I think this fall under don't ask don't tell to me.(Ahem) The Army happens to own all of those possessions - neither you nor your late friend do. Please choose a different metaphor.
Also, when one of your war-buddies suffers sudden bullet poisoning, you might pick up some of his gear to help carry out the mission, but you and your surviving buddies probably aren't going to shout "Dibs," slap at each other to get first pick, or declare that the 'high roller' gets first pick of his stuff and start rolling right there in mid-onslaught.
hmmm
This means the player has stopped playing, and is now forced to watch the DM play with himself.
I think this qualifies as well.
I gotta ask...
To the people who are against the PCs looting their fallen comrade...
How do you propose that the GM stops them from doing so?
Well, the topic is about the 'should.'
Really, the 'should' depends on the group and the circumstance. Out of general principle I'm against stripping down the fallen, but there are really good examples for players to act to the contrary; the fallen pc was holding a relevant quest item, was holding all the treasure from the current game to be divided later, etc.
As far as leaving the dead in their skivvies, I'd think it distasteful, especially if the rest of the group was just doing out of greed, UNLESS that is the type of group the players are running.
I wouldn't be surprised if the player left pissed, and left the other players pissed, they didn't rob then defile his corpse. They shouldn't, but I can see why they would.
And, just because I find it distasteful, as a general practice, I don't see how I, as DM, could justify interfering or retaliating against the players if they did rob another players dead pc corpse.
Meta-game DM-retaliation is actually far worse than pc's behaving badly.
I wouldn't be surprised if the player left pissed, and left the other players pissed, they didn't rob then defile his corpse. They shouldn't, but I can see why they would.
Really? I don't think I'd care in the slightest. Unless I wished to have my PC resurrected, but that's another story...
Whenever another PC dies, I ask the player (in and out of character, assuming we can communicate with the dead PC) if he wants us to try and bring him back (assuming that's possible) or if he would rather create another character.
If the player decides his characters would rather stay dead, we loot his corpse, because we have need of it and he doesn't. If he wants to be ressed, we simply give him his stuff back when he comes back to life.
I wouldn't be surprised if the player left pissed, and left the other players pissed, they didn't rob then defile his corpse. They shouldn't, but I can see why they would.Really? I don't think I'd care in the slightest. Unless I wished to have my PC resurrected, but that's another story...
Whenever another PC dies, I ask the player (in and out of character, assuming we can communicate with the dead PC) if he wants us to try and bring him back (assuming that's possible) or if he would rather create another character.
If the player decides his characters would rather stay dead, we loot his corpse, because we have need of it and he doesn't. If he wants to be ressed, we simply give him his stuff back when he comes back to life.
This is how I've seen it handled in 99% of the games that I've been in. There have been a few rare times where the person's gear wasn't distributed for the good of the party. Two that I can think of immediately: A magical sword and shield were heirlooms and so was kept by the group only to take back to the character's family; and the Zen Archer's bow was given to him by his temple as part of their religious beliefs, and so it was sent back with the monk's body.
And again, as for keeping WBL balance
Good over all rule, but I build characters up level by level. I delve deeply into their story and equipment "along the way" of that story helps solidify the overall concept of the character. The character may have taken feats or classes according to equipment available to him/her. Might I suggest the new character start with a minimum of 2 level wealth or possibly 3rd?When the new pc joins the group, He is not made with any gear of his own beyond basic first level gear (no matter his level). He receives all the gear. Anything he cannot use/does not want can be swapped with someone in the party or sold for half price.
That's fine. It's only a suggestion anyway.
and starting with level 2 or 3 wealth will help offset the incompatibility of incoming items (Try saying that 3 times in a row!).
Some experimentation may be needed to determine the best way to do it, but the general principle would be that dead guys gear goes to new guy to maintain WBL at a reasonable level.
I gotta ask...
To the people who are against the PCs looting their fallen comrade...
How do you propose that the GM stops them from doing so?
Well, the topic is about the 'should.'
Really, the 'should' depends on the group and the circumstance. Out of general principle I'm against stripping down the fallen, but there are really good examples for players to act to the contrary; the fallen pc was holding a relevant quest item, was holding all the treasure from the current game to be divided later, etc.
As far as leaving the dead in their skivvies, I'd think it distasteful, especially if the rest of the group was just doing out of greed, UNLESS that is the type of group the players are running.
I wouldn't be surprised if the player left pissed, and left the other players pissed, they didn't rob then defile his corpse. They shouldn't, but I can see why they would.
And, just because I find it distasteful, as a general practice, I don't see how I, as DM, could justify interfering or retaliating against the players if they did rob another players dead pc corpse.
Meta-game DM-retaliation is actually far worse than pc's behaving badly.
In real life, if you and three buddies you served in Iraq with decided to follow a treasure map into a cavern in south american, and one of the guys got attacked by a large cat and killed, would you take his gun, food, radio, gps and climbing gear or would you bury him in it?
I'm not talking about taking it to his family later. I mean, for the rest of your adventures in south america looking for the golden skull, do you use his bullets, food and radio or is that distasteful?
Sure, but in real life ammo, sustenance, communication, and general equipment would be a genuine concern, not so much in game (ammo perhaps, for some classes). In the game the other players aren't concerned about any extra rations a dead wizard had, they are salivating over the dead wizards Staff of the Magi. Not really the same thing.
To make an accurate analogy to real life you'd say. . .
Oh, yeah, there isn't one.
This topic reminds me of the loot everything play style of MMO's, which made me think how pissed people would get in a pnp game if the players had to deal with npc ninja looters, or high lvl adventuring parties pk'ing the group.
I'd never do it, but thinking about it is hilarious.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because combat maneuvers and spells are Character X doing something to Player Character Y.
"Random Will save because your party member died lol" is GM X doing something to Player Character Y.
THAT is the distinction, and it is an important one.
Being magic or mundane doesn't matter. Player agency does.
If a huge Barbarian comes along and forces a vial of poison down my Wizard's throat... Oh, well, so is life... I couldn't defend myself, it happens. Being overpowered/compelled is a risk for every character, but it's a in-game event. Those are just in-game conditions to which my character will react however I see fit, the fact that I may fail doesn't mean I lost my agency.
OTOH, the GM saying "You're thirsty, you drink the vial of poison" removes my agency. That's not a in-game event to which you can react however you like, this is the GM being a dick and telling you what you like.
It's the difference between your character being killed by a dragon and the GM telling you "your character is so afraid, she commits suicide".
Can't you see the distinction?
Rynjin and Lemmy have it covered. GMs control the world and everything in it except for the PCs. Once the GM starts playing the PCs characters for them, attributing thoughts and feelings to them that go against the player's vision for their character, it crosses a fundamental line most groups consider sacred in the game.
It's not a kind of game in which I'd want to be a player or a GM.
Being shaken up by a supernatural frightful presence? Fine. Freaky-assed supernatural horrors, grrr.
Being thrown off your game by an in-combat intimidation check? Fine. There are many ways to play that negative penalty that meshes with your personality.
Being told that your character breaks and runs and leaves their fallen comrades behind and unavenged, possibly along with other allies that are still alive and now even more outnumbered, without any external compulsion and regardless of your character's personality? I can't invest in a game where sort of thing happens.
Being told "no, your character feels this way" without some sort of good in-setting justification mainly makes one feel like their character isn't really their own anymore.
|
Being thrown off your game by an in-combat intimidation check? Fine. There are many ways to play that negative penalty that meshes with your personality.
For example:
1) I am actually frightened by that person.
2) I am angered by that person's arrogance and my anger makes me careless.
3) I find that person's display of prowess arousing and therefore distracting.
4) That person's aggressive display suddenly reminds me of a past enemy or abusive relative or guardian, leaving me unable to concentrate.
Sure, but in real life ammo, sustenance, communication, and general equipment would be a genuine concern, not so much in game (ammo perhaps, for some classes). In the game the other players aren't concerned about any extra rations a dead wizard had, they are salivating over the dead wizards Staff of the Magi. Not really the same thing.
To make an accurate analogy to real life you'd say. . .
Oh, yeah, there isn't one.
I disagree. The previous example gives something precisely in the ballpark that you glossed over. The ammunition and food, yeah sure maybe those are not hard to find, but the gps is the analog to the staff of the magi, in that it is an item that will help us continue our mission/quest and it would only be detrimental to us to bury our comrade with it. Also if an enemy comes upon our fallen comrade (perhaps they saw us bury him, we did not bury him well enough, the way they come upon him is unimportant) they have now been given an expensive piece of equipment that can be used against us.
Now I am not saying loot the dead and leave them naked in the streets. However, there are definitely times where it would be perfectly appropriate to take equipment from fallen comrades.
GPS is more of an everyday, easily accessible item. Most people's phones have them. With the right circuit board, chip, and a nine-volt battery, you can make one for about $20.
But even then, those are good excuses, I'm just doubting any of them are ever legitimately used, and it's more about simple greed, instead. I've offered a number of examples that justify looting dead characters myself.
No, Cranefist, I'm not. Nothing matters besides knowing that according to you, if I died, you'd strip me of all my valuables and go on your way. And that you are alright with that, is really creepy to me. And distasteful.
GPS is more of an everyday, easily accessible item. Most people's phones have them. With the right circuit board, chip, and a nine-volt battery, you can make one for about $20.
But even then, those are good excuses, I'm just doubting any of them are ever legitimately used, and it's more about simple greed, instead. I've offered a number of examples that justify looting dead characters myself.
No, Cranefist, I'm not. Nothing matters besides knowing that according to you, if I died, you'd strip me of all my valuables and go on your way. And that you are alright with that, is really creepy to me. And distasteful.
The bolded is really only partially true, and then only if we are talking about first world countries. Not everyone has a cellphone, not everyone who has a cellphone has one with gps functionality, and those systems don't work everywhere even within the first world country. Heck I live in Los Angeles, a fairly major city and plenty of our cellphones GPS service does not work in certain places here.
If we are in smaller countries, especially war torn zones like the supposed mission we might be on, or in the Mountains, the cell phone gps is fairly unlikely to work. The military gps system that we want will be more expensive.
Also, I have never seen a situation where (outside of evil characters) the reason behind taking important items from a fallen comrade was greed. I know its anecdotal evidence and thus not always true for the majority, but out of curiosity have you had experiences with players like that? I can't even imagine the people I play with taking the items purely out of greed.
I'm not. Nothing matters besides knowing that according to you, if I died, you'd strip me of all my valuables and go on your way. And that you are alright with that, is really creepy to me. And distasteful.
Not to delve too far into real-world philosophy, but if I were in a combat situation (and what adventuring group isn't, almost constantly?) and carrying gear that might help my friends survive, and the didn't take it off of me - that's not creepy to me, it's just dumb.
As I said before, in WWII, My dad said they took combat gear for themselves to use. Returned the issue rifle later. As far as personal gear, they divvied up war souvenirs (like a samurai sword or Luger) , and his stash of cigs, booze and porn. His watch, jewelry and other stuff was returned home, unless he had told some guy “Bob, if I buy one, I want you to have my watch.”
These boards always amaze me in that many non-issues are such problems for other groups.
My group has never had a problem with this. Gear from the fallen is redistributed to other players ala DrDeth's examples, and personal gear is buried/burned with the fallen. Either that or they are jammed in the bag of holding for later reviving.
Virtually every player we have tends to be an orphan (hah), but also I think that in most cases your party would be your truest friends. You spend all your time with them, trust your life and soul to them, so they likely mean more to you than family.
Rynjin and Lemmy have it covered. GMs control the world and everything in it except for the PCs. Once the GM starts playing the PCs characters for them, attributing thoughts and feelings to them that go against the player's vision for their character, it crosses a fundamental line most groups consider sacred in the game.
It's not a kind of game in which I'd want to be a player or a GM.
Being shaken up by a supernatural frightful presence? Fine. Freaky-assed supernatural horrors, grrr.
Being thrown off your game by an in-combat intimidation check? Fine. There are many ways to play that negative penalty that meshes with your personality.
Being told that your character breaks and runs and leaves their fallen comrades behind and unavenged, possibly along with other allies that are still alive and now even more outnumbered, without any external compulsion and regardless of your character's personality? I can't invest in a game where sort of thing happens.
Being told "no, your character feels this way" without some sort of good in-setting justification mainly makes one feel like their character isn't really their own anymore.
This is, ultimately, a really fine distinction. What it's really saying to me is the frightened condition can be imposed by magic or something supernatural - not a mundane morale check. All the arguments about player agency, in this case and throughout this side discussion, are really skirting the actual issue - and that's what's sorts of losses of control are acceptable by mundane abilities/events and what ones are acceptable by magic/supernatural sources.
Now, I might agree that morale checking isn't necessary for PCs (though I miss seeing it for NPCs, frankly) or that it doesn't need to impose a condition as serious as frightened or panicked (shaken or dazed would suffice, I think). We do want them made of sterner stuff. But loss of control to mundane events in general? Like I said, as long as there's a good balance to the mechanic, involves some kind of overcoming of defense, and the process makes sense, I don't have a problem with it.
You wait until your fellow players are dead before looting them? Unconscious is good enough for me.
Sometimes I even give the looted gear back if they survive.
Depends on the character\alignment.
My baby Bard (may she rest in pieces) had a habit of pilfering stuff from friend and foe alike.
Being magic or mundane doesn't matter. Player agency does.If a huge Barbarian comes along and forces a vial of poison down my Wizard's throat... Oh, well, so is life... I couldn't defend myself, it happens. Being overpowered/compelled is a risk for every character, but it's a in-game event. Those are just in-game conditions to which my character will react however I see fit, the fact that I may fail doesn't mean I lost my agency.
OTOH, the GM saying "You're thirsty, you drink the vial of poison" removes my agency. That's not a in-game event to which you can react however you like, this is the GM being a dick and telling you what you like.
It's the difference between your character being killed by a dragon and the GM telling you "your character is so afraid, she commits suicide".
Can't you see the distinction?
Who is arguing that the dragon fear is making you commit suicide or that a PC is so thirsty he'll drink poison? I thought the point on discussion was that PCs could fail a morale check and flee the battle as if under the frightened condition (the cause fear idea raised above). Otherwise, what I think you're doing is obscuring the central point of what I'm saying with your own straw men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who is arguing that the dragon fear is making you commit suicide or that a PC is so thirsty he'll drink poison? I thought the point on discussion was that PCs could fail a morale check and flee the battle as if under the frightened condition (the cause fear idea raised above). Otherwise, what I think you're doing is obscuring the central point of what I'm saying with your own straw men.
Those are examples to illustrate my point.
If an outside force makes my character do something and she's not strong enough to resist... That's okay. It happens.
If my character does/think/feel something of her own free will, then it should always be my choice, not the GM's. Morale checks is telling your character how she feels. It's an effect, it's not a spell, it's not a skill check. It's the GM role playing your character for you.
If I say my character wouldn't run away scared just because she saw a friend die, the GM has no right to force me to do so. He can use game elements (compulsion or brute force, for example) to force my character to do something, but he shouldn't decide how my character feels/thinks. Only I can do that, because my character is the one thing I get to control, so I'd be really pissed if my GM simply decides what she does, thinks or feel.
Do you really not see my point?
Those are examples to illustrate my point.If an outside force makes my character do something and she's not strong enough to resist... That's okay.
If my character does/think/feel something of her own free will, then it should always be my choice, not the GM's. Morale checks is telling your character how she feels. It's an effect, it's not a spell, it's not a skill check. It's the GM role playing your character for you.
If I say my character wouldn't run away scared just because she saw a friend die, the GM has no right to force me to do so. He can use game elements (compulsion or brute force, for example) to force my character to do something, but he shouldn't decide how my character feels/thinks. Only I can do that, because my character is the one thing I get to control, so I'd be really pissed if my GM simply decides what she does, thinks or feel.
Do your rally not see my point?
But you would be OK with fleeing if you blew a save vs some magical or supernatural effect that put you under a frightened or panicked condition? Why would that be OK for a magic effect but not a mundane one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Becuase there's a Save. And it's part of the Encounter which is then part of the ECL, etc.
Not just the DM deciding my character runs away like the French Army.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you would be OK with fleeing if you blew a save vs some magical or supernatural effect that put you under a frightened or panicked condition? Why would that be OK for a magic effect but not a mundane one?
Yup. As long it has a better reason than "Your character is afraid because I said so."
Does an enemy has a mundane ability to instill fear? Okay. I have no problem. Even if the GM created the ability.Now, if I see a monster and the GM says "This creature is so terrible, you're terrified the moment you see it" and it has nothing that could force me to be afraid (mundane or otherwise), that's the the GM forcing me to role play something I don't want.
That's why I don't like the idea of a "player morale check". Because it effectively role plays for you. It's not an outside force making the character be afraid (I highly doubt your friend had a "if killed, all allies have to make a will save or get the panicked condition" ability),
No, it's in your character's nature to be afraid. Except, you didn't create this aspect of her personality, your GM did, and he forced it on you. And that's pretty much the worst thing a GM can do to a player.
Becuase there's a Save. And it's part of the Encounter which is then part of the ECL, etc.
Not just the DM deciding my character runs away like the French Army.
Irrelevant. The suggested effect further up the thread included a save.
But you would be OK with fleeing if you blew a save vs some magical or supernatural effect that put you under a frightened or panicked condition? Why would that be OK for a magic effect but not a mundane one?Yup. As long it has a better reason than "Your character is afraid because I said so."
Does an enemy has a mundane ability to instill fear? Okay. I have no problem. Even if the GM created the ability.
But if you go back and check the post that first suggested imposing a modified cause fear effect for a companion going down, there's a check and everything. So, no problem, right?
Now, if I see a monster and the GM says "This creature is so terrible, you're terrified the moment you see it" and it has nothing that could force me to be afraid (mundane or otherwise), that's the the GM forcing me to role play something I don't want.
Fortunately, that's not what we've been discussing here.
That's why I don't like the idea of a "player morale check". Because it effectively role plays for you. It's not an outside force making the character be afraid (I highly doubt your friend had a "if killed, all allies have to make a will save or get the panicked condition" ability),
No, it's in your character's nature to be afraid. Except, you didn't create this aspect of her personality, your GM did, and he forced it on you. And that's pretty much the worst thing a GM can do to a player.
And here's where you're confusing the issue again. This isn't the GM just saying "You're afraid and leaving your friend behind." Rather, he's got a check that you need to make and could succeed at. Granted, if the GM pulled this out of his hiney in an inconsistent manner, I'd be suspicious of his motives. But if this were the case in all fights vs opponents of a certain power or after particularly nasty take downs, then it's a consistent, mundane effect against which your PC has a defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Irrelevant. The suggested effect further up the thread included a save.Becuase there's a Save. And it's part of the Encounter which is then part of the ECL, etc.
Not just the DM deciding my character runs away like the French Army.
What you seem to be extrapolating (at least to me) is a sort of "Tactics" stat block, but for PCs instead of NPCs.
Numerous NPCs include sections in their stats that describe tactics - which often includes things like, "Flees if reduced to less than 10 hit points," or, "Flees if more than half its group is standing."
That works with NPCs, because the GM is the one in control of the NPCs.
By attempting to apply such a stat block to a PC, you're removing that decision from the player - even if you're including a saving throw. Perhaps the player's mental "stat block" for his character includes, "Will never flee from a foe unless he is forced to by a magical or supernatural effect".
What you seem to be extrapolating (at least to me) is a sort of "Tactics" stat block, but for PCs instead of NPCs.Numerous NPCs include sections in their stats that describe tactics - which often includes things like, "Flees if reduced to less than 10 hit points," or, "Flees if more than half its group is standing."
That works with NPCs, because the GM is the one in control of the NPCs.
By attempting to apply such a stat block to a PC, you're removing that decision from the player - even if you're including a saving throw. Perhaps the player's mental "stat block" for his character includes, "Will never flee from a foe unless he is forced to by a magical or supernatural effect".
I am not doing so. I refer you back to the post by Craig Frankum earlier in this thread that suggested what is effectively a PC morale check.
And as I see it, the player doesn't get to unilaterally make up a mental stat block saying what effects he's immune to unless those immunities come from the rules of the game. Otherwise, what's to stop him from saying that he's immune to anything he wants?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you go back and check the post that first suggested imposing a modified cause fear effect for a companion going down, there's a check and everything. So, no problem, right?But you would be OK with fleeing if you blew a save vs some magical or supernatural effect that put you under a frightened or panicked condition? Why would that be OK for a magic effect but not a mundane one?Yup. As long it has a better reason than "Your character is afraid because I said so."
Does an enemy has a mundane ability to instill fear? Okay. I have no problem. Even if the GM created the ability.
There is no "morale check" rule for PCs. The GM can create rules, of course, no problem with that... But creating a rule that says "you character has to resist the urge of [acting on a aspect of her personality that only exists because the GM forced it upon you] is bad GMing.
Now, if I see a monster and the GM says "This creature is so terrible, you're terrified the moment you see it" and it has nothing that could force me to be afraid (mundane or otherwise), that's the the GM forcing me to role play something I don't want.Fortunately, that's not what we've been discussing here.
Switch the word "monster" with the word "event" and it's just as stupid of a rule.
And here's where you're confusing the issue again. This isn't the GM just saying "You're afraid and leaving your friend behind." Rather, he's got a check that you need to make and could succeed at. Granted, if the GM pulled this out of his hiney in an inconsistent manner, I'd be suspicious of his motives. But if this were the case in all fights vs opponents of a certain power or after particularly nasty take downs, then it's a consistent, mundane effect against which your PC has a defense.That's why I don't like the idea of a "player morale check". Because it effectively role plays for you. It's not an outside force making the character be afraid (I highly doubt your friend had a "if killed, all allies have to make a will save or get the panicked condition" ability),
No, it's in your character's nature to be afraid. Except, you didn't create this aspect of her personality, your GM did, and he forced it on you. And that's pretty much the worst thing a GM can do to a player.
The fact that there's a will save to resist acting an aspect of your character's personality doesn't change the fact that the GM decided what that personality is on his own and forced that decision on the player.
A forced arbitrary morale check to see if my character is panicked because she saw someone die is just as stupid as a a forced arbitrary morale check to decide my character's favorite color. "You see someone die, make a will save or be afraid" is as much nonsense as "You see a cute puppy, make a will save or run into the shop and buy it right now". My character is not scared by people dying and she's not a impulsive dog person either, unless I say so.The GM has no business telling me what's my character's thoughts and personality. He can force rule 0 on me, sure, but doing so to control my character's personality is the kind of thing that would make me leave a game.
|
One thing that I've done as a GM is to develop "personalized" treasures for PCs - these are magic items or artifacts that are keyed to the character. One example that springs to mind was a lucky sash that was made from a dress that once belonged to the character's mother and which conferred morale bonuses. Another was an amulet of natural armor for a barbarian that was blessed by a shaman from her tribe and tied to the power of her god. Those kinds of items wouldn't work for another PC, so they got buried with the dead character. This of course was inaddition to less personal magic items which the party would sometimes loot.
Wow, I am amazed at the length this discussion has gotten, in my groups we have ALWAYS had money, items, gear redistributed within the group UNLESS the player was to be rezzed in some fashion. It's never caused any issues in the slightest and again unless the character was to be rezzed I've always encouraged them not to leave powerful items just laying about...
Anyway good times.
I think so. Depends on how the character dies and if he quit in a huff, then might as well divvy up the treasure and increase difficulty as necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you seem to be extrapolating (at least to me) is a sort of "Tactics" stat block, but for PCs instead of NPCs.Numerous NPCs include sections in their stats that describe tactics - which often includes things like, "Flees if reduced to less than 10 hit points," or, "Flees if more than half its group is standing."
That works with NPCs, because the GM is the one in control of the NPCs.
By attempting to apply such a stat block to a PC, you're removing that decision from the player - even if you're including a saving throw. Perhaps the player's mental "stat block" for his character includes, "Will never flee from a foe unless he is forced to by a magical or supernatural effect".
I am not doing so. I refer you back to the post by Craig Frankum earlier in this thread that suggested what is effectively a PC morale check.
And as I see it, the player doesn't get to unilaterally make up a mental stat block saying what effects he's immune to unless those immunities come from the rules of the game. Otherwise, what's to stop him from saying that he's immune to anything he wants?
I actually addressed that.
In the rules of the game, there are certain effects that require saving throws; failure indicates that you flee.
The player is not "saying he's immune to anything he wants"; he's stating that unless there is a specific effect spelled out in the rules
of the game that will force him to do otherwise, he won't flee. He's saying, "Based on the rules, unless magic forces him, my character isn't going to run - period."
A "player morale check" isn't one of those - at least, based on my knowledge of the system. It would be a house rule - in which case it would be up to the GM and the player to determine what worked at their table.
From a personal perspective, if I didn't agree with the scenario presented to me by the GM to justify forcing my character to flee, against his character? I wouldn't do it; I would continue on with my turn, ignoring it, and if that ticked the GM off, then so be it. If it came down to it, then I would probably be finding a new table. And yes, it really is that big a deal to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you would be OK with fleeing if you blew a save vs some magical or supernatural effect that put you under a frightened or panicked condition? Why would that be OK for a magic effect but not a mundane one?
Well, I hate repeating myself but since you didn't get it the first time:
One is A.) A magical force that exists in-universe whose entire purpose is to warp the laws of reality and the minds of men to the caster's will, which overwrites your character's will MAGICALLY (forcing them to act in a way they normally wouldn't with an in-game justification) and B.) A character in-game doing something to your character.
The second is neither of these things. It is, as previously stated, the GM forcing your character to do something outside of his own character, with no in-game justification.
Perhaps a fine distinction, but an important one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's right up there with:
DM: Your PC finds the Elf woman extremely attractive, and find yourself unable to control yourself. You fall to one knee, and begin pawing her hand.
Player: What? Is this a spell? Do I get a save?
DM: No, she is just that attractive.
Player: My character hates Elves. It is even his backstory, that I gave you. Besides, he is gay.
DM: Well, her beauty is beyond what your hatred can suppress.
Player: Is this a special ability? Did you miss the part where I said I was gay.
DM: Well, her beauty surpasses gender.
Player: Still an Elf, still a woman, not happening.
DM: Well, that is what you do. You have no control over it. You end up later that night in her arms.
Player: Alright, PC is already yours now, and you control it. Enjoy your new NPC.
But you would be OK with fleeing if you blew a save vs some magical or supernatural effect that put you under a frightened or panicked condition? Why would that be OK for a magic effect but not a mundane one?Well, I hate repeating myself but since you didn't get it the first time:
One is A.) A magical force that exists in-universe whose entire purpose is to warp the laws of reality and the minds of men to the caster's will, which overwrites your character's will MAGICALLY (forcing them to act in a way they normally wouldn't with an in-game justification) and B.) A character in-game doing something to your character.
The second is neither of these things. It is, as previously stated, the GM forcing your character to do something outside of his own character, with no in-game justification.
Perhaps a fine distinction, but an important one.
Oh, I get your argument. I just don't ascribe the same persuasive value to it. I'm more persuaded that a mundane effect could impose a frightened, maybe even panicked, condition on a PC. Or cause a PC to totally lose their cool and lash out in anger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that such a mundane effect is by its very nature an example of the GM taking control of the PC away from the player, which is never an example of good GMing.
It's the same scenario as using Diplomacy on PCs to make the players do what you want. It's not a good idea.
Do people think it would be bad to give the PCs a bonus in a desperate battle if some NPC leader made an inspiring rallying cry to the beleagured garrison they were helping to defend?
Do people think it would be bad to give the PCs a bonus in a desperate battle if some NPC leader made an inspiring rallying cry to the beleagured garrison they were helping to defend?
I assume you mean without the NPC leader having a specific power to do so? I don't have a problem with it, but I'd want to make sure the players knew it was a special circumstance and not something that could be counted on like a regular power.
I just wondered whether the objection to a mundane effect influencing the players was purely because it was a negative thing. Or is the objection that it dictates an action (rather than a bonus)?
As an alternative:
If the DM ruled that watching your buddy die in particularly gruesome way imposed a -1 to all actions for the next minute or so, would that offend people as much as making them run away?
Not as much but it's still a bad rule.
At the very least, there's room for interpretation in a -1 to rolls. It could be reckless anger at the friend being killed, fear, grief, etc.
Do you think a mundane effect imposing a -1 condition is worse than a mundane effect granting a +1 bonus (like the 'inspiring speech' I suggested above)?
I'm really just curious as to the objection, I dont think a 'save or runaway' mechanic adds much to the game, so I wouldnt be a fan. Nonetheless, some of the objections were along the lines of 'magic can do it, mundane things cant' and I wondered whether being a positive/negative would impact on people's opinions.
While neither are very good game mechanics -wise (that's stuff Intimidate/Cause Fear and Bardic Performance/Bless do, why is a mundane effect matching those magical ones and/or a concerted effort by one person to impose the same effect on a single target?) at the very least the positive one isn't the Gm trying to screw the players.
GM helpfulness is always better than adversarial-ism.
Cheers.
I'm running a game and a character died, the player then rage quit the group. He had some good gear, I feel as though the other players should be able to loot his corpse, but I fear if they get all the stuff he had, its going to overpower the existing players? What are your thoughts on this Pathfinder Community?!
Of course!
|
|
This is, ultimately, a really fine distinction. What it's really saying to me is the frightened condition can be imposed by magic or something supernatural - not a mundane morale check. All the arguments about player agency, in this case and throughout this side discussion, are really skirting the actual issue - and that's what's sorts of losses of control are acceptable by mundane abilities/events and what ones are acceptable by magic/supernatural sources.
Now, I might agree that morale checking isn't necessary for PCs (though I miss seeing it for NPCs, frankly) or that it doesn't need to impose a condition as serious as frightened or panicked (shaken or dazed would suffice, I think). We do want them made of sterner stuff. But loss of control to mundane events in general? Like I said, as long as there's a good balance to the mechanic,...
The distinction is that bad approaches take characterization out of the player's(including the GM here) hands.
Those cut-and-run examples overwrite personalities with no justification. If it was magic or some mundane force* that actually makes sense acting on someone to make them act OOC, the PC's characterization is left intact. The player can at least look at what happened and know that something was messing with their character's head rather than having their PC's personality overwritten.
*Pheromones, mind-affecting technology, etc. Not "dude insults you good" or "people are dyilng around you!"
If the DM ruled that watching your buddy die in particularly gruesome way imposed a -1 to all actions for the next minute or so, would that offend people as much as making them run away?
It would be far less objectionable, since it leaves the character's personality in the player's hands and allows for different ways to interpret it. It doesn't result in stuff like devoted healers leaving the wounded to die or barbarians more likely to fly into a rage when friends are killed running away in a panic instead. Instead, it throws them off their game in various ways, and leaves the "how" of it up to the players to decide.
Personal experience: Playing a serious character strongly devoted to his friends. One of those friends died. An NPC bard publicly mocked his friends, including the dead one. I described myself as scowling in obvious disapproval. I was told that I laughed instead because he was apparently that funny.
That was not a fun or immersive experience.
The GM Horror Story threads are filled with far worse examples.
Unless the dm is going to fiat it that the party can't use the wealth and gear of the dead player, it is not really an issue.