not so mind blowing. People who are uncomfortable with other people playing D&D aren't at my D&D table. They're *not* part of the social situation, so they get no say at all in the situation.

But in any social situation where a *participant* says "Woah, I'm uncomfortable with where this is going," that should be a signal for everyone to reassess what they're doing.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> No, it's not so mind blowing. People who are uncomfortable with other people playing D&D aren't at my D&D table. They're *not* part of the social situation, so they get no say at all in the situation.
> 
> But in any social situation where a *participant* says "Woah, I'm uncomfortable with where this is going," that should be a signal for everyone to reassess what they're doing.




Ok, fine.  But that is circular.

Essentially you are saying, "By definition, anyone who I am playing the game with will be basicly comfortable with anything that I'm comfortable with, and so, whenever they raise an objection it will be one that I'm sympathetic to or I wouldn't be playing with them in the first place."

And ultimately, that is exactly what RC is saying.  The only difference is that I think RC is cognizant of that, which is why he is throwing out examples of people who are uncomfortable with the things you assume anyone you'd ever play with is comfortable with.   And you are responding, "Well, yeah, but _I'd never play with those people.  Those people don't get to tell us how to play._"

Which is exactly his point.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 5, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Ok, fine.  But that is circular.
> 
> Essentially you are saying, "By definition, anyone who I am playing the game with will be basicly comfortable with anything that I'm comfortable with, and so, whenever they raise an objection it will be one that I'm sympathetic to or I wouldn't be playing with them in the first place."
> 
> ...




Thank you; you are exactly correct.

It should also be noted that "a participant of the social situation" is an artificial boundary.  Jack Chick is (or was) a participant of society; people who are uncomfortable with D&D are participants of the same society you are.  Saying you exclude them from your personal sphere is a tacit admission that "I'm uncomfortable" isn't sufficient to make you stop what you are doing.  There are qualifiers.

Frankly, if "I'm uncomfortable" was sufficient to make people stop what they are doing, no one anywhere would ever do anything.

EDIT:  Frankly, I find it odd that it is contentious at all to say, within a social engagement, that a problem should be dealt with first within the context of that engagement if possible.  If not possible, it is best to seek a compromise, and only if that fails should one determine who gets kicked to the curb.

SECOND EDIT:  Imagine that I was Jack Chick.  I am concerned about your playing D&D, but your reasoning is that I am not part of your social situation, so I have no say.  My viewpoint, however, is that you are part of *my* social situation, so I do have a say.

Imagine now that I was playing Jackie Chick, female thief.  I am concerned about your playing D&D in such a way that your fighter has always loved Jackie Chick, but your reasoning is that I am not actually part of your character's situation, so I have no say.  My viewpoint, however, is that you are part of *my* character's situation, so I do have a say.

I would hope that the parallel is obvious.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Oct 5, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Ok, fine.  But that is circular.
> 
> Essentially you are saying, "By definition, anyone who I am playing the game with will be basicly comfortable with anything that I'm comfortable with, and so, whenever they raise an objection it will be one that I'm sympathetic to or I wouldn't be playing with them in the first place."
> 
> ...




No, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. People outside the social circle don't get a say in what's going on inside the social circle. So RC's attempt to twist Prof Cirno's statement fails to be convincing. It's clear what Prof Cirno's context was. There's no circular reference there at all. If someone is uncomfortable with anybody playing D&D, they're not in the particular social situation of the D&D game. So their input is irrelevant. The same would be true for any social situation in which someone *isn't present*, whether comfortable with the context of the situation or not. 

But for people who do choose to be in the social circle, they don't lose all ability to object to specific subject matter just because they're comfortable with the main gatekeeper for the social circle - playing in my D&D game. I have players who *would* object to certain subject matter being brought to the table. So there are topics I inject into the game.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 5, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I see a number of people claiming an absolute right to not be offended.
> 
> I see no one claiming an absolute right to offend.




I don't think so...

For myself, I'm not claiming any rights at all. 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. 

And, at the same time, I'm saying that if I discover I've offended somebody, I'll try and avoid doing so in the future, and that this is behavior I simply assume is a default for my friends and most civilized people. 

But these aren't absolute positions. I certainly admit that there may be times when someone could be offended, and realize the issue isn't that big a deal, and simply move past it. And there are times when someone else might complain about my behavior, and I wouldn't agree that their complaints had merit. I just don't see that as particularly the case in most of the examples we've discussed. 



pawsplay said:


> Ok, that's good. Is it a matter of degree, or is the issue one of annoyance versus authorial privilege? Or do both enter into the examples you are putting forward? Help me understand where you would draw the line.




To sort of follow up on the above... I don't think an absolute line can be drawn. But as I've mentioned before in this thread, I do think one has a much stronger claim to objection over elements that they have been unwillingly connected to. Objecting to another PC's romance is very different from objecting to a romance being forced on your PC unwillingly. 



the Jester said:


> The way I see, unless he actually does something to player B's pc, he's just roleplaying. Of course it's not in a vacuum; it would be silly to say it was. But player A deciding how his character feels about something is no more "doing something" to pc B than I'm "doing something" to a random person if I find them attractive, or for that matter than I'm "doing something" to a good friend that I'm pining over.




If the situation is literally imprisoned in Player 1's mind for the entirety of the game, then... yeah, I suppose. But that isn't the case, here. We actively see Player 1's PC acting on their love for Player 2's PC. This may be out of the sight of Player 2's PC, but not out of the sight of Player 2. They have to sit at the table and watch as their PC is subjected to behavior that, yes, can feel very much like being stalked. 

If you are infatuated with a good friend, but never let it influence your relationship with them, that isn't a problem. But if they notice you are constantly doing favors for them, secretly paying for their meals, trying to handle disputes for them with other people, and happen to just be in the area around them at all times to make sure they are safe.... even if your intentions are absolutely pure, that behavior could absolutely bother them. 

The original scenario seemed to be along these lines - Player 1's PC was in love with Player 2's PC, and because that love, went out of their way to protect and help them, and basically built their life around the other character. That is absolutely "doing something" to them - it is directing behavior towards them that Player 2 is not a fan of, and wants to stop. 

If the situation is truly entirely within Player 1's head and never impacts the game at all, then sure, he can come up with whatever background elements he desires. 



pawsplay said:


> But it is Player B's objection that makes him mistaken. If Player B did not object, Player A would be on solid ground. So is the problem Player A's decision, or Player B's objection? That is the problem with trying to find fault in this situation.




Neither! 

We've said this several times, yet it keeps getting overlooked. There is nothing wrong with Player 1 trying out some new roleplaying element. There is nothing wrong with Player 2 not wanted to be part of this roleplaying element. The problem is Player 1 _persisting_ with the roleplaying element _in spite_ of Player 2's objections. 

And yes, that will not universally be true, as we've tried to make clear. But I certainly find it to be the case in many of the examples we've looked at. There is no fault with either of them at the start - the fault comes from one player intentionally causing discomfort to another player, and that only happens once an objection has been raised and one player persists in spite of it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> No, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. People outside the social circle don't get a say in what's going on inside the social circle. So RC's attempt to twist Prof Cirno's statement fails to be convincing. It's clear what Prof Cirno's context was. There's no circular reference there at all. If someone is uncomfortable with anybody playing D&D, they're not in the particular social situation of the D&D game. So their input is irrelevant. The same would be true for any social situation in which someone *isn't present*, whether comfortable with the context of the situation or not.




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.

See the Second Edit on my previous post.

In effect, you are saying that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being's discomfort, provided that the first person is at your table, and the second person isn't.  Which is okay, btw, and actually necessary to do anything.  Fooling yourself about it, however, is less okay IMHO.  YMMV.

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?  

I very, very much doubt that you do.

(And, apart from the exercise itself demonstrating that the theory is wrong, I don't think that you should.  Your reaction to this post, though, will certainly demonstrate that qualifiers are required before simply kowtowing to "I'm uncomfortable"!   )

RC


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 5, 2010)

the Jester said:


> But I don't need to game with all my friends, and some of them aren't the type of people I would want to game with. I want to game with people that aren't going to need to be babied with no spider swarms, or no rats, or no romance, or no deaths of innocents.






the Jester said:


> Anyway, as I said, each table is different, but clearly my tolerance for EXTREME! sensitivity is far lower than that of others. Because unless, as I keep saying, unless there's something OOC character going on here, I cannot see Player B's reaction as anything but extreme oversensitivity.




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. 

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.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> In effect, you are saying that you literally value a person's imaginary elf over another human being's discomfort, provided that the first person is at your table, and the second person isn't. Which is okay, btw, and actually necessary to do anything. Fooling yourself about it, however, is less okay IMHO. YMMV.




Yes, I value the enjoyment of my time gaming with friends over the concerns of strangers whose opinions I don't agree with. 

That doesn't seem a reasonable comparison to valuing the comfort of one person playing at my table with another friend's right to engage in behavior that I find objectionable. 

(Note that for the purpose of the above statement that yes, I am assuming that the behavior in question is indeed objectionable by my standards.) 



Raven Crowking said:


> 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?




The difference is, this is a discussion forum. One of the goals of the forum is to _discuss_ things, which almost inherently involves dealing with conflicting viewpoints. It also encompasses an immense social base as compared to a small and relatively tight-knit circle of gamers, who I would usually expect to be friends. 

Thus, if someone objects to what I'm saying because I disagree with them, I don't think that is particularly reasonable in a forum designed to address disagreements. 

On the other hand, if someone said, "Hey, I don't think you meant any offense, but your comments about elf-playing gamers really bothered me" - yeah, I'd probably try to avoid whatever language I used that accidently insulted someone. 

Going beyond that, if someone started using actual slurs or discussing topics forbidden on the messageboard, I'd expect a decent person would retract such things once people pointed out they weren't ok... and if they didn't, I'd expect moderators to take action. 

If a thread was created explicitly for such talk, on the other hand, anyone participating in that thread wouldn't really have room to complain. 

Thus... sure, if you join a game where they tell you up-front it may involve you being forced to confront situations you would find unpleasant, and you agreed to that, you don't have room for complaint. 

But I don't think that is a default assumption of the game. And I'll continue to expect that decent people will back off from something once they learn it is bothering a friend, and that a DM will try and stop such behavior once he is made aware of it.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Oh good grief.
> 
> /snip
> 
> ...




Close, but, it's your first point which is why I disagree so strongly with you.  You see both sides as being essentially the same thing.  I do not.  Someone who chooses to do something that they know makes another person uncomfortable, and continues to do so over the objections of the other person is placing their fun over someone else.

Not only that, but their fun is now completely independent of the fun of the other people at the table.

In other words, Player 1 can continue to have fun, even knowing that his fun is ruining someone else's fun.

OTOH, Player 2's objections are not actually ruining Player 1's fun.  Because, Player 1, IMO, shouldn't be having fun once he knows that his actions are ruining someone else's enjoyment.

In other words, Player 1, in all good faith, brings something to the table that he thinks will increase the enjoyment at the table.  This is laudable and should always be encouraged.

However, Player 1 is wrong.  It didn't increase the enjoyment at the table.  It actively reduces the enjoyment at the table unless, of course, Player 1 can continue to enjoy his behavior knowing that his behavior is ruining someone else's fun.

I don't play with people like that.

To me, these are not simply two sides of the same coin.  It doesn't matter if Player 1 is a player or the DM.  His goals are very good.  Everyone should try to bring things to the table that people will enjoy.  And, romance, in and of itself, is certainly not something bad.  There's every reason to believe that this would work.

But, at the end of the day, it didn't work.  The experiment failed.  Adding this element did not serve the purpose that it was intended to - increasing enjoyment at the table.

Isn't that the best justification for stopping something?  When something you try fails, you either change what your doing and do something else, or you stop doing it entirely.

What you don't do is carry on doing the same thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 5, 2010)

Jack Chick said:
			
		

> You see both sides as being essentially the same thing.  I do not.  Someone who chooses to do something that they know makes another person uncomfortable, and continues to do so over the objections of the other person is placing their fun over someone else.
> 
> Not only that, but their fun is now completely independent of the fun of other people.
> 
> ...




Just to point out the obvious parallel.


RC


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 5, 2010)

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 (Oct 5, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 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._




MrMyth said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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!



the Jester said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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.



Raven Crowking said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

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 (Oct 5, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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. 



Celebrim said:


> 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. 



Celebrim said:


> 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:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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 (Oct 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just to point out the obvious parallel.
> 
> 
> RC




Really?

*Really?*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 5, 2010)

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 (Oct 5, 2010)

the Jester said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 5, 2010)

Again, in order to determine whether or not "I'm uncomfortable" is reason to stop, do you agree that we need to consider the context?  Why does that need what you would consider "a proper argument" to answer?  You either think the context important, or not.

If the context is important, then we agree on the larger issue -- do I need to consider the context?

If the context is not important, AFAICT there is no twisting going on.  Unwillingness to consider the importance of context is and was, AFAICT, a major factor involved with the anti-D&D movement.  I.e., "It contains spells, which makes me uncomfortable" united with an unwillingness to consider, or to consider important, the context of those spells.   Etc., etc.

I have had the dubious pleasure of engaging in those arguments in the 1980's.  IME, the arguments being made here mirror them very, very closely.  YMMV, and YEMV.

Now, in deference to the site, and to its fine moderators, I am going to do my utter best to tone down the conversation (from my end).  But the point remains outstanding:  The anti-D&D movement doesn't limit its social circle at their door; they are concerned with the larger community.  The guy playing the secret admirer doesn't extend the other player's decision-making ability to that secret admirer character; he limits it to that player's own character.  Neither of these limitations or extensions is inherently more valid than the other.  IOW, while I agree that you dismissed the point upthread, I disagree that your dismissal was a rational one.



RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2010)

Give me an example where Person A *does something* to Person B, Person B states they are uncomfortable, and Person A is in the right in not backing off.

Until you do, you are babbling and bringing up unrelated instances.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 5, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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.




I think it is easier than that.  Depending on context you can create situations where Player 1 is wrong, Player 2 is wrong, neither are wrong and both are wrong, with the information we have on hand.  I do think that with what we do know about this situation my opinion is that this particular fictional group did not have an existing rule about PC on PC romance.  The situation probably had never come up so Player 1 might have wanted to try it out.



Celebrim said:


> 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.*




Completely agreed.



Celebrim said:


> 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."**




Well, if a group decides in advance to restrict certain elements, say a group with Christian gamers deciding not to including demon summoning, for example, wouldn't that be an example of restricting game elements because making the Christian players comfortable was deemed more important?  To be clear, I am not saying such a rule would be wrong, just showing that establishing rules in advance doesn't mean making the game more important than making a friend comfortable.  It could mean the exact opposite.



Celebrim said:


> 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."




Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but one thing I responded to in this regard was a comment by ProfessorCirno where he stated:


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




Now I took 'every other social situation in the world' to mean any kind of social interaction between two or more people, not just the social circle of you and your friends and not just the social circle of your gaming group.  So that would include parties, restaurants, people on a bus, family, internet forums, places of employment, etc.  I was just trying to show that there could be social situations where someone expressing discomfort does not automatically mean time to stop.  Assigning absolutes to such a wide range of activities involving people makes me, for lack of a better word, uncomfortable.  

What I did not mean to imply was that someone's feelings should be considered less important just because you game with them, and I hope I did not give that impression.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 5, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 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.




Aargh.

First of all, kicking a friend out of a game _that they will not be comfortable playing_ is probably a good way to _continue_ a friendship. Rather than "force" him or her to deal with spiders (or what have you, pick an example) or "force" me to limit my game, why not acknowledge that it's better to hang out at the movies, the park, over beers and dinner, etc. _without_ gaming together?

Secondly, I have not been saying I'd kick the guy with issues out of my table, I've been saying he wouldn't be there in the first place. Pre-selection to avoid trouble is better than making someone compromise their fun to smooth stuff over.

Are you saying that anyone that wants in a given campaign should be allowed to join? Don't you think there's something to be said for picking your players? Are you really arguing that I can't be friends with someone if I don't game with them? Or that I can't be friends with someone after I've said, "Sorry, you don't seem to have the same expectations as the rest of the group- I don't think you're a good fit for the table"? Because, swear to juice, _I can be friends with you without gaming with you._ Heck, I have a ton of non-gaming friends, just as I have some friends that don't drink. So do I invite them out for a night drinking? No. Does that mean they aren't my friends? Of course not. It just means that _I hang out with a given person when it is appropriate to do so, not indiscriminately_.


----------



## Rel (Oct 5, 2010)

So yeah it pretty much looks like positions are becoming more entrenched, arguments are going further and further afield and people are getting compared to Jack Chick.  That's the textbook definition of a thread that needs closing.


----------

