PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Playing the same character in two campaigns at once



Iguanodon
2016-03-12, 08:10 PM
Hi all, I have a problem at the table that I would like some advice on.

I, a relatively new GM, have been running a 5e game for four players, all of whom are totally new to tabletop RPGs in general. One of my players decided to play in another campaign at the same time as mine; this was really cool and exciting to me, since I'd made a convert! However, at some point it became clear that he intended to play the same exact character in both games. I strongly advised against this, of course; my game is fairly story-driven and it would be really confusing for everyone involved. Besides as a new player it's a good idea to try out all sorts of different character options; he's playing a monk in my game and it would be good to broaden his game experience.

His other group has played one session so far (we've had 6), and he did end up playing the duplicate character. It is an exact carbon copy, same name and backstory. The other game is also 5e so the mechanics are identical as well. The other DM likely doesn't know, but I don't really know him so I can't be sure. The player says he knows full well that the characters will diverge over time and is okay with that. His reasoning, apparently, is that he already knows how to play his character in my game so he will do better in that game. Notably, his backstory is really cool and has interesting mysteries in it that I wanted to develop, but the other game will likely handle it differently.

After a great deal of thought, I feel very uncomfortable with this situation. I know some people who like to play the same characters over and over gain, but never simultaneously under two different DMs (with totally different styles, as far as I can tell). Has anyone here ever run into a situation like this? What should I do? I really don't want to ruin anyone's fun and I don't want to be a dictator.

Thrudd
2016-03-12, 08:25 PM
It's totally irrelevant to your game, it can't possibly make any difference. If he had never told you he was playing another game, you wouldn't know and it wouldn't affect anything.

If it helps you, don't think of it as the same character. Because they are in different games on different character sheets, they are completely unrelated characters. At best, they would be like parallel universe versions of each other that will never interact.

As long as the player knows it isn't the same, and he can't bring stuff over from one game to the other, it makes no difference.

oxybe
2016-03-12, 08:29 PM
does it really matter? until he told you/found out your game wasn't affected.

Think of it this way : you can have 2 spiderman comic lines running simultaneously or even seperately. the core idea and concepts are the same, but the execution will change, if only by the nature of the writers (or gm in this case).

AvatarVecna
2016-03-12, 08:39 PM
If we can have two completely different animated Sonic The Hedgehog TV shows running during the same week for months on end (with the same voice actor for both Sonics), I think you can manage to put up with a player playing the same character in multiple games. My advice would be to make sure you know which show you want your game to run more like, and make sure the players know too, and then everyone can have fun in that particular kind of game with the characters they want to play.

Sam113097
2016-03-12, 09:02 PM
I think that playing the same character in 2 games sounds like a great idea. It seems like your player has put a lot of effort into their character's backstory, and there's nothing wrong with them wanting to explore the possible variations of the character. It won't hit your game. If anything, it will help you, because the player will have more experience with RPing their character.

Iguanodon
2016-03-12, 09:23 PM
I think that playing the same character in 2 games sounds like a great idea. It seems like your player has put a lot of effort into their character's backstory, and there's nothing wrong with them wanting to explore the possible variations of the character. It won't hit your game. If anything, it will help you, because the player will have more experience with RPing their character.

I'm torn, because I appreciate the dedication but I can't help but think it'll end up a disaster somehow. You say he will have more experience playing the character, but he won't: he'll have experience playing a different character! If the characters get conflated, any plausible character development will be impossible unless the circumstances in the two games are the same (which they obviously won't be).

And the real kicker is that I don't think his other DM knows! At the very least I'll have to remedy that, I think.

Has anyone ever run into a situation like this in practice? Theories are all well and good but it would be better to have something concrete to work from.

Thrudd
2016-03-12, 09:49 PM
I'm torn, because I appreciate the dedication but I can't help but think it'll end up a disaster somehow. You say he will have more experience playing the character, but he won't: he'll have experience playing a different character! If the characters get conflated, any plausible character development will be impossible unless the circumstances in the two games are the same (which they obviously won't be).

And the real kicker is that I don't think his other DM knows! At the very least I'll have to remedy that, I think.

Has anyone ever run into a situation like this in practice? Theories are all well and good but it would be better to have something concrete to work from.

You are worried about nothing. I think you're taking this "character development" thing a bit seriously. People play multiple games simultaneously all the time, and sometimes people like to play the same sort of character. I don't think anyone usually gets confused about which game they are playing. I would truly be surprised if the other DM even cared, if you tell him. Because this is not a thing to give a second thought to. Or a first thought.

Âmesang
2016-03-12, 10:30 PM
He's playing as copies of the same monk? He's Jet Li (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_(2001_film))! :smalltongue:

LokiRagnarok
2016-03-13, 02:47 AM
OP, you are not your player's keeper. If he wants to do something that you fear will be bad for him, the most you can do is narrow down what it would be and tell him the risks.

Now, if you fear it will somehow be bad for you, that may be another matter.
Do you think that? What is it exactly and why?

PersonMan
2016-03-13, 07:01 AM
People play multiple games simultaneously all the time, and sometimes people like to play the same sort of character. I don't think anyone usually gets confused about which game they are playing.

If you're playing the exact same character, I can imagine your memories of two once-a-week games getting mixed up over time. Probably not a big issue, but it could lead to some minor mistakes.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-13, 08:18 AM
OP.
Let the dude play the same character in two campaigns.
It means jack diddly squat except MAYBE he'll accidentally grab the other sheet on accident and you'll have to wait for him to get the right one. (Or if he's smart he'll always bring both so that he literally can't make that mistake.)

I am having a hard time figuring out what would go wrong except occasional detail mistakes.

So what if the other DM doesn't know? It's not like he's cheating on either of you. Dude's just playing his character.

Put on your big boy pants and play some d&d.

Satinavian
2016-03-13, 08:33 AM
Make sure that he understands that everything from the other campaign can't change your campaign. No XP, no gear not even levelling decisions (leike monk/paladin in one campaign and monk/clerik in the other) Even if the character dies in one campaign, it will not affect the other.

Seems like he knows already, but better make sure.

Berenger
2016-03-13, 09:49 AM
I don't think it's your responsibility to "remedy" the game of a DM you don't even know. As far as we know, it's just working fine for them. Unless the player expects to carry over knowledge, levels or equipment the character gained in one campaign to the other campaign (and this does not seem to be the case), I don't see any problem. If you use a published setting with pre-made NSC, every single one of those has carbon copies at other tables, and those carbon copies will deviate greatly during the campaigns in which they are used (e.g., in some "alternate universes" they may be killed when they should live, saved when they should die, corrupted by evil or otherwise influenced by plot elements or actions of player characters in a myriad ways).

Âmesang
2016-03-13, 10:58 AM
If you're playing the exact same character, I can imagine your memories of two once-a-week games getting mixed up over time. Probably not a big issue, but it could lead to some minor mistakes.
Honestly that kind of sounds like an interesting plot idea to me; a character existing in two different universes at once and overtime things start to blur for him… a sign that the universes are slowly merging.

…not that that would occur in this particular situation, but still. :smalltongue:

Iguanodon
2016-03-13, 11:22 AM
Alright, it seems like the consensus is that I'm making a fool of myself on the internet. I can't help but notice that no one who's telling me to "grow up" actually seems to have been in my situation, but I digress.

My decision is that I will just tell the other DM, or get the player to do it. I figure as long as everyone's well informed it can't be too bad.

One last thing: my player's reasoning for this is basically that he wants the other game to be easier for him; I'm not sure what I should say to this. I try to support a variety of play styles (even including the people who just play because of peer pressure), but this is a little different than that. Should I talk about it at all, besides just telling him that I think there are better ways to grow as a player?

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-13, 11:45 AM
Alright, it seems like the consensus is that I'm making a fool of myself on the internet. I can't help but notice that no one who's telling me to "grow up" actually seems to have been in my situation, but I digress.

My decision is that I will just tell the other DM, or get the player to do it. I figure as long as everyone's well informed it can't be too bad.

One last thing: my player's reasoning for this is basically that he wants the other game to be easier for him; I'm not sure what I should say to this. I try to support a variety of play styles (even including the people who just play because of peer pressure), but this is a little different than that. Should I talk about it at all, besides just telling him that I think there are better ways to grow as a player?

I have been in this situation, though in a slightly different context. Hell, I have been this player.

Unless he is telling you that the character in your campaign and the character in the other are LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME PERSON, and not merely identical copies going on different adventures, then there is nothing to worry about.

There is literally no reason to tell the other DM. And if you bring it up like you're genuinely concerned, the other DM may think you're a huge weirdo. Just bring it up casually in passing, or not at all.

As far as the player is concerned, he's doing nothing wrong. Lay off. Leave the dude alone. Maybe he wants to put the same basic character through two different adventures to see how each copy turns out different. That's fine.
Maybe he just doesn't want to go through the crappy process of making a D&D character twice. Also fine (and I can relate.)
Maybe not your dang problem, quit getting anxious about it.

Let me present to you a situation:
You decide to run an Adventure module. Let's call it Attack on Treasure Castle. You start playing with your usual group.

After a few sessions, Another group is interested in running the same module. You have time, and agree.

Your players from the first sessions wig out because HOLY CRAP YOU'RE ALSO PLAYING THE SAME MODULE WITH OTHER PLAYERS! ISN'T THERE A BETTER WAY TO GROW AS A DM?

If THIS presented situation sounds like people overreacting to nothing....

Iguanodon
2016-03-13, 12:03 PM
Just bring it up casually in passing, or not at all.

That's the plan. :smallsmile: I obviously don't want to ruin anyone's fun, especially not the other DM's since that would affect all of his other players, too.


Quit getting anxious about it.

You can't tell me what to do!!

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-13, 12:04 PM
That's the plan. :smallsmile: I obviously don't want to ruin anyone's fun, especially not the other DM's since that would affect all of his other players, too.



You can't tell me what to do!!

I would go with "Dude probably knows and doesn't care" as my base assumption rather than "Doesn't know." That's just me, though.

Satinavian
2016-03-13, 12:18 PM
I can't help but notice that no one who's telling me to "grow up" actually seems to have been in my situation, but I digress.
Have been in that situation. Was never a problem.

Usually i see more cases of "I have the perfect character for this campaign, but he/she is still in the other one. Can i simply assume that the other one is backstory, even if i don't know the conclusion yet ?" Other occasions where is happens are oneshots which can be afterwards placed as interludes whenever it fits.

As long as there is no mechanical impact and the character is suitable for both ... what could go wrong ?

Mith
2016-03-13, 12:19 PM
Since there is no connection (two different character sheets), I would say that there in no continuity conflict, and thus no problems.

I ran a game for my cousin`s kids when they were planning to bring their characters since they usually run one shots with the same character, instead of a story progression (which I am used to). We ended up with different characters since I ended up running a 1st level game for ease of being a new DM (my first game).

If they had their characters currently in a story campaign, and they could have run in the game I was playing, I would have insisted on rolling up new characters regardless, since the other character was off doing something else, so they could not be present for the session I was running.

Quertus
2016-03-13, 02:42 PM
I played with one guy who only ever played one character. He was up to version 47 last time I played with him, IIRC.

If a player starts encountering lots of traps in one adventure, and becomes paranoid in the other, then you have bleed over. Yes, it can happen.

I've played copies of several of my characters, including my signature character. They each grew independently. Really, me growing as a person, having a bad day, or just being absent minded are all probably responsible for more questionable role-playing of any of those characters than their poly existence. Although it is me role-playing the differences between the copies that raises the most eyebrows.

Heck, I've played in games that were so messed up, that we met at 10th level, adventured together as old friends at 5th level, then retired at 7th level.

Unless you know something you're not telling us, I'd say that the level of stress you're emoting about this (and everyone's reactions of "not a problem, dude") indicate that, if anything, you should take this as an opportunity to evaluate your own connection to this issue. You may learn something valuable about yourself.

Final Hyena
2016-03-13, 03:49 PM
When I first started I essentially RPed myself for my first game, in my second game this fell flat as no one else could talk without being stupid. I have yet to play the gruff idiot type.... Anyway I wouldn't worry about it too much, people need time to get used to RP.

The best way to move forward is to show him varied characters, this'll likely inspire him to try something else when he gets to play again.

Iguanodon
2016-03-13, 05:17 PM
Thanks for all the advice, guys. The player and I are both cool with it (he hasn't yet told the other DM, though we don't think it'll be an issue).

There are some interesting opportunities here. I might mess with his backstory a bit more than I usually would, to try and blow his mind a bit. Maybe people he thought were evil are actually good, maybe the other way around, I'm not sure yet. If he dies to a random encounter it'll all be moot anyway.

I'm going to try to put the other game out of my mind. It's great that he wants to play in another campaign so soon after first experiencing tRPGs; I should focus on that.

goto124
2016-03-13, 07:07 PM
There are some interesting opportunities here. I might mess with his backstory a bit more than I usually would, to try and blow his mind a bit. Maybe people he thought were evil are actually good, maybe the other way around, I'm not sure yet.

Please don't do this without the player's permission. If you want to surprise the player, ask if he wants surprises in the first place, followed by the parameters of the surprises. "Don't make his mentor evil, but his family can be evil", etc.

There're pleasant surprises, and there're outright shocking 'surprises' that are the exact opposite of pleasant. It's the difference between revealing the adviser was evil, and revealing the entire fantasy medieval setting is actually sci-fi.

Kane0
2016-03-14, 01:30 AM
Sounds like the kind of person that likes to have two or more playthroughs with the same character/build in a videogame, just to see whats different the next time.
He's probably just trying to get the most of the story and character he put the effort into making, not trying to game the system or play the DM to his benefit.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-14, 01:52 AM
You're worrying about something that's ultimately none of your business. As long as he keeps a clean separation between the two instances of the character, it doesn't effect your game at all. Stop being controlling and mind ya business. Seriously.

Lorsa
2016-03-14, 02:58 AM
After a great deal of thought, I feel very uncomfortable with this situation. I know some people who like to play the same characters over and over gain, but never simultaneously under two different DMs (with totally different styles, as far as I can tell). Has anyone here ever run into a situation like this? What should I do? I really don't want to ruin anyone's fun and I don't want to be a dictator.

It would make me uncomfortable as well. I don't think I've ever tried to play the same character in two different campaigns, let alone at the same time.

So you are not alone. I'm not sure how I would act if that situation ever came up, but neither are you. It is probably one of those things that depends on the people involved.



You're worrying about something that's ultimately none of your business. As long as he keeps a clean separation between the two instances of the character, it doesn't effect your game at all. Stop being controlling and mind ya business. Seriously.

Things that goes on at a roleplaying table is everyone's business (of those present). Seriously.

Even if he does manage to keep a clean separation, which I find unlikely, knowing that he is doing so would ruin my immersion. It doesn't make sense, just as if Harry Potter would show up in Game of Thrones. The two worlds are supposed to be apart, with nothing to do with each other, yet the player forces them together with this choice. Even if logically it shouldn't make a difference, emotionally it does, and emotions matter. Seriously.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-14, 03:19 AM
Things that goes on at a roleplaying table is everyone's business (of those present). Seriously.

It's not at your table, it's at somebody else's. If he hadn't mentioned it, you'd never have known and it will have exactly the same impact on -your- table, either way. What he does with his characters in other games, even if they're carbon copies of the characters he uses in your game, is none of your business.


Even if he does manage to keep a clean separation, which I find unlikely, knowing that he is doing so would ruin my immersion. It doesn't make sense, just as if Harry Potter would show up in Game of Thrones. The two worlds are supposed to be apart, with nothing to do with each other, yet the player forces them together with this choice. Even if logically it shouldn't make a difference, emotionally it does, and emotions matter. Seriously.

Dear god, your precious feels. How could I possibly have overlooked them. Clearly they're much more important than his and he should feel horrible for doing something that has nothing to do with you without checking for your permission first.

Tell me, do multiple different incarnations of a given character completely turn you off of comics and manga? What about reboots of old movies and TV shows? How about the overlap of some of the gods in the FR and Greyhawk pantheons? My point here is that multiple incarnations of the same character in different stories is something that happens.... a lot.

Hyperbole and rhetoric aside, just because you don't like it and wouldn't do it yourself doesn't make it any of your business. He's entitled to do whatever the hell he likes at someone else's table (within the limits imposed by that group, of course) and it would be -supremely- unfair to force him to retire a character he's enjoying and that has already been approved and put in play just because you find something he's doing somewhere else to be distasteful. Targetting his character for rapid, intentional destruction would be an even worse, passive-aggressive, d-bag move.

Such a controlling attitude is extremely troublesome for something as social as TT gaming. Put it out of your mind and move on.

Sliver
2016-03-14, 03:26 AM
Things that goes on at a roleplaying table is everyone's business (of those present). Seriously.

But it's not something that happens at your table. It's two separate tables, and what happens at another table shouldn't affect you. And if it does, it's your problem. It's not just that the player doesn't have an obligation to play this character only in a single campaign, but he has the right to play whatever he wants in whatever game he wants, within the constraints of the rules set by the DM. And "always new and original characters" is not a fair rule to set.


It doesn't make sense, just as if Harry Potter would show up in Game of Thrones. The two worlds are supposed to be apart, with nothing to do with each other, yet the player forces them together with this choice. Even if logically it shouldn't make a difference, emotionally it does, and emotions matter. Seriously.

No, it's not the same as HP being in GoT. It's more as if Maisie Williams appearing in both Game of Thrones and Doctor Who.

Or more accurately, it's as if Ryan Reynolds plays Wade Wilson in both Wolverine: Origins and Deadpool. Same actor, same character, different worlds, different events led to different development.

It bothering you gives you no right to impose your will upon another person.

Swordsage'd

MrStabby
2016-03-14, 06:35 AM
I think there is a little overreaction here.

OP saw something odd and asked if it was a worry and what they should do. The answer is a resounding "Don't Worry about it" but it doesn't mean it is wrong to ask. The guy in question is a new player, trying to get to grips with the rules and the DM is worried. Asking others in this position if it is an issue seems to be Exactly The Right Thing to Do.

Being concerned about is a new DM isn't a bad thing - it is thinking ahead, trying to spot problems and taking responsibility for the game. It isn't like the DM had unilaterally forbade the guy playing two characters, it was the most restrained response possible - seek advice on whether to raise it as an issue and if so talk to others about it.

It isn't like this is a fascist DM situation.

Lorsa
2016-03-14, 08:49 AM
But it's not something that happens at your table. It's two separate tables, and what happens at another table shouldn't affect you. And if it does, it's your problem. It's not just that the player doesn't have an obligation to play this character only in a single campaign, but he has the right to play whatever he wants in whatever game he wants, within the constraints of the rules set by the DM. And "always new and original characters" is not a fair rule to set.

Noone said it wasn't my problem. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up an discussed.

Besides, lots of things that players do outside of the table affects me. If they were killing puppies for fun for example, it would certainly affect my view of them, and give me a strong feeling of not wanting to play with them. Why should I be forced to play with players whose behavior make me uncomfortable? Do I not have the right to decide NOT to play with the group based on [whatever]?

If a DM wants to set "always new and original character" as a constraint, how is that any less fair than "has to be good-aligned"?

I can certainly not decide what a player should or shouldn't play in another game. However, I should be free to decide if I want to play or not.




No, it's not the same as HP being in GoT. It's more as if Maisie Williams appearing in both Game of Thrones and Doctor Who.

Or more accurately, it's as if Ryan Reynolds plays Wade Wilson in both Wolverine: Origins and Deadpool. Same actor, same character, different worlds, different events led to different development.

It bothering you gives you no right to impose your will upon another person.

Swordsage'd


I've never argued for imposing my, or anyone's will upon another person.

However, I will argue for my own right to decide if I want to play a game or not.

If I were to advice in a course of action, it would probably be in line of the usual "talk with the person". Explain that it makes you feel iffy, ask them why they chose to do this, listen to the answer, see if you still feel iffy afterwards.

Some things can be resolved with communication.

Incorrect
2016-03-14, 09:20 AM
You could suggest to the player to keep careful notes of each campaign, so he doesn't mix them up.

You could use your power as a story teller to make a few surprises in his BG. I always expect my GM to build some plot, and I would be very surprised if two made the same plot.

You should give his character a cursed eye patch that won't come off, and magically grows a nice beard. You know, to "help" him separate them.

Douche
2016-03-14, 09:21 AM
Are the other players in the other game too? If so, it's going to cause them to have all these little inside jokes and they will inevitably draw more comparisons between the two games that would not have existed otherwise.

Your only solution is to kill the monk. Make it look like an accident. "Accidentally" have them roll a crit and deal lethal damage when he's at like 2 hit points! It'll be awesome!!!

Berenger
2016-03-14, 09:39 AM
@Douche:


http://worldartsme.com/images/blue-paint-bucket-clipart-1.jpg

goto124
2016-03-14, 09:44 AM
You should give his character a cursed eye patch that won't come off, and magically grows a nice beard. You know, to "help" him separate them.

"But I'm an elf! I can't grow beards!"
"You're now a half-elf. Turns out your dad isn't so elf after all. Who knew?"

Don't do this without asking the player first.

Douche
2016-03-14, 10:16 AM
@Douche:


http://worldartsme.com/images/blue-paint-bucket-clipart-1.jpg

I don't get it, can you please explain? Not trying to belittle you, I actually will laugh if this is supposed to be a joke at my expense :smallwink:

Joe the Rat
2016-03-14, 10:59 AM
Blue text is for sarcasm. And that is totally a rule, and not just a social norm for indicating intent with your wording which may otherwise be missed. You wouldn't want to break Poe's Law, right?

...

Not everybody is about exploring the possibilities of different builds, or different stories, or different personalities. Sometimes you just want to play what you are comfortable with.

My wife plays one personality. Loud, slightly paranoid, and generally thinks the other characters are idiots for doing stupid, dangerous things. The exact nature of the character (archetype, race, game system) varies, but the personality is a constant. Getting her to try something different is like pulling teeth, and she will not be happy unless she can get back to her snarky self. She's there to socialize and roleplay.

My daughter has two characters: A sword and board fighter, and a ranger. Always human, always the same backstories. Any fantasy game, she will play one of these two. You ask for a new idea, and she will have a fit about it. A world of possibilities, examples of different types she has played alongside in multiple games, and not one idea of something different. The only way I get her to play something different is to change genres completely, and typically to hand her a concept, which she will use for that game only, and still play like it was a fighter or a shooter. She's there to roll dice and kill things.

So long as there isn't an expectation that what happens to one carries over to the other, there should be no problem. If it's organized play (PFS, DDAL, FLAILSNAILS), then things should carry over... provided there is documentation.

goto124
2016-03-14, 11:11 AM
Not everybody is about exploring the possibilities of different builds, or different stories, or different personalities. Sometimes you just want to play what you are comfortable with.

While we're talking about this, I personally find that trying to do something different (or out of my 'comfort zone') leaves me curled up on the floor crying my lungs out (http://i.imgur.com/AdiBPrO.jpg).

I may have issues.

SethoMarkus
2016-03-14, 02:44 PM
So when a player asks the Playground for advice because they feel uncomfortable with something in their game, they are told to talk it over with the GM and if that doesn't work no gaming is better than bad gaming. If a GM comes to the Playground asking what to do because they feel uncomfortable, they are told "get over it, don't be controlling"?

It is perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable with this situation. I don't think that it is over-reacting to ask for advice. I don't think it is necessary to inform the other GM, but definitely talk with the player and learn their reasoning. Let them know of any concerns you have but let them play the character(s) as they will. If it becomes an issue later on, talk with the player again about possible solutions.

It is very possible (and likely) that nothing will come of this and both games will run perfectly. However, I would have concerns in this situation as well. Not enough to act on, but I would (if I were running a game in this situation) certainly try to introduce role-playing elements to distance the two incarnations of the character. Create memorable relationships with other characters, epics acts of heroism (or villainy), hillarious inside jokes, etc.

Berenger
2016-03-14, 02:45 PM
@Douche: It's as Joe the Rat explained, I alluded to that rather strange custom of "painting" sarcastic remarks in blue. It meant as much as "Wow, I sure hope nobody takes that quip about arranging the character's death seriously." because I have seen such advice taken on face value. :P

Aspiration
2016-03-14, 05:46 PM
I'm more on the side of the OP and Lorsa, here. It's a bit weird. That said, I'd allow the player to do it, and just talk to him again if you start feeling it's becoming an actual problem and not just a possible problem. Maybe suggest that the two versions of the character have different names, if the player would be alright with that and it would help you feel they were different.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-14, 06:52 PM
Noone said it wasn't my problem. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up an discussed.

Except if it wasn't brought up, you'd never have known and it wouldn't effect you just like it's not going to effect you for knowing beyond making you feel slightly nonplussed. It won't affect any of your own characters, it won't affect any of the other players characters, it won't affect the NPC's, it won't affect anything that matters to your game at all. Indeed, it cannot affect those things unless one of the other players or DM decides to act innappropriately by letting something out of game affect their decision making in the game.


Besides, lots of things that players do outside of the table affects me. If they were killing puppies for fun for example, it would certainly affect my view of them, and give me a strong feeling of not wanting to play with them. Why should I be forced to play with players whose behavior make me uncomfortable? Do I not have the right to decide NOT to play with the group based on [whatever]?

False equivalence much? You're not forced to play with anyone. If something so trivial bothers you so much, you're free to leave at any time.


If a DM wants to set "always new and original character" as a constraint, how is that any less fair than "has to be good-aligned"?

It's incredibly restrictive. At the bare minimum it means you can't play a character similar to one you've played before. Some people are less creative than others and such a rule is a much greater imposition for them than for others. In the context at hand, it's an impossible demand. "There are no new ideas." It's almost impossible to come up with a character concept that hasn't been done somewhere in fiction. Just look at how frequently hollywood and the networks recycle the same basic stories over and over every other generation or so.


I can certainly not decide what a player should or shouldn't play in another game. However, I should be free to decide if I want to play or not.

Of course you're free to choose who you play with but that doesn't make choosing not to play with someone because of a character he's playing at another table, one that's clearly not objectionable in itself since it wouldn't have been allowed at your table if it was, any less of a gross overreaction.

Frankly, I'd be happy to see someone so delicate go. Way too much drama comes from that sort of thinking.







I've never argued for imposing my, or anyone's will upon another person.

However, I will argue for my own right to decide if I want to play a game or not.

There's no argument to have there. You have no right to impose your will on others and you're free to leave any time if something bothers you so very much.


If I were to advice in a course of action, it would probably be in line of the usual "talk with the person". Explain that it makes you feel iffy, ask them why they chose to do this, listen to the answer, see if you still feel iffy afterwards.

Some things can be resolved with communication.

I'd say just the opposite. Inform them you'd rather not hear about this because it bothers you and leave it the hell alone.


So when a player asks the Playground for advice because they feel uncomfortable with something in their game, they are told to talk it over with the GM and if that doesn't work no gaming is better than bad gaming. If a GM comes to the Playground asking what to do because they feel uncomfortable, they are told "get over it, don't be controlling"?

It's not at your game. It's at somebody else's. How is this so difficult to grasp. It's controlling because the DM is trying to control what the player does in other DM's games by punishing him for what he does there.


It is perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable with this situation.

No, it isn't. This is like feeling uncomfortable knowing someone likes briefs instead of boxers. You're not going to see it, it's not going to affect you, and it's none of your business.


I don't think that it is over-reacting to ask for advice. I don't think it is necessary to inform the other GM, but definitely talk with the player and learn their reasoning. Let them know of any concerns you have but let them play the character(s) as they will. If it becomes an issue later on, talk with the player again about possible solutions.

Asking for advice when you're not certain what to do is never a bad thing. The appropriate advice here, however, is to just put it out of your mind and move on.


It is very possible (and likely) that nothing will come of this and both games will run perfectly. However, I would have concerns in this situation as well. Not enough to act on, but I would (if I were running a game in this situation) certainly try to introduce role-playing elements to distance the two incarnations of the character. Create memorable relationships with other characters, epics acts of heroism (or villainy), hillarious inside jokes, etc.

You can't do that. Not unless you interrogate the player about each of his sessions with the other DM. If you absolutely -must- act on this information, then let it be by asking the player not to tell you about it any further. Anything else is only going to cause problems.

SethoMarkus
2016-03-14, 08:01 PM
No, it isn't. This is like feeling uncomfortable knowing someone likes briefs instead of boxers. You're not going to see it, it's not going to affect you, and it's none of your business.



As you are very clearly becom by agitated with something that doesn't directly affect you? No, it is not unreasonable to feel uncomfortable with this situation. It may or may not be unreasonable to act on such a feeling, but you telling someone they aren't allowed to feel that way is your attempt at imosing the same control over them.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-14, 08:27 PM
As you are very clearly becom by agitated with something that doesn't directly affect you? No, it is not unreasonable to feel uncomfortable with this situation. It may or may not be unreasonable to act on such a feeling, but you telling someone they aren't allowed to feel that way is your attempt at imosing the same control over them.

He's not telling anyone HOW to feel.
But he IS saying that having a cow about it comes across as paranoid an irrational (aka Not-Reasonable).
Which it does.
Because it kinda is.

Besides, OP already settled on the "Do Nothing" path as suggested, and after being assured that it's nothing to worry about, has stopped worrying about it. Trying to say that his anxiety was justified by anything beyond inexperience with the situation is not helpful in solving the problem. It just exacerbates it.

Until it becomes an actual problem, it isn't a problem. And if it becomes a problem, deal with the actual problem.

Why do we need to justify feeling anxious about this for any reason other than never having been in this situation and feeling unsure? The majority of posts were basically "Chill, bro. It's fine." Until there were accusations thrown out, when it began to look more paranoid than nervous. But it is resolved now.

If it upsets you, the problem is YOU. Not them, until proven to be an actual problem.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-14, 08:29 PM
As you are very clearly becom by agitated with something that doesn't directly affect you? No, it is not unreasonable to feel uncomfortable with this situation. It may or may not be unreasonable to act on such a feeling, but you telling someone they aren't allowed to feel that way is your attempt at imosing the same control over them.

Ascerbic sarcasm is my default mode of speech. I'm not agitated. Feelings aren't reasonable. You feel what you feel but to assert that a feeling is reasonable is absurd on the face of it and to defend a feeling that, if acted on, can only lead to drama as reasonable is just dumb. My choice of uderwear doesn't affect you.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-14, 08:34 PM
Ascerbic sarcasm is my default mode of speech. I'm not agitated. Feelings aren't reasonable. You feel what you feel but to assert that a feeling is reasonable is absurd on the face of it and to defend a feeling that, if acted on, can only lead to drama as reasonable is just dumb. My choice of uderwear doesn't affect you.

I can think of situations in which your underwear would affect me.

;D

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-14, 09:22 PM
I can think of situations in which your underwear would affect me.

;D

I rather suspect my wife would have a very reasonable objection to those situations coming up. :smalltongue:

SethoMarkus
2016-03-14, 09:52 PM
Ascerbic sarcasm is my default mode of speech. I'm not agitated.

I'm sorry for misreading your tone and apologize for misrepresenting your argument as a result. However, I must continue to firmly disagree based on my strong belief that no justification or reasoning is needed for anyone's feelings. It is simply how they feel. How they react is what matters.


My choice of uderwear doesn't affect you.

It does if you plan to do a headstand in a kilt.


You can't do that. Not unless you interrogate the player about each of his sessions with the other DM.

Actually, simply making original and unique characters within your own game should take care of this, as the probabilities that the other game will have the same supporting characters is astronomically unlikely.


My biggest issue is that telling the OP that it is nothing to worry about and to forget it is very unhelpful in resolving the issue. It doesn't actually give any advice on how to assuage those anxieties, instead invalidating them. I do not support acting out on these feelings in the context of the gaming sessions, but I believe the best way to ensure that everyone is happy is to simply talk to the player. Something like, "Hey, I feel a little uncomfortable with this. I just want to make sure you know there can't be any cross-over between the characters, right? Okay, good".

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-14, 10:37 PM
I'm sorry for misreading your tone and apologize for misrepresenting your argument as a result. However, I must continue to firmly disagree based on my strong belief that no justification or reasoning is needed for anyone's feelings. It is simply how they feel. How they react is what matters.

Wait a tic.


no justification or reasoning is needed for anyone's feelings.

Yeah, that's what you said.


no.... reasoning

It's right there in your own words. Feelings aren't reasonable. Why, then, would you try to defend any feeling as -reasaonable-. Reasonable = agreeable to reason, having justification, logical. The OP's reaction is none of these things. It's a gut reaction with no foundation.




It does if you plan to do a headstand in a kilt.

Nope, not even then. You can't see me on the other side of the internet.

Even if we were in the same place, seeing my tighty whities (that's right ladies and gentlemen) wouldn't cause you any harm. At most, it might offend your sense of public decency. Your feelings, your problem.

Besides, you don't wear anything under a kilt but socks and shoes. ;)



My biggest issue is that telling the OP that it is nothing to worry about and to forget it is very unhelpful in resolving the issue. It doesn't actually give any advice on how to assuage those anxieties, instead invalidating them. I do not support acting out on these feelings in the context of the gaming sessions, but I believe the best way to ensure that everyone is happy is to simply talk to the player. Something like, "Hey, I feel a little uncomfortable with this. I just want to make sure you know there can't be any cross-over between the characters, right? Okay, good".

There is no issue. The OP needs to realize that his feelings are unfounded and discard them. That's it.

Knaight
2016-03-14, 11:56 PM
So when a player asks the Playground for advice because they feel uncomfortable with something in their game, they are told to talk it over with the GM and if that doesn't work no gaming is better than bad gaming. If a GM comes to the Playground asking what to do because they feel uncomfortable, they are told "get over it, don't be controlling"?

If a GM comes to the Playground with a legitimate complaint that isn't hinged on something happening in some game they aren't in (e.g. any problem Talkeal has ever had with that batch of players everyone was telling him to ditch for months), the get similar advice regarding no gaming being better than bad gaming. Similarly, if a player was to come to the forum and complain about how their GM was running a game for another group they weren't in, they'd be getting a similar response to the one here. How people are playing some other game is none of your concern.

Aspiration
2016-03-15, 12:37 AM
At the very least, the OP was uncertain enough and open-minded enough to ask for advice. I don't think that's something he should be getting a bunch of grief for. Yeah, he's human and has feelings, and maybe they're silly feelings. Deal with it.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-15, 12:55 AM
At the very least, the OP was uncertain enough and open-minded enough to ask for advice. I don't think that's something he should be getting a bunch of grief for. Yeah, he's human and has feelings, and maybe they're silly feelings. Deal with it.

I, for one, am not giving grief for having feelings. I'm giving grief for considering unreasonable action on unfounded feelings. Feelings aren't something you choose. They're something thrust upon you by biology and subconcious psychology. What you -can- choose is how you act on those feelings. In the OP's particular instance, the appropriate way to act on his feeling is to set it aside as baseless and forget about it. Talking about it isn't going to accomplish anything, in this case, but to -maybe- make the player in question feel bad for upsetting the OP. That's not a positive goal to seek.

Lorsa
2016-03-15, 07:45 AM
I, for one, am not giving grief for having feelings. I'm giving grief for considering unreasonable action on unfounded feelings. Feelings aren't something you choose. They're something thrust upon you by biology and subconcious psychology. What you -can- choose is how you act on those feelings. In the OP's particular instance, the appropriate way to act on his feeling is to set it aside as baseless and forget about it. Talking about it isn't going to accomplish anything, in this case, but to -maybe- make the player in question feel bad for upsetting the OP. That's not a positive goal to seek.

If I am to read your latest posts, it seems as though you are working on a premise of all feelings being unfounded.

That is simply not the case. While feelings are irrational more or less by definition, most of them have a source. Sometimes the source is more clear than other times, but they are rarely unfounded.

For the case the OP is describing, the source isn't that hard to find. The worry is, as far as I understand, mainly that the player won't be able to keep his character's personality growth apart from one game to the other. Or, to be more precise, the worry is that the player will make the game less fun for the other players, the DM included.

I don't agree that this feeling is baseless. Some are, and will disappear if you examine them and put them in relation with other things.

Many times, talking about it is the only way to resolve and let go of a feeling. To simply "set it aside" isn't always possible. Learning more about the player's thoughts and motives, on the other hand, might help clear out some things and resolve the emotions.

You are right though, that you can choose the way you act. That's why the OP came here. Then he got accused of being controlling, and was told to do nothing. While the second may be good advice, I fail to see how the former was helpful in any way. My advice is different, in that I believe conversation is always the way to go. Relationships work best when there is honest and open communication.

Sliver
2016-03-15, 10:16 AM
Being worried about something is fine. But the player has already addressed OPs concerns:


The player says he knows full well that the characters will diverge over time and is okay with that. His reasoning, apparently, is that he already knows how to play his character in my game so he will do better in that game. Notably, his backstory is really cool and has interesting mysteries in it that I wanted to develop, but the other game will likely handle it differently.

What is there more to talk about? Tell the player that even though he is aware they are different characters, it makes OP uncomfortable? What do you expect from the player to do with that information? To retire one of his characters? To continue playing both but feel bad about making one of his DMs uncomfortable?

I fail to see the point in talking about it even more. The DM voiced his concerns, the player is aware. The matter has been settled and there shouldn't be an issue unless the player shows his ability at separating the characters to be lacking.

Douche
2016-03-15, 10:24 AM
@Douche: It's as Joe the Rat explained, I alluded to that rather strange custom of "painting" sarcastic remarks in blue. It meant as much as "Wow, I sure hope nobody takes that quip about arranging the character's death seriously." because I have seen such advice taken on face value. :P

Lol, gotcha.

I don't get what part of that post was meant to be sarcastic though :smalltongue:

Winter_Wolf
2016-03-15, 10:41 AM
On the OP, I'd be down with same character, two campaigns. I'd also explain to the player that nothing from the other game matters in my game, and your character might end up with a "cognitive dissonance" condition if/when he confuses what happened in the other game and mine. It's worth exactly zero bonus points or XP, but also doesn't really affect their character outside of npcs possibly thinking the character is unstable.

Mental illness fascinates me as much as it terrifies me. I'd have to take a little more care with campaign notes, though.

SethoMarkus
2016-03-15, 12:24 PM
Wait a tic.
It's right there in your own words. Feelings aren't reasonable. Why, then, would you try to defend any feeling as -reasaonable-. Reasonable = agreeable to reason, having justification, logical. The OP's reaction is none of these things. It's a gut reaction with no foundation.


I apologize for unclear context. What I should have written was "no justification or reasoning need be given for anyone's feelings".

Every feeling, emotion, thought, and inclination has a reason and cause, but that's really none of our business. Further, how the feelings/emotional state of a GM has no effect on anyone else at the table, but it does have an effect on the GM's behavior which then affects the other players. Don't ignore or "get over" a feeling, work it out. I have no disagreement that it would be wronng to let these feelings negatively impact the game. That is precisely why I believe it is important to express the concerns.You are also correct in your assumption that had the GM never known about it, it would have no impact on the game. But they DO know about it now, and it already has had an effect.

I'm not going to try to convince you to agree with my opinion, but please remember that opposing opinions need not be irrational. They are simply different opinions based on different experiences from different situations and environments.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-15, 02:21 PM
If I am to read your latest posts, it seems as though you are working on a premise of all feelings being unfounded.

Feelings have their foundation in biology and long-term, subconcious psychology. They rarely jive with rational thought.


That is simply not the case. While feelings are irrational more or less by definition, most of them have a source. Sometimes the source is more clear than other times, but they are rarely unfounded.

When I say that the DM's particular feelings are unfounded, I mean they have no foundation in rational thought. I suppose I could have said so more clearly.


For the case the OP is describing, the source isn't that hard to find. The worry is, as far as I understand, mainly that the player won't be able to keep his character's personality growth apart from one game to the other. Or, to be more precise, the worry is that the player will make the game less fun for the other players, the DM included.

How? Supposing he does slip up every once and a while, how does that result in more than a simple "You did that in the other game, I thought you were going to keep that stuff straight, dumbass.* If it causes more than a speedbump it'll be because of the DM or his group overreacting to simple, if avoidable, mistakes.


Some are, and will disappear if you examine them and put them in relation with other things.

That doesn't require talking to someone. When did self-examination become something people don't know how to do? Did I miss a meeting?


Many times, talking about it is the only way to resolve and let go of a feeling. To simply "set it aside" isn't always possible. Learning more about the player's thoughts and motives, on the other hand, might help clear out some things and resolve the emotions.

This is not an instance of serious psychological trauma. Someone made a decision that the wouldn't mirror. That's it. This doesn't require a discussion. Simply examining the situation rationally and realizing that his trepidation has no rational basis should be more than enough to process and discard the feeling. The only semi-valid concern he had, the player bleeding details accross the two incarnations of -his- characters, has already been addressed. There's nothing left to do here but get over it and move on.


You are right though, that you can choose the way you act. That's why the OP came here. Then he got accused of being controlling, and was told to do nothing. While the second may be good advice, I fail to see how the former was helpful in any way. My advice is different, in that I believe conversation is always the way to go. Relationships work best when there is honest and open communication.

Self-awareness is important for self-improvement. The OP expressed concerns about protecting the player's fun -outside of his game-; somewhere far beyond the realm of his responsibility. His player is, presumably, someone of a more or less equal social footing, maturity, and intelligence. Presuming to know more about what that person will enjoy or dislike than he does himself is, at best, arrogant and to even consider acting on that arrogance in order to affect the player's behavaior is, indeed, controlling.


I apologize for unclear context. What I should have written was "no justification or reasoning need be given for anyone's feelings".

I disagree. Feelings being given excessive weight in deciding a course of action can, and often does, lead to poor decisions and regrettable actions. The cause of one's feelings shoud be examined and weighed rationally and given the weight they're due based in such self-examination. Cause and effect don't give a rat's backside about your feelings. Any person who is interested in making good decisions, especially when those decisions affect other people, needs to examine both why they're doing a thing, to be sure that it's a thing that needs doing at all, and what its likely outcomes will be, to be sure they're doing the right thing. In any action you take, your means and motives will be judged by those it affects. It would be the height of folly to fail to judge them yourself.


Every feeling, emotion, thought, and inclination has a reason and cause, but that's really none of our business.

Feelings and emotions are the same things and they -are not- the same thing as rational thought. While it's true that emotions aren't completely random, their basis is not always, or even often with some people, valid. Feelings tha spring from faulty information or from biological drives run rampant are not emtions worth acting on. They, of course, have to be processed but that is an internal matter for the individual and need not be brought to anyone else's attention until and unless the person decides they cannot handle it themselves. Feelings that spring from reaizations of rational thought, however, are what one would call reasonable. Being angry for being lied to, being fearful because of an actual threat, being proud of an accomplishsment; these are reasonable feelings, anxiety over a lack of control of someone else's actions or feelings is not.

Someone's feelings become another person's business when they act on them or express intent to act on them. They no long affect that person alone at that point.


Further, how the feelings/emotional state of a GM has no effect on anyone else at the table, but it does have an effect on the GM's behavior which then affects the other players. Don't ignore or "get over" a feeling, work it out. I have no disagreement that it would be wronng to let these feelings negatively impact the game. That is precisely why I believe it is important to express the concerns.You are also correct in your assumption that had the GM never known about it, it would have no impact on the game. But they DO know about it now, and it already has had an effect.

They only have an effect on his behavior if he lets them. I never said he should ignore his feelings. I said he should discard them. This is a matter of self control and exerting one's willpower. Ignoring his feelings would be to pretend they're not there. I'm advising him to acknowledge, to himself, that he has these feelings, that they are unfounded, and to actively decide not to let them affect his behvior. When nothing comes of them, they will fade away.

*The blue text is to be taken as a playful jibe, not an angry reproof.

SethoMarkus
2016-03-15, 02:53 PM
They only have an effect on his behavior if he lets them. I never said he should ignore his feelings. I said he should discard them. This is a matter of self control and exerting one's willpower. Ignoring his feelings would be to pretend they're not there. I'm advising him to acknowledge, to himself, that he has these feelings, that they are unfounded, and to actively decide not to let them affect his behvior. When nothing comes of them, they will fade away.


It seems that there is a huge misunderstanding. Telling someone to discard their feelings, to me, sounds as thoug those feelings are being invalidated. It seems that was not your intent.

I simply was recoiling at the way the OP's problem was being treated. Too many arguments seemed to imply that it was wrong to feel uncomfortable. Had the general consensus been worded differently, I don't think I would have found issue. Though I still disagree that talking it over is over-reacting. I am in agreement with the idea that full disclosure and open communication are important.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-15, 03:10 PM
It seems that there is a huge misunderstanding. Telling someone to discard their feelings, to me, sounds as thoug those feelings are being invalidated. It seems that was not your intent.

I simply was recoiling at the way the OP's problem was being treated. Too many arguments seemed to imply that it was wrong to feel uncomfortable. Had the general consensus been worded differently, I don't think I would have found issue. Though I still disagree that talking it over is over-reacting. I am in agreement with the idea that full disclosure and open communication are important.

If a thing is invalid, calling it such is not a bad thing. Not every feeling is valid and you shouldn't feel good simply for having feelings. Feelings are a thing that simply are. They happen and then you deal with them. You deal with the invalid ones by setting them aside as invalid and moving on.

This is not a value judgement. Feelings have no value of their own to weigh. Their value comes from how they are weighted in the mind and what reactions are made to them. If feelings with no reasonable foundation are given little weight and actively given no action then they fade quickly and can do no harm. Dwelling on such unfounded feelings gives them greater influence than they deserve and makes it more likely that they will be acted upon. Acting upon them is almost always a poor decision.

In recent years people have been giving far, far too much weight to all feelings in general to the point that it's causing problems in the world. I can't really go into detail because of the forum's "no politics" rule but it has gotten completely out of hand in the minds of many beyond just myself. One shouldn't feel bad for having feelings but neither should he feel good about it. Whether a feeling is good or bad is entirely in what you do with it.

SethoMarkus
2016-03-15, 03:50 PM
you shouldn't feel good simply for having feelings.

I never claimed you should.

We simply won't come to an agreement on this matter, and that is alright. I disagree with several of your premises, and you disagree with mine.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-15, 03:52 PM
I never claimed you should.

We simply won't come to an agreement on this matter, and that is alright. I disagree with several of your premises, and you disagree with mine.

Fair enough. I've said my piece. Here's to good gaming for you and yours.

gxnpt
2016-03-15, 04:03 PM
So, if he declared that the 2 identical characters are actually identical twins who have always lied and claimed each others adventures but now are separated (but still lying about what happened in the early years and using the same name) would that make a difference?

If the 2 worlds ever overlap it could lead to some interesting effects................

SethoMarkus
2016-03-15, 04:14 PM
Fair enough. I've said my piece. Here's to good gaming for you and yours.

And to you as well.

ko_sct
2016-03-16, 10:34 AM
Overall, I don't think it's something you should be especially concerned about.


That said, I see an incredible occasion to mess with the player for a little fun.
I'd contact the other DM and set-up an incredibly similar situation with subtle but major differences, something like :

GameA:
DM1: In the cave, you see an hydra !
PC: I attack !! *roll* 34 to hit ! *roll* 24 dmg !
Dm1: Ok, it turn around and attack you. *roll*roll*roll*roll* you take 58 point of dammage.
PC: ... ****....

GameB:
Dm2: In the cave, you see an hydra !
PC: What ? Really ? Huh, i guess I turn around and start running.
Dm2: Ok, as you run away, looking over your shoulder you see the hydra disapear and the gnome illusionist you were running after is grinning. It seem you fell into his trap. Litterally. *roll* you take 23 points of dmg from the fall.
PC:....crap.....


Just my 2 coppers, I think it would make for a memorable event for the player.