It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Posted By: johnzoHolmes affirms the idea that players are not culpable for their characters' acts, even if those imaginary acts cause distress or harm in the real world. We see this when the ordinarily placid centaur player loses his temper when his PC was "robbed and abused" by the magic-user. "It's the magic-user who did that to you," says the magic-user's player. "I didn't do it, he did!" Holmes lets this assertion stand.
"Twenty-five percent it is," I said, exercising my prejudice in favor of females.
Posted By: Zak SDo you not know the word "context" or is it just that you have some definition of it that does not overlap with "what else might have happened" that might affect your evaluation of this story?
Posted By: JDCorleyI mean, I can make up some really great contexts if I want.
Posted By: jhkimIt seems like here you're saying it is doing "real world harm" to a player if they get mad when another player does something to their character in a game.I very strongly disagree with this. If my character attacks another PC, that is not necessarily doing "real world harm" to the player, even if they get mad. It is pretty common in games of any sort for a player to get mad at some point - but that doesn't mean that real-world harm has been done to them. Sometimes anger is justifiably based on a breaking of social norms, but other times the anger is not.
Posted By: Zak SIn the He-Is-Not-Being-An-Ass version of events I posted at #106 above, he specifically asks her--not to deprotagonize Cicely or because he assumes she should have less sexual agency than her male counterpart--but in order to make it easier for her to avoid locking horns with Jackass and to not put her on the spot.
Posted By: Zak SYou assumed she'd interpret the questions as "hounding" her.