The character is the means by which the player effects their agency in the game world.
Only within the confines of the rules.
Your character cannot do things which the rules do not allow, unless the DM decides to overrule the rulebook. Player agency is not about your ability to affect the game world -- many characters, especially low level ones, may have very little ability to do much of this. Rather, agency is about your ability, as a player, to decide upon what to do with your character within the confines of the rules and the mechanics. If your character is at 0 hp and has to make death saves, you can't affect the world around you either, but this is not taking away agency, because making death saves, and doing nothing else for the round, is what the rules say you are supposed to do under these conditions.
The question was how one would feel about loss of agency. Loss of the ability to act in game does represent a reduction of agency on the player's part to effect change in the game world. As I stated, there are times that makes sense, and there are times where it is probably not a good idea. But it is a loss of player agency to lose control of their character, even if it's fair, even if it's entirely within the rules.
Similarly, if a PC is charmed or mind controlled in some way, the rules explain what these effects are in game terms. A player is not free to reject these effects on the grounds of "player agency." Ignoring a mind control that the rules state should affect your character isn't player agency -- it's cheating. And I submit if one does not want to ever have mind control happen to one's character, one ought not to play most RPGs, because most of them (D&D, Champions, Savage Worlds, Star Trek Adventures) have rules and provisions for mind control of one sort or another, and the player is expected to play along, as part of the collaborative experience of the RP. Invoking player agency to try to avoid a legit instance mind control as applied under RAW is nothing more or less than cheating.
Is anyone arguing player agency is a valid reason for a player to refuse the effects of a charm spell if they are unable to save against it? The OP didn't strike me as a question on what RAW states. It asked about feelings/ player experience, which is something DMs customarily take into account (though naturally, there are limits as you can't please everyone and not everyone's expectations are reasonable).
Yes. It is within the rules to use monsters with horror themes, but if your players prefer a cute romp through the feywild, maybe don't.
This seems more a boundaries and consent framing than a player agency issue. Arguing player agency in this context is advocating player invulnerability and omnipotence, which I think is grounds for BioWizard's strong rebuke of that angle. I mean it gets into Golaryn's initial response, instant death and grievous injuries are just as frustrating to. player agency, if not moreso.
Boundaries and consent get more complicated. Done well, everyone in the scene should frankly "know better" that magic like this could occur. Dominate Person is a pretty high level spell so the possibility of magics of this nature or witnessing the effects of such magic shouldn't be some sort of Malediction ex Machina (making up an opposite of deus ex machina).*. I do Session 0s and then a check in "as the plot thickens" at least at tiers of play thresholds if not between "story chapters." I let players know death can (and if the circumstances warrant it "may likely") happen and gauge responses. I get a sense of gore/blood/viseral detail thresholds by narrating the same zombie who keeps making it's "not dead yet" saves a half dozen ways. An important thing I've added is that even if the characters are the _story's_ heroes, it is likely if not inevitable they will come across NPCs who while not necessarily the bad guys or enemies _do_ _not_ _like_ _the_ _party_ for historic, political, identity reasons or even as consequence of PC actions. If Necromancy is a big theme in the arc "not only may you die, but your replacement PC or your parties may face an undead version of you." I suppose adding "there are magics which will compel your character to perform acts, maybe violent or even self destructive, that go against the character's core" would be fair warning in the discussed situation, which gives players the option to skip out and come back to something lighter, or allows DM to recalibrate how dark and hardcore the game can go.
Still, Dominate Person isn't locked in some secret bag of DM tricks, so it raises the question exactly how much of all the bad things (traumatic or adverse) should a DM be required to review with their table in Session 0. I mean I like the Monte Haul Games published Consent form and I think the "self harm" and "paralysis/physical restraint" lines would cover this sort of magic (if the player was aware that this sort of magic exists, this is why I do periodic checkin, I don't presume everyone has my understanding of the game, and these checkins more blanket allows me to get their understanding of the game, so it's sort of valuable on multiple levels). So maybe an DM so informed keeps this sort of magic out of game with enough advanced notice to work out. This shouldn't be called player agency, it's mutual respect. It actually (and arguably unfortunately) requires the player to be a bit vulnerable for the sake of the DM limiting their game options (which is not exactly a fair trade off).
Player agency I think as a term has been abused to be of any utility in this sort of discussion. There are mechanisms in place as simple as session 0 which can define "uncalled for" acts. Player agency is simply confined to matters of the player saying "I want my character to" and the DM saying yes or no. Consent and boundaries are a lot bigger than that and putting it under the abused and diluted term of player agency problematizes the discussion, presumably in ways unintended by those folks broaching it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
So, the DM Polymorphs a player into a sparrow, then Dimension Door's away from the party, out of harm's way. The player sparrow, having the Int of a sparrow, flies off to be with other sparrows. Does that intrude on "Player Agency"?
Or how about Hypnotic Pattern, where multiple players lose all character decisions, potentially for 10 rounds? Does that harm the player?
Or Confusion, where multiple players may end up attacking each other?
Or what about the DM casting Blindness on a char (or multiple chars) which means the char can't cast a spell which requires to see the target? Does that intrude on Player Agency?
Don't even get me started on the Aboleth's abilities.
Just how far down the rabbit hole do players want to go with this concept of "player agency"?
That's a slippery slope fallacy. You go just as far down the rabbit hole as maximizes fun for your group.
Like literally just don't run an aboleth encounter if yiu don't think your party would enjoy a mandatory side quest to cure a disease. The DM doesn't pick an aboleth unless they want an encounter with narrative significance.
So, the DM Polymorphs a player into a sparrow, then Dimension Door's away from the party, out of harm's way. The player sparrow, having the Int of a sparrow, flies off to be with other sparrows. Does that intrude on "Player Agency"?
Or how about Hypnotic Pattern, where multiple players lose all character decisions, potentially for 10 rounds? Does that harm the player?
Or Confusion, where multiple players may end up attacking each other?
Or what about the DM casting Blindness on a char (or multiple chars) which means the char can't cast a spell which requires to see the target? Does that intrude on Player Agency?
Don't even get me started on the Aboleth's abilities.
Just how far down the rabbit hole do players want to go with this concept of "player agency"?
That's a slippery slope fallacy. You go just as far down the rabbit hole as maximizes fun for your group.
I wouldn't say it's a fallacy. The rabbit hole concept rhetorically implies never ending. But to play with the slippery slope metaphor, contemporary D&D play can have a. very slippery foundation if a group of sometimes strangers have to perform their vulnerability to the table to note their comfort zones. Traction is, in fact needed. It's why I'm a fan of the consent form I mentioned. The problem though is that the form begs a strong command of the game from the player (as well as the DM to construe what the player lists as boundaries places constraints on their game). So there is the potential where Session 0 is in fact an abyss or rabbit hole of introspection and "ground rules" so to speak for the game can never be arrived at. I'm not saying it should thus be done away with, but the ease with which respect for consensual risk is established is frankly spoken of rather callously for the folks who advocate for so called game wellness. It's a heckuv a lot harder to establish rightly beyond DM or player simply presuming they've done it right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
So, the DM Polymorphs a player into a sparrow, then Dimension Door's away from the party, out of harm's way. The player sparrow, having the Int of a sparrow, flies off to be with other sparrows. Does that intrude on "Player Agency"?
Or how about Hypnotic Pattern, where multiple players lose all character decisions, potentially for 10 rounds? Does that harm the player?
Or Confusion, where multiple players may end up attacking each other?
Or what about the DM casting Blindness on a char (or multiple chars) which means the char can't cast a spell which requires to see the target? Does that intrude on Player Agency?
Don't even get me started on the Aboleth's abilities.
Just how far down the rabbit hole do players want to go with this concept of "player agency"?
That's a slippery slope fallacy. You go just as far down the rabbit hole as maximizes fun for your group.
I wouldn't say it's a fallacy. The rabbit hole concept rhetorically implies never ending. But to play with the slippery slope metaphor, contemporary D&D play can have a. very slippery foundation if a group of sometimes strangers have to perform their vulnerability to the table to note their comfort zones. Traction is, in fact needed. It's why I'm a fan of the consent form I mentioned. The problem though is that the form begs a strong command of the game from the player (as well as the DM to construe what the player lists as boundaries places constraints on their game). So there is the potential where Session 0 is in fact an abyss or rabbit hole of introspection and "ground rules" so to speak for the game can never be arrived at. I'm not saying it should thus be done away with, but the ease with which respect for consensual risk is established is frankly spoken of rather callously for the folks who advocate for so called game wellness. It's a heckuv a lot harder to establish rightly beyond DM or player simply presuming they've done it right.
I agree, but consent doesn't end after session 0. It should be ongoing. It should be explicit that anyone can submit q revised consent form at any time.
So, the DM Polymorphs a player into a sparrow, then Dimension Door's away from the party, out of harm's way. The player sparrow, having the Int of a sparrow, flies off to be with other sparrows. Does that intrude on "Player Agency"?
Or how about Hypnotic Pattern, where multiple players lose all character decisions, potentially for 10 rounds? Does that harm the player?
Or Confusion, where multiple players may end up attacking each other?
Or what about the DM casting Blindness on a char (or multiple chars) which means the char can't cast a spell which requires to see the target? Does that intrude on Player Agency?
Don't even get me started on the Aboleth's abilities.
Just how far down the rabbit hole do players want to go with this concept of "player agency"?
That's a slippery slope fallacy. You go just as far down the rabbit hole as maximizes fun for your group.
I wouldn't say it's a fallacy. The rabbit hole concept rhetorically implies never ending. But to play with the slippery slope metaphor, contemporary D&D play can have a. very slippery foundation if a group of sometimes strangers have to perform their vulnerability to the table to note their comfort zones. Traction is, in fact needed. It's why I'm a fan of the consent form I mentioned. The problem though is that the form begs a strong command of the game from the player (as well as the DM to construe what the player lists as boundaries places constraints on their game). So there is the potential where Session 0 is in fact an abyss or rabbit hole of introspection and "ground rules" so to speak for the game can never be arrived at. I'm not saying it should thus be done away with, but the ease with which respect for consensual risk is established is frankly spoken of rather callously for the folks who advocate for so called game wellness. It's a heckuv a lot harder to establish rightly beyond DM or player simply presuming they've done it right.
I agree, but consent doesn't end after session 0. It should be ongoing. It should be explicit that anyone can submit q revised consent form at any time.
You're right, but session 0 is the foundation that makes clear that such a protocol is welcome in the game. You need establishment for precedent. I mean I do structured "check ins" but I believe everyone in my games feels they wouldn't be out of turn brining up a boundary concern in the prior and concluding minutes of play (what I just call the warm up and after action).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Mind control effects do not take away player agency.
No, I'm sorry... this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what player agency is.
This term is thrown around incorrectly an awful lot, so I get the knee-jerk response here, but you're wrong.
If I think my character would do X and the DM says "no, your character does Y," that is a loss of agency, period. Agency is not just your past choices, but your present ones as well. It's your ability to control what goes on in your character's mind - the foundation of roleplay - and mind control takes that away by definition. That's a legit gripe.
This has nothing to do with a character being hurt or dying. When you mind control a paladin to break their oath or a guardian to attack their ward, you're fundamentally undermining the identity of the character.
Now look. Aside from maybe one person, no one is saying there is no place for this in the game. Just that you need to be aware of how it makes players feel. Because it's different than damage. It's different than being paralyzed or dying. In all those instances, the player is still in control of the character - it's just the character that is helpless. When you're dominated, the player is helpless and someone else has control of the character. That's a different thing, and one that should be done with care. For a couple of rounds? Fine. Most players can even get into it, effusively apologizing or doing their best villain laugh. But repeated or extended mind control really messes with the connection between player and character that we come to expect from the game.
Or how about Hypnotic Pattern, where multiple players lose all character decisions, potentially for 10 rounds? Does that harm the player?
Or Confusion, where multiple players may end up attacking each other?
Or what about the DM casting Blindness on a char (or multiple chars) which means the char can't cast a spell which requires to see the target? Does that intrude on Player Agency?
This isn't slippery slope fallacy, it's strawman.
Conditions that restrict your choices are fundamentally different than conditions that give your choices over to someone else. That's the heart of what makes it problematic - the DM is telling you what your character chooses to do.
Assume a DM puts literally hundreds of hours over the course of many months creating a campaign with an over-arching plot, narrative, a plethora of NPC's, etc etc. 6 months into the campaign, one player says "I have changed my mind, and I find the direction you are leading the party in uncomfortable, and is now in my red zone." There are two options, and neither involves the DM shelving all that work. The player weighs the enjoyment they are getting out of the game versus whatever discomfort is occurring, and the player then decides to leave the table, or stay.
I'm not saying DMs have their own vulnerabilities. DMs aren't the leaders, they're providers. You speak of plot, narrative and a populated world as a solo Manhattan project when it just isn't. If a DM has put that much work into he world and can not adapt it to sustaining the enthusiastic engagement of their players, well World Anvil is designed for novel writers nonplussed by the prospect of audience too, Good DMs, I feel, don't know what is going to happen in the immediate, short, or long term. That's the fun part. They know what may happen dependent on what the PCs do, which does include where the players may want to go geographically and thematically. If you're just touring the characters through the DMs "hard work," (save to resist inserting a work smarter not harder jibe narrowly passed) that's the worst kind of railroading. Show me how it isn't if you think otherwise. If you like the players you're running with and one wants the game to go in particular direction whether for "cool" or sensitivities of boundaries, use that big brilliant godhead of a brain and adapt. Losing a player you otherwise enjoyed because you the DM "can't" keep the game entertaining is what objectively can be called failure. But if you want a game where players need to keep up with you, those exist to, but I think the player base in TTRPGs as a whole tend to entertain than dismiss the modes we're discussing here you find problematic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You're aware that consensus comes from consensual and consent. Collectivism isn't necessarily a majority preference if folks are literally or metaphorically allergic to something. Consensus works to accommodate. I think you're hard charging to make you're point that you're failing to understand how a games social contract is actually a group negotiated phenomenon and not some naive sense of a democratic vote where the odd person is left in a take it or leave it position.
So one player out of 4 does not enjoy some facet of the game, but the other 3 players do. Is the DM supposed to cater to that one individual, lessening the "fun" for the rest? And what about the DM? Is the DM's feelings and expectations of what happens in a campaign supposed to be completely sublimated because of one player, or even a minority of players?
See my prior post on what a DM should be capable of, at least good ones who want to maximize everyone's enjoyment of the game.
I have played with numerous DM's over the years. Not a single one has EVER asked players if they are OK with the chars having their in-game actions curtailed or forced.The players know what D&D is all about, and implicitly signed up for that experience when they sit down at the table. If I ever had a player tell me "you, as a DM, can never implement an effect in the game that has a mental effect on my char that affects their personality or judgement", well, that player would end up most unhappy.
Your personal experience is not an essential truth of how the game is played. Your inability to negotiate differences in a game simply limits what sort of players may find your games accessible. There's nothing wrong with that. But it definitely doesn't put you in the place to proclaim knowing what "D&D is all about." This very thread proves that D&D is played very differently than you presume by other folks. Nothing's wrong with that. Saying it is wrong, I'm curious why someone feels the need to say that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Assume a DM puts literally hundreds of hours over the course of many months creating a campaign with an over-arching plot, narrative, a plethora of NPC's, etc etc. 6 months into the campaign, one player says "I have changed my mind, and I find the direction you are leading the party in uncomfortable, and is now in my red zone." There are two options, and neither involves the DM shelving all that work. The player weighs the enjoyment they are getting out of the game versus whatever discomfort is occurring, and the player then decides to leave the table, or stay.
I'm not saying DMs have their own vulnerabilities. DMs aren't the leaders, they're providers. You speak of plot, narrative and a populated world as a solo Manhattan project when it just isn't. If a DM has put that much work into he world and can not adapt it to sustaining the enthusiastic engagement of their players, well World Anvil is designed for novel writers nonplussed by the prospect of audience too, Good DMs, I feel, don't know what is going to happen in the immediate, short, or long term. That's the fun part. They know what may happen dependent on what the PCs do, which does include where the players may want to go geographically and thematically. If you're just touring the characters through the DMs "hard work," (save to resist inserting a work smarter not harder jibe narrowly passed) that's the worst kind of railroading. Show me how it isn't if you think otherwise. If you like the players you're running with and one wants the game to go in particular direction whether for "cool" or sensitivities of boundaries, use that big brilliant godhead of a brain and adapt. Losing a player you otherwise enjoyed because you the DM "can't" keep the game entertaining is what objectively can be called failure. But if you want a game where players need to keep up with you, those exist to, but I think the player base in TTRPGs as a whole tend to entertain than dismiss the modes we're discussing here you find problematic.
To each their own. Some DMs will run more of a sandbox. Others will run a more plot structured campaign. In any case, consent can always be withdrawn, and yes, that might be in the form of dropping out of the campaign. And that might mess up your well-laid plans, too.
I'm glad this has gotten into some intense discussion. I hope folks will keep an open mind, and not get entrenched in their positions. There are two sides to this, and a moderate approach is best for most game groups.
Mind control effects do not take away player agency.
No, I'm sorry... this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what player agency is.
This term is thrown around incorrectly an awful lot, so I get the knee-jerk response here, but you're wrong.
If I think my character would do X and the DM says "no, your character does Y," that is a loss of agency, period. Agency is not just your past choices, but your present ones as well. It's your ability to control what goes on in your character's mind - the foundation of roleplay - and mind control takes that away by definition. That's a legit gripe.
This has nothing to do with a character being hurt or dying. When you mind control a paladin to break their oath or a guardian to attack their ward, you're fundamentally undermining the identity of the character.
Now look. Aside from maybe one person, no one is saying there is no place for this in the game. Just that you need to be aware of how it makes players feel. Because it's different than damage. It's different than being paralyzed or dying. In all those instances, the player is still in control of the character - it's just the character that is helpless. When you're dominated, the player is helpless and someone else has control of the character. That's a different thing, and one that should be done with care. For a couple of rounds? Fine. Most players can even get into it, effusively apologizing or doing their best villain laugh. But repeated or extended mind control really messes with the connection between player and character that we come to expect from the game.
Or how about Hypnotic Pattern, where multiple players lose all character decisions, potentially for 10 rounds? Does that harm the player?
Or Confusion, where multiple players may end up attacking each other?
Or what about the DM casting Blindness on a char (or multiple chars) which means the char can't cast a spell which requires to see the target? Does that intrude on Player Agency?
This isn't slippery slope fallacy, it's strawman.
Conditions that restrict your choices are fundamentally different than conditions that give your choices over to someone else. That's the heart of what makes it problematic - the DM is telling you what your character chooses to do.
Despite my prior two posts, I actually lean more toward BioWizard in this part of the argument. Consent and boundary discussions are about what sort of harm and damage (trauma) a player is willing to expose their character and their imagination too. The effects of domination do attack and damage a character's sense of self they're self-conceit (literally what they think of themselves is challenged, this is a very psychologically real and powerful thing ... many a real life criminal confession includes at some point in the interview the unprompted observation "I never thought I could..." and the investigator who really just wants the acknowledgement of the material facts saying something to the effect of "yes, I understand, but you did" to cut the belay the rumination and stick with the accounting). It's damage, not HP, but RP (though I'm wondering in a really horrific game if psychic damage could come into play in a housefuls). It's not for everyone, but saying this is somehow more special or requiring special treatment different from physical trauma I feel is misguided. Again, there are very simple ways that distill how to handle boundaries with an even keel to pretty much account for anything that could cause player (not character) distress. Privileging "consequences of uncontrolled actions" over death and violent trauma is something a lot of boundary adherents seem to flub on when developing truly holistic establishment of game boundaries, I have some thoughts attributing that to the privilege of such adherents but that's going a bit far afield.
Again, in a scene as described in any of these situations, it should have already been established that this sort of encounter was deemed fair play by all involved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think it sucks, but in the same way taking a hit from a Fire Ball or Great Axe does. It is a possible effect that adventurers may have to face one day.
☝️This. It’s like paying taxes, or rush hour traffic, or going to the dentist. Nobody likes these things, but we have to deal with them.
Besides, if the NPCs were alive it would suck just as much for them when PCs do it.
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.
I’m inclined to say if playing D&D is likely to be a trigger, one should disclose that up front to their DM in advance of it becoming an issue. That way the two can decide together if it’s a good fit before any potential triggers can occur. It’s pretty much like discussing and agreeing to what is and isn’t okay with all involved and agreeing on safewords before slipping into role and engaging in any other relevant activities that occur between consenting adults.
People actually engage in IRL encounters as potentially triggering as CN-C, without being triggered, D&D can basically use the same best practices until and unless better (or at least better (After all the physical and mental assaults in D&D happen to fictional proxies. In CN-C they happen to actual people (with verbal and emotional varieties potentially added to the equation). If people can play that game safely, people should be able to pull this game off following a lot of the same “pre-flight safety checks.”
Proactively disclose/inquire about personal boundaries and limitations.
Always give/receive informed consent on specific activities prior to those activities happening.
Agree in advance on how people will communicate if they are injured, hurt or triggered.
Be prepared to stop if someone does communicate they have been injured, hurt, or triggered.
Actually be a decent person and honor those agreements instead of a ******canoe who doesn’t.
If one is not comfortable enough to have that 👆conversation if they know they need to, then they should not play a game likely to trigger a trauma. If just the conversation is too triggering to have, then the game shouldn’t be played. Now, in a comunity of people playing D&D might not be as proactively attentive to such issues as the comunity playing B&D. So a certain amount of self protection is advisable. If someone knows they are potentially triggered by a situation simulating non-consent, it does kinda mean that person needs to be a bit more actively proactive about it. Like asking in advance about potential food allergens before ordering at a restaurant. If you need to be concerned about gluten or shellfish or tree nuts or whatever, and you don’t ask before ordering and end up needing to get rushed to the ER, you cannot blame the chef.
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. A DM is responsible for disclosing houserules. Standard rules make it possible for everyone to use the same base standard. That means, if everyone has agreed to “play D&D” together, then that’s a blanket agreement to abide by all RAW in the Basic Rules, allowing for standard deviations in interpretation within a certain range of normal. Basic Rules at the very least, if not the PHB itself or the whole core three as they are “The Core Three.” Everyone should be safe to assume that anyone who shoes up to play D&D is pre consenting to Dominate Person potentially happening as it is in the Basic Rules that everyone has free access to. If someone is not willing to consent to that spell citing it being a trigger, it is their responsibility to disclose that to the DM as they are the one objecting to a basic rule of the game. If it were a DM homebrew instead, then the responsibility to inform and collect prior informed consent would fall on them.
In the event that a player approached me in private about this, not wanting to air their business to everyone, then I would thank them for informing me and let them know it won’t be used in the campaign. I would subsequently inform the table as a whole that I have houseruled that spell out of existence. If any of them refuse to consent to that, then I would thank them for their interest, but let them know I don’t see things being a good fit. Everyone in that situation had been informed by the parties responsible for informing them, and in advance of it actually happening in game. They all were given an opportunity to consent, one person denied consent and nobody was forced to do anything they disagreed with. This should not be an issue, it’s just another application of the principles of informed consent..
These sorts of things should be sorted out in a session 0. With a group of experianced players it might be simply asking are their any aspects players are uncomfortable with. This can be anything from detailing sexual encounters to eldritch horror. With new players the DM might need to describe the sorts of things that can happen.
I would always however keep the world consistant. If enemy spellcasters are not able to cast charm effect spells then neither are the player spellcasters, this also would help limit players restricting what enemies can do to trey and make them easier to defeat rather than because they really are uncomfortable with it.
And regarding hypnotic pattern if I was affected for 10 rounds, I would be furious with the rest of the party not the DM (unless it was cast on the whole party and they all failed the save)
I've used charm effects and mind control on players, and had them used on me. Overall, I've never found that they've led to enjoyable situations for anyone. Here are some examples.
Maybe 17 years ago or so, me and my friend joined a campaign at level 4. During the first session, my character tried to investigate something, and got captured, had a ring of mind control put on his finger, and was then essentially a mental slave to the DM. We didn't go back for a second session. There was no point in playing.
Much more recently a character picked up a cursed item that said "You cannot willingly conduct an act of intentional charity or goodness." He was mortified, and hated it. He felt he had lost control of his character's personality. I agreed and resolved it.
Charm effects are awkward in combat, and so I don't use them. There are just much better things to do in the game that are more fun for everyone. I feel the same about the Stunned condition. Sometimes my combats will involve 4 PCs, 2 NPCs, and 1-15 monsters depending on their power level. Getting through an average of 12 turns, only to be told "You miss your turn because you are stunned" absolutely sucks for the player. If it's an ongoing effect, then they might miss 3 hours of combat if they make poor saving throws. Charmed/controlled effects are much the same.
I find that my players have the best time when they are playing the game. Effects that hinder them, e.g. frightened, or difficult terrain, or being blinded are great because the player still gets to make choices and play. Any effect that removes their choices completely should be avoided if you want your players to have optimal fun. It's why the poor old Aboleth is a monster of fantastic lore design, but is extremely crappy to play against.
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.
Actually, many people *are* triggered by depictions of physical violence, blood, gore, etc. I had a student once who was burned very severely, missed half a semester of classes, and her right hand still doesn't look normal and probably never will. I suspect, if she played D&D, she might well not enjoy imagining being burned by a red dragon's breath, and probably would flag that as much more of a problem than a Mind Control effect.
l want to be clear here: I do not think a DM should knowingly and purposely do things that make the player super uncomfortable. But that's got absolutely nothing to do with player agency.
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.
As a simple example, in Season 3 of the Saving Throw show Wildcards ETU, the PCs, college students, were on a treasure hunt for pirate gold. They found the chest, and found an amulet, and one of the players, Gurav, had his character, Calvin, pick up the amulet. Player Agency: They chose to go after the pirate treasure, even though they knew it could be cursed. Player agency: Gurav decided to have his character pick up the amulet of possibly-cursed treasure. At that point, the GM asked Calvin to make the Savage Worlds equivalent of a saving throw, which he failed. The GM then described that Cavlin's voice changed, and he started to have an accent, and started calling himself "Three-eyed Jack." Gurav was then handed an "updated" character sheet with different skills on it, and the GM told him his character was possessed by the spirit of a pirate. Gurav then, as a player, had to RP as Jack, rather than as Calvin. He still had agency -- as a player, he decided what Jack did, which was to run away from the other players. When they chased him, they found that he had run into a motorcycle gang, and Gurav, again using player agency, told the gang members that these guys were after him, and the gang teamed up with him. They ended up at a biker bar, where Gurav RPed buying a round of drinks for the house, so everyone in the bar was on "Jack's" side when the other PCs came in to try to save their friend from the pirate.
My point here is -- at every point Gurav still had agency -- he had the ability to RP his possessed character, but had to stay within the bounds of the rules. Just like we do for everything else in an RPG, or else there is no point to having rules.
This is not the same thing as if Gurav's player had said, "I have a personal issue with possession, can we please not RP about that?" That would not be Gurav saying that possession took away his agency, but rather that something gives him, the player, the willies and he'd rather not spend the evening imagining it. Some people hate giant spiders. When they ask not to be exposed to descriptions of spiders, they're not claiming that their "agency" was being taken away, but rather, that they just have a sore spot for that one thing. As a DM, you should definitely be sensitive to these sore spots.
But it is a known and expected mechanic of RPGs that there will be times when your character's actions may not be under their control, and where your agency as a player consists of how you RP out that Mind Control or Charm, rather than "just doing whatever you damn well please." You are not losing "player agency" at this point, but are simply playing out the consequences of a failed saving throw -- which is part of the game, whether that effect is physical or psychological. This is part of the game and should be understood to be part of the game, and anyone who even just peruses the rules should realize this fact. There are dozens of spell effects that do this sort of thing, not just one or two.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, many people *are* triggered by depictions of physical violence, blood, gore, etc. I had a student once who was burned very severely, missed half a semester of classes, and her right hand still doesn't look normal and probably never will. I suspect, if she played D&D, she might well not enjoy imagining being burned by a red dragon's breath, and probably would flag that as much more of a problem than a Mind Control effect.
Then I guess she would bring this up at session 0, and you would decide whether eliminating red dragons and other fire-based monsters from your game is an accommodation you're willing to make to have her in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This seems more a boundaries and consent framing than a player agency issue. Arguing player agency in this context is advocating player invulnerability and omnipotence, which I think is grounds for BioWizard's strong rebuke of that angle. I mean it gets into Golaryn's initial response, instant death and grievous injuries are just as frustrating to. player agency, if not moreso.
Boundaries and consent get more complicated. Done well, everyone in the scene should frankly "know better" that magic like this could occur. Dominate Person is a pretty high level spell so the possibility of magics of this nature or witnessing the effects of such magic shouldn't be some sort of Malediction ex Machina (making up an opposite of deus ex machina).*. I do Session 0s and then a check in "as the plot thickens" at least at tiers of play thresholds if not between "story chapters." I let players know death can (and if the circumstances warrant it "may likely") happen and gauge responses. I get a sense of gore/blood/viseral detail thresholds by narrating the same zombie who keeps making it's "not dead yet" saves a half dozen ways. An important thing I've added is that even if the characters are the _story's_ heroes, it is likely if not inevitable they will come across NPCs who while not necessarily the bad guys or enemies _do_ _not_ _like_ _the_ _party_ for historic, political, identity reasons or even as consequence of PC actions. If Necromancy is a big theme in the arc "not only may you die, but your replacement PC or your parties may face an undead version of you." I suppose adding "there are magics which will compel your character to perform acts, maybe violent or even self destructive, that go against the character's core" would be fair warning in the discussed situation, which gives players the option to skip out and come back to something lighter, or allows DM to recalibrate how dark and hardcore the game can go.
Still, Dominate Person isn't locked in some secret bag of DM tricks, so it raises the question exactly how much of all the bad things (traumatic or adverse) should a DM be required to review with their table in Session 0. I mean I like the Monte Haul Games published Consent form and I think the "self harm" and "paralysis/physical restraint" lines would cover this sort of magic (if the player was aware that this sort of magic exists, this is why I do periodic checkin, I don't presume everyone has my understanding of the game, and these checkins more blanket allows me to get their understanding of the game, so it's sort of valuable on multiple levels). So maybe an DM so informed keeps this sort of magic out of game with enough advanced notice to work out. This shouldn't be called player agency, it's mutual respect. It actually (and arguably unfortunately) requires the player to be a bit vulnerable for the sake of the DM limiting their game options (which is not exactly a fair trade off).
Player agency I think as a term has been abused to be of any utility in this sort of discussion. There are mechanisms in place as simple as session 0 which can define "uncalled for" acts. Player agency is simply confined to matters of the player saying "I want my character to" and the DM saying yes or no. Consent and boundaries are a lot bigger than that and putting it under the abused and diluted term of player agency problematizes the discussion, presumably in ways unintended by those folks broaching it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's a slippery slope fallacy. You go just as far down the rabbit hole as maximizes fun for your group.
Like literally just don't run an aboleth encounter if yiu don't think your party would enjoy a mandatory side quest to cure a disease. The DM doesn't pick an aboleth unless they want an encounter with narrative significance.
I wouldn't say it's a fallacy. The rabbit hole concept rhetorically implies never ending. But to play with the slippery slope metaphor, contemporary D&D play can have a. very slippery foundation if a group of sometimes strangers have to perform their vulnerability to the table to note their comfort zones. Traction is, in fact needed. It's why I'm a fan of the consent form I mentioned. The problem though is that the form begs a strong command of the game from the player (as well as the DM to construe what the player lists as boundaries places constraints on their game). So there is the potential where Session 0 is in fact an abyss or rabbit hole of introspection and "ground rules" so to speak for the game can never be arrived at. I'm not saying it should thus be done away with, but the ease with which respect for consensual risk is established is frankly spoken of rather callously for the folks who advocate for so called game wellness. It's a heckuv a lot harder to establish rightly beyond DM or player simply presuming they've done it right.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I agree, but consent doesn't end after session 0. It should be ongoing. It should be explicit that anyone can submit q revised consent form at any time.
You're right, but session 0 is the foundation that makes clear that such a protocol is welcome in the game. You need establishment for precedent. I mean I do structured "check ins" but I believe everyone in my games feels they wouldn't be out of turn brining up a boundary concern in the prior and concluding minutes of play (what I just call the warm up and after action).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This term is thrown around incorrectly an awful lot, so I get the knee-jerk response here, but you're wrong.
If I think my character would do X and the DM says "no, your character does Y," that is a loss of agency, period. Agency is not just your past choices, but your present ones as well. It's your ability to control what goes on in your character's mind - the foundation of roleplay - and mind control takes that away by definition. That's a legit gripe.
This has nothing to do with a character being hurt or dying. When you mind control a paladin to break their oath or a guardian to attack their ward, you're fundamentally undermining the identity of the character.
Now look. Aside from maybe one person, no one is saying there is no place for this in the game. Just that you need to be aware of how it makes players feel. Because it's different than damage. It's different than being paralyzed or dying. In all those instances, the player is still in control of the character - it's just the character that is helpless. When you're dominated, the player is helpless and someone else has control of the character. That's a different thing, and one that should be done with care. For a couple of rounds? Fine. Most players can even get into it, effusively apologizing or doing their best villain laugh. But repeated or extended mind control really messes with the connection between player and character that we come to expect from the game.
This isn't slippery slope fallacy, it's strawman.
Conditions that restrict your choices are fundamentally different than conditions that give your choices over to someone else. That's the heart of what makes it problematic - the DM is telling you what your character chooses to do.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I'm not saying DMs have their own vulnerabilities. DMs aren't the leaders, they're providers. You speak of plot, narrative and a populated world as a solo Manhattan project when it just isn't. If a DM has put that much work into he world and can not adapt it to sustaining the enthusiastic engagement of their players, well World Anvil is designed for novel writers nonplussed by the prospect of audience too, Good DMs, I feel, don't know what is going to happen in the immediate, short, or long term. That's the fun part. They know what may happen dependent on what the PCs do, which does include where the players may want to go geographically and thematically. If you're just touring the characters through the DMs "hard work," (save to resist inserting a work smarter not harder jibe narrowly passed) that's the worst kind of railroading. Show me how it isn't if you think otherwise. If you like the players you're running with and one wants the game to go in particular direction whether for "cool" or sensitivities of boundaries, use that big brilliant godhead of a brain and adapt. Losing a player you otherwise enjoyed because you the DM "can't" keep the game entertaining is what objectively can be called failure. But if you want a game where players need to keep up with you, those exist to, but I think the player base in TTRPGs as a whole tend to entertain than dismiss the modes we're discussing here you find problematic.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You're aware that consensus comes from consensual and consent. Collectivism isn't necessarily a majority preference if folks are literally or metaphorically allergic to something. Consensus works to accommodate. I think you're hard charging to make you're point that you're failing to understand how a games social contract is actually a group negotiated phenomenon and not some naive sense of a democratic vote where the odd person is left in a take it or leave it position.
See my prior post on what a DM should be capable of, at least good ones who want to maximize everyone's enjoyment of the game.
Your personal experience is not an essential truth of how the game is played. Your inability to negotiate differences in a game simply limits what sort of players may find your games accessible. There's nothing wrong with that. But it definitely doesn't put you in the place to proclaim knowing what "D&D is all about." This very thread proves that D&D is played very differently than you presume by other folks. Nothing's wrong with that. Saying it is wrong, I'm curious why someone feels the need to say that.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To each their own. Some DMs will run more of a sandbox. Others will run a more plot structured campaign. In any case, consent can always be withdrawn, and yes, that might be in the form of dropping out of the campaign. And that might mess up your well-laid plans, too.
I'm glad this has gotten into some intense discussion. I hope folks will keep an open mind, and not get entrenched in their positions. There are two sides to this, and a moderate approach is best for most game groups.
Despite my prior two posts, I actually lean more toward BioWizard in this part of the argument. Consent and boundary discussions are about what sort of harm and damage (trauma) a player is willing to expose their character and their imagination too. The effects of domination do attack and damage a character's sense of self they're self-conceit (literally what they think of themselves is challenged, this is a very psychologically real and powerful thing ... many a real life criminal confession includes at some point in the interview the unprompted observation "I never thought I could..." and the investigator who really just wants the acknowledgement of the material facts saying something to the effect of "yes, I understand, but you did" to cut the belay the rumination and stick with the accounting). It's damage, not HP, but RP (though I'm wondering in a really horrific game if psychic damage could come into play in a housefuls). It's not for everyone, but saying this is somehow more special or requiring special treatment different from physical trauma I feel is misguided. Again, there are very simple ways that distill how to handle boundaries with an even keel to pretty much account for anything that could cause player (not character) distress. Privileging "consequences of uncontrolled actions" over death and violent trauma is something a lot of boundary adherents seem to flub on when developing truly holistic establishment of game boundaries, I have some thoughts attributing that to the privilege of such adherents but that's going a bit far afield.
Again, in a scene as described in any of these situations, it should have already been established that this sort of encounter was deemed fair play by all involved.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
☝️This. It’s like paying taxes, or rush hour traffic, or going to the dentist. Nobody likes these things, but we have to deal with them.
Besides, if the NPCs were alive it would suck just as much for them when PCs do it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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.
I’m inclined to say if playing D&D is likely to be a trigger, one should disclose that up front to their DM in advance of it becoming an issue. That way the two can decide together if it’s a good fit before any potential triggers can occur. It’s pretty much like discussing and agreeing to what is and isn’t okay with all involved and agreeing on safewords before slipping into role and engaging in any other relevant activities that occur between consenting adults.
People actually engage in IRL encounters as potentially triggering as CN-C, without being triggered, D&D can basically use the same best practices until and unless better (or at least better (After all the physical and mental assaults in D&D happen to fictional proxies. In CN-C they happen to actual people (with verbal and emotional varieties potentially added to the equation). If people can play that game safely, people should be able to pull this game off following a lot of the same “pre-flight safety checks.”
If one is not comfortable enough to have that 👆conversation if they know they need to, then they should not play a game likely to trigger a trauma. If just the conversation is too triggering to have, then the game shouldn’t be played. Now, in a comunity of people playing D&D might not be as proactively attentive to such issues as the comunity playing B&D. So a certain amount of self protection is advisable. If someone knows they are potentially triggered by a situation simulating non-consent, it does kinda mean that person needs to be a bit more actively proactive about it. Like asking in advance about potential food allergens before ordering at a restaurant. If you need to be concerned about gluten or shellfish or tree nuts or whatever, and you don’t ask before ordering and end up needing to get rushed to the ER, you cannot blame the chef.
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. A DM is responsible for disclosing houserules. Standard rules make it possible for everyone to use the same base standard. That means, if everyone has agreed to “play D&D” together, then that’s a blanket agreement to abide by all RAW in the Basic Rules, allowing for standard deviations in interpretation within a certain range of normal. Basic Rules at the very least, if not the PHB itself or the whole core three as they are “The Core Three.” Everyone should be safe to assume that anyone who shoes up to play D&D is pre consenting to Dominate Person potentially happening as it is in the Basic Rules that everyone has free access to. If someone is not willing to consent to that spell citing it being a trigger, it is their responsibility to disclose that to the DM as they are the one objecting to a basic rule of the game. If it were a DM homebrew instead, then the responsibility to inform and collect prior informed consent would fall on them.
In the event that a player approached me in private about this, not wanting to air their business to everyone, then I would thank them for informing me and let them know it won’t be used in the campaign. I would subsequently inform the table as a whole that I have houseruled that spell out of existence. If any of them refuse to consent to that, then I would thank them for their interest, but let them know I don’t see things being a good fit. Everyone in that situation had been informed by the parties responsible for informing them, and in advance of it actually happening in game. They all were given an opportunity to consent, one person denied consent and nobody was forced to do anything they disagreed with. This should not be an issue, it’s just another application of the principles of informed consent..
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
These sorts of things should be sorted out in a session 0. With a group of experianced players it might be simply asking are their any aspects players are uncomfortable with. This can be anything from detailing sexual encounters to eldritch horror. With new players the DM might need to describe the sorts of things that can happen.
I would always however keep the world consistant. If enemy spellcasters are not able to cast charm effect spells then neither are the player spellcasters, this also would help limit players restricting what enemies can do to trey and make them easier to defeat rather than because they really are uncomfortable with it.
And regarding hypnotic pattern if I was affected for 10 rounds, I would be furious with the rest of the party not the DM (unless it was cast on the whole party and they all failed the save)
I've used charm effects and mind control on players, and had them used on me. Overall, I've never found that they've led to enjoyable situations for anyone. Here are some examples.
Maybe 17 years ago or so, me and my friend joined a campaign at level 4. During the first session, my character tried to investigate something, and got captured, had a ring of mind control put on his finger, and was then essentially a mental slave to the DM. We didn't go back for a second session. There was no point in playing.
Much more recently a character picked up a cursed item that said "You cannot willingly conduct an act of intentional charity or goodness." He was mortified, and hated it. He felt he had lost control of his character's personality. I agreed and resolved it.
Charm effects are awkward in combat, and so I don't use them. There are just much better things to do in the game that are more fun for everyone. I feel the same about the Stunned condition. Sometimes my combats will involve 4 PCs, 2 NPCs, and 1-15 monsters depending on their power level. Getting through an average of 12 turns, only to be told "You miss your turn because you are stunned" absolutely sucks for the player. If it's an ongoing effect, then they might miss 3 hours of combat if they make poor saving throws. Charmed/controlled effects are much the same.
I find that my players have the best time when they are playing the game. Effects that hinder them, e.g. frightened, or difficult terrain, or being blinded are great because the player still gets to make choices and play. Any effect that removes their choices completely should be avoided if you want your players to have optimal fun. It's why the poor old Aboleth is a monster of fantastic lore design, but is extremely crappy to play against.
Actually, many people *are* triggered by depictions of physical violence, blood, gore, etc. I had a student once who was burned very severely, missed half a semester of classes, and her right hand still doesn't look normal and probably never will. I suspect, if she played D&D, she might well not enjoy imagining being burned by a red dragon's breath, and probably would flag that as much more of a problem than a Mind Control effect.
l want to be clear here: I do not think a DM should knowingly and purposely do things that make the player super uncomfortable. But that's got absolutely nothing to do with player agency.
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.
As a simple example, in Season 3 of the Saving Throw show Wildcards ETU, the PCs, college students, were on a treasure hunt for pirate gold. They found the chest, and found an amulet, and one of the players, Gurav, had his character, Calvin, pick up the amulet. Player Agency: They chose to go after the pirate treasure, even though they knew it could be cursed. Player agency: Gurav decided to have his character pick up the amulet of possibly-cursed treasure. At that point, the GM asked Calvin to make the Savage Worlds equivalent of a saving throw, which he failed. The GM then described that Cavlin's voice changed, and he started to have an accent, and started calling himself "Three-eyed Jack." Gurav was then handed an "updated" character sheet with different skills on it, and the GM told him his character was possessed by the spirit of a pirate. Gurav then, as a player, had to RP as Jack, rather than as Calvin. He still had agency -- as a player, he decided what Jack did, which was to run away from the other players. When they chased him, they found that he had run into a motorcycle gang, and Gurav, again using player agency, told the gang members that these guys were after him, and the gang teamed up with him. They ended up at a biker bar, where Gurav RPed buying a round of drinks for the house, so everyone in the bar was on "Jack's" side when the other PCs came in to try to save their friend from the pirate.
My point here is -- at every point Gurav still had agency -- he had the ability to RP his possessed character, but had to stay within the bounds of the rules. Just like we do for everything else in an RPG, or else there is no point to having rules.
This is not the same thing as if Gurav's player had said, "I have a personal issue with possession, can we please not RP about that?" That would not be Gurav saying that possession took away his agency, but rather that something gives him, the player, the willies and he'd rather not spend the evening imagining it. Some people hate giant spiders. When they ask not to be exposed to descriptions of spiders, they're not claiming that their "agency" was being taken away, but rather, that they just have a sore spot for that one thing. As a DM, you should definitely be sensitive to these sore spots.
But it is a known and expected mechanic of RPGs that there will be times when your character's actions may not be under their control, and where your agency as a player consists of how you RP out that Mind Control or Charm, rather than "just doing whatever you damn well please." You are not losing "player agency" at this point, but are simply playing out the consequences of a failed saving throw -- which is part of the game, whether that effect is physical or psychological. This is part of the game and should be understood to be part of the game, and anyone who even just peruses the rules should realize this fact. There are dozens of spell effects that do this sort of thing, not just one or two.
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.
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.
Then I guess she would bring this up at session 0, and you would decide whether eliminating red dragons and other fire-based monsters from your game is an accommodation you're willing to make to have her in the game.