"Player agency" doesn't mean agency of the player over themself. It means agency of the player over the character.
But agency of the player over the character does not mean, and has not ever meant, being able to have the character do, or even attempt to do, whatever you want.
The character is mind controlled with the order, "Attack your best friend." The rolls were high enough that the player must have the character do that. The player's agency comes in deciding which attack to use, what to RP the character saying and doing in response to the mind control, and so forth. The player still has agency of the character, but within the bounds of the rules -- which is true all the time, not just when Mind Control happens.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
BUT, no player gets to raise their hand in session 1, or 17, and say "Ummm...this encounter/narrative/effect is making me as a person uncomfortable", after the DM had laid out the ground rules in session 0.
I'm going to disagree here.
As I have said, agency and being made uncomfortable by something are (or should be) two completely different conversations. Being made uncomfortable by an encounter for one reason or another is not about player agency, nor even character agency, necessarily. I for one, would prefer if my players let me know something is uncomfortable so I can find a way to deal with that. I don't want anyone in my sessions to be miserable. Yes, it helps if the DM knows this might happen ahead of time, but maybe the player didn't realize it. And no, you cannot blame the DM for not knowing it if even the player maybe didn't realize it, and certainly not if the player didn't tell the DM before hand (DMs, unlike some of the monsters they control, cannot read minds).
Now, as a player, it is not particularly reasonable to expect the DM to be able to change the encounter in the middle of the 3rd round of combat because all of a sudden you are uncomfortable, or at least, all of a sudden you voice that discomfort. I would presume, and hope, that as a reasonable player, you would accept a response such as, "We're going to let this encounter continue and conclude as it is currently being played, but after it's over, let's talk about what made you uncomfortable and why, so I can alter the future encounters accordingly." I would think most players would accept a response like that, and most good DMs would make that response.
None of that is really about agency, unless the thing the player is objecting to is "any status effect that alters the choices I can make with my character." If someone said *that* to me, we'd need to have a conversation about whether that person wants to play in D&D, or frankly any RPG, because I can't think of any RPG rulebook I've ever read in which status effects were not just present, but a *major* element of the game. After all, status effects are one of only 4 things you can generally do in combat: Do damage (e.g, melee attack, fireball), Block Damage (e.g. Dodge action, Shield spell), Heal Damage (e.g. drink potion, cure wounds), and Crowd Control (e.g., sleep, charm). The last one, Crowd Control (or CC as they call it in MMOs), lumps together all the status effects, including mind-based ones like fear, or ones that lock you in place, like paralysis, or ones that turn you against your friends, like Charm. Someone telling me, as a player, that they are not willing to play a game in which CC can be used against them, is telling me they don't want to play 25% of what most any RPG is actually about. Beyond that, status effects are a great way to affect the party *without accidentally killing them* (e.g., charm them to stop fighting instead of attacking them for damage), and so such effects are often the bread-and-butter of low level play because you can challenge the players without risking death of their characters. If you take status effects out of the game, tons of monsters are unplayable or unusable, as are tons of spells, and tons of potential encounter challenges.
So yeah, if someone told me Charming their PC is out, I'd say, let's not play D&D together then. But if someone told me that a particular thing was making them uncomfortable (not ALL Charm spells, but maybe the way I was describing one particular charm effect), I'd try to accommodate them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I keep it very simple - session 0 I discuss the boundaries and introduce the theme of the game. Players ask questions and we resolve them at that time, and either accept or decline to play.
That’s it. After that, player agency in regards to characters is irrelevant because we’ve all decided to play the game with the rules as discussed and players are free to make their characters as they please. Players can leave any time they want and are not chastised or insulted in any way if they decide they don’t want to play within the rules set anymore.
I have not once run into a situation that was not easily resolved with a good session 0 and good follow up discussions later. Mind control, status effects, etc are all story elements that drive teamwork and collaboration.
Don’t like Mind Control? Grab the Resilient Wisdom Feat, get your friends to un-Charm you with other abilities, find magic items that prevent it… those are the options you have that are fully available to you before you face any bad guys. Just like you have Heavy Armor Master, Plate Mail, Protection Fighting Styles to prevent your character HP from being brought to 0.
Don’t like Mind Control? Grab the Resilient Wisdom Feat, get your friends to un-Charm you with other abilities, find magic items that prevent it… those are the options you have that are fully available to you before you face any bad guys. Just like you have Heavy Armor Master, Plate Mail, Protection Fighting Styles to prevent your character HP from being brought to 0.
This is like telling someone with a peanut allergy to just pick the peanuts out. Also, there is no access to feats until level 4.
Maybe playing an elf would be sufficient, although it's kind of limiting.
Don’t like Mind Control? Grab the Resilient Wisdom Feat, get your friends to un-Charm you with other abilities, find magic items that prevent it… those are the options you have that are fully available to you before you face any bad guys. Just like you have Heavy Armor Master, Plate Mail, Protection Fighting Styles to prevent your character HP from being brought to 0.
This is player agency.
You are allowed to make the choices that are valid in-game. Saying "I don't want to be affected by charm person because it takes away my agency" is not really how the game is supposed to be played. If you don't like being charmed, do the things players are supposed to do about it. That's your agency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Don’t like Mind Control? Grab the Resilient Wisdom Feat, get your friends to un-Charm you with other abilities, find magic items that prevent it… those are the options you have that are fully available to you before you face any bad guys. Just like you have Heavy Armor Master, Plate Mail, Protection Fighting Styles to prevent your character HP from being brought to 0.
This is like telling someone with a peanut allergy to just pick the peanuts out. Also, there is no access to feats until level 4.
Maybe playing an elf would be sufficient, although it's kind of limiting.
No.
it’s like me saying there’s peanuts in a dish I made and you get to decide whether you’re allergic to peanuts.
For clarity - I’d never recommend dnd to someone that has underlying issues with their character being affected by status effects or can’t handle mind control effects as a base part of the rules. Just like I wouldn’t force someone allergic to something to eat peanuts or pick them out.
The dish has peanuts. If you don’t like it, then don’t play it. That’s how I keep it simple in session 0. Haven’t had issues since.
Don’t like Mind Control? Grab the Resilient Wisdom Feat, get your friends to un-Charm you with other abilities, find magic items that prevent it… those are the options you have that are fully available to you before you face any bad guys. Just like you have Heavy Armor Master, Plate Mail, Protection Fighting Styles to prevent your character HP from being brought to 0.
This is player agency.
You are allowed to make the choices that are valid in-game. Saying "I don't want to be affected by charm person because it takes away my agency" is not really how the game is supposed to be played. If you don't like being charmed, do the things players are supposed to do about it. That's your agency.
Some people, if they know they have a friend with a peanut allergy coming over, will simply choose to make a dish without peanuts in it. But you do you.
Again, this is another choice - player agency. The player decided to dump stat Wisdom, this makes the character vulnerable to certain Mind Control effects. Agency was, you chose what to do with your stats.
Player choices almost always will be what got the character *into* the situation of being mind controlled in the first place. The fact of the Dominate or Charm, etc., spell is one step in a multi-level staircase. You're being charmed now because of umpteen other choices you made leading up to this. Crying foul now and saying that this one spell is taking away agency is fallacious. Your agency got you charmed in the first place, like as not. YOU chose to dump-stat whatever stat is being used to avoid the mind control. YOU chose to forego the magic item that would have helped you and let someone else have it so you could have the +2 sword. YOU chose to take this path down the corridor that led to this room that had this charming creature in it. YOU chose to attack this creature and trigger the combat encounter. After doing all that, it is indefensible to say "now I don't want to be charmed, it's taking away my agency." Your agency got you here in the first place. There are consequences to actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Some people, if they know they have a friend with a peanut allergy coming over, will simply choose to make a dish without peanuts in it. But you do you.
That’s why homebrew exists 🙂
This is also what I resolve in session 0. There are Saving Throws to resist magic, AC to avoid dying, Skill Checks to accomplish tasks. If being subjected to magic, dying, or failure are themes they can’t handle then my game won’t be for them.
Some people, if they know they have a friend with a peanut allergy coming over, will simply choose to make a dish without peanuts in it. But you do you.
This supports the whole disclosure tone many have (rightfully) promoted. While I understand and appreciate that many folks these days are "triggered" by mundane situations/events/terms that 95% of the rest simply roll through, I feel no special obligation to tread on glass to avoid potential "triggers" if never advised of them. Session 0 MUST have disclosure on any triggering things a player (or DM for that matter) might encounter. People who live with these issues need to understand that the onus is on them to address things the majority have no issue with but will set them off. Expecting everyone to understand that turtles will cause you great distress because one bit your toe off when you were 5 is pretty ridiculous, if we're being honest. You need to bring up any kind of stuff that triggers, so the rest of the table doesn't inadvertently give you a panic attack.
On the other end, the DM needs to also reveal what, if any, limitations might be on the game, regarding RP and more. Letting the players know they might encounter a seductress, or a demon sacrificing children at an altar or anything "taboo" that might occur. The earlier tale of the rapey-type player using a gag-type item to ravage foes was an example of a game going well beyond what MOST would consider "normal" and should have been addressed immediately as it started. the gag item bit was (IMO) fine, funny and silly. The player starting to use it, especially as he did, was "inappropriate" for mixed company and shows a lack of tact period, not just D&D related. Kind of thing I'd expect from a 12 year old and if I was DM, it would SURELY have been halted, addressed and resulted in another session 0.1 to ensure the players knew there were lines not to cross, without prior discussion.
All told, disclosure is key to avoiding it and I think those who suffer these issues are responsible to inform others they meet of potential issues in order to avoid them. Those who don't live with such challenges can't be expected to always be on high alert, tiptoe-ing around to avoid anything that someone, somewhere, sees as a trigger. This is also, vastly different to loss of player agency, which I have seen in several threads of late. Most of them, thus far, have simply been folks who have controller issues and THAT is where their issues lie. To try and paint it up as a bad DM doing horrible things is simply waving the "poor me" flag, which is no less selfish than ignoring a known issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Charms (and related spells) are abilities DM's should be very careful using since it is quite easy for them to go off the rails, for a DM to go too far with them, particularly dominates.
And the 'agency got you here' like only goes so far. If the DM has a door in a dungeon with a 'do not open' sign and, if opened, the party is instantly killed, that the decision to open the door was left to the players does not change the fact it was the DM who decided to have such a door with such consequences.
The PC's are not going to know what every potential enemy has ready for spells and avoiding every enemy who can cast charm may simply not be practical without forcing the DM to rewrite a lot anyway.
Uh… why? Wisdom is the de facto save for charm and domination, spells can be countered, effects can be removed, concentration interfered with. There are entire races and class features and feats that allow you to minimize or outright negate these effects. As a DM, there is nothing wrong with using any of these spells as liberally as they want.
if the DM goes “too far” with them (bad themes have entered the chat)… stop playing at that table immediately. There’s a line between subjecting a character to magic in-game and adding themes which weren’t discussed previously.
Some people, if they know they have a friend with a peanut allergy coming over, will simply choose to make a dish without peanuts in it. But you do you.
This supports the whole disclosure tone many have (rightfully) promoted. While I understand and appreciate that many folks these days are "triggered" by mundane situations/events/terms that 95% of the rest simply roll through, I feel no special obligation to tread on glass to avoid potential "triggers" if never advised of them. Session 0 MUST have disclosure on any triggering things a player (or DM for that matter) might encounter. People who live with these issues need to understand that the onus is on them to address things the majority have no issue with but will set them off.
I don't think anyone is disputing that. Everyone is saying communication is important. I agree there are dozens of potential taboo subjects to cover in section 0 - explicit sex, child abuse, animal abuse - and so maybe it's up to a person vulnerable to this niche trigger to bring it up. But the responses to this thread suggest it might be widespread enough to warrant adding it to your session 0 questionnaire.
Some people, if they know they have a friend with a peanut allergy coming over, will simply choose to make a dish without peanuts in it. But you do you.
That’s why homebrew exists 🙂
Homebrew is the best part of D&D. If a video game has mind control elements, you can't request a special edition of it with those elements removed. But you can ask the DM to leave them out of a homebrew campaign.
Now, if you're running a module, I think it's up to the DM whether they have the time and inclination to make monster substitutions or potentially even alter the plot if mind control is an integral part of that.
A homebrew campaign is like a homemade meal. A module is like a restaurant menu where they might or might not be able to accommodate substitutions. A video game is like a frozen dinner.
The player has the responsibility to decide if the game the DM wants to run is right for that particular player. The responsibility rests SOLELY with the player.
If the DM says "I run a hard core game, that uses the full gamut of all effects found in the 5e and older edition rules, and anything else I can dream up", it is on the player to say:
a. "I can live with that, lets' play."
b. "How do you feel about altering X or removing Y from the game because it makes me uncomfortable."
Some DM's might accommodate the requests of the player, and everything is fine. Other DM's might say "sorry, I am running the game my way", and the player then decides to leave the table in session 0. No harm, no foul.
BUT, no player gets to raise their hand in session 1, or 17, and say "Ummm...this encounter/narrative/effect is making me as a person uncomfortable", after the DM had laid out the ground rules in session 0. And no player gets to plead ignorance of the rules, if said player comes to the table and says "Yeah, I know D&D."
Frankly, I would expect each and every player to have some modicum of how the game is played, and I don't mean watching CR. It is simply a matter of respect to the other players and DM to come to a table with a basic working knowledge of at least the SRD. (BTW, I don't have children at my table because D&D has always had many aspects of it not suitable for children, and adults I expect them to read)The DM's are not mind readers, and by no means should be feel obligated to tear up a game because some player suddenly gets into a situation they don't like.
There's sort of this presumption of DM infallibility in your perspective that's very old school, I get it. But I feel it's shortsighted and unintentionally puts ridiculous expectation on the DM in terms of consistent quality control. I'd say it's why the TTRPG culture has informally over time as well as explicitly codified things such as social contracts and session 0 and DM's being open to feedback. Going back to an earlier point I've made that the best skill a DM can have is more on the adaptability/fluidity side of things than insistent rigor. Have an idea of what may happen, but don't insist things will happen.
A DM who can guarantee exactly what thematic elements will be introduced and how they will be handled tonally for the entire campaign really ought to be writing a novel, maybe directing a play, but definitely not running a game. The oft cited "hard worK" just doesn't pay off commensurately. How the players engage the game will actually influence what the DM runs, and the DM should be between session adapting their script to the actions of the characters (this is where player agency really happens). Nature and tones of encounters can "lose" the players in ways beyond I guess what we're calling triggering effects. The story the DM wants to tell is on track, but the game is actually going off track and its better to give players the ability to voice input before game investment decays irreparably and the game dies. Addressing comfort zones should be as welcome as requests for more or less RP time in certain settings (shopping, tavern hopping) or with certain NPCs. Also sometimes DMs do in fact f- up and its sort of on the players to bring that to the DMs attention. As an over the top example, there was a recent thread where a new player was asking about how the table should respond to a player's DM endorsed violently pornograpnic (and game mechanically nigh impossible) actions. DM probably thought they were perfectly within their parameters of a DM, and I could see someone pushing back against player criticism with "I run a hardcore game" defense, but I feel reasonably psychologically well adjusted people wouldn't expect that sort of behavior endorsed or encouraged in a game among relative strangers. So while they may feel they can assert this no holds barred (at least for some players) play style, if they don't repair the game based on feedback, the DM has basically killed the game, and the damage may be irrevocable anyway. Yeah, I suppose there's an edge lord set of folks who pride themselves on running games "most people can't handle" (and I'm not saying that's your scene), but generally that crowd in my experience tend to be folks who general need to work through their social abilities period, let alone game running.
My age rule, if the kid can watch Lord of the Rings, or have the whole book read to then, and the Star Wars saga, they can handle D&D. I started playing when I was 10, like many in my generation. As far as the DM's job not being a mind reader, well no, not in the Karnak sense. But the game is a social game with a lot of performative focus put on the DM. Empathy or at least the ability to "read" people actually is an almost essential skill set. I don't know how I'd DM or GM anything without those capacities. If I didn't have those capacities, I'd probably just run war games and then I'd at least just another player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I realize I haven’t stated my opinion as a player. I don’t allow my character to be controlled by the DM permanently. But a charm that lasts for a battle is okay. My character was put under a Geas once, and that was borderline. I, in character, gave another PC to Modify Memory on my character. So my personal position is moderate to permissive. But if another player in my group had stricter boundaries, I would respect them.
I realize I haven’t stated my opinion as a player. I don’t allow my character to be controlled by the DM permanently. But a charm that lasts for a battle is okay. My character was put under a Geas once, and that was borderline. I, in character, gave another PC to Modify Memory on my character. So my personal position is moderate to permissive. But if another player in my group had stricter boundaries, I would respect them.
I really have to smile at your wording "I do not allow my character to be controlled by the DM permanently." Unless you walk away from the table ...
I realize I haven’t stated my opinion as a player. I don’t allow my character to be controlled by the DM permanently.
It's a very rare case indeed in which a GM would permanently take control of a character. The only times I can think of in our game group is when a player retired the character and gave the GM permission to control it. Even an Aboleth is far from permanent control, as any time the character takes damage it can make a saving throw. The player will roll > 14 eventually. Also the other PCs could intervene and either kill the Aboleth or move the PC far enough away for the 1 mile save to trigger.
I agree that the Aboleth's effect would probably not be fun for most players. As a GM, I would only use it in very restrictive circumstances, either (a) against a PC whose player is not going to be around long term, so it would be controlled by the GM anyway, or (b) in a circumstance that I very strongly suspected would be temporary (i.e., I expect the PCs to kill the Aboleth in the encounter so the enslavement only lasts till the end of the battle).
But Aboleths and a few other creatures like this aside, most of the time we are not looking at permanent GM control. As a GM, if I wanted to permanently control a character, I'd make up an NPC.
But a charm that lasts for a battle is okay.
See here is the problem. "You, GM, may charm my character as long as I say it's OK to do so." If my players said that, I'd say "find another GM." Not because they gave permission, but because they feel they have the authority to make such a call, and can theoretically revoke that permission at any point. If that's how you feel, OK, but find another GM. I'm not willing to run a game in which I need player permission to judiciously, and within the rules, use standard spells, features, or powers as listed in the rulebooks.
It'd be like saying to a Call of Cthulhu Keeper, "I'll give you permission to ask me to make a sanity check, as long as the loss is not enough to make my character go insane..."
Many players, perhaps not the majority on this particular forum, accept the potential of one player turning on another, or the group, as part of the game.
Absolutely not, don’t get it twisted. We accept the potential of one character turning, or rather being turned against another, or the group, as part of the game.
Player ≠ Character
It is the fact that so many people get player and character conflated that sparks debates like this in the first place. If a player at my table turns against the rest of us that wangrod gets thrown the eff outta my living room before anybody else has a chance to hurt them, and they are told to never darken my doorstep again. If a character gets dominated or whatever, that player hasn’t been personally affected at all. They may feel some type of way about it, but nobody actually cast a spell on them IRL. They may be triggered by the event due to a past experience, but it was that past experience what caused the issue, not the spell. If a PC turns coat and betrays the party, that character is a traitor, but the player is still a friend of ours. People really need to learn how to separate character from player.
Children have a hard time distinguishing actors from the characters they portray. If that persists later into life it is a symptom of mental disorders.
John McClane ≠ Bruce Willis ≠ Hiudson Hawk
How come is it that people can grasp that 👆, but keep getting it twisted in D&D?!?
But agency of the player over the character does not mean, and has not ever meant, being able to have the character do, or even attempt to do, whatever you want.
The character is mind controlled with the order, "Attack your best friend." The rolls were high enough that the player must have the character do that. The player's agency comes in deciding which attack to use, what to RP the character saying and doing in response to the mind control, and so forth. The player still has agency of the character, but within the bounds of the rules -- which is true all the time, not just when Mind Control happens.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm going to disagree here.
As I have said, agency and being made uncomfortable by something are (or should be) two completely different conversations. Being made uncomfortable by an encounter for one reason or another is not about player agency, nor even character agency, necessarily. I for one, would prefer if my players let me know something is uncomfortable so I can find a way to deal with that. I don't want anyone in my sessions to be miserable. Yes, it helps if the DM knows this might happen ahead of time, but maybe the player didn't realize it. And no, you cannot blame the DM for not knowing it if even the player maybe didn't realize it, and certainly not if the player didn't tell the DM before hand (DMs, unlike some of the monsters they control, cannot read minds).
Now, as a player, it is not particularly reasonable to expect the DM to be able to change the encounter in the middle of the 3rd round of combat because all of a sudden you are uncomfortable, or at least, all of a sudden you voice that discomfort. I would presume, and hope, that as a reasonable player, you would accept a response such as, "We're going to let this encounter continue and conclude as it is currently being played, but after it's over, let's talk about what made you uncomfortable and why, so I can alter the future encounters accordingly." I would think most players would accept a response like that, and most good DMs would make that response.
None of that is really about agency, unless the thing the player is objecting to is "any status effect that alters the choices I can make with my character." If someone said *that* to me, we'd need to have a conversation about whether that person wants to play in D&D, or frankly any RPG, because I can't think of any RPG rulebook I've ever read in which status effects were not just present, but a *major* element of the game. After all, status effects are one of only 4 things you can generally do in combat: Do damage (e.g, melee attack, fireball), Block Damage (e.g. Dodge action, Shield spell), Heal Damage (e.g. drink potion, cure wounds), and Crowd Control (e.g., sleep, charm). The last one, Crowd Control (or CC as they call it in MMOs), lumps together all the status effects, including mind-based ones like fear, or ones that lock you in place, like paralysis, or ones that turn you against your friends, like Charm. Someone telling me, as a player, that they are not willing to play a game in which CC can be used against them, is telling me they don't want to play 25% of what most any RPG is actually about. Beyond that, status effects are a great way to affect the party *without accidentally killing them* (e.g., charm them to stop fighting instead of attacking them for damage), and so such effects are often the bread-and-butter of low level play because you can challenge the players without risking death of their characters. If you take status effects out of the game, tons of monsters are unplayable or unusable, as are tons of spells, and tons of potential encounter challenges.
So yeah, if someone told me Charming their PC is out, I'd say, let's not play D&D together then. But if someone told me that a particular thing was making them uncomfortable (not ALL Charm spells, but maybe the way I was describing one particular charm effect), I'd try to accommodate them.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I keep it very simple - session 0 I discuss the boundaries and introduce the theme of the game. Players ask questions and we resolve them at that time, and either accept or decline to play.
That’s it. After that, player agency in regards to characters is irrelevant because we’ve all decided to play the game with the rules as discussed and players are free to make their characters as they please. Players can leave any time they want and are not chastised or insulted in any way if they decide they don’t want to play within the rules set anymore.
I have not once run into a situation that was not easily resolved with a good session 0 and good follow up discussions later. Mind control, status effects, etc are all story elements that drive teamwork and collaboration.
Don’t like Mind Control? Grab the Resilient Wisdom Feat, get your friends to un-Charm you with other abilities, find magic items that prevent it… those are the options you have that are fully available to you before you face any bad guys. Just like you have Heavy Armor Master, Plate Mail, Protection Fighting Styles to prevent your character HP from being brought to 0.
This is like telling someone with a peanut allergy to just pick the peanuts out. Also, there is no access to feats until level 4.
Maybe playing an elf would be sufficient, although it's kind of limiting.
This is player agency.
You are allowed to make the choices that are valid in-game. Saying "I don't want to be affected by charm person because it takes away my agency" is not really how the game is supposed to be played. If you don't like being charmed, do the things players are supposed to do about it. That's your agency.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
No.
it’s like me saying there’s peanuts in a dish I made and you get to decide whether you’re allergic to peanuts.
For clarity - I’d never recommend dnd to someone that has underlying issues with their character being affected by status effects or can’t handle mind control effects as a base part of the rules. Just like I wouldn’t force someone allergic to something to eat peanuts or pick them out.
The dish has peanuts. If you don’t like it, then don’t play it. That’s how I keep it simple in session 0. Haven’t had issues since.
Also, maybe don’t dump stat Wisdom hahaha
Some people, if they know they have a friend with a peanut allergy coming over, will simply choose to make a dish without peanuts in it. But you do you.
Again, this is another choice - player agency. The player decided to dump stat Wisdom, this makes the character vulnerable to certain Mind Control effects. Agency was, you chose what to do with your stats.
Player choices almost always will be what got the character *into* the situation of being mind controlled in the first place. The fact of the Dominate or Charm, etc., spell is one step in a multi-level staircase. You're being charmed now because of umpteen other choices you made leading up to this. Crying foul now and saying that this one spell is taking away agency is fallacious. Your agency got you charmed in the first place, like as not. YOU chose to dump-stat whatever stat is being used to avoid the mind control. YOU chose to forego the magic item that would have helped you and let someone else have it so you could have the +2 sword. YOU chose to take this path down the corridor that led to this room that had this charming creature in it. YOU chose to attack this creature and trigger the combat encounter. After doing all that, it is indefensible to say "now I don't want to be charmed, it's taking away my agency." Your agency got you here in the first place. There are consequences to actions.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
That’s why homebrew exists 🙂
This is also what I resolve in session 0. There are Saving Throws to resist magic, AC to avoid dying, Skill Checks to accomplish tasks. If being subjected to magic, dying, or failure are themes they can’t handle then my game won’t be for them.
This supports the whole disclosure tone many have (rightfully) promoted. While I understand and appreciate that many folks these days are "triggered" by mundane situations/events/terms that 95% of the rest simply roll through, I feel no special obligation to tread on glass to avoid potential "triggers" if never advised of them. Session 0 MUST have disclosure on any triggering things a player (or DM for that matter) might encounter. People who live with these issues need to understand that the onus is on them to address things the majority have no issue with but will set them off. Expecting everyone to understand that turtles will cause you great distress because one bit your toe off when you were 5 is pretty ridiculous, if we're being honest. You need to bring up any kind of stuff that triggers, so the rest of the table doesn't inadvertently give you a panic attack.
On the other end, the DM needs to also reveal what, if any, limitations might be on the game, regarding RP and more. Letting the players know they might encounter a seductress, or a demon sacrificing children at an altar or anything "taboo" that might occur. The earlier tale of the rapey-type player using a gag-type item to ravage foes was an example of a game going well beyond what MOST would consider "normal" and should have been addressed immediately as it started. the gag item bit was (IMO) fine, funny and silly. The player starting to use it, especially as he did, was "inappropriate" for mixed company and shows a lack of tact period, not just D&D related. Kind of thing I'd expect from a 12 year old and if I was DM, it would SURELY have been halted, addressed and resulted in another session 0.1 to ensure the players knew there were lines not to cross, without prior discussion.
All told, disclosure is key to avoiding it and I think those who suffer these issues are responsible to inform others they meet of potential issues in order to avoid them. Those who don't live with such challenges can't be expected to always be on high alert, tiptoe-ing around to avoid anything that someone, somewhere, sees as a trigger. This is also, vastly different to loss of player agency, which I have seen in several threads of late. Most of them, thus far, have simply been folks who have controller issues and THAT is where their issues lie. To try and paint it up as a bad DM doing horrible things is simply waving the "poor me" flag, which is no less selfish than ignoring a known issue.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Uh… why? Wisdom is the de facto save for charm and domination, spells can be countered, effects can be removed, concentration interfered with. There are entire races and class features and feats that allow you to minimize or outright negate these effects. As a DM, there is nothing wrong with using any of these spells as liberally as they want.
if the DM goes “too far” with them (bad themes have entered the chat)… stop playing at that table immediately. There’s a line between subjecting a character to magic in-game and adding themes which weren’t discussed previously.
I don't think anyone is disputing that. Everyone is saying communication is important. I agree there are dozens of potential taboo subjects to cover in section 0 - explicit sex, child abuse, animal abuse - and so maybe it's up to a person vulnerable to this niche trigger to bring it up. But the responses to this thread suggest it might be widespread enough to warrant adding it to your session 0 questionnaire.
Homebrew is the best part of D&D. If a video game has mind control elements, you can't request a special edition of it with those elements removed. But you can ask the DM to leave them out of a homebrew campaign.
Now, if you're running a module, I think it's up to the DM whether they have the time and inclination to make monster substitutions or potentially even alter the plot if mind control is an integral part of that.
A homebrew campaign is like a homemade meal. A module is like a restaurant menu where they might or might not be able to accommodate substitutions. A video game is like a frozen dinner.
There's sort of this presumption of DM infallibility in your perspective that's very old school, I get it. But I feel it's shortsighted and unintentionally puts ridiculous expectation on the DM in terms of consistent quality control. I'd say it's why the TTRPG culture has informally over time as well as explicitly codified things such as social contracts and session 0 and DM's being open to feedback. Going back to an earlier point I've made that the best skill a DM can have is more on the adaptability/fluidity side of things than insistent rigor. Have an idea of what may happen, but don't insist things will happen.
A DM who can guarantee exactly what thematic elements will be introduced and how they will be handled tonally for the entire campaign really ought to be writing a novel, maybe directing a play, but definitely not running a game. The oft cited "hard worK" just doesn't pay off commensurately. How the players engage the game will actually influence what the DM runs, and the DM should be between session adapting their script to the actions of the characters (this is where player agency really happens). Nature and tones of encounters can "lose" the players in ways beyond I guess what we're calling triggering effects. The story the DM wants to tell is on track, but the game is actually going off track and its better to give players the ability to voice input before game investment decays irreparably and the game dies. Addressing comfort zones should be as welcome as requests for more or less RP time in certain settings (shopping, tavern hopping) or with certain NPCs. Also sometimes DMs do in fact f- up and its sort of on the players to bring that to the DMs attention. As an over the top example, there was a recent thread where a new player was asking about how the table should respond to a player's DM endorsed violently pornograpnic (and game mechanically nigh impossible) actions. DM probably thought they were perfectly within their parameters of a DM, and I could see someone pushing back against player criticism with "I run a hardcore game" defense, but I feel reasonably psychologically well adjusted people wouldn't expect that sort of behavior endorsed or encouraged in a game among relative strangers. So while they may feel they can assert this no holds barred (at least for some players) play style, if they don't repair the game based on feedback, the DM has basically killed the game, and the damage may be irrevocable anyway. Yeah, I suppose there's an edge lord set of folks who pride themselves on running games "most people can't handle" (and I'm not saying that's your scene), but generally that crowd in my experience tend to be folks who general need to work through their social abilities period, let alone game running.
My age rule, if the kid can watch Lord of the Rings, or have the whole book read to then, and the Star Wars saga, they can handle D&D. I started playing when I was 10, like many in my generation. As far as the DM's job not being a mind reader, well no, not in the Karnak sense. But the game is a social game with a lot of performative focus put on the DM. Empathy or at least the ability to "read" people actually is an almost essential skill set. I don't know how I'd DM or GM anything without those capacities. If I didn't have those capacities, I'd probably just run war games and then I'd at least just another player.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I realize I haven’t stated my opinion as a player. I don’t allow my character to be controlled by the DM permanently. But a charm that lasts for a battle is okay. My character was put under a Geas once, and that was borderline. I, in character, gave another PC to Modify Memory on my character. So my personal position is moderate to permissive. But if another player in my group had stricter boundaries, I would respect them.
You figured it out.
It's a very rare case indeed in which a GM would permanently take control of a character. The only times I can think of in our game group is when a player retired the character and gave the GM permission to control it. Even an Aboleth is far from permanent control, as any time the character takes damage it can make a saving throw. The player will roll > 14 eventually. Also the other PCs could intervene and either kill the Aboleth or move the PC far enough away for the 1 mile save to trigger.
I agree that the Aboleth's effect would probably not be fun for most players. As a GM, I would only use it in very restrictive circumstances, either (a) against a PC whose player is not going to be around long term, so it would be controlled by the GM anyway, or (b) in a circumstance that I very strongly suspected would be temporary (i.e., I expect the PCs to kill the Aboleth in the encounter so the enslavement only lasts till the end of the battle).
But Aboleths and a few other creatures like this aside, most of the time we are not looking at permanent GM control. As a GM, if I wanted to permanently control a character, I'd make up an NPC.
See here is the problem. "You, GM, may charm my character as long as I say it's OK to do so." If my players said that, I'd say "find another GM." Not because they gave permission, but because they feel they have the authority to make such a call, and can theoretically revoke that permission at any point. If that's how you feel, OK, but find another GM. I'm not willing to run a game in which I need player permission to judiciously, and within the rules, use standard spells, features, or powers as listed in the rulebooks.
It'd be like saying to a Call of Cthulhu Keeper, "I'll give you permission to ask me to make a sanity check, as long as the loss is not enough to make my character go insane..."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Luckily, I did.
Absolutely not, don’t get it twisted. We accept the potential of one character turning, or rather being turned against another, or the group, as part of the game.
Player ≠ Character
It is the fact that so many people get player and character conflated that sparks debates like this in the first place. If a player at my table turns against the rest of us that wangrod gets thrown the eff outta my living room before anybody else has a chance to hurt them, and they are told to never darken my doorstep again. If a character gets dominated or whatever, that player hasn’t been personally affected at all. They may feel some type of way about it, but nobody actually cast a spell on them IRL. They may be triggered by the event due to a past experience, but it was that past experience what caused the issue, not the spell. If a PC turns coat and betrays the party, that character is a traitor, but the player is still a friend of ours. People really need to learn how to separate character from player.
Children have a hard time distinguishing actors from the characters they portray. If that persists later into life it is a symptom of mental disorders.
John McClane ≠ Bruce Willis ≠ Hiudson Hawk
How come is it that people can grasp that 👆, but keep getting it twisted in D&D?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting