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?!?
Plenty of actors have been verbally abused by utter strangers for things the character they played on screen did.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I have used an aboleth several times in campaigns and in most situations at least 1 player character has been enslaved and become a minion for the Aboleth embedded in the party. Every time the player has loved it because I set the rules they need to play to but let them play as they wish. It is about engaging with the player, setting the limits based on what the effect is, but then letting them play freely in that space.
How do you feel, as a player, when in-game effects temporarily deprive you of your agency over your character? I'm talking about effects like Dominate Person, used by NPCs against PCs.
Having thought about this question a bit more, when I think about playing at the table with my current group, Dominate Person bothers me way less than being petrified. But a huge factor in this is the amount of trust I have in the people at the table. If the DM were the sort of person who fancies themselves a 'provocateur' but most people would probably just consider them a shit disturber, I'd probably feel uneasy about them being able to exercise direct control over my character. As a player reacting to what a DM sets up or tries to instigate, there is a lot I can take with a grain of salt. But with Dominate Person, I may end up having to play out something that crosses boundaries.
But really, that's a low percentage concern. Most people aren't like that or don't exhibit patterns of behaviour that particularly concern me. And even if I were in that low percentage scenario, who knows; maybe Dominate Person would be the wakeup call that maybe this isn't the right interpersonal dynamic for me, though I suspect it would have been clear before that.
Point being, I think this is a spell that pushes trust between DM and player a little bit more than others. If I start a new campaign with a new group and session one the DM is trying to have an NPC use Dominate Person on me or use something similarly controlling, I'll admit, I'd have a bit of a wtf moment (though I'd keep playing as normal).
However, I think is almost always enhancing to the narrative when it happens. Whenever something unexpected happens, it can shake your party out of their habits and make them think on their feet. And having a member of the party work against the party is quite unexpected. If you can just roll with it, I think you can have a lot of fun.
I think this is the other aspect that comes to mind. Ordinarily, 5E is a game of cooperative storytelling. Player agency needs to extend to the ability to tell a story through your character. As a player, I'm generally going to take a plot hook when it's dangling. In rare cases, I'm willing to take a weaker strategic action if it feels like the DM has something interesting set up and I want to see it play out for funsies. If I see a party member is trying to do something cool, I might shelve what I had planned to help or give them a buff or let them play out their bit. But there is that reciprocity to it where maybe what the party is building up isn't on track with your plans as a DM.
The issue with a spell effect like Dominate Person is normally that whole relationship is negotiated by the choices players and DMs are customarily able to make. And has been discussed, Dominate Person, when it lands on a PC, results in a special scenario where decisions that are ordinarily the player's are being made by another. Used as a control spell in combat, that doesn't really bother me at all if it's just about attacking or impeding the party. Used as a plot device? I wouldn't say to any DM it should be off the table barring the session zero type concerns, but I'd hope they'd be judicious or tread lightly. If it amounts to putting my character in a scenario where they are helping tell the story and you're bringing me into it, cool. But if it feels like you just use my character like a prop because you thought something would be interesting... ick.
I wouldn't use Dominate Person to force the party down a plot path. But would I use it to make them hand over the Macguffin to the BBEG? Maybe. I would use it to create problems for the players to solve after the charm wears off, not to choose the solutions for them.
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?!?
Plenty of actors have been verbally abused by utter strangers for things the character they played on screen did.
And for that matter, many actors have held a grudge against someone who did something in character. Others will marry the actor who played their character's love interest. It seems even actors can't tell the difference between the actor and the character.
I personally have always hated the idea that the party has access to a bunch of... well frankly overpowered spells, and they are the only one's who can use them. It's taboo to have the NPC's counter healing magic, it's frowned upon to have the enemy lock down players. But no one will bat an eye if the players combo a couple spells to make a hard fight into a cake walk.
I mean if the party wants to never use spells that remove agency from my monsters/NPC's then i'll be willing to not use them either, but i'm not hobbling myself for no real reason.
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?!?
Plenty of actors have been verbally abused by utter strangers for things the character they played on screen did.
Yes, by people who either have been or most likely would be diagnosed with some type of mental or learning disorder. Using that as an excuse is like excusing murder because Chapman shot Lennon. What??? The fact that some people suffer from reality-impairment doesn’t mean that is healthy.
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?!?
Plenty of actors have been verbally abused by utter strangers for things the character they played on screen did.
And for that matter, many actors have held a grudge against someone who did something in character. Others will marry the actor who played their character's love interest. It seems even actors can't tell the difference between the actor and the character.
That also doesn’t mean it is healthy. However, with actors there seems to be a scientific reason for it:
I won’t get into the whole “good player,” “bad player” thing because I’ll end up redacted.
What I will say is this, regardless of whatever that player has their character do or say, it is still a fictional character in a fictional world doing fictional things with other fictional people. Fiction.
One of the tiny, little, itty-bitty things everyone can do to help everyone remember to draw the distinction is to not refer to “players” when we mean “character,” and vice versa. The clearer everyone remembers to be, the clearer it will be for everyone to remember. The distinction itself holds power to protect people from pain. So let’s all power-up. Ne?
There are quite literally dozens of possible combinations of effects that can occur to a char within the confines of the Rules, let alone what a creative DM might craft as lair functions or BBEG features. It is impossible for a DM to "ask" about each and every condition/ effect a person is uncomfortable with.
It's the easiest thing in the world to ask prospective players if there are themes or situations they're uncomfortable with. If there's nothing, great. If they mention something, simply take that into account. If they don't, because they didn't think of something or were embarrassed and something comes up nonetheless, it's not hard to be a bit considerate and try to amend the campaign accordingly. Honestly, this is just simple courtesy.
I do love this line of thought. As if people always know everything that will end up bugging them OR are 100% fine with sharing that possible trauma with strangers. Hell i have close personal friends that i wouldn't trust with some of my personal baggage, i can't imagine how that would play out with people i barely know.
I won’t get into the whole “good player,” “bad player” thing because I’ll end up redacted.
What I will say is this, regardless of whatever that player has their character do or say, it is still a fictional character in a fictional world doing fictional things with other fictional people. Fiction.
One of the tiny, little, itty-bitty things everyone can do to help everyone remember to draw the distinction is to not refer to “players” when we mean “character,” and vice versa. The clearer everyone remembers to be, the clearer it will be for everyone to remember. The distinction itself holds power to protect people from pain. So let’s all power-up. Ne?
This sounds great, but misses the point that if a PLAYER is making a choice, it doesn't really matter that their CHARACTER is the one doing it. A fictional character lacks a will of their own, so it is only right to refer to that character's will as the player's will. If you make your character a racist, i'm going to assume that you as the player are probably racist. And i won't be all that surprised when it eventually comes to light, that YES you are in fact RL racist.
I do love this line of thought. As if people always know everything that will end up bugging them OR are 100% fine with sharing that possible trauma with strangers. Hell i have close personal friends that i wouldn't trust with some of my personal baggage, i can't imagine how that would play out with people i barely know.
People will not know what bugs them all the time; I did not know something would bug me until I experienced it during a game. I did not share things that I thought I would take to the grave until a few years ago, when I told my close friends about personal trauma.
However, just because I did not think something would bug me does not mean that I cannot raise my concern and voice my disapproval when my player was being a GM for a session and poked my buttons.
I got personal issues I deal with, and when people ask certain questions, I deflect the question a bit and answer in a round about way to signal that it is not something I wish to talk about. If I am a player and join a group of strangers, while I would not tell the strangers what exactly bothers me, I do not have to go into much detail either. All I have to say is "I am fine with politics, religion, and sex in general, but I prefer it that we leave certain things in the background, and also preferably avoid describing or getting into detail about super dark stuff like torture, gore, ****, animal abuse, etc." or something along those lines, and that is more than sufficient to signal what kind of tone I want for the campaign. I do not mind hunting down an arogant elven serial-killer-rapists and I would gladly do so, but I do not need to know the details on how the villain torture their victim's kids and pets before violating and killing those victims.
It does not hurt to ask and there is nothing wrong with people giving consent and then withdrawing it later either.
I do love this line of thought. As if people always know everything that will end up bugging them OR are 100% fine with sharing that possible trauma with strangers. Hell i have close personal friends that i wouldn't trust with some of my personal baggage, i can't imagine how that would play out with people i barely know.
People will not know what bugs them all the time; I did not know something would bug me until I experienced it during a game. I did not share things that I thought I would take to the grave until a few years ago, when I told my close friends about personal trauma.
However, just because I did not think something would bug me does not mean that I cannot raise my concern and voice my disapproval when my player was being a GM for a session and poked my buttons.
I got personal issues I deal with, and when people ask certain questions, I deflect the question a bit and answer in a round about way to signal that it is not something I wish to talk about. If I am a player and join a group of strangers, while I would not tell the strangers what exactly bothers me, I do not have to go into much detail either. All I have to say is "I am fine with politics, religion, and sex in general, but I prefer it that we leave certain things in the background, and also preferably avoid describing or getting into detail about super dark stuff like torture, gore, ****, animal abuse, etc." or something along those lines, and that is more than sufficient to signal what kind of tone I want for the campaign. I do not mind hunting down an arogant elven serial-killer-rapists and I would gladly do so, but I do not need to know the details on how the villain torture their victim's kids and pets before violating and killing those victims.
It does not hurt to ask and there is nothing wrong with people giving consent and then withdrawing it later either.
There are a lot of shades of gray surrounding this issue. The more you know about the player, the more you as the DM should be able to build the game in such a way as to not trigger them. But it's also on the player to convey clearly what is and is not an issue, and to not abuse those triggers to get an advantage. Both of which can be insanely hard to do given the level of comfort and trust one is likely to have with their players.
I agree there is nothing wrong with asking for consent and nothing wrong with removing consent that was previously given. Just be aware that sometimes the issue will remain and you will have to deal with it, in what ever way you feel is best (even if that means leaving).
There are a lot of shades of gray surrounding this issue. The more you know about the player, the more you as the DM should be able to build the game in such a way as to not trigger them. But it's also on the player to convey clearly what is and is not an issue, and to not abuse those triggers to get an advantage. Both of which can be insanely hard to do given the level of comfort and trust one is likely to have with their players.
There is nothing hard about asking a question. My version of it is literally just along the lines of "Does anyone have any issues with politics, religion, sex, or any sensitive subjects they want to avoid?" and that took only like ten seconds to type out. If I am going to incorporate something heavy into the game, all I have to do is to add "There will be some heavy material on the level of ****, gore, torture, and Nazis, let me know if there is an issue now, but feel free to pause the game anytime if it is too much." so that it will grab their attention. Nazis alone should already raise most people's red flags.
I do not need to trust or feel super comfortable with strangers either to say that "I am okay with adult themes, but I want to avoid dark heavy subjects like torture, gore, ****, and concentration camps." It is a super generic statement but specific enough that people will know to put the objectionable material in the background or avoid it altogether.
And if an issue does come up, it is not difficult to just pause the encounter, get a particular section over with quickly, skip it entirely, or just make up something else on the spot that is less horrible.
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?!?
Plenty of actors have been verbally abused by utter strangers for things the character they played on screen did.
Yes, by people who either have been or most likely would be diagnosed with some type of mental or learning disorder. Using that as an excuse is like excusing murder because Chapman shot Lennon. What??? The fact that some people suffer from reality-impairment doesn’t mean that is healthy.
If you classify acting dumb in one particular instance as a type of mental or learning disorder, maybe, but I think that'd be hollowing out the definition of such disorders a bit too much. If everyone who inflated Jack Gleeson with the character of Joffrey Baratheon to some extent was likely to go Chapman on his ass, he'd have been dead before the end of season 2 of GoT. And if actors didn't get identified with their characters, typecasting wouldn't be a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is nothing hard about asking a question. My version of it is literally just along the lines of "Does anyone have any issues with politics, religion, sex, or any sensitive subjects they want to avoid?" and that took only like ten seconds to type out. If I am going to incorporate something heavy into the game, all I have to do is to add "There will be some heavy material on the level of ****, gore, torture, and Nazis, let me know if there is an issue now, but feel free to pause the game anytime if it is too much." so that it will grab their attention. Nazis alone should already raise most people's red flags.
I do not need to trust or feel super comfortable with strangers either to say that "I am okay with adult themes, but I want to avoid dark heavy subjects like torture, gore, ****, and concentration camps." It is a super generic statement but specific enough that people will know to put the objectionable material in the background or avoid it altogether.
And if an issue does come up, it is not difficult to just pause the encounter, get a particular section over with quickly, skip it entirely, or just make up something else on the spot that is less horrible.
Difficulty depends on who you are. While asking and answering those kinds of questions, may be easy for you. They aren’t easy for everyone.
and as for what to do after it comes up. Personally I’m not going to scrap the entire session if the other players want to still run it. It’s easier if the player who has an issue bows out. But I also have issues with “wasting” hours/days/months of planning, because a player only JUST figured out they have an issue with something. And while I might be decent at improve, I’m not “run an entire session off the cuff” levels of good.
But I also have issues with “wasting” hours/days/months of planning, because a player only JUST figured out they have an issue with something.
I'm not trying to be glib here, but I think in most cases only a fairly small part of all your planning has to go out the window if you find out a player has an emotional issue with something. At least, I assume the goal here is not perfection. Not every issue is going to be a big deal. Insofar as personal experience counts I'd say it rarely is if the DM takes the obvious ones (inappropriate sexual content, glorification of mindless violence, normalization of evil, that sort of thing) into account, which I'd argue any decent DM should be doing anyway. And the small stuff isn't worth getting bent out of shape over before it even happens. If it does, deal with it then. Be a little empathic and find a workable compromise for the session - I've never had any player complain I didn't accommodate their feelings enough as long as I made an appreciable effort (in fact, they've all without exception been grateful); again, it's not about being perfect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But I also have issues with “wasting” hours/days/months of planning, because a player only JUST figured out they have an issue with something.
I'm not trying to be glib here, but I think in most cases only a fairly small part of all your planning has to go out the window if you find out a player has an emotional issue with something. At least, I assume the goal here is not perfection. Not every issue is going to be a big deal. Insofar as personal experience counts I'd say it rarely is if the DM takes the obvious ones (inappropriate sexual content, glorification of mindless violence, normalization of evil, that sort of thing) into account, which I'd argue any decent DM should be doing anyway. And the small stuff isn't worth getting bent out of shape over before it even happens. If it does, deal with it then. Be a little empathic and find a workable compromise for the session - I've never had any player complain I didn't accommodate their feelings enough as long as I made an appreciable effort (in fact, they've all without exception been grateful); again, it's not about being perfect.
I’m kind of imagining it in the situation where it is a moderate to big deal for the player, and the story line is something you’ve been building on/towards for the last dozen sessions.
I’d still take a moment to step aside and figure out what can be done. But if it comes down to it, I’d rather lose a player (hopefully for only 1-2 sessions) then have to half ass swapping out the story.
If the story relies that heavily on such a mechanic, what happens if the target makes their save? Or are you thinking a mind control situation where there is no save? (that really would clearly be removing player autonomy).
Then the player makes their saves and ideally the issue that would have arisen, never actually comes up. Or in some cases there are no saves, like a extremely high level sleep spell, and the player is bound by the same rules as everything else in the game world.
i’m only going to directly remove your agency/autonomy if you attempt to cheat the system. I hope to never have to do that, but I’m willing to if I have to.
i’m only going to directly remove your agency/autonomy if you attempt to cheat the system. I hope to never have to do that, but I’m willing to if I have to.
You wouldn't just handle it out of game? Or by 'cheat the system' are you referring to cheese?
mostly referring to cheese. Like your character gets mind controlled and ordered to attack their friends. And you spend the next 3 turns attacking with your weakest ability on the target who is most likely to not be effected. EX: Throwing a dagger at the monk, while ignoring the prone wizard 20 feet to your left.
But I also have issues with “wasting” hours/days/months of planning, because a player only JUST figured out they have an issue with something.
I'm not trying to be glib here, but I think in most cases only a fairly small part of all your planning has to go out the window if you find out a player has an emotional issue with something. At least, I assume the goal here is not perfection. Not every issue is going to be a big deal. Insofar as personal experience counts I'd say it rarely is if the DM takes the obvious ones (inappropriate sexual content, glorification of mindless violence, normalization of evil, that sort of thing) into account, which I'd argue any decent DM should be doing anyway. And the small stuff isn't worth getting bent out of shape over before it even happens. If it does, deal with it then. Be a little empathic and find a workable compromise for the session - I've never had any player complain I didn't accommodate their feelings enough as long as I made an appreciable effort (in fact, they've all without exception been grateful); again, it's not about being perfect.
I’m kind of imagining it in the situation where it is a moderate to big deal for the player, and the story line is something you’ve been building on/towards for the last dozen sessions.
I’d still take a moment to step aside and figure out what can be done. But if it comes down to it, I’d rather lose a player (hopefully for only 1-2 sessions) then have to half ass swapping out the story.
What I'm saying is, this kind of situation is arguably rare to begin with (especially if you, as the DM, queried the players about things they might be too uncomfortable with - it would be a moderate to big deal after all, as you say) and even if it happens you can try to be empathic and find a solution. I just don't see this as something you'd need to decide how to handle until it actually comes up (which ideally it won't), because every situation will be different and will have different possible avenues of resolution. Cross that bridge when you get to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
See, you cited the order as 'attack' not 'kill.' There is a difference. Even 'Dominate' is still dependent on the orders you give.
If it is ok for the issue never coming up, it isn't anywhere near as crucial to your plot as you paint it.
I am not going to have another argument over word choice. If a player is choosing to follow the letter of the rules (attack your allies) but refusing to follow the spirit (attack the ally that you could actually realistically hit, and attack them as if they were a proper enemy), that is going to be treated as them attempting to cheat the system and I am 110% going to take away their ability to do so any longer. If the player calls foul, I will tell them they brought this upon themselves. They are free to leave if they truly feel that i am being unfair, but i will not allow my players to ruin the game for me or the other players by attempting to cheat.
My argument is not plot based, my argument is mechanics based. I'm not going to force my players to be mind controlled (no rolls, you just are mind controlled), but i'm also not going to use an enemy who can mind control and they just never do. The question also gets murky depending on what the player does and does not define as "player/character agency". Like i can probably build a campaign where you won't be cut scene bound and forced to deal with terrible terrible stuff. But i'm going to struggle building a campaign where 20-40% of all spells/abilities/checks have to be removed because the player gets triggered if they are ever limited in their choices of what they can and can not do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Plenty of actors have been verbally abused by utter strangers for things the character they played on screen did.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I have used an aboleth several times in campaigns and in most situations at least 1 player character has been enslaved and become a minion for the Aboleth embedded in the party. Every time the player has loved it because I set the rules they need to play to but let them play as they wish. It is about engaging with the player, setting the limits based on what the effect is, but then letting them play freely in that space.
I wouldn't use Dominate Person to force the party down a plot path. But would I use it to make them hand over the Macguffin to the BBEG? Maybe. I would use it to create problems for the players to solve after the charm wears off, not to choose the solutions for them.
And for that matter, many actors have held a grudge against someone who did something in character. Others will marry the actor who played their character's love interest. It seems even actors can't tell the difference between the actor and the character.
I personally have always hated the idea that the party has access to a bunch of... well frankly overpowered spells, and they are the only one's who can use them. It's taboo to have the NPC's counter healing magic, it's frowned upon to have the enemy lock down players. But no one will bat an eye if the players combo a couple spells to make a hard fight into a cake walk.
I mean if the party wants to never use spells that remove agency from my monsters/NPC's then i'll be willing to not use them either, but i'm not hobbling myself for no real reason.
Yes, by people who either have been or most likely would be diagnosed with some type of mental or learning disorder. Using that as an excuse is like excusing murder because Chapman shot Lennon. What??? The fact that some people suffer from reality-impairment doesn’t mean that is healthy.
That also doesn’t mean it is healthy. However, with actors there seems to be a scientific reason for it:
They quite literally are not themselves at the time. (Why do you think so many marriages between actors fail so spectacularly?)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I won’t get into the whole “good player,” “bad player” thing because I’ll end up redacted.
What I will say is this, regardless of whatever that player has their character do or say, it is still a fictional character in a fictional world doing fictional things with other fictional people. Fiction.
One of the tiny, little, itty-bitty things everyone can do to help everyone remember to draw the distinction is to not refer to “players” when we mean “character,” and vice versa. The clearer everyone remembers to be, the clearer it will be for everyone to remember. The distinction itself holds power to protect people from pain. So let’s all power-up. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I do love this line of thought. As if people always know everything that will end up bugging them OR are 100% fine with sharing that possible trauma with strangers. Hell i have close personal friends that i wouldn't trust with some of my personal baggage, i can't imagine how that would play out with people i barely know.
This sounds great, but misses the point that if a PLAYER is making a choice, it doesn't really matter that their CHARACTER is the one doing it. A fictional character lacks a will of their own, so it is only right to refer to that character's will as the player's will. If you make your character a racist, i'm going to assume that you as the player are probably racist. And i won't be all that surprised when it eventually comes to light, that YES you are in fact RL racist.
People will not know what bugs them all the time; I did not know something would bug me until I experienced it during a game. I did not share things that I thought I would take to the grave until a few years ago, when I told my close friends about personal trauma.
However, just because I did not think something would bug me does not mean that I cannot raise my concern and voice my disapproval when my player was being a GM for a session and poked my buttons.
I got personal issues I deal with, and when people ask certain questions, I deflect the question a bit and answer in a round about way to signal that it is not something I wish to talk about. If I am a player and join a group of strangers, while I would not tell the strangers what exactly bothers me, I do not have to go into much detail either. All I have to say is "I am fine with politics, religion, and sex in general, but I prefer it that we leave certain things in the background, and also preferably avoid describing or getting into detail about super dark stuff like torture, gore, ****, animal abuse, etc." or something along those lines, and that is more than sufficient to signal what kind of tone I want for the campaign. I do not mind hunting down an arogant elven serial-killer-rapists and I would gladly do so, but I do not need to know the details on how the villain torture their victim's kids and pets before violating and killing those victims.
It does not hurt to ask and there is nothing wrong with people giving consent and then withdrawing it later either.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
There are a lot of shades of gray surrounding this issue. The more you know about the player, the more you as the DM should be able to build the game in such a way as to not trigger them. But it's also on the player to convey clearly what is and is not an issue, and to not abuse those triggers to get an advantage. Both of which can be insanely hard to do given the level of comfort and trust one is likely to have with their players.
I agree there is nothing wrong with asking for consent and nothing wrong with removing consent that was previously given. Just be aware that sometimes the issue will remain and you will have to deal with it, in what ever way you feel is best (even if that means leaving).
There is nothing hard about asking a question. My version of it is literally just along the lines of "Does anyone have any issues with politics, religion, sex, or any sensitive subjects they want to avoid?" and that took only like ten seconds to type out. If I am going to incorporate something heavy into the game, all I have to do is to add "There will be some heavy material on the level of ****, gore, torture, and Nazis, let me know if there is an issue now, but feel free to pause the game anytime if it is too much." so that it will grab their attention. Nazis alone should already raise most people's red flags.
I do not need to trust or feel super comfortable with strangers either to say that "I am okay with adult themes, but I want to avoid dark heavy subjects like torture, gore, ****, and concentration camps." It is a super generic statement but specific enough that people will know to put the objectionable material in the background or avoid it altogether.
And if an issue does come up, it is not difficult to just pause the encounter, get a particular section over with quickly, skip it entirely, or just make up something else on the spot that is less horrible.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
If you classify acting dumb in one particular instance as a type of mental or learning disorder, maybe, but I think that'd be hollowing out the definition of such disorders a bit too much. If everyone who inflated Jack Gleeson with the character of Joffrey Baratheon to some extent was likely to go Chapman on his ass, he'd have been dead before the end of season 2 of GoT. And if actors didn't get identified with their characters, typecasting wouldn't be a thing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Difficulty depends on who you are. While asking and answering those kinds of questions, may be easy for you. They aren’t easy for everyone.
and as for what to do after it comes up. Personally I’m not going to scrap the entire session if the other players want to still run it. It’s easier if the player who has an issue bows out. But I also have issues with “wasting” hours/days/months of planning, because a player only JUST figured out they have an issue with something. And while I might be decent at improve, I’m not “run an entire session off the cuff” levels of good.
I'm not trying to be glib here, but I think in most cases only a fairly small part of all your planning has to go out the window if you find out a player has an emotional issue with something. At least, I assume the goal here is not perfection. Not every issue is going to be a big deal. Insofar as personal experience counts I'd say it rarely is if the DM takes the obvious ones (inappropriate sexual content, glorification of mindless violence, normalization of evil, that sort of thing) into account, which I'd argue any decent DM should be doing anyway. And the small stuff isn't worth getting bent out of shape over before it even happens. If it does, deal with it then. Be a little empathic and find a workable compromise for the session - I've never had any player complain I didn't accommodate their feelings enough as long as I made an appreciable effort (in fact, they've all without exception been grateful); again, it's not about being perfect.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’m kind of imagining it in the situation where it is a moderate to big deal for the player, and the story line is something you’ve been building on/towards for the last dozen sessions.
I’d still take a moment to step aside and figure out what can be done. But if it comes down to it, I’d rather lose a player (hopefully for only 1-2 sessions) then have to half ass swapping out the story.
Then the player makes their saves and ideally the issue that would have arisen, never actually comes up. Or in some cases there are no saves, like a extremely high level sleep spell, and the player is bound by the same rules as everything else in the game world.
i’m only going to directly remove your agency/autonomy if you attempt to cheat the system. I hope to never have to do that, but I’m willing to if I have to.
mostly referring to cheese. Like your character gets mind controlled and ordered to attack their friends. And you spend the next 3 turns attacking with your weakest ability on the target who is most likely to not be effected. EX: Throwing a dagger at the monk, while ignoring the prone wizard 20 feet to your left.
What I'm saying is, this kind of situation is arguably rare to begin with (especially if you, as the DM, queried the players about things they might be too uncomfortable with - it would be a moderate to big deal after all, as you say) and even if it happens you can try to be empathic and find a solution. I just don't see this as something you'd need to decide how to handle until it actually comes up (which ideally it won't), because every situation will be different and will have different possible avenues of resolution. Cross that bridge when you get to it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I am not going to have another argument over word choice. If a player is choosing to follow the letter of the rules (attack your allies) but refusing to follow the spirit (attack the ally that you could actually realistically hit, and attack them as if they were a proper enemy), that is going to be treated as them attempting to cheat the system and I am 110% going to take away their ability to do so any longer. If the player calls foul, I will tell them they brought this upon themselves. They are free to leave if they truly feel that i am being unfair, but i will not allow my players to ruin the game for me or the other players by attempting to cheat.
My argument is not plot based, my argument is mechanics based. I'm not going to force my players to be mind controlled (no rolls, you just are mind controlled), but i'm also not going to use an enemy who can mind control and they just never do. The question also gets murky depending on what the player does and does not define as "player/character agency". Like i can probably build a campaign where you won't be cut scene bound and forced to deal with terrible terrible stuff. But i'm going to struggle building a campaign where 20-40% of all spells/abilities/checks have to be removed because the player gets triggered if they are ever limited in their choices of what they can and can not do.