How do you think the following situation should be handled?
A player character is captured and summarily tortured by her enemies. During the torture, her forearm is severed and cauterized.
Her player declares "she simply takes it, not giving her captors the joy of hearing her scream."
"Alright, responds the GM, make a Fortitude save to see if you scream."
At this point, said player protests, saying that the GM doesn't control the character, the player does--the GM simply runs the NPCs, environment, and general story. If the player doesn't want their character to scream, then they don't; the GM should not have the power to make them scream, nor should they force an arbitrary check for such a thing. The player argues that by forcing the scream, or even asking for a check to see if the character screams, the GM is taking away player agency and completely destroying the concept the player had for the character.
The above is a hypothetical, but I'm left to wonder just who would/should be right in this kind of scenario.
Should the GM continue to have power over the player characters' actions past initial character creation? Or should the player have absolute control over their character's interactions with, and reactions to, the game's environment throughout the whole campaign?
It depends on the group. In our campaigns the player would have to come up with a reason why their character does not scream. There has never been a person portrayed that way in film or tv or even book. We also have hero points in some of our games. I do not see why one point could not go to that as well and fiat the save. But for the most part the gm/dm rule is law. For something like the scream example, we have little control of that in real life.
I've seen scenarios where a fortitude roll is needed to see if you can keep down local food and drink which is pretty terrible in order to impress the locals. Of course those rolls have some significant effects on the the game plays out from there.
However, the right answer is whatever the GM and player both agree to before hand. For some groups the GM ruling in this way would be fine, and in others the players have stronger narrative control of their own characters. If both sides don't agree, then its going to lead to problems in the play group. I don't see how there can be a generic "correct" answer to this question, other than possibly what maximizes the fun of the specific people involved.
|
Depends on the type of game you're running, I would say. Many games- especially horror-themed games take some of the agency away from the player.
Spells such as fear, command, geas, mind jar, etc remove this agency in Pathfinder. If you're playing Pathfinder, your character can be possessed, controlled, manipulated, or otherwise have your agency yanked at a moment's notice.
An intimidation check can make a PC shaken, or even higher on the fear chain depending on the creature making it, or it can force them to cooperate.
And this is probably what the GM should do in this scenario- make an intimidation check from the torturer vs the PC's DC(10+HD+Will Mod), maybe giving a +2 bonus due to the physical pain. The PC then "If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance."
Then, as GM I'd say "Ok, you don't scream but the torturer breaks you and you give her whatever she wants for 1d6x10 minutes. You have free agency to decide how your character lives with the fact that they were broken in this way."
In short, rules-wise, players have neither explicit nor implied total control over all their characters' actions throughout the entire campaign.
I've had players tell me that Intimidate doesn't work on PCs. "Nope, that's Diplomacy, sorry, try again."
Edit: And now I see this is in Starfinder Thread. Don't think it changes too much of what I've said. though.
Should be a Will save but otherwise I would’ve ruled the same way as this GM
Maybe a save to keep from passing out due to shock and what not.
"Alright, responds the GM, make a Fortitude save to see if you scream."
If I had to make a call it would be a Will save, but this is quite the can of worms - how about screaming from pain during battle? Can the player state his character never utters a sound during a fight so not to draw attention from other npcs?
Shouldn't this be a power or feat? "Torture resistance" or something... there's no way a player can claim he resists just on his willpower, there's gotta be a training behind it, or some mental conditioning, maybe that health condition where you are very resistant to pain.
Or a very detailed military or intelligence background. He'd have to pay for such an advantage somehow.
It depends on the group. In our campaigns the player would have to come up with a reason why their character does not scream. There has never been a person portrayed that way in film or tv or even book.
Clearly the GM/Game system has to have control over the Character otherwise the following sentence works well for a 1st level commoner PC.
"I fly to the moon recover valuable moon gems and fly home"
None of that intefered with another PC and if a PC cannot affect what a character can do flying to the moon is perfectly reasonable.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly the GM/Game system has to have control over the Character otherwise the following sentence works well for a 1st level commoner PC.
"I fly to the moon recover valuable moon gems and fly home"None of that intefered with another PC and if a PC cannot affect what a character can do flying to the moon is perfectly reasonable.
Given that we're in the Starfinder forums, flying to a given moon in the Pact Worlds is reasonable in 1d6 days in a starting spaceship.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd counter the players argument with "You have to make skill checks to be intimidating or bluff or whatever, just because you want to do something and making you have to roll for it doesn't take away your agency any more than making you roll for an attack or skill or attribute check does."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Losobal. Rolls do not take away player agency. People lose control of their own bodies all the time. People literally shoot themselves in the foot. People sometimes jump (or scream) when suddenly confronted with something they weren't able to handle. Even hardcore badashes sometimes crap themselves in fear or pain. Everyone breaks under torture eventually. Saying, "You can't make me roll for that," is downright childish in a game where you have to roll for almost every kind of action.
In Starfinder, I'd probably let them spend a Resolve point (or two) to avoid the save, and as others have said, I'd make it a will save to not scream (though a Fort to keep from passing out from the pain would make sense) in the given particular scenario.
I don't think the GM is unreasonable in this case. A player controls his character's actions and to some degree his reactions to external stimuli, but much like in real life there are situations where you run the risk of simply losing control. To me it's roughly similar to how a soldier the player describes as "fearless" still has the potential to run away screaming if he fails a will save v a fear effect. Ideally your character mechanics should back up your character backstory - if your character is tough as nails and trained to resist interrogation then he should have the stats to back it up.
I can see the argument that it should be a will save instead of a fort save to resist crying out, historically speaking Pathfinder has handled resisting Pain effects with both fortitude and will saves.
Slight sidetrack, but just in case this is for a future game session and not just a theoretical exercise, make sure you talk to your players about the themes you're getting into and that they're comfortable with it before spinning a detailed torture scene. There's nothing wrong with running a "grim" game, just make sure your players are on board with it first. :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Starfinder, I'd probably let them spend a Resolve point (or two) to avoid the save
Ooh, I really like that idea! It allows the player to have a choice in the matter, and make his character totally badass if he wants. A solid compromise.
Ooh, I really like that idea! It allows the player to have a choice in the matter, and make his character totally badass if he wants. A solid compromise.In Starfinder, I'd probably let them spend a Resolve point (or two) to avoid the save
Completely agree :)
We use a (highly house-ruled) variant of Action Points from Eberron in our games, and 'do something hardcore' has always been something you could spend those on in our games. So it seemed to me logical to treat Resolve Points similarly. Resolve is one of the mechanics I most like about this game.
Thanks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a fan of trying to maximize player agency where possible, and that kind of issue to me--how someone reacts to something in a way that has no bearing on game mechanics--is basically a roleplaying issue. To me, it's entirely up to the players how they roleplay fear, extreme pain, etc. just as they roleplay anything else. It doesn't matter if it's not how I'd roleplay it, or how I think most characters would respond.
For me as a GM, my primary concern is adjudicating mechanics (yes, I am telling a story too, but I don't play the PCs, my job is all the other story stuff). So if I say the sheer pain of the treatment may make you catatonic, or become Frightened, or lose Constitution, or what-have-you--then I ask you to roll, because that has a concrete, mechanical effect on your character.
But I don't tell you how to roleplay your character, nor do I enforce it with die rolls.
(Now if someone is roleplaying BADLY, particularly in a way that negatively impacts the group, that player and I'll have a chat, but that's an issue I'd deal with by engaging with the PLAYER, not the character.)
That said:
- I have players that are highly self-regulating, and they often use dice to help them make hard decisions. Many of them would say, "Hey, I really don't want to scream to not give my captors the satisfaction, but I think I might..." they'll just roll the die themselves, without my request or prompting. I'm happy to go with that. I really doubt an issue like that'd come up in my group. That said, I also generally don't engage in brutal torture in my games either so there's that.
- For a group that is in disagreement about such things, I agree the Resolve expense is a good compromise.
How do you think the following situation should be handled?
A player character is captured and summarily tortured by her enemies. During the torture, her forearm is severed and cauterized.
Her player declares "she simply takes it, not giving her captors the joy of hearing her scream."
"Alright, responds the GM, make a Fortitude save to see if you scream."
Mostly I would roll saves for any mechanical effects -- I'm not really sure what the Starfinder rules are for things like shock from having a limb amputated, if there aren't any I might choose to cobble something together for this kind of scenario -- and leave the flavour to the player. I give my players XP bonuses for appropriate and dramatic roleplay so if it's on-brand for their character to brazen it out, fine, if it's on brand for them to scream (and deliver a really dramatic moment in so doing) then fine.
If they are trying to do more than just flavour, like say trying to Demoralize the enemy with their show of toughness or alter the opponent's attitude by Bluffing them, I would have them roll the appropriate Skill check for that (perhaps with a circumstantial penalty or higher DC given the circumstances).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m of the opinion that if it doesn’t have a mechanical reason or the player isn’t going to later try and leverage advantage from it, then just leave it as charcater choice.
However, if the player is later trying to leverage reputation that gives advantage somehow (because they were a total bad @$$ and didn’t even whimper during torture) then some form of roll or expenditure of resource needs to be made.
I really like the idea of spending resolve that was mentioned above. Perfect example how those points could be used outside normal expectations. But that becomes a house rule.
Otherwise it’s a fort save or will save (GMs call) which falls less in the house rule domain and more in the GM applying current rules to unusual situations.
Bluff check to make sure the bad guys buy it. If a bluff check fails, let them make a will save or fort save to swallow the screams- but its obviously hurting.
Honestly I think a save is a very fair way to run in, except I would have made it a will save. It's a force of will not to scream in pain. Possibly a fort save to not pass out from the extreme pain.
I think it was in a interrogation scene in The Name of the Rose, where they said it better:
Everybody screams.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding a bit to my earlier thought. As players of characters we express desires on how we want actions to turn out, but mechanically there's still a system that actually determines if our desire for outcome actually matches the reality of outcome.
So when we say, "I attack the darkness" what we actually mean is, "I attempt to attack the darkness, lets see how that turns out".
or 'I leap over the fire pit like a badass and do a flip that lands me safely on the other side' actually means, "I want to try <above> and since I don't have a class ability to take 10 on it, I'll have to roll and see how that....oh my...ok, looks like I didn't make it...."