What you're missing is that agency is not a binsry thing that you can only have or not have. It's a spectrum. Normally, your character can do anything you choose that their physical body can do. If you're put under a mind control effect, you might still have some choices open to you, but fewer than normal.
Quite literally, more than a sixth of the spells limit the chars/players to "fewer than normal" choices. Once again, how far down the rabbit hole do you go, or slippery slope, or whatever you want to call it?
Are you going to remove Web, Slow, the Stunned condition, Hold Person, to name a few off the top of my head, plus every mind control effect, from the game, because they "limit the player's choices"????
You talk about a spectrum. How is any rational person DM'ing a game supposed to know what "hurts" each individual human playing D&D, or any RPG?
Ask.
At what extent does a DM know that a player will say "I am OK with the DM using Web, but not the Stunned Condition"? And don't suggest a consent form, which is very very much binary, or at least trinary.
It's only binary if it has only one checkbox. If it has a number of questions, then it has multiple values. And many ask the degree to which you're comfortable with various game elements: not at all, off-screen is okay, ask first, okay to happen to NPCs / other PCs but not my character.
Also, you don't necessarily have to use a form. You can just ask people to bring up any taboos they have. But a form can remind them to think about a category they might have neglected to consider.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Again, player agency and accommodation of a player's needs are not the same thing... they're not even in the same universe. Accommodating a burn victim by not RPing stuff about burning has nothing to do with player agency and is a matter of common courtesy to the other player. Just like players "going on the adventure the DM made up," is a matter of common courtesy. We all make sacrifices to our personal desires to have a courteous and enjoyable table. Hell, scheduling is a compromise most of the time too.
Player agency is not about that. This thread started out by people discussing whether in-game mechanics that can generically be called "status effects" are "taking away player agency." They do not. Because the status effect is part of the game. It is understood by everyone who has read the rules even casually, that status effects exist, that there are multiple varieties of them, and that your character *will* be affected by them on a semi-regular basis (literally, every time you fail a saving throw). Examples of status effects that prevent the player from "just doing anything they want" include many things, not just mind control.
*If* someone has a particular psychological issue, as a player, with a certain type of status effect, it is absolutely reasonable to have that conversation, and a decent DM (as in, a decent human being) would make sure not to subject that player to something that will be psychologically traumatic -- we are playing this game to have fun. However, this has nothing to do with player agency and is entirely about a personal issue for the player. Player agency does not mean you get to ignore any status effect you don't like, as a general rule.
If status effects bother you that much, not just D&D, but *many* RPGs are going to be a problem for you. City of Heroes is basically built around status effects and what one has to do (if one can do anything, which some archetypes can, and some can't) to mitigate them. There is a reason, in COH, that I take the status effect defense on the very first level it unlocks, with every character who can take such a defense (again, not all characters can). But if I don't have the power, or it's not engaged, or I forgot to turn it on, I don't think that the game "took my agency away" from applying status effects to me -- even though literally I cannot use any of the keyboard controls to do anything until the status effect wears off (and there are times when the PC face-planted before it wore off). This is not a removal of player agency -- it's part of the game.
My agency in that case consists of -- did I take the status defense power? Did I engage it at the proper time? Did I keep my endurance up high enough that I had enough endurance to engage it? If I couldn't do those things or am playing a character who has no status defense built-in, did I carry some extra "break free" inspirations (like potions) in my inspiration tray to mitigate status effect? If I didn't use my agency to do any of those things, then I get subjected to the status effects. That's not "taking away my agency." It's how the game is supposed to be played.
Dungeons and Dragons has dozens upon dozens of status effect spells, monster abilities, etc. I think it is unreasonable to cry foul when these status effects are applied to a character, just because you may not, as a player, happen to enjoy them at the moment. Part of the challenge rating of a monster may depend on it being able to cast or fire those status effects and if the GM is not allowed to use them because "player agency," the game will be come boringly easy. Do we *really* want that? I don't. I think most people don't. Again, we play for fun, and boredom is not fun.
Dungeons and Dragons has dozens upon dozens of status effect spells, monster abilities, etc. I think it is unreasonable to cry foul when these status effects are applied to a character, just because you may not, as a player, happen to enjoy them at the moment. Part of the challenge rating of a monster may depend on it being able to cast or fire those status effects and if the GM is not allowed to use them because "player agency," the game will be come boringly easy.
Then just use a different monster that doesn't have those status effects. Or manually determine the combat balance. CR isn't that reliable anyway. There are solutions.
Again, we play for fun, and boredom is not fun.
And some people have said that part of the problem with loss of agency is that it's boring. What they find fun is making decisions to further their character's goals, and if you take that away, they're not interested in the game.
I know you're going to reply with, "But umpteen different conditions prevent you from achieving your goals." I'm aware of that. All I'm talking about is customizing your game to suit your players' preferences.
There is a difference between role playing physical trauma and psychological harm. No matter how hard the great sword smites or how hot the dragon's breath burns, you won't feel it. But psychological triggers can hurt you.
That is literally a numb take on the effects of violence or any other form of peril besides what you find as particularly "psychological" in a game. "Psychological triggers" can apply to any phenomenon that befalls a character because the psychology of the character and the psychology of the player are different things. The first is a work of fiction, that latter is an IRL personality with an (arguable) emotional investment in said character (depending on play style and campaign tone). To say things inflicted upon a character outside of what you've narrowed as having psychological triggers is just poorly informed recycling of VGtR release talking points. A particular product cashes in on designing and making available protections for a specific type of emotional response in a specific type of play ... boosting page count to justify a hardback book when the Monte Cooke Consent form (and its precursors) actually take a much broader view of the phenomena throughout all sorts of TTRPG that can engender a "psychological" response and lay out in a page a way to develop a collective consensus where, yes, various aspects of physical violence is in fact among the many things that can be "triggering" in play. These consent policies are reflective of cultural trends in harm reduction, which don't make the distinctions you're holding to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It is not hard to ask your players what triggers them and ask for consent. It takes like literally a minute or less to go through a small list of common senstive subjects (politics, religion, sex), and if none of the players can think of anything, you can just tell them to stop the game at any time if they feel uncomfortable, and the group can go on a break while you speak with the player one on one and adjust the game. And if your campaign touches on a heavy topic and your players are kind of dense or distracted when you mention politics, religion, and sex, you may want to draw their attention and say that things can be as serious as ****, gore, torture, and Nazis. If players have trouble raising their own red flag, you want to raise it for them to warn them.
It is like assuming you are going to clap your date's cheeks after you spent half an hour smooching them, but you are refusing to ask for consent to proceed further just because you think kissing means you have permission to do whatever you want. Just because someone lets you slobber them does not mean they consent to getting frisky. Just because your players are playing D&D with you does not means that you should continue to psychologically traumatize your players after they said they had enough.
I think it is safe to assume that you do not want to be known as that guy on the registry. You do not want to be known as that GM whom players use as an example of "no D&D is better than bad D&D" either.
I think this is one of the problems -- agency is, as I've said all along, being used incorrectly. Player agency simply means that, when given the choice of what to do with your character, you are allowed, within the scope of the rules of both the game and the table, to make that choice. When a Mind Control effect happens on you that the rules say require the character to, say, follow an NPC's order, then the player is not losing player agency by having to RP their character following that order, because that's what you're supposed to do within the scope of the rules. Just like you're not losing agency by not being allowed to make a melee attack at 70' range without closing the gap via Dash first -- it's what you are allowed to do within the scope of the rules. Note that a Mind Control effect never dictates exactly how the player RPs the character, but only sets boundaries on what may be RPed. Within those boundaries, the player still has agency.
[dictionary citation and gesture to awareness that player agency is subject for debate snipped]
This is important from a gameplay and design perspective though. There is going to be a gamut where your choices as a DM shift from fairly natural in-world limitations on agency to contrived or negligently designed scenarios where players have too little agency and your design is to blame. Whether it's within the rules or not doesn't really alter that. If we're literal with "Player agency simply means that, when given the choice of what to do with your character, you are allowed, within the scope of the rules of both the game and the table, to make that choice," then that still leaves a DM the option to force player behaviour as long as they do so within the context of agreed upon rules, even if its contrived. Maybe there is a presumption that that's out of scope, but I don't see the point of being so roundabout when dealing with matters of agency.
To distill to your "important" assertion. Are spells like Dominate Person natural in-world limitations (I'd say injuries) to player agency or negligent contrivances? Dominate person does not force "player" behavior. It injures the character by forcing the character to perform actions against their will. Emotional investment is not identity. No one, well few, want to see their characters suffer, but sometimes it happens in game. What's more important is giving the player space in game to use their agency to react to the conditions that beset the character. There are naive articulations of player agency that fail to recognize there is in fact a huge gap between he real player and the fictional character, the conflation of the dynamic into a singular entity is what problematizes any real discussion of player agency and boundaries. Characters can be treated horribly in game if the players consent to it within the games social contract. Treating those characters horribly is not treating the players horribly. Afflicting a character with a spell affect that attacks the character's agency does not control the player any more than elements afflicting them in non magical combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
What's more important is giving the player space in game to use their agency to react to the conditions that beset the character.
This is what I am trying to say.
Taking the character's agency away does not affect the player. The player's agency is found in his or her ability to "react to the conditions that beset the character" -- this is exactly what I am talking about. All those Critical Role fans should think back the episode (mid-50s of season 2, I think) in which the party was in the city of beasts and they followed some succubi down into a well, and at one point in the battle, Liam's wizard, Caleb, failed a save and was mind controlled. Matt, the DM, didn't tell Liam how to react to the conditions that beset Caleb, but Liam still needed to RP Caleb as being mind controlled. He immediately used one of his best spells at the time, Wall of Fire, to attack and divide his own party. That was Liam using his agency to react to the conditions that beset Caleb.
This is not some unusual or exceptional circumstance. Status effects are super common and some monsters, like a succubus, even hinge on applying those status effects. Having status effects impact your character is a normal and unexceptional part of the D&D experience. YOUR agency as a player is not being taken away when your CHARACTER'S agency as a PC is taken away. You still have agency... the agency to react to the conditions that beset the character. This is the very definition of playing an RPG.
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.
Kind of accidentally started a debate in this thread - Beholder's Charm Ray - but I didn't want to derail the rules lawyering there to talk about the philosophy of the game.
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.
On the one hand, I know it always subjectively sucks when you don't get to play or make decisions temporarily during the game.
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.
As a DM, I do recommend you check with players to see if they have any boundaries regarding this. I think for some people feeling loss of agency can be especially acute, or bring up trauma.
It feels bad enough that I go out of my way to protect myself against it, but I also don't want the DM to withhold such mechanics from the party, as then why are we protecting ourselves against it.
It's one of the more powerful things that can affect your character and I think it has a place in the game.
I feel like most of us are in agreement. Players who do not enjoy such mechanics have the right not to join or to quit a game that will use them. We differ on how much we would accommodate a player's attitudes so that they can participate. That's fine. You can refuse to play at a table that uses these mechanics and you can refuse to play at one that doesn't use them.
It's been interesting to see a lot of people on both sides of this. Some people like these mechanics and some don't, in varying degrees.
Yes, being triggered sucks bad. But so does being denied the right to informed consent prior to engaging in an activity with someone. If a player knows that something like this could be a trigger for them, and they don’t inform the DM in advance, that DM can’t possibly know to avoid the topic. And that player has also denied the DM’s right to consent to the situation prior to it happening.
There are limitations to what's reasonably going to be anticipated. If I were DMing, I honestly wouldn't be anticipating players knowing everything in the PHB, in particular all of the spells listed. There are something like 120 spells in the PHB alone, players don't need to know all of them to play, and newer players especially might not get the full implication of each spell or read them contemplating scenarios where the DM might use them against them. Players aren't typically going to know everything they DM or even other players could throw at them. Even if they did, this stuff can be complicated. To my mind, this is largely about trust and operating in good faith with a desire to move forward if something comes up.
I think it is reasonable to expect someone to have read the basic rules and at least skimmed the spells in the basic rules, yes. Not the whole PHB necessarily, but the basic rules, yeah. Even just skimming the spell names someone’s eyes will land on the dominate spells fairly early since it’s in the “Ds.” Memorize it all? Absolutely not. Understand it all? Heck no. Read the rules at least once and skimmed the player options (equipment spells). Ya better have. Or else why the heck did you show up at my table “ready to play” when you’re obviously not. Go home, read the basic rules, and skim the player options. Then, after you’re actually ready to play come back.
Too many problems in RPGs occur when people conflate character and player.
Characters, in D&D, can and often will have their agency taken away temporarily. Players don't lose agency just because the character did. You just have to tweak your RPing to fit the situation of the character's predicament, which is what you're supposed to do all the time anyway.
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 really have to smile at all these posts about "player agency".
There are players, and there are their characters. It is entirely possible to go an entire session without conflating the two, and by that mean dropping into the character's voice in the game. Seems to me a whole lot of people have watched a whole lot of CR, and now think they are all method actors, performing for some unseen camera, and whatever happens to the char, happens to them personally.
Player agency has nothing to do with speaking in character or with a voice.
Too many problems in RPGs occur when people conflate character and player.
Characters, in D&D, can and often will have their agency taken away temporarily. Players don't lose agency just because the character did. You just have to tweak your RPing to fit the situation of the character's predicament, which is what you're supposed to do all the time anyway.
"Player agency" doesn't mean agency of the player over themself. It means agency of the player over the character.
It's really silly that you keep harping on the dictionary definition of agency when you clearly understand what we're talking about. Call it blobdignog if you don't like the term player agency.
I also want to be clear, I draw a distinction between showing up “ready to play” Vs. showing up “ready to learn.”
If you say your there “ready to play,” I am absolutely going to assume a certain level of familiarity with the game. I expect you will know how to properly create a character, and how to do pretty much anything covered in chapter ma 7, 9, & 10 without me or any of the other players having to explain things at least 85% of the time.
If you show up “ready to learn,” then I know not to expect that. ☝️ I will be prepared to help you create your character and learn the rules. I will realize that I’m going to have to both ask and answer the sorts of questions that you won’t know enough to realize you should ask. That stuff includes:
Monsters and stuff exist in the game, sometimes characters die. Are you going to be okay if a monster eats your character?
Instead of your character, what if the monster eats your character’s horse or another animal?
How about if something like a Medusa turns your character into a statue?
If a badguy casts a spell or something on your character and your character gets charmed and has to act like they’re friends with that badguy for a little bit even if they aren’t aren’t, are you going to be okay with that?
What if they use actual mind control Magic on your character and they have to do whatever that badguy says for a few minutes?
What if it isn’t a badguy, but another NPC?
So I’m not saying that players should be responsible for things that they don’t even know about. What I am saying is that if the player doesn’t know enough yet to even know what they don’t know, they should at least be responsible enough to tell me that. Ne?
Informed consent refers to being informed of what is about to happen so one can agree to it before it happens to them. For example, as part of my job I train medical professionals and students studying to become medical professionals how to do exams and interact with patients. Some of what we specifically cover are things that could potential trigger a patient.
If a medical professional just starts randomly touching patients all over and yanking limbs this way and that and removing a patients clothing, that‘s a pretty surefire way to trigger a patient. But if that same examiner takes a moment to say “I am going to do an abdominal exam. Could you please lift your knees and place your feet flat on the examining table? Thank you, I need to be able to see the area. Could you please lift up you shirt to just below your ribs? Thank you, and can you please tuck the top of the drape into your waistband and pull the top of your pants down just to the tops of your hips so I can examine your lower abdomen? Thank you, I am now going to use my hands to examine the area, is that okay? Please let me know immediately if anything hurts.”
That patient has been informed:
That an examination was about to happen, and what kind of exam.
What physical position they were expected to be in.
That they would be in any state of undress and why it was relevant.
That the examiner was going to physically touch them and where.
That they should speak up if they experience pain.
They were given opportunities to either consent, or deny consent at every stage, prior to it happening. In addition, they were shown respect, they were empowered to participate in their own care, and they were empowered to speak up if they needed to. (Many patients hide pain for many reasons, sometimes they assume that the exam is supposed to hurt and they don’t want to interrupt.)
That is informed consent. Knowing what you are about to experience, why it is happening, and being given an opportunity to either agree or not before anything happens.
In my earlier post I was referring to a DM being informed by a player there was an issue with domination spells & similar effects so that the DM could consent to adjust their campaign and accept a player who requires those special considerations. If the player never said anything until after one of the villains had already dominated that player’s character, I would hope the DM would be legitimately sorry for triggering that player that way. The DM would also have every right to feel justifiably irritated that the player didn’t give them a heads up in the first place.
That DM did not consent to have a player at their table who required material from the Basic Rules be redacted. That DM didn’t consent to redact any of the Basic Rules for their table. That DM couldn’t consent. Their ability to consent was denied them because the player never let them know.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for a DM to anticipate that a player claiming to have a working knowledge of the game (aka “ready to play”):
Knows those spells and similar effects exist.
Knows if they need those spells & effects to not exist.
Knows that is a special request.
So if the player does in fact have said working knowledge of the game, and that mind control stuff exists in the game, and that they have a trigger issue regarding those spells, and they don’t tell the DM, that means they effectively tricked the DM into triggering them.
If that player has no idea how to play D&D and they claim to, that player has effectively tricked that DM into triggering them.
If the player admits to not having any practical knowledge of the game, then that DM has been informed and can consent to the extra work of helping them learn, and the extra responsibility of protecting them from potential triggers.
Special requests are fine, but don’t send back your meal because you didn’t realize your lemon-butter chicken would contain dairy and taste like lemons. 🤨 My mother-in-law has a seafood allergy. Before she orders at a restaurant she asks if there is anything she should stay away from that isn’t listed in the menu as containing seafood. That way the server can say, “let me check” and come back and let us know that the risotto featured as the evening’s special was made with shrimp stock or whatever.
It isn’t up to the restaurant to require their servers to go through an itemized list of known food allergies before accepting a table’s order. It isn’t even up to the restaurant to have their servers ask “before I take your order, do any of you have any food allergies?” It’s wonderful when they do, and more should. But if they don’t they haven’t done anything “wrong.” They restaurant, the chef, the server, none of them are responsible for triggering someone’s food allergy unless the customer mentions having one first.
But most people playing D&D the first time don't necessarily, I'd even say don't often, read the rules because they don't have them. DM gets a group of newbies together, the only investment most newbies are going to put in at that point is the commitment of time. If they have a good time, in time they may get some rules to bone up on. But really, they get familiar with the rules over _character creation_ and the first adventure. Many of us have even been there.
Yes, experience players should be more familiar with the rules and can offer their boundaries, but new and young, literally the most vulnerable players won't be. So despite DennisthePeasant's condescension (btw since you got the thick skin, were you trying to impress us with your DM's writing? cuz...), some care is still warranted when playing with brand new people. Writing as a DM who has "grown up" players and "kid" players in my groups, all of which have novices. I intentionally go slow and easy and ask pointed questions when sessions wrap up (I'm also a good reader of faces from teaching experience as well as formal interview training when the subject wasn't presumptively cooperative). When martial artists who treat their sport/art/practice seriously spar with new partners for the first time, the smart ones who don't see sparring as a wang waving contest, go slow, take it easy and progress till they each got a feel of what the level they should be training at. Part of it is safety but part of it is just flow building, they're getting a feel for each other,. TTRPGs can benefit from that mindfulness. I mean it's jock mindfulness, I'm sure the nerdy hobbies can pick it up too.
Ask.
It's only binary if it has only one checkbox. If it has a number of questions, then it has multiple values. And many ask the degree to which you're comfortable with various game elements: not at all, off-screen is okay, ask first, okay to happen to NPCs / other PCs but not my character.
Also, you don't necessarily have to use a form. You can just ask people to bring up any taboos they have. But a form can remind them to think about a category they might have neglected to consider.
Great. Do you want a badge for not having trauma in your life? Consider yourself lucky.
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.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No, I don't check with my players about boundaries on Hold Monster, Charm Person, etc. If the player casts it, the monsters get to too.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Again, player agency and accommodation of a player's needs are not the same thing... they're not even in the same universe. Accommodating a burn victim by not RPing stuff about burning has nothing to do with player agency and is a matter of common courtesy to the other player. Just like players "going on the adventure the DM made up," is a matter of common courtesy. We all make sacrifices to our personal desires to have a courteous and enjoyable table. Hell, scheduling is a compromise most of the time too.
Player agency is not about that. This thread started out by people discussing whether in-game mechanics that can generically be called "status effects" are "taking away player agency." They do not. Because the status effect is part of the game. It is understood by everyone who has read the rules even casually, that status effects exist, that there are multiple varieties of them, and that your character *will* be affected by them on a semi-regular basis (literally, every time you fail a saving throw). Examples of status effects that prevent the player from "just doing anything they want" include many things, not just mind control.
*If* someone has a particular psychological issue, as a player, with a certain type of status effect, it is absolutely reasonable to have that conversation, and a decent DM (as in, a decent human being) would make sure not to subject that player to something that will be psychologically traumatic -- we are playing this game to have fun. However, this has nothing to do with player agency and is entirely about a personal issue for the player. Player agency does not mean you get to ignore any status effect you don't like, as a general rule.
If status effects bother you that much, not just D&D, but *many* RPGs are going to be a problem for you. City of Heroes is basically built around status effects and what one has to do (if one can do anything, which some archetypes can, and some can't) to mitigate them. There is a reason, in COH, that I take the status effect defense on the very first level it unlocks, with every character who can take such a defense (again, not all characters can). But if I don't have the power, or it's not engaged, or I forgot to turn it on, I don't think that the game "took my agency away" from applying status effects to me -- even though literally I cannot use any of the keyboard controls to do anything until the status effect wears off (and there are times when the PC face-planted before it wore off). This is not a removal of player agency -- it's part of the game.
My agency in that case consists of -- did I take the status defense power? Did I engage it at the proper time? Did I keep my endurance up high enough that I had enough endurance to engage it? If I couldn't do those things or am playing a character who has no status defense built-in, did I carry some extra "break free" inspirations (like potions) in my inspiration tray to mitigate status effect? If I didn't use my agency to do any of those things, then I get subjected to the status effects. That's not "taking away my agency." It's how the game is supposed to be played.
Dungeons and Dragons has dozens upon dozens of status effect spells, monster abilities, etc. I think it is unreasonable to cry foul when these status effects are applied to a character, just because you may not, as a player, happen to enjoy them at the moment. Part of the challenge rating of a monster may depend on it being able to cast or fire those status effects and if the GM is not allowed to use them because "player agency," the game will be come boringly easy. Do we *really* want that? I don't. I think most people don't. Again, we play for fun, and boredom is not fun.
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.
If the group decides to, you can ban players from taking those spells too.
Then just use a different monster that doesn't have those status effects. Or manually determine the combat balance. CR isn't that reliable anyway. There are solutions.
And some people have said that part of the problem with loss of agency is that it's boring. What they find fun is making decisions to further their character's goals, and if you take that away, they're not interested in the game.
I know you're going to reply with, "But umpteen different conditions prevent you from achieving your goals." I'm aware of that. All I'm talking about is customizing your game to suit your players' preferences.
That is literally a numb take on the effects of violence or any other form of peril besides what you find as particularly "psychological" in a game. "Psychological triggers" can apply to any phenomenon that befalls a character because the psychology of the character and the psychology of the player are different things. The first is a work of fiction, that latter is an IRL personality with an (arguable) emotional investment in said character (depending on play style and campaign tone). To say things inflicted upon a character outside of what you've narrowed as having psychological triggers is just poorly informed recycling of VGtR release talking points. A particular product cashes in on designing and making available protections for a specific type of emotional response in a specific type of play ... boosting page count to justify a hardback book when the Monte Cooke Consent form (and its precursors) actually take a much broader view of the phenomena throughout all sorts of TTRPG that can engender a "psychological" response and lay out in a page a way to develop a collective consensus where, yes, various aspects of physical violence is in fact among the many things that can be "triggering" in play. These consent policies are reflective of cultural trends in harm reduction, which don't make the distinctions you're holding to.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It is not hard to ask your players what triggers them and ask for consent. It takes like literally a minute or less to go through a small list of common senstive subjects (politics, religion, sex), and if none of the players can think of anything, you can just tell them to stop the game at any time if they feel uncomfortable, and the group can go on a break while you speak with the player one on one and adjust the game. And if your campaign touches on a heavy topic and your players are kind of dense or distracted when you mention politics, religion, and sex, you may want to draw their attention and say that things can be as serious as ****, gore, torture, and Nazis. If players have trouble raising their own red flag, you want to raise it for them to warn them.
It is like assuming you are going to clap your date's cheeks after you spent half an hour smooching them, but you are refusing to ask for consent to proceed further just because you think kissing means you have permission to do whatever you want. Just because someone lets you slobber them does not mean they consent to getting frisky. Just because your players are playing D&D with you does not means that you should continue to psychologically traumatize your players after they said they had enough.
I think it is safe to assume that you do not want to be known as that guy on the registry. You do not want to be known as that GM whom players use as an example of "no D&D is better than bad D&D" 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 >
To distill to your "important" assertion. Are spells like Dominate Person natural in-world limitations (I'd say injuries) to player agency or negligent contrivances? Dominate person does not force "player" behavior. It injures the character by forcing the character to perform actions against their will. Emotional investment is not identity. No one, well few, want to see their characters suffer, but sometimes it happens in game. What's more important is giving the player space in game to use their agency to react to the conditions that beset the character. There are naive articulations of player agency that fail to recognize there is in fact a huge gap between he real player and the fictional character, the conflation of the dynamic into a singular entity is what problematizes any real discussion of player agency and boundaries. Characters can be treated horribly in game if the players consent to it within the games social contract. Treating those characters horribly is not treating the players horribly. Afflicting a character with a spell affect that attacks the character's agency does not control the player any more than elements afflicting them in non magical combat.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is what I am trying to say.
Taking the character's agency away does not affect the player. The player's agency is found in his or her ability to "react to the conditions that beset the character" -- this is exactly what I am talking about. All those Critical Role fans should think back the episode (mid-50s of season 2, I think) in which the party was in the city of beasts and they followed some succubi down into a well, and at one point in the battle, Liam's wizard, Caleb, failed a save and was mind controlled. Matt, the DM, didn't tell Liam how to react to the conditions that beset Caleb, but Liam still needed to RP Caleb as being mind controlled. He immediately used one of his best spells at the time, Wall of Fire, to attack and divide his own party. That was Liam using his agency to react to the conditions that beset Caleb.
This is not some unusual or exceptional circumstance. Status effects are super common and some monsters, like a succubus, even hinge on applying those status effects. Having status effects impact your character is a normal and unexceptional part of the D&D experience. YOUR agency as a player is not being taken away when your CHARACTER'S agency as a PC is taken away. You still have agency... the agency to react to the conditions that beset the character. This is the very definition of playing an RPG.
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.
It feels bad enough that I go out of my way to protect myself against it, but I also don't want the DM to withhold such mechanics from the party, as then why are we protecting ourselves against it.
It's one of the more powerful things that can affect your character and I think it has a place in the game.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I feel like most of us are in agreement. Players who do not enjoy such mechanics have the right not to join or to quit a game that will use them. We differ on how much we would accommodate a player's attitudes so that they can participate. That's fine. You can refuse to play at a table that uses these mechanics and you can refuse to play at one that doesn't use them.
It's been interesting to see a lot of people on both sides of this. Some people like these mechanics and some don't, in varying degrees.
I think it is reasonable to expect someone to have read the basic rules and at least skimmed the spells in the basic rules, yes. Not the whole PHB necessarily, but the basic rules, yeah. Even just skimming the spell names someone’s eyes will land on the dominate spells fairly early since it’s in the “Ds.” Memorize it all? Absolutely not. Understand it all? Heck no. Read the rules at least once and skimmed the player options (equipment spells). Ya better have. Or else why the heck did you show up at my table “ready to play” when you’re obviously not. Go home, read the basic rules, and skim the player options. Then, after you’re actually ready to play come back.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Too many problems in RPGs occur when people conflate character and player.
Characters, in D&D, can and often will have their agency taken away temporarily. Players don't lose agency just because the character did. You just have to tweak your RPing to fit the situation of the character's predicament, which is what you're supposed to do all the time anyway.
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.
Player agency has nothing to do with speaking in character or with a voice.
"Player agency" doesn't mean agency of the player over themself. It means agency of the player over the character.
It's really silly that you keep harping on the dictionary definition of agency when you clearly understand what we're talking about. Call it blobdignog if you don't like the term player agency.
BogWitchKris,
I also want to be clear, I draw a distinction between showing up “ready to play” Vs. showing up “ready to learn.”
If you say your there “ready to play,” I am absolutely going to assume a certain level of familiarity with the game. I expect you will know how to properly create a character, and how to do pretty much anything covered in chapter ma 7, 9, & 10 without me or any of the other players having to explain things at least 85% of the time.
If you show up “ready to learn,” then I know not to expect that. ☝️ I will be prepared to help you create your character and learn the rules. I will realize that I’m going to have to both ask and answer the sorts of questions that you won’t know enough to realize you should ask. That stuff includes:
So I’m not saying that players should be responsible for things that they don’t even know about. What I am saying is that if the player doesn’t know enough yet to even know what they don’t know, they should at least be responsible enough to tell me that. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Informed consent refers to being informed of what is about to happen so one can agree to it before it happens to them. For example, as part of my job I train medical professionals and students studying to become medical professionals how to do exams and interact with patients. Some of what we specifically cover are things that could potential trigger a patient.
If a medical professional just starts randomly touching patients all over and yanking limbs this way and that and removing a patients clothing, that‘s a pretty surefire way to trigger a patient. But if that same examiner takes a moment to say “I am going to do an abdominal exam. Could you please lift your knees and place your feet flat on the examining table? Thank you, I need to be able to see the area. Could you please lift up you shirt to just below your ribs? Thank you, and can you please tuck the top of the drape into your waistband and pull the top of your pants down just to the tops of your hips so I can examine your lower abdomen? Thank you, I am now going to use my hands to examine the area, is that okay? Please let me know immediately if anything hurts.”
That patient has been informed:
They were given opportunities to either consent, or deny consent at every stage, prior to it happening. In addition, they were shown respect, they were empowered to participate in their own care, and they were empowered to speak up if they needed to. (Many patients hide pain for many reasons, sometimes they assume that the exam is supposed to hurt and they don’t want to interrupt.)
That is informed consent. Knowing what you are about to experience, why it is happening, and being given an opportunity to either agree or not before anything happens.
In my earlier post I was referring to a DM being informed by a player there was an issue with domination spells & similar effects so that the DM could consent to adjust their campaign and accept a player who requires those special considerations. If the player never said anything until after one of the villains had already dominated that player’s character, I would hope the DM would be legitimately sorry for triggering that player that way. The DM would also have every right to feel justifiably irritated that the player didn’t give them a heads up in the first place.
That DM did not consent to have a player at their table who required material from the Basic Rules be redacted. That DM didn’t consent to redact any of the Basic Rules for their table. That DM couldn’t consent. Their ability to consent was denied them because the player never let them know.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for a DM to anticipate that a player claiming to have a working knowledge of the game (aka “ready to play”):
So if the player does in fact have said working knowledge of the game, and that mind control stuff exists in the game, and that they have a trigger issue regarding those spells, and they don’t tell the DM, that means they effectively tricked the DM into triggering them.
If that player has no idea how to play D&D and they claim to, that player has effectively tricked that DM into triggering them.
If the player admits to not having any practical knowledge of the game, then that DM has been informed and can consent to the extra work of helping them learn, and the extra responsibility of protecting them from potential triggers.
Special requests are fine, but don’t send back your meal because you didn’t realize your lemon-butter chicken would contain dairy and taste like lemons. 🤨 My mother-in-law has a seafood allergy. Before she orders at a restaurant she asks if there is anything she should stay away from that isn’t listed in the menu as containing seafood. That way the server can say, “let me check” and come back and let us know that the risotto featured as the evening’s special was made with shrimp stock or whatever.
It isn’t up to the restaurant to require their servers to go through an itemized list of known food allergies before accepting a table’s order. It isn’t even up to the restaurant to have their servers ask “before I take your order, do any of you have any food allergies?” It’s wonderful when they do, and more should. But if they don’t they haven’t done anything “wrong.” They restaurant, the chef, the server, none of them are responsible for triggering someone’s food allergy unless the customer mentions having one first.
Make sense?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But most people playing D&D the first time don't necessarily, I'd even say don't often, read the rules because they don't have them. DM gets a group of newbies together, the only investment most newbies are going to put in at that point is the commitment of time. If they have a good time, in time they may get some rules to bone up on. But really, they get familiar with the rules over _character creation_ and the first adventure. Many of us have even been there.
Yes, experience players should be more familiar with the rules and can offer their boundaries, but new and young, literally the most vulnerable players won't be. So despite DennisthePeasant's condescension (btw since you got the thick skin, were you trying to impress us with your DM's writing? cuz...), some care is still warranted when playing with brand new people. Writing as a DM who has "grown up" players and "kid" players in my groups, all of which have novices. I intentionally go slow and easy and ask pointed questions when sessions wrap up (I'm also a good reader of faces from teaching experience as well as formal interview training when the subject wasn't presumptively cooperative). When martial artists who treat their sport/art/practice seriously spar with new partners for the first time, the smart ones who don't see sparring as a wang waving contest, go slow, take it easy and progress till they each got a feel of what the level they should be training at. Part of it is safety but part of it is just flow building, they're getting a feel for each other,. TTRPGs can benefit from that mindfulness. I mean it's jock mindfulness, I'm sure the nerdy hobbies can pick it up too.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.