PDA

View Full Version : GM changed my character's backstory



Themrys
2013-10-06, 05:50 AM
I am angry. I don't want to leave the group, though, so I'm looking for solutions that don't include that. (If possible)

This is why:

For my PC I created a backstory in which she is in love with a boy/young man from her village. I described the young man as very, very shy - this is why my PC never got to tell him what she feels ... he was not very talkative. I also described him as somewhat slender/delicate ... you get the picture. That was the person my PC wanted to protect at all costs, and her sole motivation to go on adventure and earn money, so she could, in a distant future, marry him.

So, after some adventuring, my PC decided that she needed to ask for his hand in marriage before someone else was faster.

She found out that, in fact, someone else had been there before her and her love was engaged to marry her arch-enemy. He had also become a very different person - someone had decided, and suceeded in making a "real man" out of him. So, about three months after my PC went away, he had gone from cripplingly shy to ... well, no apparent shyness remained. He had also gone from slender to muscular, which is something that in real life can not be achieved without ... well, cheating, if you know what I mean.

The engagement is not the reason of my grudge. That is a nice and tearjerking tragedy for my PC, and was to be expected, because Murphys Law makes those things happen. Life is like that, occasionally.

The Change however ... why? Why?
While playing, until the very end, I had been sure there had to be something more behind it. So, we looked for magic. There was none. We looked for secret unhappyness. There was none.

So I got the impression, that the GM changed my PCs backstory, for no other reason that he didn't like the idea that a shy and gentle young man might be the love interest of a PC, or the husband of said PCs arch-enemy. Maybe he was shy when he was younger and felt bad for the poor NPC and wanted to rescue him ... I do not know.

__________________________________________________ _

So, what do you think? For what reason would you (as a GM) change a character's backstory in that way?
And is there anything I can do about it without bluntly telling the GM that I don't like his clinging to gender roles and he needs to change that? (I have some suspicion that this could be the same as leaving the group. Might not be, but people can be very sensitive about their storytelling ... I know, I am sensitive about mine)

hymer
2013-10-06, 06:29 AM
It is possible that the things that irk you were meant by the GM as signs that something is wrong. Evil magic, genetic tampering, possession by the dead, that sort of thing.
That being said, I don't like the GM changing things on me. My backstories, as far as they are relevant to the campaign, are sent to the GM so that any problems can be ironed out before game start.

Studoku
2013-10-06, 06:29 AM
Have you talked to the GM about this yet?

Themrys
2013-10-06, 06:41 AM
Have you talked to the GM about this yet?

I have talked to him about the gender essentialism that irked me beforehand, and gently reminded him that the game takes place in a gender equal society. That was after he constructed the plot, but before we played.

The problem is that he did (outgame) tell us that we only missed one detail , and this detail was not an ongoing magic influence. (It was a love potion, that resulted in pregnancy, and both of them came to love each other truly some time afterwards ... which is a whole other problem, but not relevant to the problem I mentioned. I'm happy we missed it, as my character would be destroyed by the psychological drama of knowing that the love of her life is happily married to a rapist - or by the legal consequences of the ensuing murder)

@hymer: In the system we use there is a magic spell for detecting magic influence, and it was about the first thing we tried. I have to admit that I am not absolutely sure whether, according to the rules, that spell can fail without the user knowing, and am also not sure whether it detects demonic influence. On the other hand, to a demon-worshipper it would be extremely painful to get married in a temple, so there is that.


The main problem is that the GM told us outgame that we missed basically nothing of relevance.

hymer
2013-10-06, 06:57 AM
Seems there's only talking, as Studoku indicated. Your GM could well go on the defensive hard for being called out as a misogynist (rightly or wrongly), and it could turn ugly. It's hard to give more specific advice, since I don't know anyone involved.
My instinct, for what it's worth, would be to tackle the side of it that deals with changing your backstory. It seems he has pretty much written your backstory to a close in addition to changing the characterization. Having a conversation about how this looks from your side of the GM screen and whether the GM has considered this could be productive.
And then deal with the other matter well away from the game, since you want to keep playing with this group. And as for dealing with it, I don't know how to go about it. Changing people's minds on these things is very hard. Pushing sometimes works, and sometimes just makes things worse. I mean, how likely are you to change your mind about it? How would you feel about being told off for your well-established belief on this? If the GM has a misogynist attitude about this, it doesn't mean he thinks he does.

Blackjackg
2013-10-06, 07:08 AM
It sounds like you and your GM have pretty different ideas about gender essentialism (as well as about r*pe). If those things continue to be an influence on the campaign's plot and themes, someone's definitely going to have a talk with him. From experience I can tell you that those talks don't often end in a way that is satisfactory to all parties, but it's better to try than to go on playing in a game that makes you feel uncomfortable.

The transition from slender to muscular may be for a number of reasons, but the most reasonable that I can think of is that the character will eventually become a foe in his own right and you're witnessing the first stages of his transformation into that role. It may be that your character returned to the village sooner than expected (after all, you specified marrying him "in the distant future," then turned up three months after you left) and the GM had to scramble to figure out what you would find there. Possibly your GM misremembered the NPC's build, but didn't want to backpedal when he realized his error and just built it in as an additional mystery (goodness knows I've done this once or twice as a GM). Or possibly he's got some messed up gender essentialist ideas. Or any combination of the above.

Emmerask
2013-10-06, 07:10 AM
Well its except for one small thing not really a change to your backstory, the initial story is more or less intact.
As for the changes in the npc,
being much more sure about himself especially with the first girlfriend that can happen.
The only change that makes little sense would be the change of his physique, however depending on the system there might be countless none detectable ways of increasing the relevant score.

Themrys
2013-10-06, 07:14 AM
Seems there's only talking, as Studoku indicated. Your GM could well go on the defensive hard for being called out as a misogynist (rightly or wrongly), and it could turn ugly. It's hard to give more specific advice, since I don't know anyone involved.
My instinct, for what it's worth, would be to tackle the side of it that deals with changing your backstory. It seems he has pretty much written your backstory to a close in addition to changing the characterization. Having a conversation about how this looks from your side of the GM screen and whether the GM has considered this could be productive.
And then deal with the other matter well away from the game, since you want to keep playing with this group. And as for dealing with it, I don't know how to go about it. Changing people's minds on these things is very hard. Pushing sometimes works, and sometimes just makes things worse. I mean, how likely are you to change your mind about it? How would you feel about being told off for your well-established belief on this? Just because the GM has a misogynist attitude about this doesn't mean he thinks he does.


Well ... I actually did talk about why he thought it productive as a whole, and his answer was "Your PC couldn't go on adventuring if her love was requited, the young man wouldn't have let her go" ... which is purely interpretation on his part, in my opinion, as of course the happy couple would need some money to be able to marry, but well. I did not expect my character to be happy, I just expected something more in line with the original backstory.

I am not intending to call him out for misogyny, but for overall sexism. The idea that a proper man has to follow some specific rules is rather misandristic.

If the sexism problem continues, I guess I will talk about it in front of the other players, and ask whether we as a group want a sexist fantasy world, or not.

I don't really think that you can compare his attitude with mine, we're using a system whose background is officially gender-equal with exception of some backwards countries specially constructed for those who want that medieval flair. So, I am in line with the official background, while he is not. Of course the official background can be changed if the group wants to, but I don't think it should be changed for the benefit of the GM alone.


@Emmerask: It's not that the NPC changed because he now has a girlfriend and this boosted his self-esteem, it was explicitly said that he WAS changed in order to meet some perceived standard of masculinity.

As for the change in his physique ... yes, of course... maybe he earned some adventure points and increased his strength stat - it is possible within the rules, my problem is mainly with the intent behind that change.


@blackjackg: I love the idea that that NPC needed to change in order to become a villain. I don't think it's likely, but it would be cool.

Since I told the GM that my character wants to return to her village, he had enough time to think of something, so I don't think that has anything to do with it.

hymer
2013-10-06, 07:32 AM
I'm not talking about who's right and who's wrong. Setting aside only knowing one side to the story, it would seem you are in the right, and the GM in the wrong. But both of you naturally think that you are in the right, and may be expected to react accordingly if challenged. So aside from being right about something, there's the question of whether you can persuade someone that they're wrong, and whether it is productive to try. This is only relevant because you want to keep playing. If you didn't care about that, calling him out would probably be the right thing to do, though it would likely cause some sort of rift in the group.

Tengu_temp
2013-10-06, 07:38 AM
Calling out someone on an issue, even if it causes a rift, is better than just letting it lie around and rot. Worst case scenario, no game is better than a game you don't enjoy.

Also, not only is turning a shy and slender guy into a Manly Man Grr in order to meet some perceived standard of masculinity pretty damn offensive, it's also highly hypocritical, considering that many RPG players don't exactly have outstanding physiques (yours truly included). Out of curiosity, how buff/macho is the DM in question?

Themrys
2013-10-06, 07:52 AM
Calling out someone on an issue, even if it causes a rift, is better than just letting it lie around and rot. Worst case scenario, no game is better than a game you don't enjoy.

Also, not only is turning a shy and slender guy into a Manly Man Grr in order to meet some perceived standard of masculinity pretty damn offensive, it's also highly hypocritical, considering that many RPG players don't exactly have outstanding physiques (yours truly included). Out of curiosity, how buff/macho is the DM in question?

Well, yeah, I am not exactly sure whether it is bad enough to be worse than no game at all. The implicit gender role conformity didn't irk me so much in the everyday game ... it mainly meant that the bandits whose asses we kicked were all male. My char got to do her share of ass-kicking, so no reason to complain.

Well, the GM is not a body builder himself, but not slender, either, so I can't make anything of it. If he looked exactly like I described the NPC, I would understand that he doesn't want to have "fetishized" what he perceives as weakness - I might have turned a delicate flowery female love interest into an ass-kicking woman out of spite, too ... although, maybe not, I think I am enlightened enough to accept "feminine" women as they are, if they're not described as stupid bimbos - but no, I don't think that played into it.
(That said, I would never invent a love interest for my character who looks a lot like the GM, or much like any of the players. That would be awkward.)

JustIgnoreMe
2013-10-06, 08:22 AM
@Emmerask: It's not that the NPC changed because he now has a girlfriend and this boosted his self-esteem, it was explicitly said that he WAS changed in order to meet some perceived standard of masculinity.

Are you saying the GM out-of-game told you he'd changed the NPC? Or was the NPC changed in-game by your (presumably female) arch-enemy? To fit her perceived standard of masculinity? 'Cause the second is a very different situation to the first...

Themrys
2013-10-06, 08:35 AM
Are you saying the GM out-of-game told you he'd changed the NPC? Or was the NPC changed in-game by your (presumably female) arch-enemy? To fit her perceived standard of masculinity? 'Cause the second is a very different situation to the first...

The mother of the indeed female arch-enemy (up to now, we haven't seen any homosexual people ingame, would have been nice, though) was cited as the one who insisted that her daughter could not marry such a unmanly man, but he was shown to have happily gone along with it, no resistance on side of his family, either, and everyone in the village seemed to agree that he had changed for the better and manlier.

Had he told me out of game that he changed the NPC, I would have asked why. I get the feeling that he tries to tell me via his characters what he thinks should be perceived as normal, and that's what irks me.

JustIgnoreMe
2013-10-06, 08:44 AM
OK, see, that's a very different situation to the one I thought you were initially describing.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about your GM's thought processes here.

3 months seems like an incredibly short time for this relationship to have come about, but you mentioned the love potion, and the resulting pregnancy, and perhaps it's part of the guy's personality that he feels responsible and the need to be not only a father to his child-to-be, but also a husband to his child-to-be's mother. That's a traditional family gender role, but one I think most people would not think to be unreasonable in fiction.

Incidentally, are you playing Blue Rose?

Terraoblivion
2013-10-06, 08:54 AM
Yeah, I have to say that this is pretty problematic. Not just that, it's clearly causing you discomfort and that alone is enough to be worth bringing it up, even without the gender angle. Gaming should not be uncomfortable or include central aspects of what the players wanted their character to be about getting trampled.

Also, on a more personal level, I find the gender issue involved here problematic enough that I personally would have brought it up, at least. But that's ultimately up to you.

Still, my recommendation is talking to your GM, if they're likely to be a jerk about this then that's on him.

Emmerask
2013-10-06, 08:57 AM
I still would give the dm the benefit of the doubt, maybe he has some plans for it or maybe that particular npc is just sexist etc.
Now if you go around and everything you see are buff males and damsels then you might have a point, but one instance really is not sufficient.

As for the village citizens having nothing against the new buffed up version... well why would they? A muscular youth can work longer on the fields, can better defend the village so why would they ever be against that change?

As for the family why would they? He presumably is happy now? will have a family (something that was not that likely before), can support his aging parents better (chopping wood, farming etc).

Themrys
2013-10-06, 09:08 AM
OK, see, that's a very different situation to the one I thought you were initially describing.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about your GM's thought processes here.

3 months seems like an incredibly short time for this relationship to have come about, but you mentioned the love potion, and the resulting pregnancy, and perhaps it's part of the guy's personality that he feels responsible and the need to be not only a father to his child-to-be, but also a husband to his child-to-be's mother. That's a traditional family gender role, but one I think most people would not think to be unreasonable in fiction.

Incidentally, are you playing Blue Rose?


No; we're playing DSA. German game.


Yes, I do make assumptions, but as I said, I gently reminded the GM via mail that the official background of the game is so that 50% of the guards at the city gate would be female.
He did not answer. I did not want to make a major problem out of what might have been simple thoughtlessness, so I thought I'd wait and see whether he changed something.

Every generic character that was not targeted as someones love interest or had a stereotypically "female" profession has, up to now, been male.

And he depicted NPC-guy as truly happy, not as "Duty calls and I must follow, even though I have no idea why I slept with that woman"

Romance following from what may or may not count as rape ... problematic.


But you're right, I should talk about it openly before it turns ugly. He might not have intended that at all. It's just that he seems very insecure, and often denies inconsistencies in his NPCs, although none of the players (I think) would blame him for saying "Ok, I made a mistake, he didn't actually say that", and I get the feeling that he might react ... not well to open criticism.

JustIgnoreMe
2013-10-06, 09:10 AM
Yeah, the love interest's degree of physical change is really pretty irrelevant here: it's not what's changed who he is as a person. The speed of the physical change is surprising (as is the speed of the mental change, although less so), but I'm not seeing that as gender-related: the love interest's gender appears to be completely irrelevant, except for the position taken of the arch-enemy's mother.

Juhn
2013-10-06, 09:12 AM
It's not that the NPC changed because he now has a girlfriend and this boosted his self-esteem, it was explicitly said that he WAS changed in order to meet some perceived standard of masculinity.Is the "make a real man out of him" a thing that's agreed upon by the GM out-of-game (i.e. his shy, scrawny, retiring earlier self was not a "real man"), or is it merely that the NPC that is his new SO decided he wasn't a "real man" initially and that she needed to change him to fit her ideal?

One of those is a much bigger problem than the other, as with the latter it's one character's (very biased) opinion and you can work to prove her wrong, but with the former it's the GM's belief and therefore the way the gameworld works, at least until he changes his mind about what makes a "real man".

The fact that your character's ex-fiancee is now more outgoing and confident might actually end up being a good thing if the group can convince him that he doesn't need to define himself by other people's standards of masculinity and ends up more comfortable with himself.

EDIT: and looking back a few posts it seems someone's already asked this.

JustIgnoreMe
2013-10-06, 09:32 AM
No; we're playing DSA. German game.

I know of it, but I never knew the setting was so progressive! May have to look that one up.


And he depicted NPC-guy as truly happy, not as "Duty calls and I must follow, even though I have no idea why I slept with that woman"

That's the way humans often work. Your body reacts, then your brain justifies what your body has just done. Depending, of course, on how magic works, NPC-guy will be "truly happy", because his brain has told him that he slept with that woman of his own volition and has explained to him that he must have done it because he loves her.

This is probably cultural conditioning from a society that says that sex should only occur between a loving couple; if being a shy, slender, delicate man he is also a sensitive soul (which you do not state, of course, and it would be a terrible cliche if not an outright sexist stereotype) then he will have bought into this conditioning.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 09:36 AM
...this actually would be one of the few times I'd call sexism on a work. (Well, game, but it's still storytelling).

Anyway! I personally wouldn't start from the sexism line of argument, simply because it's generally something that doesn't help situations. I would keep it in mind, but I wouldn't use it until you had nothing else.

Where I would begin is by cutting his other justifications down: Their love has to be unrequited? Okay, but there are ways of doing that which don't involve completely rewriting a character--I mean, shy people can harbor desires for people other than the ones that desire them, off the top of my head. And if it's a small village, some misfortune could easily have befallen him.

But of course, this is only going to be a problem if the village comes up again/frequently. If it's not going to, I would just slot that scene out of my head and ignore it.

valadil
2013-10-06, 09:39 AM
I think the GM stepped out of bounds but not by much. I think it's not only fair but part of the GM's responsibilities to make sure a character and it's backstory fits in with the game. But I think that needs to happen as a dialogue, not as an unexpected change behind your back.

Emmerask
2013-10-06, 09:44 AM
I know of it, but I never knew the setting was so progressive! May have to look that one up.

Well you have a goddess of war, honor and thunder in the setting (Rondra) and yes in a lot of regions there is gender equality :smallsmile:
The sad part is that only very few books where translated into english, especially the setting books are not (to my knowledge) which is pretty much the best part about dsa [dark eye] because the world is wonderfully detailed and interesting :-/

Gavran
2013-10-06, 10:02 AM
Yes, I do make assumptions.


Every generic character that was not targeted as someones love interest or had a stereotypically "female" profession has, up to now, been male.

Speaking of making assumptions...
Have you considered that he might simply find playing male characters more comfortable... because he's male?

Kalmageddon
2013-10-06, 10:42 AM
(up to now, we haven't seen any homosexual people ingame, would have been nice, though) .

Does your group go around asking for the sexuality of every single NPC they meet? Because otherwise I can see plenty of situations where the sexuality of an NPC wouldn't be relevant at all an thus go unmentioned...

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 10:44 AM
I skimmed this thread, and I don't feel he changed the back-story if all he did was make the guy more muscular (GMs have the 'yes but' power, and probably changed it to match what the nemesis would like, and that's a trophy). Giving the love interest to the nemesis is classic GMing, adding a love potion is icing on the cake, and then the possibility of Stockholm syndrome (or something possibly similar) is great also. He may still need rescuing, but now he doesn't even know it.

If I GM a game and have to keep every detail of an entire world straight and a player has to worry about one person, and I have the guards be mainly men instead of women or use 'he' instead of 'she' I could care less. I'll make an NPC that doesn't really matter go from having a brittish accent to an italian one without thinking about it. The players may catch on and think its a conspiracy where the NPC was secretly killed and replaced by a doppelganger or something when it is just an error. Issues like this just happen.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 10:44 AM
Speaking of making assumptions...
Have you considered that he might simply find playing male characters more comfortable... because he's male?


Does your group go around asking for the sexuality of every single NPC they meet? Because otherwise I can see plenty of situations where the sexuality of an NPC wouldn't be relevant at all an thus go unmentioned...


Although, to be perfectly clear, I agree with these two about the general village populus.

JusticeZero
2013-10-06, 11:20 AM
I would honestly just not worry about it at this point. From the objective stance, your character did not secure a relationship with someone else, and now you are irked because... why? You own him somehow? Stalker much? Maybe you will find out more later. Or maybe your character needs to get over the fact that they were watching and lusting for someone, never actually told them, and that character has gone on with their life without asking permission from you.
Seriously. Gender flip this and remove the NPC tags and see if it doesn't seem a bit messed up for a man to ride off for three months then be angry because one of the women in town - who he never did anything for - went out and found a boyfriend and some self improvement while he was away.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 11:25 AM
I would honestly just not worry about it at this point. From the objective stance, your character did not secure a relationship with someone else, and now you are irked because... why? You own him somehow? Stalker much? Maybe you will find out more later. Or maybe your character needs to get over the fact that they were watching and lusting for someone, never actually told them, and that character has gone on with their life without asking permission from you.
Seriously. Gender flip this and remove the NPC tags and see if it doesn't seem a bit messed up for a man to ride off for three months then be angry because one of the women in town - who he never did anything for - went out and found a boyfriend and some self improvement while he was away.

Ahm...

That's not what she's mad about. At all.

She's annoyed about the fact that her character's love interest seems to have underwent a complete physical and personality shift in that time. With some implications that the DM decided he was always like that.

I mean, I suppose if it's a shift and not "he was always that way" it's okay, but three months doesn't seem reasonable for a personality shift.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 11:31 AM
Ahm...

That's not what she's mad about. At all.

She's annoyed about the fact that her character's love interest seems to have underwent a complete physical and personality shift in that time. With some implications that the DM decided he was always like that.

I mean, I suppose if it's a shift and not "he was always that way" it's okay, but three months doesn't seem reasonable for a personality shift.
Three months is plenty of time, especially in traumatic scenarios. Marine Corps boot camp is 3 months and that is plenty of time to have profound mental and physical changes on people. Look at the transformations that happen in rehab with addicts or on the biggest loser show. Hell, imagine what can happen when magic is involved.

Also going off for 3 months and killing bandits would have a profound impact on the characters also. Let alone the personal changes that happen to people when they see a dead body, imagine what it is like to kill lots of them.

It may be that her memory is different than reality and he wasn't so weak and powerless as she thought, which is something that happens.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 11:34 AM
Three months is plenty of time, especially in traumatic scenarios. Marine Corps boot camp is 3 months and that is plenty of time to have profound mental and physical changes on people. Look at the transformations that happen in rehab with addicts or on the biggest loser show. Hell, imagine what can happen when magic is involved.

...hm!

You appear to have removed my objections. Fair enough.


Also going off for 3 months and killing bandits would have a profound impact on the characters also. Let alone the personal changes that happen to people when they see a dead body, imagine what it is like to kill lots of them.

Although I should point out that this would be more of an argument for her changing than him...

JustIgnoreMe
2013-10-06, 11:45 AM
Although I should point out that this would be more of an argument for her changing than him...
Yeah, which brings up something else. How much had PC-gal talked to NPC-guy before going off to adventure? It sounds to me like NPC-guy might have been so shy that he never really talked to her, so the GM could be going for a "Did you ever really know him?" style of story-revelation.

Many authors have done that: had the main character return to their village after adventures and realised the guy/gal next door was just not right for them: that they'd put them on a pedestal and imagined they knew them. That's not because the guy/gal next door had changed: it's because the protagonist had.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 03:49 PM
...hm!

You appear to have removed my objections. Fair enough.



Although I should point out that this would be more of an argument for her changing than him...

I hit the quote button, didn't delete anything, not meaning to selectively quote things :smallfrown: I know you wrote issues in an above post, but my response wasn't in regard to those, in fact mt post had to do directly with the 3/months issue.

And I'm not sure if I ninja edited or what-not but I yes, it has more to do with the PC changing and remembering someone a way they weren't.

Granted we weren't there so I can't state fact, but from the sounds of the argument it sounds like a player is throwing a hissy fit because she doesn't get to have the 'team edward' fantasy that she wanted. It also sounds like the DM wanted her to be belle for team 'jacob'. Edward is the scrawny pale guy and Jacob the muscular one right?

It sounds to me that there is a Player that is mad because her character had some alterations (we don't even know if on purpose or accident) on her past, and the player is throwing a fit because its a 'character building play what-you-want' situation. If I were GM I would have made him a vampire and her one of the hareem, and run the campaign that way where she was always trying to get out of the hareem. OR if I was going down the path that is (which is traditional fantasy) then I would make her run through a gauntlet of brother's grimm issues before she got her love back.

I think the main thing a character background does, is state how hard and difficult it is for Player's to achieve their goals.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 04:34 PM
Granted we weren't there so I can't state fact, but from the sounds of the argument it sounds like a player is throwing a hissy fit because she doesn't get to have the 'team edward' fantasy that she wanted. It also sounds like the DM wanted her to be belle for team 'jacob'. Edward is the scrawny pale guy and Jacob the muscular one right?

...I am not quite sure why we're using Twilight now, but this sounds accurate...


It sounds to me that there is a Player that is mad because her character had some alterations (we don't even know if on purpose or accident) on her past, and the player is throwing a fit because its a 'character building play what-you-want' situation. If I were GM I would have made him a vampire and her one of the hareem, and run the campaign that way where she was always trying to get out of the hareem. OR if I was going down the path that is (which is traditional fantasy) then I would make her run through a gauntlet of brother's grimm issues before she got her love back.

I think the main thing a character background does, is state how hard and difficult it is for Player's to achieve their goals.

In total fairness to her, the change the DM made is a fairly big one to her story, and I'd have been a tad miffed about something similar being done to one of my own characters without running it by me.

However, I likely would not have gone as far as she. So! XD

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-06, 04:56 PM
I'm confused here:

From what I read, it doesn't sound like the NPC was retroactively changed, but had changed over the course of the three month absence of the OP's PC. Right?

tensai_oni
2013-10-06, 05:03 PM
Granted we weren't there so I can't state fact, but from the sounds of the argument it sounds like a player is throwing a hissy fit because she doesn't get to have the 'team edward' fantasy that she wanted. It also sounds like the DM wanted her to be belle for team 'jacob'. Edward is the scrawny pale guy and Jacob the muscular one right?

Complaining about a change you find uncomfortable is throwing a hissy fit now?

Also I can't help but think you used terms "team Edward" and "team Jacob" to marginalize the issue. You make it sound like the OP is angry because she can't get her sparkly vampire bishie fix.

Also just so you know, if a player character wants love interest A but doesn't get it because of circumstances? That's fine. That's in-character drama. But if a player character wants A but the game master gives them B (even when B is the same character)? That's a huge problem. That's the game master going "you don't know what's good for you/your character, I know better".

RPGuru1331
2013-10-06, 05:04 PM
IGranted we weren't there so I can't state fact, but from the sounds of the argument it sounds like a player is throwing a hissy fit because she doesn't get to have the 'team edward' fantasy that she wanted. It also sounds like the DM wanted her to be belle for team 'jacob'. Edward is the scrawny pale guy and Jacob the muscular one right?
You know, I hate twilight with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns, but I know you don't have any earthly idea what it's about, except on the most base level. Regardless, the OP is quite clear about expecting things to go poorly for her character. She is grousing because of the WAY it went poorly; to stomp all over her backstory, then make the dude some sort of muscley dude just because.


...I am not quite sure why we're using Twilight now, but this sounds accurate...
How? How does this sound accurate? How do you arrive at this conclusion when someone says they expected from the start to have their PC be unhappy? How do you arrive at this conclusion just because there's a skinny guy as a love interest?

Emmerask
2013-10-06, 05:05 PM
I'm confused here:

From what I read, it doesn't sound like the NPC was retroactively changed, but had changed over the course of the three month absence of the OP's PC. Right?

correct, from this single event (to my knowledge) was then a sexist "agenda" constructed...
which very well may be there... however one instance (especially since its not at all that clear what the purpose behind it is) no agenda makes, wait and see how the campaign will shape in the next 10 or so sessions before coming to conclusions :smallwink:

or until something extremely bad happens... this however does not qualify for that kind of outrage imho.

Lorsa
2013-10-06, 05:41 PM
It seems like this obviously wasn't the guy your character fell in love with and quite possibly he still lives in town?

If the GM describes "your guy" as someone completely different than what you described him as, it either means the GM doesn't allow you to create NPCs in his world (which he should have mentioned when posting the backstory) or this really wasn't the same man.

Did he explain why this evil arch-nemesis of a woman was interested in him in the first place? This whole set up seems very strange to me and I wonder what his reasons were. To give you a story where you'd win back your love? Probably not considering he's no longer the same man.

Really, you should go look for the guy you fell in love with. Quite obviously this wasn't him.

oudeis
2013-10-06, 05:43 PM
Granted we weren't there so I can't state fact, but from the sounds of the argument it sounds like a player is throwing a hissy fit because she doesn't get to have the 'team edward' fantasy that she wanted. It also sounds like the DM wanted her to be belle for team 'jacob'. Edward is the scrawny pale guy and Jacob the muscular one right?

It sounds to me that there is a Player that is mad because her character had some alterations (we don't even know if on purpose or accident) on her past, and the player is throwing a fit because its a 'character building play what-you-want' situation. If I were GM I would have made him a vampire and her one of the hareem, and run the campaign that way where she was always trying to get out of the hareem. OR if I was going down the path that is (which is traditional fantasy) then I would make her run through a gauntlet of brother's grimm issues before she got her love back.

I think the main thing a character background does, is state how hard and difficult it is for Player's to achieve their goals.
Are you being serious with all this ****? The GM pulled a **** move here. A John Holmes-level **** move and the OP is wholly within her rights to be pissed-off and absolutely right to confront him on this.

To briefly recapitulate what I said in the 'GM Veto' thread here recently, if a character is inappropriate for the campaign the GM has the right to ban it outright. The GM does NOT have the right to change an approved character's background just because he doesn't like it. If something in the background conflicted factually or tonally with the setting then he can suggest the player change it, but unilaterally rewriting someone else's work because it irritates him personally is way over the line. You want to talk about hissy fits? That's the hissy fit in this story.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 05:52 PM
To briefly recapitulate what I said in the 'GM Veto' thread here recently, if a character is inappropriate for the campaign the GM has the right to ban it outright. The GM does NOT have the right to change an approved character's background just because he doesn't like it. If something in the background conflicted factually or tonally with the setting then he can suggest the player change it, but unilaterally rewriting someone else's work because it irritates him personally is way over the line. You want to talk about hissy fits? That's the hissy fit in this story.

I'd consider that post a hissy fit. I think you mean re-encapsulate, what you said means to give up and surrender again.

The GM is literally the GAME MASTER, nothing short. The GM completely has the right to change an NPC that was a PCs mother into Vampire that wants to suck their blood, after if killed their entire family. The GM has the right to give the NPC that is Player X's sister the fantasy lottery and become the queen making her vengeful of her handsome older brother with is Player X and send mercenaries after him. The Players get to control that brief little history section with GM approval, after that the PCs lose all control over NPCs.

JustIgnoreMe
2013-10-06, 05:53 PM
The backstory hasn't changed. The NPC's personality has. That's called character growth when it happens to PCs. Why should NPCs not grow?

If a character can't deal with the idea that people can change, that character may not be mature enough to deal with adult relationships. Which is fine: I have played several such characters and enjoy the drama. I actively set up my PCs relationships to fail sometimes (one character I'm currently playing is totally emotionally immature and on the rebound: his current relationship was doomed from the start).

We're obviously getting only one side of the story here, but it looks like the DM decided how the 3 month absence of the PC and the machinations of the PC's arch-enemy would affect the NPC. That's... that's what a DM does. Once a player has created an NPC in their backstory, they give it to the DM to play with and the DM decides what happens.

Now, Themrys can say that the DM didn't understand the character Themrys created, or is portraying him wrongly, or not as originally envisaged. But not that the backstory has changed, because it hasn't: the backstory stays the same.

I'd love to see what level of detail the DM had about this NPC. Obviously we don't know the ins and outs of the plot, especially with the arch-enemy, but it'd be interesting to see what the DM had to work with.

oudeis
2013-10-06, 05:57 PM
I'd consider that post a hissy fit. I think you mean re-encapsulate, what you said means to give up and surrender again.
You sure about that, son? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recapitulate)


The GM is literally the GAME MASTER, nothing short. The GM completely has the right to change an NPC that was a PCs mother into Vampire that wants to suck their blood, after if killed their entire family. The GM has the right to give the NPC that is Player X's sister the fantasy lottery and become the queen making her vengeful of her handsome older brother with is Player X and send mercenaries after him. The Players get to control that brief little history section with GM approval, after that the PCs lose all control over NPCs.What I didn't say before is I will disallow characters based on official material that I don't agree with, sourcebooks I haven't had time to read, minmaxed builds, player overidentification with the concept or class, or even if I feel the player is getting into a rut and needs to expand his/her horizons. I will kill NPCs in the most gruesome fashion, even player-created ones, if it's in keeping with the setting or serves the purpose of the plot. I will NOT impose my editorial judgement on some inoccuous aspect of the character's backstory because I don't like it. If the bio has elements that I find offensive, distasteful, or annoying- say a player with political or personal issues who is obviously trying to validate his warped worldview- the character is out and the player is going to get a friendly but unmistakable directive to desist or find another game. Butching up Emo Mcgee because he was too metrosexual served no real story function and thus was a **** move.

(edited to be less uncivil).

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 05:59 PM
You sure about that, son? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recapitulate)

Guess not since it is in the 'often confused' section, but I appreciate the personal attack, dad.

Emmerask
2013-10-06, 06:01 PM
Uhm there was no change in the backstory, yes the guy changed over 3 month time where the pc was absent. And even more important the pc never actually knew the character in question except for this one attribute "he is shy".

The only change that is hard to explain is his physique now, however even that is possible (depending on how buff the npc now is). A very shy person (with matching pose and manners) might be perceived as much more lanky then he is and of course in three month time you can do quite a lot to your body.

If you combine both the boost in confidence and some workout then yes the guy can come across as pretty buff (not Hercules or Schwarzenegger buff all of a sudden however ^^).

But where is the change in backstory? Do you expect everything to stay in stasis while you are gone for 3 months? Or just that NPCs have to stay as is without direct PC intervention?



Now, Themrys can say that the DM didn't understand the character Themrys created, or is portraying him wrongly, or not as originally envisaged. But not that the backstory has changed, because it hasn't: the backstory stays the same.

That would be in my opinion completely outside the scope of a backstory, you create one character not 100.
Yes you may write things that did happen and what your character thinks where motivations of other characters into the backstory but exactly why they happened or what the motivations of the other characters truly where is up to the dm and not part of a backstory.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-06, 06:18 PM
Uhm there was no change in the backstory, yes the guy changed over 3 month time where the pc was absent. And even more important the pc never actually knew the character in question except for this one attribute "he is shy".

The only change that is hard to explain is his physique now, however even that is possible to explain (depending on how buff the npc now is). A very shy person (with matching pose and manners) might be perceived as much more lanky then he is and of course in three month time you can do quite a lot to your body.

If you combine both the boost in confidence and some workout then yes the guy can come across as pretty buff (not Hercules or Schwarzenegger buff all of a sudden however ^^).

But where is the change in backstory? Do you expect everything to stay in stasis while you are gone for 3 months? Or that NPCs just have to stay as is without direct PC intervention?

I pretty much agree.
The changes to the NPC were obviously made for story prupose and are justified or justifiable.
If the changes were made without a reason, like if the PC came back to the village and found the romantic interest NPC suddendly buff and in love with random NPC n.2 just because, then I would have agreed with the OP.
But since there is an arch-enemy involved and all sorts of shenanigans I don't really see the problem.

Maybe the OP thinks that changing "her" npc means the DM is making a statement against her personal taste when it comes to men and she's angry about it?
And obviously we only hear one side of the story told from a pretty biased point of view, so I would avoid overreacting and swearing like sailors over this.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 06:26 PM
How? How does this sound accurate? How do you arrive at this conclusion when someone says they expected from the start to have their PC be unhappy? How do you arrive at this conclusion just because there's a skinny guy as a love interest?

Because the poster I responded to wasn't being literal. He was using Edward and Jacob as stand-ins for the two competing ideas of her character's love interest.

And while she did expect her love to be unrequited, she did expect her lover not to change. (And hell, there's an underwritten "till the end of the adventure" to that expectation, since it's an endgoal and something that could conceivably serve as a "life after the adventure" scenario).

I'm actually, genuinely sympathetic to the OP. But I think the turn of events in the story is just barely justified.

Blackjackg
2013-10-06, 06:27 PM
I appreciate the personal attack, dad.

Out of curiosity, what do you call labeling someone's complaint a "hissy fit," inferring that it's an attempt to emulate Twilight, and to top it off stating that if it were you, you would imprison her character in a harem?

Most folks would call those personal attacks. Me, I call it misogyny.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-06, 06:38 PM
Blackjackg, you probably want to remove that last line from your post since that is a direct insult at Tim and a pretty serious one.

And I'm guessing that yes, the NPC wasn't retroactively changed, he just experienced a change over three months. In which case, I'm of the mindset that I don't see what the GM/DM did wrong.

Themrys
2013-10-06, 06:43 PM
Out of curiosity, what do you call labeling someone's complaint a "hissy fit," inferring that it's an attempt to emulate Twilight, and to top it off stating that if it were you, you would imprison her character in a harem?

Most folks would call those personal attacks. Me, I call it misogyny.

He did that? I should have read my thread before replying to his. Well, can't do anything about that now.

If people now get personal in this thread, I think it's better I don't read it anymore. I hoped to get help so I could be less angry. The last thing I need people who make me more angry. Even though my GM starts to look pretty good in comparison ... I not only wanted to be less angry at him, I wanted to be less angry in general.

@Tanuki Tales: If you mean the misogyny line: That is not an insult. It is an opinion. You really should be aware of that. Maybe there was something insulting in that post before I read it, but, alas, there actually are people who think it shouldn't be allowed to call a misogynist a misogynist, which is, of course, nonsense, since it is a behaviour that leads to there being more misogynists, not less.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 06:49 PM
Out of curiosity, what do you call labeling someone's complaint a "hissy fit," inferring that it's an attempt to emulate Twilight, and to top it off stating that if it were you, you would imprison her character in a harem?

Most folks would call those personal attacks. Me, I call it misogyny.

Um, I make the twilight comparison to express how I am understanding the situation. I find that twilight is a very popular example of a strong 'slender' guy and a strong 'buff' guy in relation to love interests. I don't see how that is demeaning at all, but if you hate twilight that's all on you.

Like I said, I find it to be a hissy fit, to complain about aspects of a game that 1) haven't even been discovered (we don't know why the GM changed the character, 2) actually never changed the PCs story, 3) never even talked to the GM about it, etc. The way I read that is a person is saying that so-and-so is a bad person because they did X, and when people ask why, they respond saying 'I don't know' but they are a bad person. I reminds me of a kid that swears someone hurt them while playing 'on purpose'.

And yes, if a PC puts down that NPC X is important to their character, it is practically written that it is the GM's job to ensure something bad happens to them. They can become the villain (a Vampire a use the love to Player X to his advantage, thus in a harem), become the victim of the villain (as we see here), or any myriad of variants.

I don't see how that is misogyny but whatever floats your boat.

The issues are that the GM didn't actually change any sacred ground of the PC, and created a plethora of plot hooks for the PC to explore, and the Player is upset about it because 'there might be rape via a love potion'.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-06, 06:50 PM
@Tanuki Tales: If you mean the misogyny line: That is not an insult. It is an opinion. You really should be aware of that. Maybe there was something insulting in that post before I read it, but, alas, there actually are people who think it shouldn't be allowed to call a misogynist a misogynist, which is, of course, nonsense, since it is a behaviour that leads to there being more misogynists, not less.

I'm sorry, but how exactly is calling someone a misogynist not an insult? :smallconfused:

Edit:

Also, the condescension isn't really necessary in your post.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-06, 06:55 PM
@Tanuki Tales: If you mean the misogyny line: That is not an insult. It is an opinion.

And the cool thing is that you can justify all sorts of things with this. Homphobia, misoginy, misandry, racism... Hey, if you don't swear, it's not an insult, it's an opinion, right?
Doesn't matter how justified it is or how it makes the person reciving said opinion feel, it's still an opinion!

Oh wait, "insult" and "opinion" are not mutually exlusive... :smallfrown:
Dang it, that sounded like a really neat excuse to get away with calling people all sorts of things.

Themrys
2013-10-06, 06:55 PM
I'm sorry, but how exactly is calling someone a misogynist not an insult? :smallconfused:

Ask someone for some insulting words in their mother tongue. I can guarantee you, they won't come up with "misogynist".

It's not an insult, it's telling someone how his behaviour is perceived.

Out of curiosity, do you think that "racist" is an insult, too? How to you tell people when they're being racist, then? Can you even do that politely?

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 06:56 PM
And the cool thing is that you can justify all sorts of things with this. Homphobia, misoginy, misandry, racism... Hey, if you don't swear, it's not an insult, it's an opinion, right?
Doesn't matter how justified it is or how it makes the person reciving said opinion feel, it's still an opinion!

Oh wait, "insult" and "opinion" are not mutually exlusive... :smallfrown:
Dang it, that sounded like a really neat excuse to get away with calling people all sorts of things.

Since it was directed at me, as well as the 'son' comment, I'd like to get it back on track and disregard the issues about insult. I took no offense.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-06, 07:00 PM
Ask someone for some insulting words in their mother tongue. I can guarantee you, they won't come up with "misogynist".

It's not an insult, it's telling someone how his behaviour is perceived.

Out of curiosity, do you think that "racist" is an insult, too? How to you tell people when they're being racist, then? Can you even do that politely?

So, basically, because you don't personally believe it's an insult, then it isn't?

And yes, I do see calling someone racist as being something that can be perceived as an insult. Especially when it isn't unambiguously true that they are acting in such a manner that is, without a shadow of a doubt, racist.

Emmerask
2013-10-06, 07:02 PM
My question still remains, are NPCs allowed to change "on their own" without direct PC influence or is that a no go for some?

And if they are allowed to change where is the mistake the DM made (outside the physical changes which may require some suspension of disbelieve)?

To me this seems a rather interesting twist overall and I would be eager to see what will come next instead of being angry that it didnt happen as I planned.

I mean the dm could as well have gone with the overused bandits attack the village and everyone is killed or could just never touch the backstory in any way...

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-06, 07:05 PM
My question still remains, are NPCs allowed to change "on their own" without direct PC influence or is that a no go for some?

I don't see really how any PC can say otherwise. If they don't want the DM to have control of the world he/she crafted and is running for the PCs, then maybe they should try DMing.


And if they are allowed to change where is the mistake the DM made (outside the physical changes which may require some suspension of disbelieve)?

To me this seems a rather interesting twist overall and I would be eager to see what will come next instead of being angry that it didnt happen as I planned.

I don't see a mistake made exactly by the DM either.

Themrys
2013-10-06, 07:05 PM
So, basically, because you don't personally believe it's an insult, then it isn't?

And yes, I do see calling someone racist as being something that can be perceived as an insult. Especially when it isn't unambiguously true that they are acting in such a manner that is, without a shadow of a doubt, racist.

Well, what is described here "stating that if it were you, you would imprison her character in a harem" ... IS misogyny in its purest form, I don't think there can be any discussion on whether it is.

You cannot have misogyny be defined by men who hate women. That way lies madness.

As I said, I don't want to be angry. I would appreciate it if someone reported the instances of misogyny in this thread, as I do not feel any inclination to read the original insults aimed at me.

I might not be able to escape the sexism of my gaming group, but I can very well walk away from the misogyny thrown at me in this forum. And I will.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 07:09 PM
My question still remains, are NPCs allowed to change "on their own" without direct PC influence or is that a no go for some?

And if they are allowed to change where is the mistake the DM made (outside the physical changes which may require some suspension of disbelieve)?

To me this seems a rather interesting twist overall and I would be eager to see what will come next instead of being angry that it didnt happen as I planned.

I mean the dm could as well have gone with the overused bandits attack the village and everyone is killed or could just never touch the backstory in any way...

^^^This... another thing that just came to mind that I might do is have the town attacked by Pirates, have the 'loverboy' plead for his life expressing his true love for Player X, work for them for years and become the Dread Pirate Roberts and make Player X fight a Sicilian in an epic battle of wit and cunning (as well as a Giant and a Swordsman).

Emmerask
2013-10-06, 07:09 PM
The thing is, this single instance does not convince me of any sexism in that group... but since I am not a participant there might be a ton of other stuff that had happened that substantiate your claim?

If so then yes leave the group and look for another, with just knowing of this single event, I would say you are overreacting and interpreting too much into it.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-06, 07:10 PM
Ask someone for some insulting words in their mother tongue. I can guarantee you, they won't come up with "misogynist".

It's not an insult, it's telling someone how his behaviour is perceived.

Out of curiosity, do you think that "racist" is an insult, too? How to you tell people when they're being racist, then? Can you even do that politely?

...Again, "insult" and "opinion" are not two always separate things.
You can express an opinion to someone and make him feel insulted because of it.
It's all subjective, you see?

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-06, 07:10 PM
Well, what is described here "stating that if it were you, you would imprison her character in a harem" ... IS misogyny in its purest form, I don't think there can be any discussion on whether it is.

You cannot have misogyny be defined by men who hate women. That way lies madness.

As I said, I don't want to be angry. I would appreciate it if someone reported the instances of misogyny in this thread, as I do not feel any inclination to read the original insults aimed at me.

I might not be able to escape the sexism of my gaming group, but I can very well walk away from the misogyny thrown at me in this forum. And I will.


Yeah, not touching this with a 30 foot pole and I'm just going to be lurking from now on so I don't get caught up in all.....whatever this has become.

Mr Beer
2013-10-06, 07:26 PM
This falls into the category of "things a DM can do but probably shouldn't".

Kaun
2013-10-06, 07:32 PM
She found out that, in fact, someone else had been there before her and her love was engaged to marry her arch-enemy. He had also become a very different person - someone had decided, and suceeded in making a "real man" out of him. So, about three months after my PC went away, he had gone from cripplingly shy to ... well, no apparent shyness remained. He had also gone from slender to muscular, which is something that in real life can not be achieved without ... well, cheating, if you know what I mean.

Ehh depends what kind of muscular but three months is a long time when it comes down to it. You said he was a boy/young man, with a bit of a growth spurt and some hard work 3 months is more then enough time to go from lean to looking more muscular irl with out any "cheating". Now i'm not talking body build/Arnie in Conan muscular be it would defiantly be noticeable.
Now considering you are playing a fantasy game with magic and what have you i cant see to much of an issue in the GM taking a bit of a dramatic license in adding a bit to this. The boy has been bulking up, so be it.


The Change however ... why? Why?
While playing, until the very end, I had been sure there had to be something more behind it. So, we looked for magic. There was none. We looked for secret unhappyness. There was none.

So I got the impression, that the GM changed my PCs backstory, for no other reason that he didn't like the idea that a shy and gentle young man might be the love interest of a PC, or the husband of said PCs arch-enemy. Maybe he was shy when he was younger and felt bad for the poor NPC and wanted to rescue him ... I do not know.

As to the change, people do change overnight. It can be startling but it is surprisingly common. And it is often brought about by an significant change in the persons life. It could be a hardship like a death of a close friend or family member, new responsibility in a persons life or even the starting of a new relationship, romantic or otherwise.

I don't really think the GM has done anything horrible here, the boy has come out of his shell and his views on the world have changed some what. It happens. I have had mornings when i have gotten out of bed and decided to do things differently because they way i used to do them didn't work.



So, what do you think? For what reason would you (as a GM) change a character's back story in that way?

I don't think he has changed the back story so to speak. You made a back story and injected it into the game but it's not just yours anymore, its part of the game now, he has taken the back story and evolved it some what. He has used a common story tool and put your character in a situation it doesn't like. This should only be an issue if he doesn't give you a chance to do something about the situation.


And is there anything I can do about it without bluntly telling the GM that I don't like his clinging to gender roles and he needs to change that? (I have some suspicion that this could be the same as leaving the group. Might not be, but people can be very sensitive about their storytelling ... I know, I am sensitive about mine)

Is the GM forcing you to adhere to gender roles? I'm just not seeing it so much but i have missed it in the story.

Is your character the same person she was before she started adventuring?

RPGuru1331
2013-10-06, 07:37 PM
Because the poster I responded to wasn't being literal. He was using Edward and Jacob as stand-ins for the two competing ideas of her character's love interest.
Without googling, can you give a useful summary of what ideas Edward and Jacob represented beyond "vampire" and "werewolf"? Because spoiler alert: Neither part of them is reflected in the information we have.


And while she did expect her love to be unrequited, she did expect her lover not to change. (And hell, there's an underwritten "till the end of the adventure" to that expectation, since it's an endgoal and something that could conceivably serve as a "life after the adventure" scenario).
She expected him to still be the same character - a generally reasonable assumption. Outside of Billy Bob Thornton movies and the like, people don't generally see enormous changes in personality and physique in 3 months.

Hell, even movies often have a more reasonable time span.



And yes, I do see calling someone racist as being something that can be perceived as an insult. Especially when it isn't unambiguously true that they are acting in such a manner that is, without a shadow of a doubt, racist.
I don't rightly care if you think it's an insult or not, to be honest. If you do, try to control the ways of thinking that would rightly be labelled that. If you don't, you should still do that.

Also, if you aren't a mindreader, then you can never be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt of someone's motive. If you are a mindreader, I suggest you go to the James Randi Foundation and make yourself a cool million. That said, you can look at whether it props up structures that marginalize based on race.


My question still remains, are NPCs allowed to change "on their own" without direct PC influence or is that a no go for some?
Off-screen change over a short RL period like 3 months in an incredibly drastic manner is generally a bad idea. On-screen can still be a bad idea.


Is the GM forcing you to adhere to gender roles? I'm just not seeing it so much but i have missed it in the story.
"The love story had to end this way because if they married she would have to stop adventuring" actually would be adhering to gender roles, yes.

Kaun
2013-10-06, 07:52 PM
"The love story had to end this way because if they married she would have to stop adventuring" actually would be adhering to gender roles, yes.

ok so that's referring to this


Well ... I actually did talk about why he thought it productive as a whole, and his answer was "Your PC couldn't go on adventuring if her love was requited, the young man wouldn't have let her go"

I'm not going to lie to you, i wouldn't want my spouse adventuring either, its dangerous work. I don't really see this as adhering to gender roles.

Unless the GM said it like "if you got married you wouldn't have time to adventure because you would be cooking and cleaning and having babies!" yeah that i get.
But a husband not wanting his wife to peruse a dangerous career that will likely see spending more time traveling through the wilderness rather then home with him... that... that just sounds like a relationship.

If the Player wanted to play through that element of the game then they could have brought it up with the GM. The GM may not have wanted that kind of game, they were likely on different pages as to what they wanted out of the game.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 07:54 PM
Without googling, can you give a useful summary of what ideas Edward and Jacob represented beyond "vampire" and "werewolf"? Because spoiler alert: Neither part of them is reflected in the information we have.
The slender and buff comparison is the reason they were mentioned, because people understand the imagery, and I don't think that we're talking about a Governator (why does google have an autocorrect for Governator) style of buff, but even if it was does it really change any of the issues? Also the reference wasn't negative.


Outside of Billy Bob Thornton movies and the like, people don't generally see enormous changes in personality and physique in 3 months.
Yes, they do... look at cult indoctrination, military schooling, drug/alchemical use, possession stories, etc. All sorts of things can happen to people and in much much quicker time frames than 3 months.

On a side note the only time I saw an adventurer who was married and adventured was in a campaign where he wanted to role-play a troubled marriage and they had a huge love/hate relationship going on and the only way they could stay married was if someone was gone many months at a time.

RPGuru1331
2013-10-06, 07:58 PM
I'm not going to lie to you, i wouldn't want my spouse adventuring either, its dangerous work. I don't really see this as adhering to gender roles.
Disproportionately placing this concept on women is adhering to gender roles, dude. Dudes very rarely get this story angle placed on them, but women have it at least reasonably frequently.


But a husband not wanting his wife to peruse a dangerous career that will likely see spending more time traveling through the wilderness rather then home with him... that... that just sounds like a relationship.
Being unilaterally told what I will do with my life by my spouse with doesn't really sound like a relationship at all. Certainly not the actually healthy one I have with my wife.

JusticeZero
2013-10-06, 08:01 PM
For that matter, I seriously doubt my wife would let me go out in the woods for a few weeks to fight trolls. So i'm not seeing a gender role here.

Honestly, my hot button here is the idea that Character A, who is not in a relationship with Character B, wandered off for three months and is now angry because Character B is seeing someone now. "I saw her first, now I own her" doesn't wash with me, I find it very sexist, regardless of the relative genders involved. It seems like a perfectly reasonable reflecting point to go "Wow. I wandered off for three months. My village isn't the same as when I left it."

JusticeZero
2013-10-06, 08:06 PM
Disproportionately placing this concept on women is adhering to gender roles, dude. Dudes very rarely get this story angle placed on them, but women have it at least reasonably frequently.
How many male characters have marriage plots as a rule? I can't recall anything of the sort coming up, because I can't think of any male characters wanting to get married before retiring from adventuring.

Seriously though Guru. If your wife wanted to go off into the woods for months to get in dangerous fights with monsters, would you not be more than a little bit hesitant? If you told her that you wanted to wander off with a bunch of motley violent friends for a few months, to get in some gunfights, do you not think you might get some gnashing of teeth? I mean, you have a good relationship, but you want to be, you know.. TOGETHER. Not apart and stressing out over whether your loved ones are safe every lonely night.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 08:07 PM
Without googling, can you give a useful summary of what ideas Edward and Jacob represented beyond "vampire" and "werewolf"? Because spoiler alert: Neither part of them is reflected in the information we have.

Actually, the poster that used the reference stated the difference as "skinny" versus "muscular" several times in his post. Given also that there were a whole suite of personality traits associated with Themrys' love interest while he was "skinny", and another suite for while he was "muscular", it's possible that he meant in terms of those personality traits as well, and that was definitely my own thought.

(I haven't read Twilight, so I don't know how much these match up to Edward and Jacob in particular, but I recall people who had read it calling Edward "broody", so...)



She expected him to still be the same character - a generally reasonable assumption. Outside of Billy Bob Thornton movies and the like, people don't generally see enormous changes in personality and physique in 3 months.

Hell, even movies often have a more reasonable time span.

Well, according to Tim Proctor at least, 3 months is about the length of boot camp for marines. (And I checked the wikipedia on that, and according to the general boot camp section it's accurate). It's also ((And I checked and, unlike you I might add, am willing to show you where I got stuff) (http://blog.treatmentusa.com/2012/03/what-is-the-average-length-of-stay-at-drug-rehab-in-florida/) the high end of the average length of drug rehabilitation. So some big changes can happen then.



"The love story had to end this way because if they married she would have to stop adventuring" actually would be adhering to gender roles, yes.

Given what adventuring is, I would actually say that it's questionable whether that does.

Remember, adventuring involves leaving home for prolonged periods, away from the loved ones one might wish to be with. And while that is something military personnel might do, it's not exactly something they choose to do.

RPGuru1331
2013-10-06, 08:09 PM
The slender and buff comparison is the reason they were mentioned, because people understand the imagery, and I don't think that we're talking about a Governator (why does google have an autocorrect for Governator) style of buff, but even if it was does it really change any of the issues? Also the reference wasn't negative.
Pretty sure they're built about evenly, so you still fail - certainly, Edward isn't really portrayed as being any weaker. And if you want a non-negative reference, you don't refer to Twilight. The internet rightly tends to hate it.



Yes, they do... look at cult indoctrination, military schooling, drug/alchemical use, possession stories, etc. All sorts of things can happen to people and in much much quicker time frames than 3 months.

Possession stories don't change the person - you're dealing with a different entity entirely, inhabiting the old body (Whether you get the old person back varies with the story). The other two still don't fall under the purview of 'generally' (and military schooling doesn't see the kind of fundamental changes you want - shy soldiers are still shy, they're just now also taking orders).


For that matter, I seriously doubt my wife would let me go out in the woods for a few weeks to fight trolls. So i'm not seeing a gender role here.
You're not seeing one because you're choosing to ignore how this is disproportionately placed on women, and plays into general concepts of how women are to be protected (And properly thankful for it, you ingrate) rather than be protector.


Honestly, my hot button here is the idea that Character A, who is not in a relationship with Character B, wandered off for three months and is now angry because Character B is seeing someone now. "I saw her first, now I own her" doesn't wash with me
That's really not what's going on here at all.

Kaun
2013-10-06, 08:11 PM
Disproportionately placing this concept on women is adhering to gender roles, dude. Dudes very rarely get this story angle placed on them, but women have it at least reasonably frequently.

That's true, a lot of games just skim over it or avoid it. It might not be the kind of game the GM was trying to run and he is just trying to dance around the topic, all be it in a some what ungainly manner.



Being unilaterally told what I will do with my life by my spouse with doesn't really sound like a relationship at all. Certainly not the actually healthy one I have with my wife.

Yeah at no time did i say it was a healthy one. As a person who travels for a profession and works with many other people who do the same, the amount of relationships travel alone has ended is really high. Many people of both sexes that i have worked with have ceased to travel for work after getting married due to the strain it causes on a relationship. Now add the inherent danger to the situation.

To me this sounds like the player wanted to play this aspect of the game out and the GM didn't. I don't see the forced gender role side.
I do see that the GM could have chosen a better approach to handling the situation, but that is the way it goes as a GM. Its rare a session passes without me doing something that i wish i could have done differently in hindsight.

It honestly just sounds like a miss communication.

And as to the back story, i don't think he changed it, i just think he took it and ran with it. The player didn't like the way it went which is unfortunate.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 08:12 PM
Disproportionately placing this concept on women is adhering to gender roles, dude. Dudes very rarely get this story angle placed on them, but women have it at least reasonably frequently.

Okay? I have no idea what this statement about the larger context has to do with this, individual story.

(Also I doubt your claim is true, but you'll act like I should already have source material on it and I don't feel like finding contradictory material)

Themrys
2013-10-06, 08:20 PM
Is the GM forcing you to adhere to gender roles? I'm just not seeing it so much but i have missed it in the story.

Is your character the same person she was before she started adventuring?


The GM is not forcing my character to adhere to gender roles ... I think, unlike some people in this thread, he is actually enlightened enough to know that that's not cool.

He does, however, force me to play my character as an exception, while I had the character, backstory included, designed as a completely normal woman, who is exceptional purely in things that have nothing to do with gender norms.

He interpreted a backstory that strongly hinted to the opposite in a way that made the home village of my PC full of people who cling to traditional real world gender roles.

If I changed how I play my character to reflect that, she would not be the same person as when she started adventuring. (Of course, she is not the same person anyway, as she killed people in the meantime and that tends to leave scars on a person's soul, but you tend to expect THAT in a roleplaying game.)

So yes, I can continue playing her as I planned her to be, but I need to ignore things. I don't like to have to ignore things the GM said. My brain tends to insist that they are "real" ingame.
Also, that causes the same problem as using the Ignore list of this forum; namely that other people might react to what I try to ignore.

That reminds me ...
@All users who know how to behave: Please do not quote insults aimed at me in this thread - I have not, nor do I ever intend to read them. I added some names to my ignore list, and I don't want to read what they write in quotes.

RPGuru1331
2013-10-06, 08:25 PM
That's true, a lot of games just skim over it or avoid it. It might not be the kind of game the GM was trying to run and he is just trying to dance around the topic, all be it in a some what ungainly manner.
Maybe; it's certainly plausible he wasn't intending to reinforce those roles, it just doesn't change that he is (Unless he actually has done this with everyone's love interests, which strikes me as unlikely)




Actually, the poster that used the reference stated the difference as "skinny" versus "muscular" several times in his post. Given also that there were a whole suite of personality traits associated with Themrys' love interest while he was "skinny", and another suite for while he was "muscular", it's possible that he meant in terms of those personality traits as well, and that was definitely my own thought.
So the "I'd have made her part of a vampire's harem" thing, after solidly identifying her as being 'Team Edward', was just a non sequitur after a non sequitur? I can safely say I wouldn't guess that.


Well, according to Tim Proctor at least, 3 months is about the length of boot camp for marines. (And I checked the wikipedia on that, and according to the general boot camp section it's accurate). It's also ((And I checked and, unlike you I might add, am willing to show you where I got stuff) the high end of the average length of drug rehabilitation. So some big changes can happen then.
So you don't understand how you're making my point for me by reaching for extraordinary circumstances to prove these changes are 'normal'? I didn't say they were impossible, I said they don't generally happen.


Given what adventuring is, I would actually say that it's questionable whether that does.
It's less dangerous than soldiering, and while it does exist in a non-zero number of stories about men, "The woman at home waiting" is by far the more common story concept.


Remember, adventuring involves leaving home for prolonged periods, away from the loved ones one might wish to be with. And while that is something military personnel might do, it's not exactly something they choose to do.
Er, it is if they aren't conscripts or slaves.


Okay? I have no idea what this statement about the larger context has to do with this, individual story.
Gender roles don't exist in some vacuum except for the individual cases they crop up. They're reinforced by society in numerous, often individually small, ways. I don't think anyone has said the GM is singlehandedly upholding gender roles everywhere forever here, but if I missed it, they'd be wrong. What I'm saying is he's contributing to extant gender roles (unless he's actually enforced this on basically everyone, which is very unlikely).

JusticeZero
2013-10-06, 08:35 PM
You're not seeing one because you're choosing to ignore how this is disproportionately placed on women, and plays into general concepts of how women are to be protected (And properly thankful for it, you ingrate) rather than be protector.
And my response was that I suspect that that is an artifact of sampling - specifically, it is my experience that marriage/romantic plots are statistically far more likely to be requested by F/f players (Female player and female character) than any other group. As such, it would be very bizarre NOT to find some sort of gender-correlated thing, simply because I can't remember ever hearing about a character getting married unless both the player and the character were female. Under those circumstances, any and all plots related to relationships will have what appears to be a gender role component. That doesn't mean that it is actually there.
The guy in question seems to be stronger. Why? I don't know. Is it even related? I don't know. Is it worth walking out of the game over? I would say no. There is no information to work with here. I'm not seeing any bad thing here beyond "Your enemy showed up and turned the guy you never said anything to into a person you dislike." And to be clear, that is what happened. Obviously it was effective. Get back to beating up the forces of evil. Save the boy. Or not. Maybe find someone you like more.

RPGuru1331
2013-10-06, 08:38 PM
He interpreted a backstory that strongly hinted to the opposite in a way that made the home village of my PC full of people who cling to traditional real world gender roles.
I'm not sure this'll make you feel better, but in the real world, women have always done labor that was paid labor. The only time it wasn't actually paid was when the actual employer was her husband or father (As in, helping the family farm). So it's sounding like it wouldn't even be real world gender roles, because people often have a poor view of the past.


(Also I doubt your claim is true, but you'll act like I should already have source material on it and I don't feel like finding contradictory material)
That's a solid basis for doubt if ever there was one; "I don't feel like looking at fiction."

Kaun
2013-10-06, 08:43 PM
He interpreted a backstory that strongly hinted to the opposite in a way that made the home village of my PC full of people who cling to traditional real world gender roles.

Yeah this is changing you back story some what but as i have found in past experience "hinting" at something never works out well.

I would front foot it. Tell him "hey, my village was written up to be "x" but your running it as "y". If your weren't going to allow it to be "x" then why did you approve my back story in the first place?"

If its a miss communication just deal with it straight up, no hints, just a direct question.


Maybe; it's certainly plausible he wasn't intending to reinforce those roles, it just doesn't change that he is (Unless he actually has done this with everyone's love interests, which strikes me as unlikely)

That does raise an interesting question;

@Themrys are any of the other PC's in the game involved in romantic relationships with NPC's and if so how are they progressing?

Broken Twin
2013-10-06, 08:43 PM
@OP: Personally, I think you'd be a lot better off just talking to your GM. It sounds like you just had different ideas on how you wanted that plot hook to progress. Unless you have other evidence of your GM being sexist, I think you're letting your unhappiness at the unexpected development exuberate the issue.

As for the problem with most of the generic NPCs being men, I have to side with a previous poster that your GM might just be uncomfortable with RPing women. Depending on your group's playing style, you may be able to help this by incorporating more women NPCs yourself, ala "I go talk to the soldier guarding the door. She may have seen something." Obviously, this would be something done in moderation, but it does work. Bit character rarely have set attributes until they come up in game, and gender is just another attribute. It may be a bit of a bumpy road until he gets used to RPing women with ease, but it's usually worth it.

Granted, if your GM IS sexist, then at least talking to him will help you figure that out, and you can make your choices from there.

RPGuru1331
2013-10-06, 08:43 PM
And my response was that I suspect that that is an artifact of sampling - specifically, it is my experience that marriage/romantic plots are statistically far more likely to be requested by F/f players (Female player and female character) than any other group.
I'm not going off of RP. I'm going off of fiction in general. If you want to suggest sampling bias, you're going off of my exposure to fiction , and you'd be right to think I try to minimize that nonsense - it's still disproportionately aimed at women.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-06, 08:46 PM
Maybe; it's certainly plausible he wasn't intending to reinforce those roles, it just doesn't change that he is (Unless he actually has done this with everyone's love interests, which strikes me as unlikely)

Upon whom?

The most likely 4-5 people playing this one game, for whom it isn't their story in all cases but one, and in that one case viewing it negatively and therefore unlikely to internalize it?





So the "I'd have made her part of a vampire's harem" thing, after solidly identifying her as being 'Team Edward', was just a non sequitur after a non sequitur? I can safely say I wouldn't guess that.

He's saying that's how he would do it, as opposed to how it's being done now. Not a non-sequitur.



So you don't understand how you're making my point for me by reaching for extraordinary circumstances to prove these changes are 'normal'? I didn't say they were impossible, I said they don't generally happen.

We're dealing with a genre chock-full of extraordinary circumstances, though. And this one's comparably mundane.



It's less dangerous than soldiering, and while it does exist in a non-zero number of stories about men, "The woman at home waiting" is by far the more common story concept.

The concept we're discussing isn't "women at home waiting", though, it's "women quitting their high-risk, travelling-heavy job to partake in mundane duties". I'm curious as to what you think the proportions there are...


As for the difference in danger level...given the very specific physics differences of most fantasy worlds only. Not really as much on the level of specificity most people operate in.




Er, it is if they aren't conscripts or slaves.

Doing something out of obligation isn't exactly the same, even if it's an obligation willingly signed onto. And even then a given tour doesn't (I think) last very long.



Gender roles don't exist in some vacuum except for the individual cases they crop up. They're reinforced by society in numerous, often individually small, ways. I don't think anyone has said the GM is singlehandedly upholding gender roles everywhere forever here, but if I missed it, they'd be wrong). What I'm saying is he's contributing to extant gender roles (unless he's actually enforced this on basically everyone, which is very unlikely).

Here's the thing though: If your standard for unacceptable level of gender role reinforcement is "if your work even has some of them by pure chance, then no one can ever make a work where a woman does things that are traditionally feminine.

I understand that you (claim to) support something different from this, but in order for you to be able to say "there's plenty of room for the condemned content on your end", people actually have to be allowed to make it at points.

JusticeZero
2013-10-06, 08:52 PM
I'm not going off of RP. I'm going off of fiction in general. If you want to suggest sampling bias, you're going off of my exposure to fiction , and you'd be right to think I try to minimize that nonsense - it's still disproportionately aimed at women.Well, okay. But honestly, I think you might find the same issue with fictional characters - that being, women are being ascribed a gender role of being pressured into staying at home not because "married women have to stay home" but because the rule is being depicted as "married PEOPLE have to stay home" and a disproportionately small number of male characters are married with active (living, non-kidnapped) spouses.

Themrys
2013-10-06, 08:53 PM
@RPGuru: Actually, working women are not so much the problem. It's more little things like the bride walking into the temple on the arm of a male relative ... something that makes zero sense in that fantasy world ... I'm not sure whether he does it on purpose but ... yeah.



That does raise an interesting question;

@Themrys are any of the other PC's in the game involved in romantic relationships with NPC's and if so how are they progressing?

Nothing to speak of, unless you'd count a embarassing incidence where the hunter (female) sneaked in on an NPC priest (male) while he was bathing, and fled when he noticed her. He did leave her a letter, but since priests of the god of death and sleep are notoriously silent, the letter only contained a single flower and not much information.
She has not mentioned it since we left the village where it happened. I'm not sure whether the GM enforced any steretoypes here. "Men are positively surprised when a pretty women turns up in the bathroom" might be one, but then again, in a gender-equal society that has been like this for hundreds of years, maybe everyone would be pleasantly surprised. :smallwink:

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 08:57 PM
Possession stories don't change the person - you're dealing with a different entity entirely, inhabiting the old body (Whether you get the old person back varies with the story). The other two still don't fall under the purview of 'generally' (and military schooling doesn't see the kind of fundamental changes you want - shy soldiers are still shy, they're just now also taking orders).
If you believe that then you have no concept of what you're talking about... there is not a single person that goes through a possession scenario, or a military basic training scenario who doesn't walk out of it with a very impacted perception on things. Generally, more confidence, thus the reason they go through confidence courses, and they will get out of basic training and ask women out that they would have never done so before. NOT THE POINT, THE POINT IS THAT THESE THINGS DO HAPPEN.


So the "I'd have made her part of a vampire's harem" thing, after solidly identifying her as being 'Team Edward', was just a non sequitur after a non sequitur? I can safely say I wouldn't guess that.
Edward never had a harem, the vampire issue is purely a coincidence here nothing more. In fact separated in their context by quite a bit.

Also, I'm not going debate whether Edward is weaker than Jacob because this isn't about twilight. But Werewolves have more 'strength' in the traditional sense than Vampires, if you don't like it complain to the author.


So you don't understand how you're making my point for me by reaching for extraordinary circumstances to prove these changes are 'normal'? I didn't say they were impossible, I said they don't generally happen.
We're talking about a player character, nothing normal happens to them, they start the game off with a nemesis or arch-enemy. They are what the story twists and turns around, we're not talking about the statistical probability of something happening in real life, we're talking about fact that extraordinary events are everyday occurrences.

*****

There is a ton of information that we don't know about this world but since there are mind altering substances (love potions) and arch-enemies in it, I'm guessing that anything is up for game. That includes having an NPC important to a PC used to further the campaign.

Emmerask
2013-10-06, 09:07 PM
Off-screen change over a short RL period like 3 months in an incredibly drastic manner is generally a bad idea. On-screen can still be a bad idea.


/shrug I have seen faster "changes" in personality especially at a young age when the first girlfriend was involved.

Long story short: loner guy in my class, got a girlfriend, was suddenly talkative and funny... that was pretty much in the span of 1 or 2 months
One could argue that "this" actually always was his personality he just lacked the confidence to express himself... but that could very well be the shy guy in this story.
So its not actually a change of personality but having the confidence to be himself.

Now granted that is just one example maybe even an exception? but what it tells me is that such things can happen.

/edit the backstory has no right to make final calls on NPCs personalities/motives, they just can make observations based on the PCs point of view, everything else is up to the dm.

Kaun
2013-10-06, 09:08 PM
*snip*

It is possible the GM just wanted to avoid having to play through the relationship part of your story and picked a poor way of avoiding it.

He and you may just want different things out of the game.

Themrys
2013-10-06, 09:09 PM
Disproportionately placing this concept on women is adhering to gender roles, dude. Dudes very rarely get this story angle placed on them, but women have it at least reasonably frequently.


Being unilaterally told what I will do with my life by my spouse with doesn't really sound like a relationship at all. Certainly not the actually healthy one I have with my wife.


Yup. By that logic, no player character could ever logically have a love interest.

(And I'm quite sure, Inky would have understood why V needs to save the world instead of staying at home, if V had taken a bit more time to explain it.)


@Kaun: He did not seem uncomfortable with relationship things beforehand. Anyway, he could just have told me - I suggested three characters and this one was the only with a romantic backstory.

Broken Twin
2013-10-06, 09:30 PM
Yup. By that logic, no player character could ever logically have a love interest.

(And I'm quite sure, Inky would have understood why V needs to save the world instead of staying at home, if V had taken a bit more time to explain it.)


@Kaun: He did not seem uncomfortable with relationship things beforehand. Anyway, he could just have told me - I suggested three characters and this one was the only with a romantic backstory.

I think Inky (quite rightly) deduced that V cared more about the power then their relationship at the time. And even if V had explained more clearly why they still needed that power, that doesn't mean that Inky would have been happy about it. Distance relationships take a lot of work, and they fail far more often then they succeed. It's fully possible that your GM wasn't interested in running that kind of story.

Yes, it sucked that your GM took your subplot hook in a direction you didn't want it to go. But unless you clearly spelled out to him how you wanted it to play out, you can't blame him for not reading your mind. From my perspective, it seems to be a "You lost out by not making a move. Now you have the choice between fighting for his affections or letting your crush go." That's a classic romance plot. Just because it's not the romance plot you wanted doesn't mean that your GM did something wrong. If you really don't like what he's done with your background, talk to him about it.

ngilop
2013-10-06, 11:06 PM
I am soo confused.


what I am getting from this is the OP is mad becuase the NPC that was in her backstory. GOt a different girlfriend and in the 3 months that the OP character was out of town the NPC guy she had went from 90 pound weakling to muscular guy?

then she is mad about gender essentialism sexism and everything else that somehow goes along with the fact that making a male want to buff up?

How is that not sexism in and of itself its nor more worse to say 'no male is ever going to try to get more muscular or better himself when he find a mate that cares and wants to be with him' than whatever OP is claiming the DM is doing in this case.

I could be totally off base on this, but it seems that teh sole 'issue' is just with the OP. and her hypcoritical vieews on sexism.

Black Jester
2013-10-07, 12:34 AM
I know of it, but I never knew the setting was so progressive! May have to look that one up.

It isn't, or it isn't as progressive as it claims to be. While the side text frequently proclaims things like gender equality, and setting-internal tolerance for same sex pairings, the setting barely delivers on these and can be banally heteronormative when it comes to official NPCs and stories. The only gay people who are mentioned at all (as far as I know), are aesthetically appeasing lesbians and amoral, at best roguish bisexuals.
TDE wants to be more progressive, and equality-oriented, but when it comes to concrete, feasible characters, it usually follows almost standardized patterns and gender clishés.
Honestly, there is little out of the norm for TDE games in the description of the OP's presentation of her GM. That doesn't justify it, but sets it into context.

When it comes to background stories, there is a fine line between adapting them into the game and having them stand as they are. Written text is a lot more static than actual gameplay; and when you begin to adapt the background into the game it necessarily has to become more dynamic and change over time as the plot proceeds. This *requires* change. Furthermore, the idea of a character who goes on adventures for the benefit of her beloved one only to grow more distant of that beloved one over time and eventually see themselves changed enough to lose this anchor is pretty good drama. It is a tragic tale, certainly, but that is what generates the emotional impact. After all, if the players are entitled to have everything go their way all the time, the game will be pretty boring.
Handled right, this is a gripping, and beautifully sad tale.

I am not sure however, if this was handled right in this example, what is slightly sad in itself due to the wasted potential of a perfectly fine tragedy.

Lorsa
2013-10-07, 06:01 AM
I am quoting the OP not because I want to reply to her specifically but because it holds information relevant to the discussion.


For my PC I created a backstory in which she is in love with a boy/young man from her village. I described the young man as very, very shy - this is why my PC never got to tell him what she feels ... he was not very talkative. I also described him as somewhat slender/delicate ... you get the picture. That was the person my PC wanted to protect at all costs, and her sole motivation to go on adventure and earn money, so she could, in a distant future, marry him.

She found out that, in fact, someone else had been there before her and her love was engaged to marry her arch-enemy. He had also become a very different person - someone had decided, and suceeded in making a "real man" out of him. So, about three months after my PC went away, he had gone from cripplingly shy to ... well, no apparent shyness remained. He had also gone from slender to muscular, which is something that in real life can not be achieved without ... well, cheating, if you know what I mean.

While I am sure there are examples of people changing their personality in 3 months, this is the exception and not the norm. Also, the only thing that most often change due to some event or experience is confidence.

I've had a friend who's been doing that military training thing we have in Sweden and that didn't change his core personality. Nor did he change drastically when finally getting a girlfriend. Nor when he got married. Etc, etc. People usually don't change their core personality in the blink of an eye. He's not the exact same person he was when I first met him 26 years ago but all those changes have happened slowly over time. As is most common with people.

It was mentioned that the character was very very shy. There was no mention by the OP about this being due to lack of confidence or anything such. He was simply shy. Logically this wouldn't change just because you met someone. Your confidence might, but if you're just an intrinsically shy person (which seem to me as being what the OP was trying to describe) then you're still going to be shy. And there's nothing wrong with that! It's not like lack of confidence is the only source of shyness.

This is one of those times where there are conflicting opinions between player and GM about what is plausible. That is always going to spur conflict within a group.

Also, if there is a way to go from slender/delicate to muscular in 3 months can someone tell me how? I've been working out for well over 3 years now and while I'm twice as strong (or more) in many areas as when I started out I'm still nowhere near being "muscular". In 3 months you can become stronger (increased strength score), but that is mostly because you train your nervous system how to properly utilize all the muscles. Also, you can decrease your body fat to make your muscle contours become more prominent but that's not really an option for someone who is already slender/delicate as their body fat percentage is already low. You can argue that this is a magical world so all natural laws are completely irrelevant but then we're back to the same problem with player and GM having different views on what is plausible.


The Change however ... why? Why?
While playing, until the very end, I had been sure there had to be something more behind it. So, we looked for magic. There was none. We looked for secret unhappyness. There was none.

Also, to everyone who is suggesting that the OP is upset with her love interest being taken by someone else, read what she actually had a problem with. I especially like the "secret unhappiness" part because I assume it applies both to current state of affairs and the past. If you're not secretly unhappy with your shyness then the reason for this drastic change would most likely be because someone is actively trying to change you. Usually that sort of thing, even though you might not be against the results, will make you unhappy. So the fact that there isn't any secret unhappiness is interesting because it makes this scenario even more implausible.



TL, DR: Such drastic changes as being described here could theoretically happen but they're improbable at best.

Terraoblivion
2013-10-07, 07:29 AM
Thank you for that, Lorsa. It seems like a lot of people didn't quite understand what was said about the situation correctly and you clarified a lot better than I would have done.

Segev
2013-10-07, 07:59 AM
I'll chime in with the "talk to your DM" chorus.

However, I would be careful about accusations that sound like "you're sexist."

Given today's cultural tenor, you are effectively invoking Godwin's Law when you do so. It means you have given up hope of persuading the other person.

If it is "gender essentialism" that you feel he's enforcing with this, and that's the core of your objection, then there is going to be an unavoidable gap between what you want and what he provides in a game. Because if that is the CORE of your objection, then you can't discuss it in other terms, and there's no solution but to find people who share your views on the subject, because those who do not (even if they don't actively disagree, but just don't care) will inevitably wind up offending your sensibilities at some point.

If, on the other hand, it is something more along the lines of finding the characterization or physical shift unrealistic, that's worth discussing. Recall that this is fiction, and fiction often exaggerates such changes over what they could be in reality in order to make them obvious. It's a little heavy-handed, but that could be all that's at work, here. If this is the case, it might be worthwhile to talk to the DM about not having "secret pain" show up, but instead to have her unrequited paramour start to show hints that he's really pushing himself to be out-going and obviously assertive, possibly specifically for her benefit.

I don't know how he's been characterized as feeling for your PC since your PC returned; if he at any point felt something positive for her, however, and knew she was in love with him, perhaps his shyness was preventing him from actually telling her that he didn't share her feelings. Maybe his new wife has encouraged him to "be assertive" so that he doesn't "lead [your PC] on."

It's not a secret pain, but it is a stressor. He's working hard at it, because he's hoping you'll give up on him. If he had any confidence issues, maybe he thought the only reason your character cherished him was because he was weak and she could protect him. If not, maybe he just is forcing it so that he isn't the man she loved and will not create a love triangle that might put stress on his marriage.

If he was actually hurt/insulted by the attitude of protectiveness your PC had towards him, but was too shy and worried about being "mean" to do anything about it, maybe his wedding to this other girl has catalyzed it to enough offense that he's showing her he can stand on his own so she'll LEAVE HIM ALONE.

If not - if he cared about your PC and was touched by her concern - perhaps it is your PC's arch-rival (and his wife) who convinced him that this uncharacteristic show of force-of-personality is necessary to prevent your PC from trying to steal him away. If he doesn't think ill of your PC, his wife likely knows this and isn't going to try to make him do so, but she'll play on his loyalty to her (with some reason; she IS his wife) to get him to be firm in his rejection of you. She may be encouraging him - purely naturally - to assertiveness and non-shyness specifically to be off-putting to you. She's convinced him (and maybe even herself) that it is for your PC's own good and that it will cause your PC to fall out of love with him. It might break your PC's heart, but that was inevitable with him wedding your arch-rival, anyway. At least it will be a clean break and set your PC free to seek another love, rather than tearing apart his marriage to try to win him from her rival.

Of course, depending on how evil/devious/manipulative your PC's rival is, she may well know that this will wound your character deeply, and be happy about it. But this is a more powerful plot, I think, if on some level she's right and justified, and may - just may - be taking it a touch too far.

Just because she's your rival doesn't mean she has to be the total bad guy here. Though she could be, she needn't be.

That last is important, if you want to sell your DM on this idea. This idea allows you to salvage some of the characterization of your NPC-love-interest while keeping in line with what you've told us of what you've seen IC. By letting the DM have plenty of wiggle-room to have your rival be anything from a manipulative witch-queen to merely somebody who doesn't like your character and is trying to help her husband (whom she loves) to shake off your character's affections as cleanly as possible (and isn't too concerned if it happens to hurt your PC), you make it so he doesn't have to re-write things TOO much.

You just are asking him to re-insert, in future characterization, hints and ties back to your NPC-(ex-)love-interest still being the same man, just with a strong influence in his life. One that DOES make him happy, even if she occasionally pushes him to do things outside his comfort zone. (The DM could show it reciprocated, too; perhaps your rival is pushed to be less of a jerk to your PC by her husband, who doesn't hate your PC. Or maybe she has other traits he pushes her to overcome when it's necessary.)

This won't touch on the physical changes. It sounds like that's been set in stone as non-magical; he just has...somehow...gained a lot of muscle in three months.

You might ask your DM what it is he sees this boy as having done to put on the muscle. If he was a young or mid-teen, it could simply be that puberty hit in a first or second growth spurt. If it's "exercise," ask what he's done differently and why. Not confrontationally, just to get a picture of it. It generally does take intense training to overcome a body type. If he, himself, did some adventuring for his pregnant wife's sake, that could explain it.

If there's no real good explanation, then he just wanted to use the physical change to emphasize the rest of it. You'll have to accept it and move on. It may not be realistic, but you are in a setting where a sufficiently experienced savage warrior can take sword blows that don't break his flesh (Barbarians eventually get DR/-).

But in a nutshell: your goal should be to figure out with your DM what he wants to achieve with this, and to talk to him about ways to keep characterization that was important to you in place and believable while jiving with what's happened.


As a semi-joke, it could be funny if your PC's love interest was actually (unbeknownst, perhaps, to him) a dragon or other shapeshifting creature, and he's changed his physical appearance to reflect what he thinks of himself and what he thinks his wife wants him to be. If still shy, her encouragement to beef up was still all it took to get him to subconsciously do so.

Emmerask
2013-10-07, 08:10 AM
TL, DR: Such drastic changes as being described here could theoretically happen but they're improbable at best.

Yes they are unlikely, however what the character perceived some npcs to be like in the backstory is just that, their perception!

So its perfectly feasible that said npc just lacked the confidence to express himself and therefore was perceived as shy.

As for the muscles it depends a lot on your metabolism what you eat etc on how fast or if at all you can become buff in a shorter amount of time *... and of course mannerism, stance etc can very much influence how others see you, someone not that lanky can be perceived as lanky just by his stance and manners.

TL, DR: If you describe some npc in your backstory it is done using the pcs perception of him but that does not have to be the whole truth.

*/edit during the machinist (ending filming) and dark knight (start filming test stuff) where about 1.5 months time, granted with personal trainers etc but still the change in physique is astonishing (from walking corpse to Hercules)... so it is possible

Themrys
2013-10-07, 08:35 AM
Also, to everyone who is suggesting that the OP is upset with her love interest being taken by someone else, read what she actually had a problem with. I especially like the "secret unhappiness" part because I assume it applies both to current state of affairs and the past. If you're not secretly unhappy with your shyness then the reason for this drastic change would most likely be because someone is actively trying to change you. Usually that sort of thing, even though you might not be against the results, will make you unhappy. So the fact that there isn't any secret unhappiness is interesting because it makes this scenario even more implausible.

Thank you ... yeah, I guess the GM does not know that there are men who are slender and will stay that way, unless they use illegal and unhealthy means to change it. Just as there are women who are bulky and can only choose between fat-bulky and muscular-bulky, and maybe unhealthy thinness via dieting.
It's all to easy to convince oneself that gender stereotypes are true and some men are just too lazy and some women are just too greedy to work out and diet properly, respectively.

Now, regarding the shyness ... the only thing that the guy himself didn't like about his shyness in my head, was the fact that he would not be able to earn his money as bard, at least not the kind of bard who also acts as all-round entertainer. Which he now isn't going to do anyway, since he is now muscular enough to be effective as a farmer. Or house-husband who does the heavy work of heaving around heavy baskets of wet laundry.

Unless, that is, the means used to change his body will come back to bite him.

Segev
2013-10-07, 08:49 AM
Ah, so he married her and became a farmer, and the farm work is what made him muscular?

...actually, that's one of those things that CAN do that to even scrawny types. If his physical weakness was keeping him from being a farmer before, but he developed the will to force himself to do it despite this, he would get stronger and become capable at it. The only thing that would prevent this would be if he was genuinely sickly to the point that he would die from the exertion. And that is, I emphasize, a sign that he is actually sick. (Not necessarily "with a virus" or the like; there are some people who are born with inherent conditions - usually heart-defects - that mean the work to build up endurance will kill them.) "Sickly" is a term that describes a wide variety of conditions, but they are signs he's not HEALTHY enough to work, not that he has a "perfectly normal" body type that happens to be scrawny.

Now, maybe he would still be whipcord-thin and built more like a swimmer than a body-builder in real life, but he would put on muscle and gain both strength and endurance.

In your head-canon for him, he wanted to be an entertainer and bard. But the DM has him happily being a house husband/farmer? Have you spoken to him about this particular characterization element?

The key, still, I think, is talking to the DM about the character as you saw him (and particularly the motives, drives, and personality characteristics, more than the outward effects), and being willing to work with the DM and compromise to tweak the existing presentation so that it is believable. And you have to do it without accusing the DM of "sexism" or any other bugaboos, because that's basically slapping him in the face and telling him "my way, or you're a bad person! And possibly a bad person for having made me have to talk to you about it at all!" Most people take poorly to having their character impugned, and whether you mean it to or not, throwing "your actions are sexist" around even in implication at the least implies impugning of their character.

Jay R
2013-10-07, 10:45 AM
Don't do a romantic subplot with a DM whose idea of romance is not compatible with your own.

GungHo
2013-10-07, 11:00 AM
My question still remains, are NPCs allowed to change "on their own" without direct PC influence or is that a no go for some?

And if they are allowed to change where is the mistake the DM made (outside the physical changes which may require some suspension of disbelieve)?
Stepping away from the gender politics and Love Potion #9:

I think the time period is odd. 3 months for a personality change is a bit much. 3 years... maybe not so much, especially if the PC wasn't there and a life-changing event occurred. If the guy "stepped up" because he had to fight off bands of brigands, run a smithy, be the mayor, or be a father, or something like that, it'd make sense. Just because you weren't there doesn't mean life doesn't and shouldn't go on. The arch-nemesis encountering him on the battlefield, possibly even as an opponent (maybe she accompanied the brigands to get an idea of "their work), and being entranced by by the unrequited lover or being entranced by what she thought she could make of him (maybe where others see a desperate villager with a pitchfork/pike, she sees a man of conviction and a possible general) would make sense in that context, and she might capture him and then nuture/train/break him as a soldier and leader from that point. And, if he's truly broken, he could easily have become a true believer and gave himself willingly, with no real, hidden agenda or sorcery beyond that, even if sorcery was used to initally break his resistance.

You can say he was brainwashed, and that's true to an extent... but how much of it is brainwashing and how much is it finding the potential in a person? In the real world, we call this Basic Training. The uncomfortable part is that he's now aligned with evil, but beyond that, the transformation is less objectionable over time.

Note, there's nothing in the above that cannot be gender swapped or gender neutralized, and that's done with a very specific purpose.

Lorsa
2013-10-07, 11:19 AM
Themrys: I forgot to add in my advice to you, since that is what you wanted. Any good GM will regularly ask for feedback from his players and when he does you can simply tell him that you didn't enjoy this improbable set of events and explain why. If he doesn't ask, you can tell him anyway.

Themrys
2013-10-07, 01:55 PM
Don't do a romantic subplot with a DM whose idea of romance is not compatible with your own.

Good advice. Problem is, how do you know that if you're not playing with old friends, anyway?

New aquaintances tend to pretend to agree with you even if they secretly don't. It's polite and nice, but it makes it hard to judge what people actually think.

I now know that it was not wise to include a romantic subplot in a backstory, and will avoid that in the future if I do not know for sure how the GM will handle it.


@Lorsa: "Just talk about it" is good advice, I frequently give it myself. Only it becomes somewhat more difficult to do if you actually have to do it. In my experience, at least. :smallwink:

Lorsa
2013-10-07, 02:04 PM
@Lorsa: "Just talk about it" is good advice, I frequently give it myself. Only it becomes somewhat more difficult to do if you actually have to do it. In my experience, at least. :smallwink:

That's definitely true. So my second advice would then be; tell someone you trust and have her/him talk to the GM for you.

Gavran
2013-10-07, 02:20 PM
Good advice. Problem is, how do you know that if you're not playing with old friends, anyway?

New aquaintances tend to pretend to agree with you even if they secretly don't. It's polite and nice, but it makes it hard to judge what people actually think.

I now know that it was not wise to include a romantic subplot in a backstory, and will avoid that in the future if I do not know for sure how the GM will handle it.


@Lorsa: "Just talk about it" is good advice, I frequently give it myself. Only it becomes somewhat more difficult to do if you actually have to do it. In my experience, at least. :smallwink:

Personally, as a player, I would never put the DM in a position where they have to roleplay a romantic situation with my character, nor would I as the DM use characters that are romantically involved with the PCs without explicit player prompting, excepting that the player in question/the DM is a close friend who I have a certain kind of (frequently but harmlessly flirtatious, for example) relationship with. I'm not saying that these opinions of mine should be law for everyone, but they are very much law for me - and in a completely organic natural way, not because I "learned my lesson" like you're saying you have now.

veti
2013-10-07, 03:22 PM
OK, so there's an overwhelming consensus that you need to talk to the DM. I agree with that.

But I'd like to suggest something to think about, first. Simply: that he may just have either overlooked the "painfully shy" character aspect, or may not have understood how essential you considered it to be to the character.

So talk to him, privately. Let him know how you feel, how upset you are by this bit of rewriting, but be prepared for him to just not understand why you're taking it so seriously. Once you get him to understand that what he did was messing with something you consider essential to your own character - then best case, he'll apologise and promise to be more careful in future.

And when you talk to him, above all, make it personal. Make it clear this is something that matters to you. Don't bring up politically loaded words like "stereotyping", and definitely not "mysogyny" - that just makes it sound like you're crusading for a cause, not yourself. Keep it in the bounds of your own feelings - that's the only way to keep it from escalating into a much, much wider argument, which (I'm guessing, although could be wrong) you likely don't want to have.

Mr Beer
2013-10-07, 04:42 PM
Maybe the reason for the drastic physical and mental changes is because the archenemy cast a bunch of spells on the guy? In fantasy there's no need to insist on a mundane explanation if magic will do the job.

Couronne
2013-10-07, 04:44 PM
Yup - I join the chorus of 'talk to your GM and tell him how the situation made you feel whilst avoiding anything accusatory', depending on his response, then maybe bring up the gender politics of it if you get a sense that it would be a good teaching moment and not result in hostility.

Personally, if I'd done what your GM did, I would have seen it necessary to provide an uncoverable in-game explanation for the extreme bulk up and personality change in 3 months. It might be that the GM assumed the love interest was shy *because* he was frail and that overcoming that shyness would then be a fairly automatic side effect of the newfound musculature (which then only leaves one thing to explain, which can sort of just about be covered by 'he worked out...like, a lot'). I have seen a couple of formerly shy skinny guys turn into total dudebros once they bulked up (though it took about 9/10 months rather than 3, and I do think it speaks horrendous volumes about perceptions of masculinity in culture).

The Oni
2013-10-08, 03:36 PM
As far as the DM actually doing romantic roleplay with a character, my group tends to use the term "Box Text." As in:

DM: You burst open the door and the princess thanks you for rescuing her.
Player: I woo her with knightly charms. "Box text." *rolls Diplomacy* I got a 22.
DM: She blushes slightly but keeps her composure as a proper lady. She does, however, offer to show you around the castle grounds when you get back...

Obviously it's a little more complicated than that with an established LI but there's no need to just toss out romantic subplots 'cause the DM's not comfortable pretending to make googly eyes at you. Just switch to 3rd Person and it's easily avoided. Suggest it to your DM.

Delta
2013-10-08, 05:20 PM
Good advice. Problem is, how do you know that if you're not playing with old friends, anyway?

New aquaintances tend to pretend to agree with you even if they secretly don't. It's polite and nice, but it makes it hard to judge what people actually think.

I now know that it was not wise to include a romantic subplot in a backstory, and will avoid that in the future if I do not know for sure how the GM will handle it.


@Lorsa: "Just talk about it" is good advice, I frequently give it myself. Only it becomes somewhat more difficult to do if you actually have to do it. In my experience, at least. :smallwink:

But I fear "Just talk about it" remains the only real advice to give to your questions. Ask your GM beforehand whether he feels comfortable with a romantic subplot. Make it clear to you want to have his honest opinion, don't make him think that you're putting any kind of pressure on him to say "yes". There's really not much more you can do. Sure, sometimes it still will fail, because as a general rule, people suck at communicating, let's be honest.

Warlord476
2013-10-08, 06:26 PM
My question still remains, are NPCs allowed to change "on their own" without direct PC influence or is that a no go for some?

And if they are allowed to change where is the mistake the DM made (outside the physical changes which may require some suspension of disbelieve)?

To me this seems a rather interesting twist overall and I would be eager to see what will come next instead of being angry that it didnt happen as I planned.

I mean the dm could as well have gone with the overused bandits attack the village and everyone is killed or could just never touch the backstory in any way...

It is an interesting twist, good question.

Here's my own experience/take.

First up, the GM did not change OP's character backstory under the letter of the law, but effectively did so by re-working a key character. We don't know the story elements that were used on her character's return so can't speculate what flags/prompts may have been used. They would be important too. What we do know is it was poorly handled by the GM so the OP was considering leaving.

I've been on both ends of this. As a GM I have taken an element from a backstory and reworked it, or inserted something pretty significant there. In all cases I was trying to make the story work better for the character, not break it. A GM needs to be able to communicate especially around key elements like that.

As a player I also nearly left a game where my GM changed a key element of backstory. In this case, my character's backstory included a "beauty and the beast" type set-up where my character could be "saved" from the darkness of his anger through a developing romance with a girl he just met. The GM's reasoning was "you didn't spell out what her character is like" and changed her into something of a shrew. It seemed so petty and I was very angry. There was no secret story/evil plot to it - he just saw her one way only, no debate. Even though the game was good that was one of the key reasons I voted to stop it.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-08, 07:05 PM
I think it is funny. If the OP had been a guy (assuming, the OP is a girl sorry if I am wrong) that came on the forums and complained about how the DM changed his backstory. Made his PC Lovedoll go from slutty Barwench, to a Gender-role neutral, empowered level headed woman over the course of a week. People would laugh at him.

Judging by the OP
Someone made an allusion to The Princess Bride. It kind of fits in this situation. Weasly (the OP) has set out to go make some name for himself so he can provide for Buttercup (The Npc). Instead of Fighter for her, and trying to find out why... The Dread Pirate Roberts,( in this case) seems to have just giving up and decided that Buttercup loves Humperdink.(Arch-nemesis)

Personally, I think it's kind of backwards sexism. The Idea that a guy has to remain loyal to a woman, no matter what happens.

I kind of think you should look at it from the NPC's PoV. Yes they can have that. Apparently, for whatever reason, The PC left the NPC. presumably to make money. Maybe the NPC was to shy to tell her no. That it was to dangerous. That it wasn't what he wanted. In any case, it probably wouldn't have mattered the PC in any case. Now, if the PC was a male, people would be all like that's a cheap move, however since its a female character, its empowerment. So, the PC left. If this where a female character, and the NPC chose to live their life in spite of being left behind... again, people would cheer for the empowerment. However this is a male NPC, so he has to remain loyal and faithful to the PC.
Have you thought about it? What that would do to someone. To be left, and abandoned? Maybe the NPC thought, maybe if I had been stronger, and more assertive, she wouldn't have left. Maybe if I worked on things, I will be a better person when she comes back, and she will stay. So the NPC did just that. Worked on better themselves. Not to fit a gender stereotype, but to be a better person. Maybe he put his dreams of being a bard on the back burner so he can support himself, and his family. Not because he has to... but to prepare himself for a relationship. Again, if this had been a female NPC, people would be more quick to point out that fact. Now the NPC is being decryed for falling for someone. Is being made a villain because he got some muscle tone (Which by the way, would stand out more. Given that he was skinny to begin with and worked on a farm. Depending on the season and how much work had to be done, there would be a lot of muscle gain.) and fell for another woman. Again, if it had been a female NPC who fell for a guy, more cheers for positive empowerment. (I mean why wait for a Man who goes gallivanting around the countryside, instead of staying with you right?)
So, the NPC made a sensible choice. Why wait for a person who goes off, willing into danger. Heck, how does the NPC even know she is still alive?

Not to mention, this is a young relationship. -_-' Youngsters are KNOWN for there ability to commit to a long distance relationship. >.>
LOL... Not only is this NPC a guy, he is a musician....er bard.

lol. TL;DR if this had been a female NPC, it wouldn't even be an issue. People would shrug off this post as being sexist. It's only given weight, because it's a female(assuming) Player, playing a female Character.

On other note. This wasn't rewriting your backstory. You backstory is still there. Your just trying to railroad your DM. Just because you wrote it... doesn't mean the path of the story can't be altered. Again, if this was a DM complaining that a PC's action changed his Story, people would denounce this with Cries of Railroading. Just like in life, you have no real control over the actions and ideas of people. That is what NPC's are suppose to represent. People that have lives, thoughts, opinions and dreams. If you want your NPC's to always be what you want, go where you go, and do what you want... just give it time.. and experience. You're an adventurer. You can always come back mindrape them, or just wish them to be what you want.

JusticeZero
2013-10-08, 08:21 PM
I think it is funny. If the OP had been a guy (assuming, the OP is a girl sorry if I am wrong) that came on the forums and complained about how the DM changed his backstory. Made his PC Lovedoll go from slutty Barwench, to a Gender-role neutral, empowered level headed woman over the course of a week. People would laugh at him.That's the opposite direction - making a more sexist character into a less sexist character rather than the opposite. I don't know that they would laugh at a correctly directioned gender flip model, which would be a male character trying to prove himself to a powerful and capable woman, and returning to find her turned into a housewife whose chest opens doors for her and occasionally can be used as a table. It might be an interesting experiment, but i'm not going to do it.
Personally, I think it's kind of backwards sexism. The Idea that a guy has to remain loyal to a woman, no matter what happens.I agree with that basic sentiment. Though I do not accept the word "backwards" in this case. There is nothing backward in this case. That bit gnaws on one of my nerves too.

However, the OP noted that that part didn't bug them. So okay.
They took issue with the fact that the guy suddenly turned into a masculine beefcake success object, and that that was portrayed as an understandable and universally positive thing. That's a different issue entirely.

I ascribe it to incompetence, myself.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-08, 08:46 PM
Going from a sexist character to a less sexist character is my point. That is what she is trying to do, by making the Original guy a Skinny guy. Trying to make the antitheses of the more masculine character. Isn't that a sexist way to look at things? She turned this character, from a possible real character, into her version of the ideal man. She reduced this character down to his sex.

This would be a nonissue, if the gender and gender roles where swapped. People would laugh this off if say,...

"This GUY has a problem with HIS dm. HIS character's WOMAN was changed from the HIS view of the perfect WOMAN into a more standard WOMAN."

Trying to break the Stereotype by making the opposite of it. Is just playing into the stereotype. If gender roles and that crap didn't matter to you, it shouldn't matter what kind of character a NPC turns out to be. Wither the character is a more "Female" role or a "Male" role shouldn't matter. If it was a true gender neutral campaign, then shouldn't the fact the character grew as a character be the main point? Isn't that the point of characters? To change grow, and evolve? Sure, it sucks that it didn't turn out the way you want it. That is the danger of going off and adventuring, isn't it? If it was easy, and everything always turned out the way you wanted it.... wouldn't everyone in a D&D world be an adventurer?

Tim Proctor
2013-10-08, 09:32 PM
More than the sex issues, which I do think are bogus, are the game issues.

It is an NPC, which means Non-Player Character, which means it belongs to someone who specifically isn't the player. That's the major exclusion here, it says in the type that it does not belong to this player, yet the player is the one having the issue. It doesn't matter if he's a skinny shy bard or a muscular drunk fighter, it doesn't belong to the character.

The second issue is that there is a tone in this thread that anyone who disagrees with the OP is a misogynist, simply because the OP is female. Thus making the GM a sexist misogynist pig, when there could be a thousand and one reasons for the behavior and we don't know any of them because the OP never talked to him about it. They can go on saying they're angry and want to quit, but they have no real understand of the motivation behind any of the actions the GM took.

He may have made the guy buff, and we don't know how buff because the OP decided to get mad rather than talk to the DM about, because he thought the guy would be unattractive to the PC now. He may have been saying that he doesn't want a love-interest in the campaign. He may have made it because when she made the background she told him about it, he skimmed it over, and missed that part. It is hard enough remembering all the details about a world, let alone all the details in a PC's background.

They walk into a town and men are the guards, when it should be a mix, does it mean he's sexist? Absolutely not, it could be that men are actually better at fighting than women. That's a fact, it just is, and people can call me a sexist pig because but its scientific fact, and there is a very good reason to have more men on guard and in arms than women.


As a result of the anatomical, physiological and psychological differences between men and women, women have less strength, less speed and speed endurance then men. The effectiveness in biomechanical and muscular activity of women is also less then men.
Source (http://www.bolandathletics.com/4-5%20The%20difference%20between%20men%20and%20women .pdf)

That does not mean that women are useless in a fight, it has to do with the evolution of an society. There is plenty of information out there as to why men typically are found in military groups, including that they function better in groups (same source above).

I do think that the OP should talk to the DM and if he says that he made him stronger so he'd be more attractive to women then we know he's not the smartest cookie in the jar. If he says that the town had men on guard and there were few women is because a cult is kidnapping women to impregnate them with devilspawn, then we have a legitimate RPG reason. But we don't know, and calling people names for pointing all of this out doesn't help anyone or anything.

tasw
2013-10-08, 09:37 PM
I am soo confused.


what I am getting from this is the OP is mad becuase the NPC that was in her backstory. GOt a different girlfriend and in the 3 months that the OP character was out of town the NPC guy she had went from 90 pound weakling to muscular guy?

then she is mad about gender essentialism sexism and everything else that somehow goes along with the fact that making a male want to buff up?

How is that not sexism in and of itself its nor more worse to say 'no male is ever going to try to get more muscular or better himself when he find a mate that cares and wants to be with him' than whatever OP is claiming the DM is doing in this case.

I could be totally off base on this, but it seems that teh sole 'issue' is just with the OP. and her hypocritical views on sexism.

This is my take as well. Sort of a reverse "sexism is only okay when I put it on males" thing.

On the game issue, once you start off on your first adventure every place and person that existed in that backstory is just as much under the GM's control as everything else.

Throwing a hissy fit because a young, shy, NPC came out of his shell when he got his first girlfriend (and fiance), presumably lost his virginity, and realized he was going to be a father who needed to be able to contribute to a family all at once is childish and more then a little absurd.

Oh and he was magi date raped in the process and had to deal with that mentally and emotionally.

Anyone who isnt drastically changed by a situation like this is emotionally stunted to a serious degree and probably just repressing.



Also, if there is a way to go from slender/delicate to muscular in 3 months can someone tell me how? I've been working out for well over 3 years now and while I'm twice as strong (or more) in many areas as when I started out I'm still nowhere near being "muscular". In 3 months you can become stronger (increased strength score), but that is mostly because you train your nervous system how to properly utilize all the muscles. Also, you can decrease your body fat to make your muscle contours become more prominent but that's not really an option for someone who is already slender/delicate as their body fat percentage is already low. You can argue that this is a magical world so all natural laws are completely irrelevant but then we're back to the same problem with player and GM having different views on what is plausible.

Depends on the characters age, which we dont know. If your late 20's or later then yes drastic physical changes over a few months are unlikely.

If your in your teens or early 20's drastic physical changes are fairly routine. Especially if say the kid was a shy lay about before and then became a brick layer or lumberjack (or any equally physically demanding job) to help earn money for his new family.

tasw
2013-10-08, 10:30 PM
But I fear "Just talk about it" remains the only real advice to give to your questions. Ask your GM beforehand whether he feels comfortable with a romantic subplot. Make it clear to you want to have his honest opinion, don't make him think that you're putting any kind of pressure on him to say "yes". There's really not much more you can do. Sure, sometimes it still will fail, because as a general rule, people suck at communicating, let's be honest.

That can still fail because if a player who I wasnt flirtatious with in RL asked me if I was comfortable with romantic plots I would say "sure" because I handle them like this....


As far as the DM actually doing romantic roleplay with a character, my group tends to use the term "Box Text." As in:

DM: You burst open the door and the princess thanks you for rescuing her.
Player: I woo her with knightly charms. "Box text." *rolls Diplomacy* I got a 22.
DM: She blushes slightly but keeps her composure as a proper lady. She does, however, offer to show you around the castle grounds when you get back...

Or the equally common "you want to get the barmaid upstairs? Are you lying or being sauve? Okay roll diplomacy/bluff, whats the result?" followed by

"she's into it, you go and have some fun, what does everyone else do with the night?"

Or

" no dice, she's heard that line a million times, nicely shuts you down (she wants a tip still after all) but makes it clear thats a no go. "

A long term romantic interest would be equally off camera. Its a place you drop some cash resources when you get them, and where you go when everyone else is giving you downtime.

Its not something we are going to RP out, I have no interest at all in pretending to be your wife and very little in pretending to be your husband (my real life wife would likely not be too happy with me doing that and she's more important then the game).

So even a talk like that has to be VERY specific in your desires to make sure your on the same page.

Fiery Diamond
2013-10-08, 11:06 PM
Just want to say I'm in support of the OP.

Also, I disagree with those who are saying, essentially: NPCs are the playthings of the DM; if you put one in your backstory, it's all out of your control from then on and you should be fine with the DM destroying it. Uh, no. The DM has the responsibility to be true to what the player intended, to the best of his understanding and ability. And this is coming from someone who usually DMs!

Also, we really shouldn't be throwing around some of this discussion they way it has been on subjects like sexism and misogyny. I'm not pointing any fingers, but some people are really treading the line on what's okay for this forum and it would be a shame if the thread closed before we got a chance to find out how things turn out when the OP talks to the DM about it. :smallsmile:

Kyberwulf
2013-10-09, 01:42 AM
So your saying that it's okay for the Players to railroad the DM when it comes to their stories?

Averis Vol
2013-10-09, 02:46 AM
Man this thread became a **** storm fast. Lots of strong opinions going about.

Okay, I'm going to suggest something wild and crazy and say just bite the bullet and roll with the story arc to see where it goes. While you may have magic to detect magic in your setting, theres a whole mess of spells to avoid your detection or to merely alter the it to make it seem like only a love potion.

If you and the DM are good friends, you really should trust that he/she will keep things in perspective and respect your wants.

And completely as a side note, your thread title is incredibly misleading. Your DM did NOT change your backstory, he affected a npc you happened to name and give a personality to. I'm surprised this is really even an issue; like has been brought up theres an abundance of reasons why he might have bulked up (The new woman in his life being one of them) and, really, three months is more then enough time to change given a change in both social crowd (Maybe his girlfriends social group is more....out there and ready to, you know, have fun) and reason to better himself. I don't want to sound like I'm bashing you, I know it looks like that, but sometimes a DM needs to take creative liberties to get a good plot point across, and if it is bothering you this much, then you are right at the investment level your DM wants you to be.

Lorsa
2013-10-09, 06:59 AM
Depends on the characters age, which we dont know. If your late 20's or later then yes drastic physical changes over a few months are unlikely.

If your in your teens or early 20's drastic physical changes are fairly routine. Especially if say the kid was a shy lay about before and then became a brick layer or lumberjack (or any equally physically demanding job) to help earn money for his new family.

Three months. T H R E E M O N T H S. From delicate to muscular? Even in teens I saw this never. My assumption is that the character in question was around 20 which seem suitable with the OP referring him to a boy/young man. While it can technically happen, it IS extremely improbable.

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

Seems like I need to clarify something again. The logic goes like this; it's fairly out there in terms of probability that a person changes from very very shy to not shy at all and from slender/delicate to muscular in only three months. The implication here is that he wasn't shy at all, nor slender and that he's really been fairly muscular (and might have gotten a bit more so) and outgoing all the time. Since this is not the type of person the OP wanted her character to be in love with, it IS a change of her backstory. The story was "I am in love with a very very shy slender/delicate man". Now it has been written as "I am in love with an outgoing muscular man", again because the only logical conclusion to be made is that the character was like this all the time.

That's not only a change in backstory, it's a the GM changing the OP's character's personality to someone who falls in love with a completely different type of guy.

The only way to accept that this is not so is to accept that the time frame involved is enough for those drastic changes. It is clear that the OP does not and regardless of what you think it is she that has to sit in the game and play it. As I said, she and her GM has a difference in opinion about logical consequences and that's always always always going to be a breaking point for any group. Who's right in this case is fairly irrelevant.

Segev
2013-10-09, 08:14 AM
Well, not quite, Lorsa. It could just be bad writing. Even good DMs can have instances of it; very few (I'd venture to say "practically none") of us are professional DMs. And even professional writers occasionally have flat characters or outright unbelievable alterations, especially when distorted views of time's passage enter the equation (as here, where "three months" sounds short from an objective standpoint, but feels a lot longer due to the play-time devoted to them than might a period of three years that passed by in a single session of downtime).

So it's not necessarily rewriting the "kind of man the OP's character would fall in love with;" it could just be innocent bad characterization based on a poor understanding of how humans change over time.

SethoMarkus
2013-10-09, 09:30 AM
My big understanding of this is that there really was no need for the physical and personality changes of the NPC character.

If the plot hook was merely that the NPC character falls in love with the PC's arch-nemesis and lives happily-ever-after without the PC, that can be accomplished without any drastic changes at all. The NPC was shy, and there doesn't seem to have been any big interaction between the NPC and PC in the backstory, so it is completely reasonable that he simply did not have feelings for the PC. Maybe he was in to the arch-nemesis from the beginning but was too shy to ever act on that emotion, until the love potion gave him the courage to face his own emotions. Maybe he wasn't attracted to the arch-nemesis but feels obligated to stick with her now that she is pregnant. Maybe he secretly pined for the PC but when she left town he saw it as a betrayal and went along with the arch-nemesis as some sort of revenge.

The physical changes and personality change from shy to outgoing are really irrelevant to the story progression of "arch-nemesis gets the main character's/PC's love interest". So, if those changes weren't needed, then why occur at all?

The OP mentioned that the arch-nemesis's mother did not approve of the NPC, but then what did the arch-nemesis care? If she was willing to resort to a love potion, obviously she cares/desires/pines/lusts for the NPC more than she cares about any legal/social consequences of the union, so wouldn't it be acceptable for her to flaunt the NPC's shyness both to spite her own mother as well as rub it in the PC's face that she was able to get through to the shy young man and make him open up enough to be lovers?


While I agree that NPCs and the like are the DM's responsibility and that the DM takes control over those characters once game play starts, I don't see any reason for the changes to stick as cannon. I don't see anything to make the changes necessary to the plot, and that it makes one of the players uncomfortable is enough of a reason to change it.

Lorsa
2013-10-09, 09:32 AM
Well, not quite, Lorsa. It could just be bad writing. Even good DMs can have instances of it; very few (I'd venture to say "practically none") of us are professional DMs. And even professional writers occasionally have flat characters or outright unbelievable alterations, especially when distorted views of time's passage enter the equation (as here, where "three months" sounds short from an objective standpoint, but feels a lot longer due to the play-time devoted to them than might a period of three years that passed by in a single session of downtime).

So it's not necessarily rewriting the "kind of man the OP's character would fall in love with;" it could just be innocent bad characterization based on a poor understanding of how humans change over time.

But this bad writing has to be interpreted to make sense for Themrys, so her conclusion of "changed backstory" is quite logical. If the GM made a mistake or not depends to be seen by his reaction to the discussion that will hopefully take place between the two of them.

People make mistakes of course, but if they do they have to admit to them or else it's not a mistake at all and actually intentional.

Oh and as a side note, I would love to be a professional GM, that would be SO COOL! I would get paid for what is basically my second job anyway!

tasw
2013-10-09, 10:08 AM
Three months. T H R E E M O N T H S. From delicate to muscular? Even in teens I saw this never. My assumption is that the character in question was around 20 which seem suitable with the OP referring him to a boy/young man. While it can technically happen, it IS extremely improbable.

Boy/ young man says 15/16 to me. Not 20

In highschool it wasnt rare at all to see someone put on 20 or 30 pounds of muscle over summer break if they were going to try out for football or wrestling or something like that. And thats more like 8 weeks until football camp starts.

And pretty much everyone in bootcamp put on 20 pounds of muscle over 9 weeks. My own training was 16 because of my job but we all got massively more muscular over the course of those 4 months, and army training is mainly cardio. All the weight lifting we did was on our own time. Taking on a very physical job will have huge changes on a young body over 3 months. And if he's actively trying it wouldnt be hard at all to put on 30-40 pounds with the right diet and hard work over that time frame.




Seems like I need to clarify something again. The logic goes like this; it's fairly out there in terms of probability that a person changes from very very shy to not shy at all

This is also wrong. Undergoing huge life changes in a short period of time would make it highly improbably NOT to experience big personality shifts. And would instead be a sign of repressing the emotions of said events.

Also whose to honestly say the guy was ever that shy to begin with? The OP specifically laid out they never had a relationship before, she had a crush from a distance basically.

Maybe she didnt know him that well. Or he acted shy around her because he flat out didnt like her and so didnt want to talk. Maybe he loved talking to other people.

Thats how I am, I'm in sales, I talk all day and show extreme confidence and control of every conversation 50 hours a week. But outside of work I'm fairly quiet.

I'm not shy at all. I'm just quiet. People sometimes confuse the two, other times they think I'm a **** who thinks he's better then everyone else because I dont talk too much socially. Thats wrong too.

The point is that her CHARACTER did not really know this boy. The backstory is not concrete fact, its written from a characters perspective. And that perspective could very easily have been wrong.

SethoMarkus
2013-10-09, 10:18 AM
Boy/ young man says 15/16 to me. Not 20

In highschool it wasnt rare at all to see someone put on 20 or 30 pounds of muscle over summer break if they were going to try out for football or wrestling or something like that. And thats more like 8 weeks until football camp starts.

And pretty much everyone in bootcamp put on 20 pounds of muscle over 9 weeks. My own training was 16 because of my job but we all got massively more muscular over the course of those 4 months, and army training is mainly cardio. All the weight lifting we did was on our own time. Taking on a very physical job will have huge changes on a young body over 3 months. And if he's actively trying it wouldnt be hard at all to put on 30-40 pounds with the right diet and hard work over that time frame.

It is absolutely possible for such a change, but again, is it necessary? And aside from that, what would prompt the NPC young man into going through the change in the first place? There needs to be the motivation and focus to get those results in that time span. For yourself, that was Basic Training for the Army. Why did you join the army? You must have had a reason to; motivation to join the army then transformed into motivation needed to undergo such a drastic change. Did the NPC have the same motivation? Though it isn't explicitly stated in the OP, the NPC's personality would suggest that he was not interested in such a change. He had wanted to become a Bard, not a Farmer, so what motivated him to change professions? And although it is possible for someone in heavy labor to go through such changes, it is not necessary.

I used to work in landscaping over the summers, every year between turning 14 to when I left for college at 19, and every winter during the same time period I was on the swim team at my school. I gained muscle and was physically fit, but I was never buff or "muscular". My body type is a slender build; it's just how my genetics are wired. I couldn't "bulk up" if I tried, not without outside aid. That isn't saying I couldn't increase my strength, but it won't physically show the same way that professional body builders do. Yet, I could still go from computer nerd to heavy-lifting physical labor over the course of a summer. (Or, say, shy aspiring bard to successful farmer in three months...)

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 10:35 AM
He had wanted to become a Bard, not a Farmer, so what motivated him to change professions?


So, the thread didn't implode as nastily as I thought it would, so I'll chime in on this:

Wasn't it mentioned at some point that he could have rationally done this to support the Wife and on-the-way child he now had? You can't really support a family by being a kid who may someday become a bard when you're an NPC.

SethoMarkus
2013-10-09, 10:55 AM
So, the thread didn't implode as nastily as I thought it would, so I'll chime in on this:

Wasn't it mentioned at some point that he could have rationally done this to support the Wife and on-the-way child he now had? You can't really support a family by being a kid who may someday become a bard when you're an NPC.

Oh, I'm not saying that there aren't any reasons, just that a good DM should look at the character motivation/mind-set/psychology and think of behaviors from there, not come up with an end result and back-peddle to justify it.

I do believe that you are correct that, earlier, someone had proposed the NPC had taken up farming in an effort to provide for his new family situation. It was also proposed that hard labor, such as working in a field as a farmer, could lead to muscle growth, while the new musculature and confidence from having a significant other could change the NPC from a shy individual to a more outgoing type.

I am merely pointing out that just because something can happen, does not mean that it must happen. The same NPC can very easily take up farming to support his family, remain slender (though stronger and with more endurance, ie: higher STR and CON), remain shy/soft-spoken and introverted, gain confidence, and still remain loyal to his new wife/fiance.

I think this is what the OP's big issue was. Not that the NPC love interest was with someone else. Not that his profession changed. It was that the NPC was drastically changed without any good reason behind it. Sure, there might be explanations as to how he changed, but nothing as to why the change occurred (to the degree that it did). Perhaps if this were several years later the NPC could be a "new man" and be extroverted, social, confident, lean and muscular, maybe even buff, etc, but three months is a short time for all of this to occur, even if it is possible for it to occur over that time frame.

Heck, unless they were using magic to detect the pregnancy, the arch-nemesis got pregnant in their first encounter together, and the arch-nemesis made her move the day after the PC left town, I doubt that the NPC would even know about the pregnancy until a month or two after the arch-nemesis and he conceived a child. That leaves one single month for all these changes to occur over.

I'm not saying that the DM is a bad person, and I'm not saying that it is even that terrible what the DM has done. However, a player is uncomfortable with the changes. That is what is important here. Unless there is something we are missing here, I don't see how the changes are vital to the story. Everything could progress the same way without the DM changing the NPC's personality so drastically.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 12:01 PM
Heck, unless they were using magic to detect the pregnancy, the arch-nemesis got pregnant in their first encounter together, and the arch-nemesis made her move the day after the PC left town, I doubt that the NPC would even know about the pregnancy until a month or two after the arch-nemesis and he conceived a child. That leaves one single month for all these changes to occur over.


Wasn't it mentioned that the pregnancy was in someway magically caused too? Like a side effect of the love potion or something?

SethoMarkus
2013-10-09, 12:25 PM
Wasn't it mentioned that the pregnancy was in someway magically caused too? Like a side effect of the love potion or something?

I'm not sure. I think that was conjecture on the part of someone other than the OP. It was my understanding that the child was conceived under the effects of the love potion (ie, while the NPC was attracted to the arch-nemesis, resulting in an encounter), rather than caused directly by the potion. For a parallel, similar to the way that Tom Riddle was conceived in the Harry Potter series.

Emmerask
2013-10-09, 03:14 PM
I'm not saying that the DM is a bad person, and I'm not saying that it is even that terrible what the DM has done. However, a player is uncomfortable with the changes. That is what is important here. Unless there is something we are missing here, I don't see how the changes are vital to the story. Everything could progress the same way without the DM changing the NPC's personality so drastically.

The thing is we do not know if it actually is vital to the future story, it may very well be!
In general I give dms the benefit of the doubt because they have a damn hard job tbh... and until proven otherwise I am completely behind the dms decision and dont see any change of the backstory of the character.

If it was just done "because" then yes the op has a point, however that is pure speculation on our and her part.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 03:44 PM
I think you are all overthinking this.

My two Cents: He changed the story to remove even the slightest doubt that the character would be 1 attracted to him given that he is SO different, and 2 to keep her character from having an excuses to leave and possibly have to drag the story back to the village every now and then. 3. He wants the character be all angst to cause drama for the sake of it.

Either way its messing with someones Roleplay, which is why we get into these games. Their characters and stories interest us. Now if this was a Hack and Slash campaign then sure no big background needed but to basically railroad a character to being on the road with no connections to a story she wanted to tell is d**kish move.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 04:34 PM
I think you are all overthinking this.

And I think you're honestly trying to interpret the GM/DM's motivation and actual actions into the most negative way possible. Whether this is to support or justify the feelings and tone of the OP, I don't know, but I think you're assuming far too much compared to what we know from a one-sided and biased telling of the account.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 05:05 PM
And I think you're honestly trying to interpret the GM/DM's motivation and actual actions into the most negative way possible. Whether this is to support or justify the feelings and tone of the OP, I don't know, but I think you're assuming far too much compared to what we know from a one-sided and biased telling of the account.

I disagree,
She posted before that the GM replied in the tone of "Well you couldn't go adventuring if you where married." Which fall well in line with one of my suggested possible outcomes.

But here:
4. The Gm is just a total idiot for saying something so stupid, and not explaining the reason behind altering a characters work.

Edit: The GM and players have a job to do, the only reason a GM can do his job is that he has the players Trust. If a GM does not have the players trust then he cannot do his job.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 05:10 PM
I disagree,
She posted before that the GM replied in the tone of "Well you couldn't go adventuring if you where married." Which fall well in line with one of my suggested possible outcomes.

But here:
4. The Gm is just a total idiot for saying something so stupid, and not explaining the reason behind altering a characters work.

Edit: The GM and players have a job to do, the only reason a GM can do his job is that he has the players Trust. If a GM does not have the players trust then he cannot do his job.

I reiterate, this is a one-sided account coming from a biased source.

kyoryu
2013-10-09, 05:33 PM
Themrys:

It's pretty clear that you have a strong desire to play in a game where at least the society that you are from lies somewhere on the spectrum from no-gender-roles to inverted-from-traditional-gender-roles. Additionally, it's pretty clear that it's important that you be involved in a relationship that has some inverted-from-traditional-gender-roles components.

I think the best thing to do is to make this more clear to your GM, rather than relying on terminology like "lack of traditional gender roles", which can be somewhat vague and include a wide spectrum of views of what that means.

I think this is most likely a miscommunication of what certain phrases mean, and being more explicit about them can clear up the issues.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 05:57 PM
Themrys:

It's pretty clear that you have a strong desire to play in a game where at least the society that you are from lies somewhere on the spectrum from no-gender-roles to inverted-from-traditional-gender-roles. Additionally, it's pretty clear that it's important that you be involved in a relationship that has some inverted-from-traditional-gender-roles components.

I think the best thing to do is to make this more clear to your GM, rather than relying on terminology like "lack of traditional gender roles", which can be somewhat vague and include a wide spectrum of views of what that means.

I think this is most likely a miscommunication of what certain phrases mean, and being more explicit about them can clear up the issues.

When did she say that? From what I have read and I have read all FIVE pages currently she has not stated that at all.

From her previous post she had stated she set up her character in a CAMPAIGN world where it is Gender Neutral 50% of town guards are female as well as 50% being male. A World were the sexes don't have traditional gender rolls. I believe this is actually a published setting.

So where do you get she was inverted gender roles? And why do you keep saying 'inverted-from-traditional-gender-roles' like that? Like Traditional Gender Roles are just all that can be without the whole world going insane. It sounds weird, why do you keep saying it like that?

Emmerask
2013-10-09, 06:54 PM
Actually the world is not gender neutral, the middle realm though is (which is depending on time period about 1/5 of the known world*).

If the Town is anywhere near Andergast (known for its backwardness^^) for example their cultural influence could well lead to this attitude.

So there could be a number of reasons why these particular NPCs or this particular town is not gender neutral.

*The known world is 1 continent^^

The Oni
2013-10-09, 06:59 PM
Presumably because traditional-gender-roles is the best understood baseline for a society. There were very few matriarchal societies in human history, and even those that were matriarchal still tended to have dudes do most of the heavy lifting and much of the administration. Even if in this society people have total gender equality and sexual freedom, we as people who do not live in that society are still assuming "traditional" means mostly run by dudes and fought over by dudes, with women as "supporting roles."

kyoryu
2013-10-09, 08:00 PM
When did she say that? From what I have read and I have read all FIVE pages currently she has not stated that at all.

She has identified the relationship between her character and this NPC as being very important to her - and that relationship is in many ways an inversion of traditional gender roles. That's neither condemnation or praise - simply a statement.

Referring to it as such *is* entirely relevant, given that one of her main issues seems to be the fact that he was then given more "traditional" male traits, and this bothers her greatly.

Again, I'm not condemning her, or anyone. I am simply stating that these things are apparently very important to her, and so she should be clear with the GM around her expectations.


From her previous post she had stated she set up her character in a CAMPAIGN world where it is Gender Neutral 50% of town guards are female as well as 50% being male. A World were the sexes don't have traditional gender rolls. I believe this is actually a published setting.

I kept seeing "Gender Equal" in her posts. Different people may interpret that differently. Some may interpret it as traditional ideas of masculinity/femininity existing, but the genders being treated equally and equally engaging in various fields. Others may interpret it as there being effectively *no* gender roles/differentiation at all, which seems to be closer to Themrys' interpretation.

To be more specific, the fact that 50% of the guards are female doesn't necessary imply that (for instance) long hair is equally prevalent with males and females. I think it's entirely possible for someone to come up with the first definition of "gender equal" that I gave, having 50% of the guards being female, but having them more or less conform to many 'traditionally feminine' traits, while the male guards primarily conform to 'traditionally masculine' traits in good faith, having *no idea* that others would interpret "gender equal" in a *very* different (though equally valid) way, and that boundaries would be stepped on.

Again, I'm not making any kind of value judgement here. Merely stating that if this is highly important to her (and it seems to be), she should be clear about *specifically* what she expects with the GM, rather than relying on broader terms that may be interpreted differently.


So where do you get she was inverted gender roles? And why do you keep saying 'inverted-from-traditional-gender-roles' like that? Like Traditional Gender Roles are just all that can be without the whole world going insane. It sounds weird, why do you keep saying it like that?

Because I have to describe it somehow? And people have a general idea of what traditional gender roles are?

"I'm going to go out adventuring to get money so that I can protect and marry my willowy, delicate love" - where the 'adventurer' is female and the 'love' is male - is *absolutely* an inversion of traditional gender roles. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. Stating that it's an inversion of traditional roles doesn't mean it's any more or less valid, it's simply an observation.

And because :


I might have turned a delicate flowery female love interest into an ass-kicking woman out of spite, too ... although, maybe not, I think I am enlightened enough to accept "feminine" women as they are, if they're not described as stupid bimbos

when the male NPC in question was described as... well, 'delicate and flowery', which is apparently a positive trait for him to have? This suggests to me that *deliberately* inverting these roles may be important to Themrys - at least to the extent that traditionally feminine traits in males are considered absolutely acceptable, while traditionally feminine traits in females are considered at least somewhat suspect.

Again, absolutely no judgement is being passed here. She likes the things she likes, and finds important the things that she finds important. My only suggestion is that if this is truly an important issue, she should be honest and *explicit* with the GM about her expectations.

Seriously - read my post again. At no point did I ever do anything remotely near passing any kind of value judgement, or in any way suggest that 'traditional' roles are inherently any better (or worse, for that matter) than others.

tasw
2013-10-09, 08:38 PM
Oh, I'm not saying that there aren't any reasons, just that a good DM should look at the character motivation/mind-set/psychology and think of behaviors from there, not come up with an end result and back-peddle to justify it.


Not really. Once you write a backstory it stops being yours and belongs to the GM just like every other NPC and locale in the game.

The GM is not under any obligation to explain anything to the OP that her CHARACTER wouldnt know IC.

She could have her character, ask the NPC about the changes but frankly, its none of her characters business.

This is some kid she had a crush on who moved on and got married. He's not under any obligation to explain any of his life choices to some random chick who had a crush on him that he never knew about and then left town. Especially when she's judgemental about those choices.

Getting in a hissy fit over this is plain silly.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-09, 08:51 PM
On the aspect of the game part. The "changing" of the backstory. (Which didn't happen, all he did was apply life to the world, character and story.) Whats to stop another player from complaining that his "Backstory" was changed because his written billionaire Great grandfather, was changed to have lost all his money. That his so charished grandson was neglected when the money of the will was handed out.

Just because a Player has written something, that makes it golden and untouchable? I see no difference between this, and a GM making a NPC that the parties can Diplomacy or mindrape, or do any number of things. Then cry foul when the DM gets angry his NPC's story is getting changed.

This NPC isn't a player's character. The player has no control over it, or it's actions, or it's future. This would be no different then if the Player drug the NPC along with her on an adventure, and the character died.

To me, this is the equivalent of a DM logging of, and complaining his players changed how his story was going to go. That they did some shenanigans and now he is a different character. Had this been a DM, people would have told him tough cookies, get over it. Stop "railroading your Players."

SO I say to this player, Stop trying to RAILROAD your DM. Your characters story isn't a special snowflake. If you want to control every aspect of your characters life. Go write a story.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 08:58 PM
You do know that RP is suppose to be to tell a story, If the GM wants to railroad the PCs into his story regardless of their input and basically makes it so that their just voicing NPCs they do have a right to complain right? You seem to be be in the camp of if the GM suddenly deciding anything and it being ok, which is not true. The GM only has as much power as the Players allow him to have. Remember without them he is just a single guy or girl talking to themselves in a room alone rolling die.

You're arguing that a GM has the right to do anything with any NPC and while this is somewhat true it also must honor agreements and trusts they have with a character. For example if an Adventurer is questing to find a cure for one of his children who have been struck down by a horrible curse (Long lasting of course) and when he returns the GM has not only changed the gender of the child but removed the curse and instead is playing the story as the man abandoned his family to go off questing. Even if that was the character's to that point main goal for his story.

To you this is ok because the GM can do what he wants regardless of if the players agree to or enjoy his changes.

Now of course this is not the direct case here. The story was never ment to be her character fell in love and stopped adventuring but she wanted to play the unrequited love her own way and move on having matured and advanced her own personal story along with the GMs main story arc. Does the GM have a right to ruin her own story because he simply felt like it? Even if he is doing this as a plothook or to add spice to the story. If he is changing her personal story. This being only for HER character shouldn't he have told her first? "Hey, I am gonna do something with that one NPC guy from your Backstory ok, Promise it will be a good adventure" is all it would have taken to have at least warned someone.

I still stand by the idea he likely did it to wrap up her story so they could move on to HIS more important one.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 09:07 PM
You do know that RP is suppose to be to tell a story, If the GM wants to railroad the PCs into his story regardless of their input and basically makes it so that their just voicing NPCs they do have a right to complain right?

Again, I believe you're making wild and sweeping assumptions with no solid evidence to come to such decisions aside from the one-sided regaling of what happened from a bias party.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 09:12 PM
I wasn't really speaking to that. My argument was against those who are arguing the GM has the right to change backstories he already approved at will. If he approved it then yes it is untouchable because he thought it didn't need to be touched when he approved it.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 09:17 PM
I wasn't really speaking to that. My argument was against those who are arguing the GM has the right to change backstories he already approved at will. If he approved it then yes it is untouchable because he thought it didn't need to be touched when he approved it.

No, it's not untouchable.

It's not, because as the vernacular goes, "**** happens". The world evolves as the party adventures, regardless if it is because of their actions or in spite of them. The world isn't a scripted event that only reacts to the PCs when they're around and interacting with it.

A person in some PC's backstory doesn't have some golden Plot Armor that prevents anything from happening to them or from them changing as time goes on.

No, a DM/GM shouldn't wide, massive, illogical changes to an NPC for giggles, but things can happen at their discretion, as long as it makes sense and lends to the story.

In this case, an NPC the PC never even really talked to got mindraped by her archnemesis. This mindrape became an actual growth in his character.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-09, 09:22 PM
The players don't control the game. Your argument that a DM without his players is an invalid one. Your like the kid, who if he doesn't get his way, he is going to take his ball and go home. Your not the only one with balls, or this isn't the only game you can play. When you play a game with players and someone making the game, ala D&D or any such roleplaying game. Your giving that player the power of that position. You can't suddenly get mad at him for using that power. If you don't like it, then don't play. He is perfectly in his rights to mess around with any aspect of the story, that doesn't directly involve his players. Which, the NPC in his characters backstory applies. Heck, even his players backstory. If it doesn't fit the story, or if it is too convoluted, the DM can veto that idea.

Seriously, the players don't control the game, anymore then the DM controls the game. You are suppose to accept your roles in the game, not try to see who has the most power, because despite what you think. Without a DM-type person, you can't ever really play a role playing game.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 09:26 PM
The question becomes why did he change it not how did it happen.

Why do this pregnancy mind control potion.(She implied the person fall in love after the pregnancy as a condition of the potion not the story itself). Why when he could have just killed the character off in those 3 months.

Small town things happen and a death is nothing new, still would have allowed her character development and done nothing to CHANGE that NPC drastically. Have him jailed for trumped up charges due to the Archnemesis and her mother pressing charges. Use the pregnancy angle but add in the jailed angle to make it worse.

But to change a character when there are Limitless possibilities to choose from cannot be just handwaved as a coincident. Why he did this is what the thread is boiling down to. Did he do it because he wanted the scrawny NPC to be manly just to spite her who as some of you are saying is strongly revolting against his main dominated world, if so then yeah he is taking his annoyance out IC and thats not right either.

The point is.. if we are not RPing to play out characters and stories of characters we create.. then why RP at all? Why not just have the GM pass out cookiecutter profiles and play a hack and slash.

Edit: Agreed but no your wrong a DM without players is not a DM as there is no players. I am not saying you could not go out and get more players I never said that I said that a DM without players is sitting by himself.. which if he has NO players then yes he is.

BTW I am a DM not a player I respect storytelling over getting my way because I want too.

A DM does have Veto power.. accept this backstory was APPROVED by the GM before hand and then changed after. Verbal Contracts are a binding legal contract in most states, so your word does mean something.

If as a GM you give your permission and then suddenly change your mind and change the backstory because you feel like it now. Then you have violated the trust of your players who by all rights have no reason to listen to you anymore.

Squark
2013-10-09, 09:44 PM
I think this does seem to be an issue of the OP not clearly communicating where they wanted to go with the subplot; It's better, in my opinion, to give them GM a few ideas of how you would like to develop the character through the relationship.

But, at the same time, I have to argue against the idea that the GM has free reign with the player's backstory elements after they're done writing it. Roleplaying is a group activity. There needs to be a degree of consensus on what story is being told, what ideas are being used, and the like. If things aren't well communicated, feelings are going to be hurt even though there wasn't really any wrongdoing on anyone's part. A GM needs to understand why aspects of the backstory are in there, and what the player wants to do with them (Granted, the player needs to communicate these things to the GM). The GM doesn't have to use all of those if he doesn't want to, he can suggest additions or alternatives, and he can veto things, but he shouldn't throw out or alter elements without consulting players. When you change or reinterpret a backstory, you can also easily change the character. And that's overstepping boundaries. Not that that's what has happened here, mind you.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 09:46 PM
The question becomes why did he change it not how did it happen.

Why do this pregnancy mind control potion.(She implied the person fall in love after the pregnancy as a condition of the potion not the story itself). Why when he could have just killed the character off in those 3 months.

Small town things happen and a death is nothing new, still would have allowed her character development and done nothing to CHANGE that NPC drastically. Have him jailed for trumped up charges due to the Archnemesis and her mother pressing charges. Use the pregnancy angle but add in the jailed angle to make it worse.

But to change a character when there are Limitless possibilities to choose from cannot be just handwaved as a coincident. Why he did this is what the thread is boiling down to. Did he do it because he wanted the scrawny NPC to be manly just to spite her who as some of you are saying is strongly revolting against his main dominated world, if so then yeah he is taking his annoyance out IC and thats not right either.

The point is.. if we are not RPing to play out characters and stories of characters we create.. then why RP at all? Why not just have the GM pass out cookiecutter profiles and play a hack and slash.

Edit: Agreed but no your wrong a DM without players is not a DM as there is no players. I am not saying you could not go out and get more players I never said that I said that a DM without players is sitting by himself.. which if he has NO players then yes he is.

BTW I am a DM not a player I respect storytelling over getting my way because I want too.

A DM does have Veto power.. accept this backstory was APPROVED by the GM before hand and then changed after. Verbal Contracts are a binding legal contract in most states, so your word does mean something.

If as a GM you give your permission and then suddenly change your mind and change the backstory because you feel like it now. Then you have violated the trust of your players who by all rights have no reason to listen to you anymore.

Let me itemize the things you're getting wrong here:

1. Straight offing an NPC does not make a better story unless it has meaning. If he discovered some terrible secret and was silenced because of this, then that makes a compelling narrative direction.

2. The OP has only given us a one sided account of what has happened and it is colored heavily by her bias. Yes, it is the only account we have right now, but don't take it as the gospel truth of what really went down.

3. Players don't roleplay Non-player characters; it's right there in the name of what that type of character is. They have no concrete say over the ultimate actions, well fare or anything else concerning that NPC. They have no rights in that regard, they may hope that the NPC is ultimately what their head canon envisioned, but they aren't the DM/GM.

4. We have one player in a group complaining here. There is no evidence this DM/GM is a bad one, or even really did anything wrong or is in any danger of losing their game. You can't please everyone after all and sometimes people just need to either talk things out or move on, or both.

5. The backstory wasn't touched, at all.


Edit:

I'd like to point this bit out, since it's been more or less ignored:


I described the young man as very, very shy - this is why my PC never got to tell him what she feels ... he was not very talkative.

Her character never really even talked to the NPC! She wrote that right into her own backstory!

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 09:49 PM
Agreed Squark,

That is what I meant by Why when he could have kept the backstory and not changed the character just removed him via death or imprisonment or something of the like.

I just have an issue with any GM/DM approving something and then going behind the players back to change it.

Its not the same story here but think of The Hunger Games, the main plot of the series is pinned later on this moment between the Main Girl and the Main Boy years before the setting of the book. They didn't talk to one another, barely looked at one another but this 1 moment they shared had a lasting impact on both of them.

Even if its not a life saving moment maybe that boy made her want to be an adventurer to become bold enough to make the first step or something.

Edit:
We know..for the tenth time this is only HER side.. please stop bringing that up already. I get it she could be complaining I am just saying.. we know.

I am aware they do not RP nonplayer characters... do you RP in a vacuum? Its just you and the other players floating around in nothingness? Or do you meet characters and so forth and progress the story.

Yes the backstory was not touched directly. Changing the NPC is not a huge deal its the implication of the change that is. Its breaking Trust to change something you already approved. This is not dissimilar to you talking to the GM and getting approved to play a Wizard in the game. You make your wizard set up his backstory, etc. Then come to the game and the GM hands you a sheet as a Rogue saying no magic casters. Its breaking the GMs word, without it the GM is just some Douche hiding behind a screen.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-09, 09:54 PM
Once the backstory is complete. It's done. Over. IT can be remanded or changed for story purposes. The players have no control over that.

This is suppose to represent life. In life, you have no real control over what happens to you. As do you characters. Your characters, and the NPCs are subject to change, fate, whims gods, and plot. Just as in real life, (maybe not, depending on your worldview) you can cry, throw a tantrum, be angry all you want. It won't change anything. Just as it is in D&D. Granted you can change DMs if you want.

You have it backwards, without a DM the players are useless.
Without players, a DM is just writing a story. Without a DM, the players are just sitting around.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 09:57 PM
The GM/DM approved a pretty shallow (in the sense that there wasn't much substance to it) backstory and then choose to add a twist to it to make things interesting for his game. I fail to see how he even really changed the NPC when all he was given was that he was an introvert, was willowy and wanted to be a magical musician some day. He was given a one dimensional, angsty teenager-esque character and chose to mold that for the betterment of his game and for what he assumed would be the growth of the PC.

Edit:

@Tabletop: No, it's nothing like that; that's honestly a terrible attempt at a parallel to what actually happened.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 10:03 PM
Once the backstory is complete. It's done. Over. IT can be remanded or changed for story purposes. The players have no control over that.

This is suppose to represent life. In life, you have no real control over what happens to you. As do you characters. Your characters, and the NPCs are subject to change, fate, whims gods, and plot. Just as in real life, (maybe not, depending on your worldview) you can cry, throw a tantrum, be angry all you want. It won't change anything. Just as it is in D&D. Granted you can change DMs if you want.

You have it backwards, without a DM the players are useless.
Without players, a DM is just writing a story. Without a DM, the players are just sitting around.
First off I am a DM and a writer I can write if I want to write its not called DM and thus I am not a DM when I am writing I am a WRITER. So no you're wrong again, without players to run through the stories the GM is just a guy with a story stuck in his head.

And if the Background of a character can be changed the Characters change at will.

Imagine if every book J.K Rowling decided to change Harry's backstory the character would be different for each book and never the same.
If Lily and James never died, Harry would have grown up in a magical world were he was just another kid and never had this big destiny thrust on him and thus would not be the same kid as the previous book.

If Voldemort won the first war Harry would be dead or have grown up in a world where Purebloods where the best thing out there and likely would have ended up an EMO brat.

The point is if you approve the damn background you maintain it. If you want to change a point in the background then consult the player. Its not hard.. they are on the other side of the table. Hand them a piece of paper.

If you sat down at your table to play and your GM went "Oh hey, yeah I decided I didn't like your character's feel for the party your not this sexy elf sorcerer but you only have basic spells I didn't want to look through the more complicated ones or the ones that sounded to monstrous I don't want to make you OP" and made you RP as a different character every time you sat down you would not RP with that guy.
[And no this has nothing to do with this case]

EDIT:
I am referencing the fact that we find out over half way through the book that Peeta gave Katnis bread and this saved her life and gave her the will to keep going and then she managed to survive on her own. Even she admitted she really didn't pay much attention to him after that. She never spoke to him or anything of the sort. She dealt with his father many times though, but never him. She openly admits she didn't consciously think of him again till he was called for the Games. < My point being a small act in a backstory can mean a lot for the character you are. If Katniss had met Peeta again on that stage and he was some buffed up airhead who didn't give two d*mns about anyone but himself that moment would mean next to jack sh*t to her when the Games started.

Also to bring up a point you love to make "We have no evidence or information to suppose that wild theory"

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 10:10 PM
And if the Background of a character can be changed the Characters change at will.


You're again failing to see nothing in the background was changed, it was only added upon and evolved.

Edit:

And again, you're making terrible attempts at parallels to what has actually happened.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-09, 10:18 PM
What your saying, is that Harry potter can just will bad things not to happen to anyone. That harry potter should have the right to decide that his parents being dead sucked, and that they are alive again.

As a Character, Harry Potter doesn't have that option. As a DM/writer, J.K. Rowling has ever right to contrive a way for his parents to not be dead. She could go back and write it into the story that things changed. It is within her power and authority as an author to do so. No matter how you cry and whine and try to say it can't happen that way. It is that way.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-09, 10:24 PM
... No I didnt say the character Harry Potter can prevent this I said if in fact JK Rowling had changed the backstory of her characters at will the character CHANGES instantly and intensely. If you read Book one and then got to Book 2 he would be a DIFFERENT Harry Potter.

Your saying a GM has the right to do that to a PC at will.

And No I am not I explained exactly why it fit this situation if you read the second part, If Peeta went from the kind boy to a cruel one then yes the character Katniss would have been vastly different then she was by the end of the HG and the entire series.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 10:28 PM
Why are we even talking about fictional characters by the way?

Neither a DM/GM or a player are an omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-knowledgeable author. The DM/GM is the closest one to that, since they mold the world and know everything all the NPCs will say or do or think under their own power, but they don't know or control PCs.

And PCs only approach authorhood in that they control and define their own character and their own character alone. They can give suggestions on the shaping of the world, give feedback and consensus and can politely ask for things to go the way they'd like, but they lack the authority and power that the GM/DM has to make that so.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-09, 10:36 PM
Yeah, that is my point. There is no player agency. It is a myth. Players have no real control over the world, or game.

DM's put them into situations. The Dice decide the outcome. All the players can do is decide to play the game or not.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 10:48 PM
Yeah, that is my point. There is no player agency. It is a myth. Players have no real control over the world, or game.


Well, that's not true.

They built their character, wrote their backstory and get to decide what they want to do in the game. That's player agency right there, plain and simple.

SethoMarkus
2013-10-10, 08:32 AM
Not really. Once you write a backstory it stops being yours and belongs to the GM just like every other NPC and locale in the game.

The GM is not under any obligation to explain anything to the OP that her CHARACTER wouldnt know IC.

Oh, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the DM needs to explain the decisions or thought process to the player, merely that the decision should be made cause to effect, not effect to cause. We don't have enough information to know if the DM has done that in this case, I am just saying that a good DM should approach it from that direction, IMO.


The question becomes why did he change it not how did it happen.

That is precisely what I am asking. Why make that change opposed to any other change that could have resulted in the same or similar situation? Why not retcon the changes to be something that is both accomplishing what the DM desires without making the OP uncomfortable?


I think this does seem to be an issue of the OP not clearly communicating where they wanted to go with the subplot; It's better, in my opinion, to give them GM a few ideas of how you would like to develop the character through the relationship.

Absolutely, blame is not (entirely) on the DM. This is a communication breakdown between two people, and both have a responsibility to clarify their self. (Of course, whoever is being bothered by the miscommunication has the responsibility of initiating the discussion.)



I just have an issue with any GM/DM approving something and then going behind the players back to change it.


This is a point that people need to keep in mind. The DM chose this character and this backstory out of several choices presented by the OP. If the DM had an issue with the backstory it should have been addressed at that time. Otherwise, there is no reason to change anything. I understand that once a backstory is in play it is now under the control of the DM, but that does not account for the how/why of the change. If the goal is to remove the NPC as a possible love interest, I believe that the DM has a responsibility to do so in a way that will create more enjoyment for the players, not create tension between player(s)/DM.

tasw
2013-10-10, 09:34 AM
the biggest point people are missing is that nothing in this backstory was changed. at all.

an npc teenager had some extraordinary circumstances happen to him and grew up and changed. Your supposed to change when you go from being a teenager to an adult even without this sort of extreme circumstance clubbing you over the head.

The op doesnt like the adult as much as the kid and is throwing a hissy fit over it. Thats all. The OP needs to grow up IRL

SethoMarkus
2013-10-10, 09:42 AM
the biggest point people are missing is that nothing in this backstory was changed. at all.

an npc teenager had some extraordinary circumstances happen to him and grew up and changed. Your supposed to change when you go from being a teenager to an adult even without this sort of extreme circumstance clubbing you over the head.

The op doesnt like the adult as much as the kid and is throwing a hissy fit over it. Thats all. The OP needs to grow up IRL

And even if that were true, why shouldn't the DM retcon the NPC to be more in line with what the OP had in mind? If it isn't a big deal, and it is making a player uncomfortable, why not try to correct that discomfort?

Yes, the OP can just deal with it. Or, the DM can just change the personality back. Or, the NPC can be killed off. Or, the game can end and no one plays it.

I don't think it is a hissy fit that the OP is uncomfortable with the changes. I think it was a break down in communication. I think trying to look for compromise is more helpful than simply saying "toughen up".

Driderman
2013-10-10, 10:06 AM
OP: My advice would be to not make the game your personal pulpit; it's supposed to be a game after all, not(necessarily) a platform for gender equality. That being said, if you feel unfairly treated by your GM you should probably talk to him about it. Honestly, I don't see any major problem with the situation described other than that the GM interpreted an NPC from your background in a different way than you did.

Segev
2013-10-10, 10:43 AM
Good grief, everyone!

This need not be a case where either the DM is Genghis Khan or the player is Lady Macbeth!

Neither is required to be the blackest of villains to justify the other being a good person.

So kindly stop trying, on the limited information we have, to argue that one or the other is an innocent victim of a power-mad or spoiled-rotten other or one.


Tanuki_Tales has offered the most solid advice, I think: She should talk to the DM about the kind of story she hoped to get from it, and explicitly examine what about that was important to her. It may not be salvageable here-and-now with this NPC, but perhaps they can work something out to grow from this or plant a new seed to explore it.

No, the player doesn't have an inherent right to demand that her NPC never change or evolve exactly as she planned out. Yes, she does have a right to ask the DM to help her facilitate certain story elements, because they involve her character. No, nothing in the character's backstory has changed, but yes, there are some reasons for a player to find the changes since the backstory's conclusion (i.e. since game-start) to be hard to buy. There are also plenty of reasons to go ahead and buy into them, both in a fictional story sense and in a believability sense. (Teenaged boys who experience drastic life changes and puberty can change dramatically in 3 months!)

While it's possible one of the two involved parties - player or DM - are a bad person, it need not be the case, and presuming malice helps nobody. Worse, arguing over which one is "obviously" the bad guy is anti-helpful, because it diminishes any chance of communication occurring to resolve the problem.

OP, figure out (or list out, if you already know) what it is and was about this backstory that you were hoping to see evolve and how. Be specific. If you find that you're practically writing a story that would straightjacket the plot evolution, you might realize that you can't have that much control. However, if you're just plotting out a few consequences of the set-up and paths that you want to explore, that can help the DM set up plot hooks to satisfy you. Talk to the DM; spell out why you're unhappy with what has happened, and discuss what opportunities in your character's future development you hoped to see that you fear are now cut off.

The DM and you can work together to re-open them, or he might even point out ways you can achieve these results sufficiently from where you are.

Do recognize that he hasn't actually changed your backstory; he's not technically done anything that a reasonable DM wouldn't do, even if it's upsetting as a development for you. That doesn't mean you have no right to be upset, just that you shouldn't approach it like the DM is picking on you. Do discuss it with him. See if he has any suggestions, and see if you can't work out some new avenues of character development.

Your character's teenaged boy crush has grown into a man she doesn't recognize as the boy she desired. She set out at least in part to try to be the sort of person who'd win him over, and came back to find herself beaten to the punch AND that he's not the boy she wanted. That's probably painful! There are a number of ways to run with that. Perhaps she has a "type," and her crush only seemed to fit it; she might be hurt now, but she can rebound with another. If you don't want to play her as a suffering, angsty person who's ruined by this, don't. Have her recover. Sure, it hurts, but there's no reason to let somebody she apparently only knew from afar break her heart forever.

Maybe she has a "type," but it's not even what she THOUGHT her crush was. Elements of that are in it, but some surprising quirks add to it in ways she didn't expect. Or maybe she has a "type" but the one she'll ultimately love will be a deeper person than JUST the type, and she'll grow as a person when she finally interacts with some of those shy-guy boys and gets to know them, and realizes that the one(s) she likes most have additional traits and qualities.

Maybe this just teaches her to be more forward: her shy objects of adoration won't come out of their shells on their own, so maybe she starts talking to them more. Actively woo one or two, and get to know them.

Or maybe she decides that she can't do that.

Heck, if it's what you want, talk to your DM about a "distressed dude in a tower" plot. A shy, willowy prince is kidnapped by a wicked dragon and locked in a tower, so your heroine goes to rescue him and...well, you know where those stories can go.

TabletopGamer
2013-10-10, 12:22 PM
I agree with you Segev

My issue only comes from a approved setting being changes for what appears to be no reason other then GM's whimsy and that is not good story telling and it franky to easy to abuse.

She also said that the GM told her that if her character were in a relationship she could no longer Adventurer because her love interest wouldn't allow it.
Now of course could she be lying of course but currently she is our only source of insight into this case.

If she is also uncomfortable with the setting there is an issue. If she read the setting and was told of more equal standing, I know I know thats not everywhere in that setting I am just pointing it out, then to find that her female is the strong exception to the rule then yes this would be akward for her because if the setting is so strongly male dominated with women being pushed into the barefoot and pregnant motif then there is a storyteller issue here as well. Why has she not been assaulted or kidnapped for acting out of turn. She is a female adventurer in a setting where she is basically second class. How is this different from playing a Drow in a fully elf campaign and the GM ignoring what would obviously what happens.

Now of course that is an unlikely situation but could be a contributing factor. This could have just been the straw that broke the camels back.

But no I do not think the GM is Evil or the OP is. This is a problem with communication and poor judgement on both parties fault.

Tanuki is right she needs to talk to him and see why he did this, if she is uncomfortable with it or at least severely confused and yes her posts do indicate that they investigated IC and found no Pothooks for a reason for this to be a Storytelling experience but perhaps they just have not seen it yet. But if the GM is making this a story point then just tell her that, its not that hard to explain something without giving away all the details.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-10, 12:35 PM
I'm flattered that people seem to be hoisting me as the voice of level-headedness here, but I'm not the one who originally mentioned talking with the GM. Several people did this over the course of the thread, I just tried to hammer home the differences in construed opinions, where both sides could be in the wrong/in the right and exploring the confines of what a GM and what a player can do and expect to be able to do in the paradigm of a game world.

tasw
2013-10-11, 09:09 PM
And even if that were true, why shouldn't the DM retcon the NPC to be more in line with what the OP had in mind? If it isn't a big deal, and it is making a player uncomfortable, why not try to correct that discomfort?

Why should he? the player is wrong. Being uncomfortable doesnt make you right.

Moreover the new character is much more complex and interesting and the whole story is rife with possibilities for adventure.

The old character was a cardboard cut out of a shy wimp with no real depth or anything intersting about it.

The change IMPROVED the story.

tensai_oni
2013-10-11, 09:16 PM
Why should he? the player is wrong. Being uncomfortable doesnt make you right.

WRONG.
If a player is uncomfortable with something that happens in the game, it's a good game master's duty to change that. Otherwise the GM might as well be saying "I don't care you're not having a good time, I don't care the game makes you feel uneasy - I don't give a crap about your feelings, I only care for my story."

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-11, 09:37 PM
If a player is uncomfortable with something that happens in the game, it's a good game master's duty to change that.

In so far that a happy medium is struck between the player, the GM and the group.

It doesn't matter if the player is made comfortable if it makes the GM or other players themselves uncomfortable.

tasw
2013-10-11, 09:42 PM
WRONG.
If a player is uncomfortable with something that happens in the game, it's a good game master's duty to change that. Otherwise the GM might as well be saying "I don't care you're not having a good time, I don't care the game makes you feel uneasy - I don't give a crap about your feelings, I only care for my story."

yeah no.

The GM is running a game for everyone. Not a daycare for mr emo. Its his job to do whats best for the majority of players. Not to coddle the every whim of someone determined to find something to be offended about.

Sometimes people need to be told to shut it, they are being a pain and the game is moving on.

tensai_oni
2013-10-11, 09:49 PM
Okay, so each time someone finds something uncomfortable to them, they are being a "mr emo" and are "determined to find something to be offended about".

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. If something doesn't bother all players but one, it's still a problem. Triggers are a highly personal thing.

But in this thread we're not even dealing with a trigger, but rather a situation where the GM does something to a single player's (back)story. Of course that player is the only one bothered by it, she's the only one affected.

tasw
2013-10-11, 10:45 PM
No she's not the only one affected.

Presumably the entire party was there when the OP went back to her village and even if the characters werent the PLAYERS were all sitting around the table watching, and the entire party watched this drama unfold. And the entire party will have to deal with everything that comes after it.

This is absolutely a GROUP thing and not one players personal issue alone unless she's coming over and having 1 on 1 sessions with the GM where this is coming out.

The Oni
2013-10-11, 10:46 PM
Ok. PTSD is a real thing and people suffer from it and have triggers. I have friends and family who have PTSD. "Being oppressed" is not a trigger. If the player is somehow uncomfortable, they need to bring it up to the GM and look for some sort of compromise solution, not demand the purge of every element that might resemble something he/she dislikes. D&D is a group activity; if you insist on it being tailored specifically to you, you better get used to playing in a very small group.

Mr Beer
2013-10-11, 10:54 PM
Good grief, everyone!

This need not be a case where either the DM is Genghis Khan or the player is Lady Macbeth!

Neither is required to be the blackest of villains to justify the other being a good person.

So kindly stop trying, on the limited information we have, to argue that one or the other is an innocent victim of a power-mad or spoiled-rotten other or one.

LOL, this. It's like some of us have taken this whole "creating an NPC backstory" as a personal challenge and are intent on delivering a meta version.

JadedDM
2013-10-12, 12:34 AM
My advice to the OP is to ignore all of the gas-lighting going on here, and just talk with your DM. If he's as enlightened as you say, he should hopefully listen to what you have to say. As a privileged male myself, I know I certainly sometimes slip up despite the best of intentions. It's possible he didn't even realize the implications of what he did.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-12, 12:39 PM
So if he doesn't listen, he isn't "enlightened"? If he doesn't bow down to someone else's demands, he isn't "enlightened"

Lorsa
2013-10-12, 02:12 PM
So if he doesn't listen, he isn't "enlightened"?

That's what he said.


If he doesn't bow down to someone else's demands, he isn't "enlightened"

That's not what he said.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-12, 02:42 PM
Saying, "If he's as enlightened as you say, he should hopefully listen to what you have to say." Is just a passive aggressive way of saying, "If your not with us, your are my enemy."

JadedDM
2013-10-12, 07:38 PM
Kyberwulf.

'Listening' to someone is not the same as obeying them.

If he's as enlightened as the OP claims, he will at least listen with an open mind to her concerns.

Halna LeGavilk
2013-10-12, 08:36 PM
Kyberwulf.

'Listening' to someone is not the same as obeying them.

If he's as enlightened as the OP claims, he will at least listen with an open mind to her concerns.

The implication of what you are saying is that if the DM doesn't do what she says, then he is unenlightened. The 'second meaning' of listen is that they actually do what they say.

Okay, we seriously need to cool this thread down. The OP left like half-way through, and I'd rather not see a debate about Feminism on this forum, because that is what this thread is quickly becoming, and will get people banned. So, we need to stop. Seriously.

In addition, the whole thread is pointless because as far as I remember, we have no updates, and also not the second side of the story. As far as I can tell, this is a moot point, because of the lack of information, so we need to stop talking about it.

Eric Tolle
2013-10-14, 05:53 PM
Well, it was what, page 2 or 3 that someone posted his rape fantasy? So I'm honestly not sure how much further the thread could descend. At least we haven't had someone accuse her of being hysterical, though "hissy fit" is pretty damn close.

I am honestly bemused at the GM entitlement going on here- it seems the old " The GM is GAWD, and you are all playthings for his amusement" mentality is still in full force, even after 25 years of people trying to point out that GM power trips are really bad game play.

I currently play rpgs where things like relationships are resources that have mechanical effects. Even before then, back when I was running Champions games, I learned that when a player puts a relationship on a character sheet, they have some expectations of the drama and rping they want. Not meeting those expectations will lead to unhappy players, especially if the GM agreed to them at the start of the game. Seriously, if one agrees to an element of character backstory or personality at the beginning of a game, it's a bad idea to change it just because one doesn't want to deal with it. If one absolutely has to change it, then talk to the player before it comes up in game. This is simple common sense and etiquette.

So yeah, if a player comes to me with a complaint, then damn right I'm'm going to listen, because the next step is for a player to quit. That people don't understand that, amazes me.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-14, 06:06 PM
So yeah, if a player comes to me with a complaint, then damn right I'm'm going to listen, because the next step is for a player to quit. That people don't understand that, amazes me.
That's the issue here, the player didn't go to the GM with a complaint, they just came here and complained about it. Thus the hissy fit, because they chose to complain instead of resolve. Until the player attempts to resolve the dilemma this is nothing more than IMO a hissy fit.

Lorsa
2013-10-14, 06:08 PM
That's the issue here, the player didn't go to the GM with a complaint, they just came here and complained about it. Thus the hissy fit, because they chose to complain instead of resolve. Until the player attempts to resolve the dilemma this is nothing more than IMO a hissy fit.

I believe she came here to get advice about how to resolve it?

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-14, 06:10 PM
I believe she came here to get advice about how to resolve it?

I think the point of contention for some of her detractors is that she came to us first instead of trying to talk to the GM about this.

ngilop
2013-10-14, 06:38 PM
the biggest point people are missing is that nothing in this backstory was changed. at all.

an npc teenager had some extraordinary circumstances happen to him and grew up and changed. Your supposed to change when you go from being a teenager to an adult even without this sort of extreme circumstance clubbing you over the head.

The op doesnt like the adult as much as the kid and is throwing a hissy fit over it. Thats all. The OP needs to grow up IRL

I like this post. you forgot to saw that how the OP also claimed several times as fact that there is no way a male can go froms kinny to having some muscle in three months without resorting to illegal measures. ( i did illegal whatevers in school it seems to go from 115 lbs of pure skinny to 145 pounds of 'hey look i have muscle.. guess actually working out and heavy labor is illegal)

Lorsa
2013-10-15, 05:55 AM
I like this post. you forgot to saw that how the OP also claimed several times as fact that there is no way a male can go froms kinny to having some muscle in three months without resorting to illegal measures. ( i did illegal whatevers in school it seems to go from 115 lbs of pure skinny to 145 pounds of 'hey look i have muscle.. guess actually working out and heavy labor is illegal)

There's a difference between "hey look I have muscle" and being "muscular".

Given perfect conditions and nutrition, it's theoretically possible to gain 12 pounds of muscle in 3 months. Any other weight gain is fat, increased glycogen storage and water.

Can you become stronger and heavier? Of course you can! But large changes to body type doesn't happen in 3 months. I'm sure there has been scientific research in this area though so I'm willing to be proved wrong.

1337 b4k4
2013-10-15, 10:09 AM
There's a difference between "hey look I have muscle" and being "muscular".

Given perfect conditions and nutrition, it's theoretically possible to gain 12 pounds of muscle in 3 months. Any other weight gain is fat, increased glycogen storage and water.

Can you become stronger and heavier? Of course you can! But large changes to body type doesn't happen in 3 months. I'm sure there has been scientific research in this area though so I'm willing to be proved wrong.

For what it's worth, for a young, reasonably fit individual (i.e. not heavily overweight, not severely underweight, without major health issues) the changes one can undergo in a 3 month period can be rather striking. For reference, do a google search for before and after pics for people who have gone through the p90x program (warning, may be NSFW), which is 13 weeks. Now none of these are scrawny geek to Schwartzenegger, but I would certainly describe them as a transition to "muscular"

Kyberwulf
2013-10-15, 02:52 PM
What we have here, is PC Entitlement vs. DM Authority. Which this was well within his rights. Considering this was about a NPC that changed during the course of the game, for whatever reason.

The Backstory wasn't touched. The only thing that changed was the world after the story took place.

Knaight
2013-10-15, 03:38 PM
I'm sorry, but how exactly is calling someone a misogynist not an insult? :smallconfused:

He wasn't called a misogyinist. A particular phrase was called misogynistic, which is a completely different thing. It's the difference between, for example, calling a particular argument poorly thought through and calling a particular person an idiot. Or asking someone to move because they're accidentally standing on their foot and accusing someone of deliberately stomping on people's feet all the time.

Water_Bear
2013-10-15, 04:58 PM
He wasn't called a [misogynist]. A particular phrase was called misogynistic, which is a completely different thing. It's the difference between, for example, calling a particular argument poorly thought through and calling a particular person an idiot.

I would argue it's closer to the difference between saying an argument is idiotic and saying that the person is an idiot; the former may be slightly less insulting than the latter, but neither is likely to be taken well.

I'm going to opt out of the gender politics / Player v DM arguments and cut straight to the meat here; Themrys is not fond of her GM's style and dislikes a particular choice of his, and the GM is known to take criticism poorly. The only way this is going to be resolved is if the issue is approached tactfully.

Framing a disagreement between friends in terms of ideology is fine on a semi-anonymous forum where you can Ignore anyone you don't agree with, but in real life "personal is political" needs to be turned on it's head. There's no amount of beating someone about the head with political talking points that will change their minds; that just makes people even more stubborn in their positions. Approaching people on their own level and explaining the issue in terms of their own needs is the best way to get them to do what you want.

He had some reason in mind for making the choice he did and I will guarantee with 100% certainty it was not "I hate women." Figure out what he's looking for and you will likely be able to find a way to compromise without either of you getting defensive or feeling offended.

kyoryu
2013-10-15, 06:12 PM
He had some reason in mind for making the choice he did and I will guarantee with 100% certainty it was not "I hate women." Figure out what he's looking for and you will likely be able to find a way to compromise without either of you getting defensive or feeling offended.

Exactly. He has certain things he wants in his game, there are certain things Themrys wants in games that she plays in. Either they can explain these to each other and work out a mutually satisfactory compromise, or they can't (which is okay too - sometimes things are just incompatible).

There doesn't have to be any "good guy/bad guy" value judgements associated.

Lorsa
2013-10-16, 07:05 AM
For what it's worth, for a young, reasonably fit individual (i.e. not heavily overweight, not severely underweight, without major health issues) the changes one can undergo in a 3 month period can be rather striking. For reference, do a google search for before and after pics for people who have gone through the p90x program (warning, may be NSFW), which is 13 weeks. Now none of these are scrawny geek to Schwartzenegger, but I would certainly describe them as a transition to "muscular"

So it's a semantic difference then. I looked through those images and I couldn't see anyone that went from slender/delicate to muscular. I saw some that got a bit more muscle but mostly it was dropping body fat %. Which means I assume your definition of muscular being "having very low body fat &" whereas mine is more like "having lots of muscle".

Segev
2013-10-16, 07:44 AM
I have to wonder if part of the argument over whether or not "90 lb wimp" can become "muscular" is based in the question as to whether there is, in a given observer's mind, a difference between "muscular" and "muscle-bound."

Take a scrawny 15-year-old who is soft and lanky and inactive and put him on a swim team or a weight-lifting regimen while ensuring he eats enough, and he'll gain definition and tone that is visible. He may or may not develop a six-pack, but he'll gain some definite shape to his upper arms and torso. If he's in a growth spurt, he may even fill out a bit in the shoulders and limbs.

It may be highly unusual to near-impossible that he'll be "muscle-bound" (baring puberty hitting REALLY hard in the interim), he most definitely will look "muscular" compared to how he looked before.

Whether that's what any given person means when they say "muscular" is another question. I don't know what the DM or the OP picture when they hear the word.

Calinero
2013-10-16, 09:29 AM
I feel like an argument over whether it's physically possible for this physical improvement to take place is kind of missing the point. Sure, if the GM described a physical change that's simply impossible, that's a bad sign. But that's not the real problem that OP had with this situation.

The real problem is that the OP presented a backstory, with an NPC who had a relatively clear definition. No, it wasn't incredibly fleshed out, at least from what we've seen, but there were some clear hooks. The GM then took those hooks, and ignored them.

Well, 'ignored' is a strong word. Clearly the GM used the 'love interest' hook to do something to the player, but in doing so he essentially rewrote the NPC's personality. The GM did not technically rewrite any backstory, but the character he is playing is a different one than the one that OP gave him to work with. Now, when any player includes an NPC in their background, there's a chance the GM will have trouble playing them like the player envisioned. Different people portray characters in different ways, after all. But the degree to which the GM changed this character seems kind of excessive.

Can the GM still tell a good story with this interpretation of the NPC? Probably. But OP made a backstory that the GM agreed on, and to take that story and then twist it around is kind of disrespectful to the work that OP put into the story. It also takes away some of the immersion into the character.

I won't wade into the sexism debate other than to say that I'm a bit disappointed with how many people here seem to be mishandling the whole situation.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-16, 09:47 AM
He wasn't called a misogyinist. A particular phrase was called misogynistic, which is a completely different thing. It's the difference between, for example, calling a particular argument poorly thought through and calling a particular person an idiot. Or asking someone to move because they're accidentally standing on their foot and accusing someone of deliberately stomping on people's feet all the time.

Why did you bother bringing this back up when that whole line of discussion had been dead and buried?

Segev
2013-10-16, 10:38 AM
It was definitely a direction that was not maintaining the obvious continuation. This is why I don't fault the OP for being upset by the change. But it wasn't a "**** move" on the part of the DM or anything. Both people can be being perfectly reasonable. They just need to talk about it and figure out how to make the game fun and interesting for all involved going forward.

SethoMarkus
2013-10-16, 02:13 PM
This thread is still alive? I'm surprised that it hasn't been locked or died off on its own.

I have to say, given the time that has passed since this thread was first posted, I'd like to hear back from the OP on how things have worked out. There have been many suggestions, some helpful and some (imo) less helpful, and I think it would be good for all to get a little closure and hear how this was all concluded.

Knaight
2013-10-17, 03:04 PM
Why did you bother bringing this back up when that whole line of discussion had been dead and buried?

That would be because the conflation of criticism of a person with criticism of something a person said is an all too common distraction tactic that deserves criticism. Had somebody else pointed it out in the interim I wouldn't have, but as it wasn't I did.

Put simply though, it basically closes off the ability to call something harmful. Actually calling someone "a misogynist" or "a sexist" or "a racist" or much of anything else seen as bad that fits in the "a [Thing]" category is clearly an insult. As insulting people is banned here - and in 'polite' conversation in general - extending the same protection over what people say puts it above criticism.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-17, 03:11 PM
That would be because the conflation of criticism of a person with criticism of something a person said is an all too common distraction tactic that deserves criticism. Had somebody else pointed it out in the interim I wouldn't have, but as it wasn't I did.

Put simply though, it basically closes off the ability to call something harmful. Actually calling someone "a misogynist" or "a sexist" or "a racist" or much of anything else seen as bad that fits in the "a [Thing]" category is clearly an insult. As insulting people is banned here - and in 'polite' conversation in general - extending the same protection over what people say puts it above criticism.

So basically you were just looking to restart an argument that had already been dropped in favor of more constructive discourse?

Knaight
2013-10-17, 03:50 PM
So basically you were just looking to restart an argument that had already been dropped in favor of more constructive discourse?

You're free to look at it that way. Another way to put that would be that I was looking to criticize a harmful idea that had been left alone, on account of how leaving harmful ideas without criticism is itself harmful.