If your character is made to do something against the Player's will, it should be because magic is forcing them to do it, not because they secretly wanted to the whole time. You know, as it works already.
If your character is made to do something against the Player's will, it should be because magic is forcing them to do it, not because they secretly wanted to the whole time. You know, as it works already.
Yeah, as I wrote in my initial response, the whole idea is incoherent.
Magic forces you to do things you don't want to do. Fine, it's magic, that's what it does.
Magic forces you to want to do things you don't want to do, but without forcing you or in any way subverting your own will. That's not right. That's not even wrong. That's word salad.
As C.S. Lewis wrote (paraphrased), "a meaningless sentence will not gain meaning just because someone chooses to prefix to it the phrase 'Magic can.' And it is meaningless to speak of forcing a man to do freely what he freely chooses not to do."
I'm also not clear what benefit this is supposed to provide, which just makes it an even worse idea.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
here are some more grey area questions.
Can i make my player's character blink, if they haven't blinked in 10 days?
How do you know they haven't blinked?
Can i make a player's character drop their weapon when they fall asleep?
Did something make them fall asleep magically? If not, probably not, sleeping with a weapon in hand and on top of you is very possible.
Can i, for whatever reason, make a player's character throw up?
Only if there's some reason for them to do so.
Can i force a player to breathe if they're holding their breathe for too long?
Not until they go unconscious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
[Emphasis mine]
Seems to me most respondents have gotten the question wrong, or approached it from the wrong angle, or at least to the way I understand it given the bolded section.
I read this entirely as a flavor exercise, and thus it has absolutely no bearing on agency or mechanics.
It is merely a reflavoring of the story of why the failed roll was a fail - and I think the word "chooses" is still unfortunate. A lack of willpower, a weak streak in their "character", or what is termed "intestinal fortitude" caused the character to fail. Or yes, in some cases, they choose the worse option (failing the Will save due to the dice) because they are cruel, vain, despondent or some other calamitous mental factor that creates self loathing and self-destructive behaviour.
And thus, I think it can work beautifully for story in a game where it makes sense in that story and for that particular character.
When it makes sense, sure. But I feel that's something the player should handle when it happens, not adjudicated by the GM (more than anything the else the player does, anyways.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. I guess I'm missing who the "you" is in "you describe failed Will saves".
If the GM, without passing it by the character? Awful, and yes, loss of agency.
If the Player? Fine.
Thanks Tyinyk.
|
|
People didn't misunderstand anything. The pitch was for it to be a failure of character every time you failed a Will save. For that to be what a failed Will Save meant.
Which is really objectionable.
Now, even just applying it to a particular Save is still pretty objectionable as a GM, since it's still denying the player the right to make decisions about their own character (ie: the only thing they actually get to make decisions about).
But if you want to do that as a player? Sure. That's totally reasonable. And also not what the pitch was suggesting or what was being objected to.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.
I definitely misunderstood it. ;p
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
[Emphasis mine]
Seems to me most respondents have gotten the question wrong, or approached it from the wrong angle, or at least to the way I understand it given the bonded section.
I read this entirely as a flavor exercise, and thus it has absolutely no bearing on agency or mechanics.
It is merely a reflavoring of the story of why the failed roll was a fail - and I think the word "chooses" is still unfortunate. A lack of willpower, a weak streak in their "character", or what is termed "intestinal fortitude" caused the character to fail. Or yes, in some cases, they choose the worse option (failing the Will save due to the dice) because they are cruel, vain, despondent or some other calamitous mental factor that creates self loathing and self-destructive behaviour.
And thus, I think it can work beautifully for story in a game where it makes sense in that story and for that particular character.
Actually, it HAS been stated that it would make an inconsistent, nonsensical, and annoying game where every character MUST be a horrible person at heart in every imaginable way, which answers the question posed. The rest of the discussion is relevant as a logical extension of the conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is merely a reflavoring of the story of why the failed roll was a fail - and I think the word "chooses" is still unfortunate. A lack of willpower, a weak streak in their "character", or what is termed "intestinal fortitude" caused the character to fail.
So I as the player don't get to pick my character's "character" flaws?
Most modern RPG systems are very big on picking specific character traits -- virtues, flaws, strengths, weaknesses, and so forth -- as an aid to role-playing and to making characters realistic. Othello is very masterful, but extremely jealous. Pothos is very brave, but also vain and boastful. Hermione Granger is very intelligent, but also very rule-bound. Captain Jack Sparrow is charismatic, but deceitful and untrustworthy.
D&D 5e shows one way of formalizing it. Characters are supposed to pick "ideals," "bonds," and "flaws" -- my ranger is very loyal, but also mistrustful. Chris' sorceror is very brave, but scatterbrained, and Pat's valiant warrior is easily distracted by a drink or a pretty face.
This would cause characters to fail randomly without any thematic connection. My greedy and cowardly rogue is just as likely to steal treasure when no one's looking as she is to charge headfirst into battle out of unreasonable rage? That doesn't make sense, and it's not consistent with the character as I envisoned her -- or, for that matter, as the GM envisoned her, because there's no actual "vision" involved.
That's not morality. That's schizophrenia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People didn't misunderstand anything. The pitch was for it to be a failure of character every time you failed a Will save. For that to be what a failed Will Save meant.
Which is really objectionable.
Now, even just applying it to a particular Save is still pretty objectionable as a GM, since it's still denying the player the right to make decisions about their own character (ie: the only thing they actually get to make decisions about).
I don't think it does. Because doing this means all sorts of possibilities (including, but not limited to): that the PC chooses how they fail their save, they choose how they interpret the orders, they choose how reasonable something is, and/or they choose NPCs' failures as well.
It is definitely not for most groups, because it certainly can remove the feeling of player agency. But it does not inherently remove player agency. Certainly doing this with the wrong group would be nothing but an exercise in frustration.
Similarly it doesn't mean everyone is inherently an evil person - rather it represents a shift in the understanding of the nature of people. For people like me, the idea that everyone has darkness within them not only isn't an alien concept, it seems reasonable: it just matters whether or not your conscience is in charge, or your darker nature at that time.
Further, the concept isn't necessarily a failure for a particular sin. It can be re-framed as a failure of will due to desire to give into <effect> rather than desire to give into <command> - a very important distinction.
It can be interpreted as a voluntary surrender to something that feels really good, submitting to something else and surrendering your own desires for those of something else. It's terrifying, but not necessarily inhuman or incomprehensible. It depends on how it's spun and on the player agency and buy-in from the beginning.
This can create new and interesting worlds that haven't been explored prior or that have various rule subsystems kludged on after-the-fact - including addiction to magical compulsion or temptation and redemption, the addictive/seductive nature of magic, and so on.
Again, and I reiterate: it's most definitely and extremely not a concept for all groups. Probably not even for most groups. That doesn't make those bad groups (nor does it make groups that like it bad). It can make for an interesting role-playing experience, if the group in question is interested in exploring that kind of a world (whatever kind that is).
There are certainly things to be wary of, and there are certainly people with whom this sort of thing should not be done with for all sorts of reasons. But that can be true of pretty much any RP game style. Tailor your game to your audience/table. That's very important no matter who you are or what you've got.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good grief. I wasn't expecting this degree of hostility. Sure, it's a bad idea. I give up.
Credit where credit's due: it's an interesting idea. And a new one. So that's good.
Problem is that it is a bad idea. For this game.
The biggest issue is that it violates the principle of heroism.
"Oh, Doug just failed a save against being charmed by the evil guy... because he sort of wants to work for the evil guy. Well, screw him. Let's just go ahead and recruit someone who doesn't harbor secret desires to undermine our whole heroic save-the-world plan."
Basically, the moment it becomes known that characters fail saves because they want to, their motivations become questionable, at which point they become untrustworthy people.
But again, otherwise an interesting and unique idea.
Your point about flaws is really interesting; if the GM were to flavor these effects as playing off your character's chosen flaws when causing a subversion, would you still have an issue with it?
Yes, for at least two reasons.
First, because my cowardice is not going to cause me to behave lecherously, or irrationally enraged, or narcoleptically, et cetera.
Second, because I have the option to play off my character's flaws in any specific instance by choosing to fail a save. The GM ruling that I must have retroactively chosen to fail a save is not the same as my freely choosing to fail a save.
Similarly it doesn't mean everyone is inherently an evil person - rather it represents a shift in the understanding of the nature of people. For people like me, the idea that everyone has darkness within them not only isn't an alien concept, it seems reasonable: it just matters whether or not your conscience is in charge, or your darker nature at that time.
So my "darker nature" is a raving lunatic with no consistency? My "darker nature" is just as likely to want to go into a restaurant to kill and eat the waitress as it is to want to cheat on my diet?
Out of all the things that I'm likely to do in combat, my "darker nature" is just as likely to decide to take a nap or to stand on my hands as opposed to taking some tactically useful action like running away?
That's the very opposite of reasonable.
Think about how often, for example, you see animals suddenly fall asleep in the middle of combat. How is it that a sleep spell persuades my "darker nature" to do something so completely unnatural that I've never actually seen it or even read about it in behavioral journals?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dice rolls are for mechanics. Character mindset is up to the player.
Recently a character who was fearless at a table I was on failed a will save and had to flee in terror. The player said that his character thought he heard enemies outside of the boss chamber and was charging at the non existent foes.
What harm is there in letting him feel better about a bad dice roll? He followed mechanics but made the flavor of it more fun for himself. If the GM said "no, you are terrified because your character is afraid of the boss" then the mechanics would be the same and you'd have a less happy player.
Enforce the rules, not the RP
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Similarly it doesn't mean everyone is inherently an evil person - rather it represents a shift in the understanding of the nature of people. For people like me, the idea that everyone has darkness within them not only isn't an alien concept, it seems reasonable: it just matters whether or not your conscience is in charge, or your darker nature at that time.
So my "darker nature" is a raving lunatic with no consistency? My "darker nature" is just as likely to want to go into a restaurant to kill and eat the waitress as it is to want to cheat on my diet?
Out of all the things that I'm likely to do in combat, my "darker nature" is just as likely to decide to take a nap or to stand on my hands as opposed to taking some tactically useful action like running away?
That's the very opposite of reasonable.
Think about how often, for example, you see animals suddenly fall asleep in the middle of combat. How is it that a sleep spell persuades my "darker nature" to do something so completely unnatural that I've never actually seen it or even read about it in behavioral journals?
Nnnnnnnnnno. In your haste to reject the idea, you ignored,
Further, the concept isn't necessarily a failure for a particular sin. It can be re-framed as a failure of will due to desire to give into <effect> rather than desire to give into <command> - a very important distinction.
and,
It can be interpreted as a voluntary surrender to something that feels really good, submitting to something else and surrendering your own desires for those of something else.
It's not in what the command tells you to do that the failure is. It's in submitting to the command because it feels good or is alluring to do so.
You've never read about it in behavioral journals because there's nothing like "Hey, listen to these words and obey them; it feels really, really good." equivalent in real life. Just like there's no, "Hold bat guano, say words, and explosion (with no expansion of matter, despite heat "damage" or whatever, apparently)." in real life, either.
Obviously you don't like it, and, as noted, it's a bad idea for you and your table for that exact reason. Your reasons for not liking it are rather reactionary, however, and missing the thrust of the argument. The magic is seductive because it's magic. It feels good and the moral failing is giving into <magic> that <feels good>, not in giving into <murder/death/kill/whatever> (because the part of you struggling isn't necessarily the cognitive/reasoning part). It's a very different mindset for what such things represent; obviously not for everyone, and it should come with lots of warnings.
Dice rolls are for mechanics. Character mindset is up to the player.
Recently a character who was fearless at a table I was on failed a will save and had to flee in terror. The player said that his character thought he heard enemies outside of the boss chamber and was charging at the non existent foes.
What harm is there in letting him feel better about a bad dice roll? He followed mechanics but made the flavor of it more fun for himself. If the GM said "no, you are terrified because your character is afraid of the boss" then the mechanics would be the same and you'd have a less happy player.
Enforce the rules, not the RP
This is mostly what I think most people are responding to, and why most people are responding negatively to it. Pathfinder is mostly a game about heroic empowerment. There is nothing wrong with playing it differently - and, make no mistake, this is playing it differently - but many people will not like that because it feels less empowering in the way people are used to (taking agency away in certain regards; it gives agency elsewhere, but not the kind of agency most people prefer to have when so many "identify" so closely with their own character).
I'd hazard a guess that this is best used in game groups where people identify less with the character on the paper - where it becomes interesting to explore Joe's experience (whatever that might be) and specifically in a dark and gritty world, not your experience as Joe. PF has room for both, but I think the latter is generally considered "more fun" by most people and thus the source of the most contention - and that's both valid and important. Don't spring it on a table, and don't even put it to a table you know people would have problems with it.
The world itself would become one that is much darker, weirder, and magic would become a much more dangerous force.
Most of your arguments are just nonsense. Are you trying to say that the whole discussion is about the flavoured feeling of what happens when someone fails a Will save? Because it's not. It's about directly changing the core concept of what a Will save is. It's about saying that if you fail a Will save you're just deciding to do something you've always wanted to do, which means any negative effect that you succumb to is something your character has wanted to do, regardless of what it is.
"Oh, man, I've always wanted to cannibalize my friends!"
"Man, it'd be so neat to have my friends' and my flesh rot off as we watch with horror!"
"I'm so nice and generous, but so greedy and paranoid!"
And your character has to be ALL of these things otherwise they would be immune to most spells that require Will saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of your arguments are just nonsense. Are you trying to say that the whole discussion is about the flavoured feeling of what happens when someone fails a Will save? Because it's not. It's about directly changing the core concept of what a Will save is. It's about saying that if you fail a Will save you're just deciding to do something you've always wanted to do, which means any negative effect that you succumb to is something your character has wanted to do, regardless of what it is.
"Oh, man, I've always wanted to cannibalize my friends!"
"Man, it'd be so neat to have my friends' and my flesh rot off as we watch with horror!"
"I'm so nice and generous, but so greedy and paranoid!"
And your character has to be ALL of these things otherwise they would be immune to most spells that require Will saves.
That is not what this,
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
... actually says. You can certainly read it that way (and many would and would not automatically be wrong to do so), but that's not inherently what OP states.
In other words, there are multiple ways of reading the OP - one is probably a more common reading, and there's nothing wrong with presuming that. But unilaterally rejecting someone because they don't read it that way is incorrect.
My contention is that the reading of the OP is that your character "chooses... the worse option" by choosing to succumb to the magic not the specific command. But I definitely recognize that's an uncommon reading of the OP.
It's probably not even the intent. That said, I suspect the OP wasn't always thinking of the proliferation of exceedingly specific will-save-failure-effects in PF. It seems likely that she was thinking of the more generic ones.
Also, this?
Most of your arguments are just nonsense.
... is a very rude way to phrase things. Please do not do that.
If you don't understand what I'm arguing (which is valid, as it's a very weird and not-normal concept for most people), please indicate that and request clarification (or just simply explain, "That doesn't make sense to me.") instead of impugning the nature of the arguments (and thus coming off as attacking me). Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My contention is that the reading of the OP is that your character "chooses... the worse option" by choosing to succumb to the magic not the specific command. But I definitely recognize that's an uncommon reading of the OP.
Is that not the purpose that choosing to fail a save serves? Why is it up to the dice & the gm? I mean, "choosing to succumb to the magic" reads almost exactly as "choosing to fail the relevant save." Except in this case the dice & gm are trying to exert more control than is theirs to assert.
Expanding on what Bloordrealm said, if this is applied to all will saves, characters have competing urges. If applied arbitrarily, the GM is controlling who the character is. The GM controls every NPC and monster in the world. They hardly need to dictate the personality of yet another (and if they do, make another NPC).
Actually, new thought @Umbral Reaver. Why did you suggest this? I mean, what is the intended consequence? This in part reads like you want the players to get a similar feeling of running their character that they'd get from reading a book. That is a sense of discovery of who their character is, rather than whatever the player prescribed. Is that correct? Or is there another reason (that I may have missed being posted in this thread)?
Sounds like tomato tamahto to me. Choosing to succumb to a hostile spell cast by an enemy, even not knowing what it will make you do at best makes you a dimwit, and at worst is actively working against your supposed allies.
If it actually is, as the OP says, "succumbing to temptation", then that's something specific. You can't be tempted by nothing. If the spell is going to make you a murderous cannibal and you go "Boy howdy that sure does sound tempting" we're back to my original assertion: You're amoral.
Otherwise, what is the temptation? Succumbing to "the magic not the specific command" doesn't make any sense to me without fundamentally changing how magic works in the setting. Because magic is always a specific command, that's how spells work here.
Maybe the OP didn't think of specific and only thought in general terms, but this is the scope of the question they asked.
Not if you're doing so with the intention to remove the player's agency.here are some more grey area questions.
Can i make my player's character blink, if they haven't blinked in 10 days?
Can i make a player's character drop their weapon when they fall asleep?
Can i, for whatever reason, make a player's character throw up?
Can i force a player to breathe if they're holding their breathe for too long?
I don't feel like that's an adequate answer. I feel like that's an appeal to emotion rather than an adequate explanation as to what code of conduct I am breaking.
What if we re-flavor the question as:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a
failure(usually temporary) subversion of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character finds, as a result of the failed save, that they desire to take the worse option of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), for the duration of the effect (at the end of which they remember everything clearly including their motivations for doing so, but within their normal moral framework)?
since I recently went through my dragon book again, this actually reminded me a thing on draconic essence
embodies one particular facet of dragonkind personality.
Each draconic essence is associated with a particular
alignment, energy type, and true dragon type. The
draconic exemplar must select an essence from the
following list that has a listed alignment within one step
of his alignment. He gains resist energy 5 for his
draconic essence’s energy type. This increases to resist
energy 10 at 5th level, resist energy 20 at 10th level, and
resist energy 30 at 15th level. If the draconic exemplar
gains the breath weapon draconic weaponry, his
draconic essence determines the shape and damage die
of his breath weapon. The draconic exemplar also gains
a unique compulsion based on his draconic essence that
grows harder to resist as his hereditary power grows.
The DC to resist a compulsion is 10 + ½ the draconic
exemplar’s character level + the draconic exemplar’s
Charisma modifier. His physical appearance takes on
aspects of the associated true dragon, with the amount
of required similarity subject to GM discretion (a
significant amount of visual flexibility is encouraged,
particularly for draconic exemplars with the Feykin or
Lung alternate racial traits).EXAMPLE I PICKED
Adventurous – Alignment: chaotic neutral; Energy:
electricity; Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type:
cloud. Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a
Will save to resist exploring or investigating a new
location or object of significance.
maybe if the character got to choose 1 or 2 as drawbacks of some kind they would be fair. since the player choose to have that drawback.
I don't feel like that's an adequate answer. I feel like that's an appeal to emotion rather than an adequate explanation as to what code of conduct I am breaking.Not if you're doing so with the intention to remove the player's agency.here are some more grey area questions.
Can i make my player's character blink, if they haven't blinked in 10 days?
Can i make a player's character drop their weapon when they fall asleep?
Can i, for whatever reason, make a player's character throw up?
Can i force a player to breathe if they're holding their breathe for too long?
None of that has anything to do with the discussion, so why not just drop it? Unconscious physical reflexes are not the same thing as character traits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
here are some more grey area questions.
Can i make my player's character blink, if they haven't blinked in 10 days?
How do you know they haven't blinked?
Can i make a player's character drop their weapon when they fall asleep?Did something make them fall asleep magically? If not, probably not, sleeping with a weapon in hand and on top of you is very possible.
Can i, for whatever reason, make a player's character throw up?Only if there's some reason for them to do so.
Can i force a player to breathe if they're holding their breathe for too long?Not until they go unconscious.
1. it was the aforementioned staring contest.
2. i suppose, but do you keep it every single time? I definitely always wake up in different positions3. what reasons are just barely good enough or just barely not good enough.
4. why do i gain control then?
3. Perhaps if they're poisoned or diseased. But not just for funzies have them randomly vomit.
4. Because once you become unconscious, your body reflexively breathes since you are no longer holding your breath. It's why you can't kill yourself by holding your breath. There's actually a specific spell that removes that reflex, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of that has anything to do with the discussion, so why not just drop it? Unconscious physical reflexes are not the same thing as character traits.I don't feel like that's an adequate answer. I feel like that's an appeal to emotion rather than an adequate explanation as to what code of conduct I am breaking.Not if you're doing so with the intention to remove the player's agency.here are some more grey area questions.
Can i make my player's character blink, if they haven't blinked in 10 days?
Can i make a player's character drop their weapon when they fall asleep?
Can i, for whatever reason, make a player's character throw up?
Can i force a player to breathe if they're holding their breathe for too long?
I'm pointing out that there's a flaw in the argument of a GM not being able to control a character, simply because it's a PC.
the fact that the side saying it's not a good idea, focus solely on character traits is the point, what if they're not character traits? what if they're simply human traits?
this all falls apart when you don't focus on someone say getting a will save to skim from the register, and it moves onto a will save to win a staring contest.
can I for the maximum greyest area possible, force a will save or fall in genuine love at first sight? I mean, it's usually argued that you don't get to choose to fall in love. Yet, i willing to bet that this is a no-no to most people.
I think this is more acceptable if we look at this two ways: 1) dominate person, upon failures of the various saves could exert zombie-like order to minion control over a person's actions; 2) dominate person, could be like the "he hardened his heart" passages of Exodus; as in a power that actually changes the emotional and moral outlook of an individual. Makes them want to take an action.
I know that this is not precisely what OP has in mind, but I think this is a fair spectrum on which to think about compulsions spells, without actually removing player-agency. After all, magic can do a lot, including temporarily changes the way a person thinks and believes (and no this obviously would not impact alignment, but don't get me started on alignment).
That's exactly what compulsion spells do; they forcibly change the target's mental state, opinion, etc. to do something the caster wants them to. That's not what we're talking about here, though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My motives are being questioned, so: I was thinking mostly about White Wolf games where characters often do roll dice on their urges and fears. Although, I suppose in that case everyone is usually playing a particular creature type that has a well known set of problems. The will save is too all-encompassing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Perhaps if they're poisoned or diseased. But not just for funzies have them randomly vomit.
4. Because once you become unconscious, your body reflexively breathes since you are no longer holding your breath. It's why you can't kill yourself by holding your breath. There's actually a specific spell that removes that reflex, though.
3. those both are easily in the totally fine and totally not fine categories. for instance, if he was punched in the stomach extremely hard? can i do a will/fort save to not throw up?
4. your body maybe, but not the body of Player X who has the will to not breathe even while unconscious. no seriously, I can only force reflexive conditions on someone if they fall asleep? if so, why can;t I make someone drop their weapon when they fall asleep, it's certainly a possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. This ain't a particularly hard concept. A player has one thing they control in the game: Their character. Outside the game mechanics that dictate certain things, you do not touch the player's character.
There are rules for how long you can hold your breath. You can enforce consequences for doing so for too long.
There are no rules for non-magically being compelled to love someone. That is a personality thing. The player controls that. Because it is their character. The character, in this case, is not "choosing not to fall in love". They simply don't fall in love. Unless their player wants them to. In which case they do.
You get to control the player character no more than the player gets to control the adventure you create. You might impose certain things on them via mechanics (spells and environmental effects can induce nausea; you cannot simply say "You are nauseous now"), they might change certain outcomes based on mechanics (if they crit your bad guy with their Vorpal sword, too bad for you; If they say "But then I chopped his head off in one swing" and expect that to be the case, screw them), but other than that everyone stays in their own lane.
That's what makes this a game rather than story hour.
can I for the maximum greyest area possible, force a will save or fall in genuine love at first sight? I mean, it's usually argued that you don't get to choose to fall in love. Yet, i willing to bet that this is a no-no to most people.
That's pretty close to the same thing. You're entirely removing the player and forcing a very personal character trait on their character -- a character trait which directly involves their personality and thoughts. You should work WITH your player if you both want to do something like that. Hijacking someone's character is not cool, even if it is in context, and will likely make them intensely upset.
For example, a while ago a friend of mine had her GM forcibly and arbitrarily change which deity her Paladin she was playing had to worship, even though there was no reason to. It made her have to reconsider how to play the character due to this change and she is STILL furious about it whenever it's brought up.
4. your body maybe, but not the body of Player X who has the will to not breathe even while unconscious. no seriously, I can only force reflexive conditions on someone if they fall asleep? if so, why can;t I make someone drop their weapon when they fall asleep, it's certainly a possibility.
4. Because once you become unconscious, your body reflexively breathes since you are no longer holding your breath. It's why you can't kill yourself by holding your breath. There's actually a specific spell that removes that reflex, though.
I LITERALLY LINKED YOU A SPELL WHOSE SOLE EFFECT IS TO DISABLE THE REFLEX I'M TALKING ABOUT.
And sure, maybe if you really want to you can roll randomly to see if they let go of their weapon during the night. That's not a big deal. Hijacking someone's character, however, IS a big deal, and that's what we're talking about in this thread.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. This ain't a particularly hard concept. A player has one thing they control in the game: Their character. Outside the game mechanics that dictate certain things, you do not touch the player's character.
There are rules for how long you can hold your breath. You can enforce consequences for doing so for too long.
yes, yes I can, but can someone hold their breath until they die?as mentioned earlier, how do I determine who wins a stare contest. It literally went on for weeks in-game.
Do both of those seem like perfectly fine examples of the fact that player's seem to have more control over their character's than we do in real life.
yet, also, we can't really go by the rules to dictate when to wrest control.
can I for the maximum greyest area possible, force a will save or fall in genuine love at first sight? I mean, it's usually argued that you don't get to choose to fall in love. Yet, i willing to bet that this is a no-no to most people.That's pretty close to the same thing. You're entirely removing the player and forcing a very personal character trait on their character -- a character trait which directly involves their personality and thoughts. You should work WITH your player if you both want to do something like that. Hijacking someone's character is not cool, even if it is in context, and will likely make them intensely upset.
For example, a while ago a friend of mine had her GM forcibly and arbitrarily change which deity her Paladin she was playing had to worship, even though there was no reason to. It made her have to reconsider how to play the character due to this change and she is STILL furious about it whenever it's brought up.
here's the thing, falling in love is a human trait that impacts how you behave. which is why it's the grey area.
If we base the choice on whether or not in real life it makes sense, we get this. If we only use the rules as an example, there's no rule that says you lose control of your character when you die. there's no rule that you can't sleep standing fully equiped(specially if you have the endurance feat.) basically, when and when you cannot do this, is completely arbitrary, relying on feelings.
what i'm pointing out, is that the closest rule that anyone can come up with that is okay is "is it fun?".
now, if you think there's a objective reason that this makes the game worse, provide it, otherwise, stop s~!&ting all over this idea, especially since this is how some other games run it. If you have nothing positive to add, on how to successfully run this for the most fun, for someone who would be interested on having to succeed will saves to keep their character on the straight and narrow, then respectfully, don't comment in this discussion anymore.
So, at this point, i'll just point out my idea earlier. That people may be able to take a choice on what weaknesses they have, and possibly gain maybe an extra starting feat, or a trait or two.
if the OP wants me to, I can provide a fairly large list of weaknesses from my dragon book.
That already exists. They're called Drawbacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People avoid relationships with family members so they can control who they fall in love with by not being open to the idea at all.
As for objective fun, that is hard to prove, but we can likely show that it is likely a bad idea, which I think is the point being made vs "every group and player will hate this idea". Has Sundakan made the latter argument?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're going into the "Is literally everyone who ever has played and ever will play going to be happy with this decision?" argument, we can just delete the whole forum now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what i'm getting at, is there is no objective ruleset for when it is an isn't okay to control a player character as GM.
this is something that adds a ruleset where it is okay.
as I have shown, I already have 3pp content that has this, and it works out fine if the playe r wants to accept these weaknesses.
Also, drawbacks tend to be weird and not really tied to personality quirks.
like, >what even is this?<
i'm also getting at, is if you have qualms against this, just leave, I've played under this kind of system before.
also when i see this
Good grief. I wasn't expecting this degree of hostility. Sure, it's a bad idea. I give up.
I tend to think people may not be arguing for the benefit of the one who asked anymore.
The DC to resist a compulsion is 10 + ½ the draconic
exemplar’s character level + the draconic exemplar’s
Charisma modifier.
Adventurous – Alignment: chaotic neutral; Energy:
electricity; Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type:
cloud. Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a
Will save to resist exploring or investigating a new
location or object of significance.
Balanced – Alignment: neutral; Energy: sonic;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d4); Dragon Type: sovereign.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to commit an overtly good or evil deed.
Brave - Alignment: lawful good; Energy: electricity;
Breath Weapon: line (1d6); Dragon Type: bronze.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to flee or retreat from an encounter.
Creative - Alignment: chaotic good; Energy: fire;
Breath Weapon: line (1d6); Dragon Type: brass.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to destroy creatures or objects with unique value, or
to take actions which stifle or ruin other creatures’
artistic expression.
Destructive - Alignment: chaotic evil; Energy: fire;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type: red.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to resist killing and mutilating an enemy he has
engaged in battle, and to resist taking advantage of
opportunities to hurt his enemies by destroying that
which is precious to them.
Devious - Alignment: chaotic evil; Energy: acid;
Breath Weapon: line (1d6); Dragon Type: black.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to openly share significant information and be
truthful.
Greedy - Alignment: lawful evil; Energy: fire;
Breath Weapon: line (1d6); Dragon Type: underworld.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to give away his possessions or even trade them at a
fair value.
Honorable - Alignment: lawful good; Energy: cold;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type: silver.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to resist defending the weak or to deceive another
creature.
Imperious - Alignment: lawful evil; Energy: acid;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type: green.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to accept orders or direction from any creature not
obviously more powerful than himself.
Just - Alignment: lawful good; Energy: electricity;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type: sky.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to commit an unjust action, or to allow significant
injustices to occur without intervening.
Militant - Alignment: lawful evil; Energy:
electricity; Breath Weapon: line (1d6); Dragon Type:
blue. Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a
Will save to peacefully resolve a conflict that could be
solved by force.
Paranoid - Alignment: chaotic evil; Energy: cold;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type: white.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to trust anyone other than close friends.
Power-hungry - Alignment: lawful neutral; Energy:
acid; Breath Weapon: line (1d6); Dragon Type: brine.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to resist bullying smaller or weaker creatures when
it would be to his benefit.
Regal - Alignment: lawful good; Energy: fire;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type: gold.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to take actions he thinks are demeaning or
embarrassing.
Sadistic - Alignment: chaotic evil; Energy: negative
(does not heal undead); Breath Weapon: cone (1d4);
Dragon Type: umbral. Compulsion: the draconic
exemplar must make a Will save to resist significant
opportunities to inflict pain on others, and to kill an
enemy outright when extending their suffering is an
option.
Temperamental - Alignment: chaotic neutral;
Energy: fire; Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type:
magma. Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make
a Will save to resist overreacting to threats or tense
social situations.
Territorial– Alignment: chaotic good; Energy: fire;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d6); Dragon Type: sea.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save every 24 hours he is outside the territory he
considers his protectorate or become shaken.
Vain - Alignment: chaotic good; Energy: sonic;
Breath Weapon: cone (1d4); Dragon Type: crystal.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to resist overreacting to any perceived insult.
Witty - Alignment: chaotic good; Energy: acid;
Breath Weapon: line (1d6); Dragon Type: copper.
Compulsion: the draconic exemplar must make a Will
save to remain silent or speak seriously in tense
situations.
Wrathful - Alignment: chaotic evil; Energy: none
(magic and piercing for breath weapon and elemental
aura, subject to DR); Breath Weapon: cone (1d6);
Dragon Type: forest. Compulsion: the draconic
exemplar must make a Will save to resist hunting down
a fleeing or escaped enemy, and to resist an opportunity
to gain revenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
Interesting idea, what I thought of first when reading this was Star Wars. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the force. He was not magically bound to obey against his will. I can see lots of RP potential with this.
For a standard Pathfinder game I would make it a player option. In other words they can elect whether the effect "seduces" them or works the standard way.
If on the other hand it was a Call of Cthulhu inspired game then it would make sense for this to be a GM decision.
I believe what Bandw2 is getting at is that we could implement something like FATE's fudge-pool (I forget the technical name of the re-roll tokens), and allow players to gain a token when they wish to play along with the narrative, not gain a token when they wish not to, or spend a token when they wish to change the narrative. Which works perfectly well ported into Pathfinder; it's basically hero points but awarded based on RP instead of something arbitrary like leveling up.
That said, 'harder' bonuses like the dragon abilities, in exchange for more persistent drawbacks would also be fun, as would additional expenditure options for the points/tokens.
The thing is, you can just roleplay your character. Here's an example:
My NG Swashbuckler 3/Sword Saint Samurai (Order of the Dragon) 2 is the official leader of our party of government-endorsed "Elite Knights" and has the Overprotective drawback. In the middle of a mission, an enemy shows up essentially to taunt us. The enemy is clearly someone we will run into later on and are not ready to deal with right now, but she deals a huge chunk of damage to one of our party. I as a player know that we have no chance of doing anything, but what do I have my character do? I waste my 1/day Challenge on the enemy and attempt to Iaijutsu Strike her because I felt my character would want to protect his team. I didn't have to, the GM didn't make me or even prompt me to, and I could have used that Challenge on the boss of the dungeon, but by considering the Order of the Dragon and the Overprotective drawback (both of those being focused on aiding and cooperating with your allies) I decided that was something my character would feel was necessary.
Interesting idea, what I thought of first when reading this was Star Wars. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the force. He was not magically bound to obey against his will. I can see lots of RP potential with this.
For a standard Pathfinder game I would make it a player option. In other words they can elect whether the effect "seduces" them or works the standard way.
If on the other hand it was a Call of Cthulhu inspired game then it would make sense for this to be a GM decision.
That's why I earlier brought up that you can willingly fail a save if you want to. It's in the game already.
here's a thought, what if the paladin didn't have to fall whenever he does evil, but instead has to make a will save to commit evil? if he fails and does it anyway then he loses his powers for like a day since he couldn't rectify his guilt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I might consider for a future games is just asking people to consider their saving throws in the following sense.
When you succeed a will/fortitude/reflex save, what strength of who you are is most likely to have resulted in your success? When you fall a will/fortitude/reflex save which aspect of your identity is most likely to have caused your failure?
It's ultimately just a way to flavor descriptions (you failed to dodge the arrow trap because you're inattentive versus failing to dodge the arrow trap because you're clumsy, say) or motivate roleplaying scenarios (you succeeded on the will save because of your supreme self-confidence or you succeeded on the will save because the obstacle seemed minor compared to all you've already endured).
yes, yes I can, but can someone hold their breath until they die?
Yes. Why not?
as mentioned earlier, how do I determine who wins a stare contest. It literally went on for weeks in-game.
Cool. There's crazier and even more petty s%*# in myths already. Let the players hash it out between themselves. Sounds stupid to me, but if they're having fun, whatever.
Keep playing with the other players while they have their pissing contest. They probably would have missed a lot of EXP and treasure if they'd opted out of an adventure to do that.
If it was during downtime...what's the issue?
Do both of those seem like perfectly fine examples of the fact that players seem to have more control over their characters than we do in real life.
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what i'm getting at, is there is no objective ruleset for when it is an isn't okay to control a player character as GM.
That I can agree with. Different tables allow for different allowances.
as mentioned earlier, how do I determine who wins a stare contest. It literally went on for weeks in-game.Cool. There's crazier and even more petty s$&& in myths already. Let the players hash it out between themselves. Sounds stupid to me, but if they're having fun, whatever.
Keep playing with the other players while they have their pissing contest. They probably would have missed a lot of EXP and treasure if they'd opted out of an adventure to do that.
If it was during downtime...what's the issue?
it wasn't during downtime, and me and the other player's were not having fun. they stayed out of an encounter because of it. it ultimately led to me having to skip some portions i had set up so that that one of them finally starved.
to be clear, this wasn't actually a staring, contest, much much worse, it was a strange mental fight between the 2 due to OOC knowledge.
if you'd like me to go into detail I can but I'd rather not. it was rather disruptive and this kind of talk was the reasoning behind me not being able to just declare a victor, it was literally about who was willing to waste more real life time after a point.
One thing I might consider for a future games is just asking people to consider their saving throws in the following sense.
When you succeed a will/fortitude/reflex save, what strength of who you are is most likely to have resulted in your success. When you fall a will/fortitude/reflex save which aspect of your identity is most likely to have caused your failure?
It's ultimately just a way to flavor descriptions (you failed to dodge the arrow trap because you're inattentive versus failing to dodge the arrow trap because you're clumsy, say) or motivate roleplaying scenarios (you succeeded on the will save because of your supreme self-confidence or you succeeded on the will save because the obstacle seemed minor compared to all you've already endured).
Perfectly reasonable and a common thing to do. That's just giving some contextual flavour to what's happening in the game, like you said. It applies what the character is to the circumstances rather than creating a horrible flaw in the character that has no business being there. In my example from before, if I recall correctly I missed the Iaijutsu Strike attack and we rationalized that it was because my character's teammate had just been injured so he couldn't focus.