The difference is that, if someone is playing the character they designed, and the results are a problem for you as the GM, they are a problem you brought on yourself by consenting to let that character be played in the first place. The "orders" don't come only from the player; they have your countersignature on them.
That depends a lot on how much vetting of the character personality the GM does pre-game, and how much the character might evolve in play. I usually have done very little vetting of character personality, in part because my group has (until recently) had the unspoken assumption that the character personality would be someone who would work with the rest of the group towards the campaign goals - otherwise that character wouldn't be there.
(Assuming of course that the player isn't suddenly playing the character in an inappropriate fashion contrary to both the character sheet description and the evidence of previous play. In that case the Player is just lying - at least to you, and perhaps to themselves as well.)
This is not to say that I am denying all responsibility. Clearly as GM I have to step in and handle the issue, and wonder whether this incident means that I have to codify and enforce table rules going forward, so that my consent based on the assumption that the character would be suitable becomes an is replaced by an actual sign off. Oddly enough, this is exactly the sort of thing that happens in my Human Resources work all the time, especially in new companies or new departments. Things reach a point where you can no long trust that everyone will get along and work towards the same goal, so new rules and bureaucracy are needed.
I don't think you need rules. But I wouldn't dream of letting a player run a character without looking over the character closely. This hasn't always avoided all problems, but it does let me make sure the character makes some kind of sense for the campaign premise. And I also insist on all the players sitting down together to discuss character concepts before building their characters. So everyone should know what kind of character everyone else is playing, from the outset. I don't know how much of that you do, but if you don't, it might help avoid some of the problems you describe.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 04:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 05:30 pm (UTC)(Assuming of course that the player isn't suddenly playing the character in an inappropriate fashion contrary to both the character sheet description and the evidence of previous play. In that case the Player is just lying - at least to you, and perhaps to themselves as well.)
This is not to say that I am denying all responsibility. Clearly as GM I have to step in and handle the issue, and wonder whether this incident means that I have to codify and enforce table rules going forward, so that my consent based on the assumption that the character would be suitable becomes an is replaced by an actual sign off. Oddly enough, this is exactly the sort of thing that happens in my Human Resources work all the time, especially in new companies or new departments. Things reach a point where you can no long trust that everyone will get along and work towards the same goal, so new rules and bureaucracy are needed.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-07 07:57 pm (UTC)