Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
I'm going to explain myself one more time. If I have to explain it again, I am going to assume that the breakdown in communication is not my fault and begin acting accordingly.

It's not the other players whose fun is being ruined here.

The GM made a choice that disrupted the game. The other players, including the one who chose to have his player act consistently, made no choices, they just continued playing the game the way they'd been playing it the entire time. This ruined what the GM had planned, and ruined the GM's fun.

"It's what my character has been doing the entire game" is a valid defense when the GM thus accuses the player of disrupting the game.

The player did not choose to be disruptive. The player did not choose to put his fun over that of the rest of the table. The player's only decision was to keep playing the way he'd been playing for the entire game to no complaint thus far. It is not his fault that the GM designed an adventure that would be derailed or disrupted by such behavior and elected not to tell him.
There is no breakdown in communication happening, only straight-up disagreement over gameplay preferences/values. If another person very strongly disagrees with you about gameplay preferences/values, there is nothing to be gained by repeating yourself over and over, compared to working to find common ground, if doing so is important for whatever reason, or acknowledging the disagreement (or remaining points of disagreement) and moving on.

The presumably hypothetical situation you raised has some issues:
(1) The character is made to be uncompromisingly inflexible about some in-fiction phenomenon, without indicating whether any effort was made to fit that characteristic in with the norms of the table culture with respect to PC characterisation, or whether any effort was made to discuss and modify those norms in order to ensure there would be no problems down the road with that characteristic.
(2) Sustaining the character's uncompromising inflexibility requires valuing not merely consistent characterisation, but exactingly consistent characterisation. That might be something you personally value highly in a character, and if so, well and good, but it does not follow that the rest of the table does or must.
(2) In your claim "nobody's had any problems with me acting consistently with that backstory in situations where it's relevant", it seems you did not account for the possibility that the reason "nobody's had any problems" is because in those situations, your desire to portray your character as being uncompromisingly inflexible did not fall foul of the table culture's norms and/or did not register strongly enough with the other players (including the GM) for them to realise that there could be a problem down the road.

Contra Democratus, I would not say that these issues are solely the responsibility of the hypothetical you to resolve when they come up in a real game (as compared to a hypothetical). Contra you, I would not say they are solely the responsibility of the other GM, or the other players writ large (including the GM). Instead, it comes across as there being a general lack of communication about:
(1) What people's gameplay preferences or values are;
(2) The implications of PC's personal characteristics, if those implications include possible disruption of play;
(3) How the norms of the table culture can or must be adjusted to accommodate the gameplay preferences and values of everyone at the table.