That said, I agree with Telas and would be happy to see this posted to the Suggestion Pot article.

I may in the future work on a PDF for this topic, so if you have questions or comments feel free to send them to VV_GM@comcast.net.

Could you post the “emotion question” in the Suggestion Pot?

Thanks.

Emotion

Is the DM allowed to tell a player the emotions that his character is feeling?

We had a big row in our group recently over what seems like the slightest story build but turned into a major dispute.

The GM stated to a Player that since his dwarf character’s hair was on fire, that he was getting pretty angry at the goblins. There was no additional fiat like “so your character then does this…” It was just a statement of how the character was feeling. The player took major offense at this and insisted that the DM was not allowed to do such a thing.

Does the GM have the right to express emotion of a character to the character’s player?

Anyway Dwarf, and other PCs are in the mire- big nasty Gnolls ahead, Shadow Dragon et al behind, bottled up in this chamber with a hole in the floor.

Farkill “I call on Moradin and then smash my hammer into the floor in an attempt to enlarge the hole, crack the stone and sunder the chamber/floor completely…” The rest of the players laugh like drains- the Fort is massive, the entire redoubt is balanced on a huge stalgtite, stalagmite formation.

In my brain I’m scrabbling around for answers- I want to say “you can’t do that”; or rather, “What? One Hammer blow isn’t going to… Particularly with your roles.”- I blurt out instead “natural 20 only.”

You know what happens next.

Farkill Fortress Destroyer is born, as a good third of the ancient redoubt peels itself away, after a few rounds for the PCs to get clear, and hurtles down into the mile or more deep chasm- sending Gnolls and Hyena’s tumbling to their doom. The Shadow Dragon takes flight.

Here’s the upside- Frakill’s player thinks he’s ace, and he’s back with Moradin for good; the Shadow Dragon is their new found recurring villain (shhh- don’t tell the PCs yet). The rest of the players who had gone five encounters without a short rest, and are on at wills only, are suddenly buoyed and ready for more- and laughing like drains again.

I didn’t want it to happen, I had plot related plans; it shouldn’t have happened, one hammer blow to a piece of flagged stone floor is not enough to destroy a third of the fortress, and yet…

Opportunities arise as a DM, the narrative in the moment is all that matters, to make a better story- more memorable, good DMs, or lucky DMs (I’m in the latter group), grab these opporunities and run with them.

The lesson is never say never, tell the players how difficult it would be sure, but let them try anyway, let them try anything they like- it works better that way, IMHO.

Cheers

PS The players above have in fact cut off their only known route for retreat, they don’t know this yet, actually nor did I- I’ve only just made it up. Must dash I’ve got a huge Skill Challenge to write to get them through the next area of the Labyrinth, and a mini dungeon to populate with nasty creatures- payback time. Bloody dwarves and their bloody hammers.

For one, if you call your players pinheads then you obviously have another issue at the table. Second, since you allowed your player to play Superman you gave that player permission to “rip heads off” with the character. Third, the game world is not the established comic universe. It is your group’s interpretation of that universe and in that interpretation Superman rips people’s heads off (more like Ultraman from the Earth 2 graphic novel).

So let the players do what they will with their PCs. Your story and plot will probably get fucked over, but as a GM you know that happens even with the best of groups that try to cooperate with you. Give Lobo the kryptonite bullet, and have Lex Luthor get a hold of a Green Lantern Corps ring to even the playing field against Supes.

This is very true for a four color supers game and the player of Superman says “I rip his head off”.

The only thing that dictates what a PC can and cannot do is the game world. If we are playing a modern investigation game and a player says “My character starts flying.” I as the GM can respond with “Your PC does not fly on his own power. This game world does not allow for it.” I as the GM have not dictated what the PC has done, but I have kept the setting of the game world intact. That is a big part of the GM’s job.

Now if the player says “My character attempts to fly.” I as the GM can only describe the results. “Your character is still firmly planted on the ground.” It does not matter what I think the character should be doing, the player can have his PC make the attempt.

The problem is when a PC might do something as a natural reaction. The PC is hiding from a killer, is barefoot, and steps on a thumbtack. Does the PC make a noise? Most people when injured make a sound as a reflex. Making a sound in this case would give away the PCs position.

You can dictate the PC’s action, but that is wrong. The player can voluntarily have the PC make a sound because he or she believes that is what the PC would do. You can hand wave the whole thing and say that the PC remains quiet, but then why have the thumbtack in the first place?

Or you can have the player make a roll using the appropriate rules to see if the PC will remain quiet. There is nothing wrong with this approach if you apply those rules consistently and fairly.

When in doubt side with the players. If you are not sure then why oppose them? Note the incident and address how you will handle it later when you have time to think it through. If you decide to introduce a new rule write it down and explain why you are introducing that rule to your group.

Again it takes more work on the GM’s part, but you will become a better GM because of it.

Thank you very much for the further input. And I agree wholeheartedly.

In short what I gathered here as the main points for me (when dealing with this kind of situation):

1. Be consistent

2. Not really a “your character wouldn’t do that” -situation in the strictest sense, given that at least 1st point holds true (especially if there’s a precedent already)

3. Think if these kind of rulings are appropriate for the setting in the first place (players’ input welcome also, of course).

We reviewed this discussion (with the GM who brought this up to me – we’re co-GMing a couple of settings) and we’re now in agreement about this topic (I.e. we’re not allowed to “take control” of the PCs but “reflex actions” can be allowed, if they make sense, and we make a note for further reference so we remain consistent and we should discuss these rules with the PCs also when introduced so they’re clear on the reasoning).

Again, thank you very much for your well-thought input on this matter.

“Basically, this is partly the core of the question: how can I present the situation where PC just negated something I thought was “neat”?”

The player did not negate anything. You can still say “Yes, your smooth landing ring will protect you. Yet it does not prevent a reflex reaction that everyone in this game world has. Please roll to see if you attempt to grab your comrade out of panic.”

Now you haven’t taken control of the PC if you are consistent with this aspect of the game world. Every time some character falls in your game be prepared for the players to request a roll for the NPC to reach out in a panic even when it is not in the NPC’s best interest. In fact, you shouldn’t even need to be reminded of it because it is your ruling that started this (and you should have applied it to appropriate situations before the ring incident as well).

The game world does limit/decide what all of the characters in the setting do. Both PCs and NPCs. Fire burns because of the game world’s physics (or maybe it doesn’t because of the physics ). Bullets kill characters because the game world says so, not because the GM ruled that certain characters die from bullets and others do not. The GM has a great deal of influence on the game world, and can create a “bullet-proof” type of character, but the GM better have an explanation for that new character type that the players accept in their perception of the game world. If not, well your players may not enjoy your game.

Now if your player argues the ruling explain that all characters are subject to this ruling. If the players say “That sucks./I don’t like that./Seems a bit much too me.” or whatever ask yourself if your neat idea is actually good for this type of game. If you still feel the ruling is appropriate and are prepared for the potential fallout then ask for that roll.

But if you don’t apply that ruling to every character in the game world. If you just pulled it out of your ass for a single incident because you thought it would be neat then you are imposing your will upon the player and that is wrong. You are changing the rules to suit your whim, and that is not GMing but bullying.

Example:

Last weekend was the start of a two-weekend adventure in a sandbox underground city kind of thing. They began imprisoned by one of the children of the recently-dead overlord. So sitting in the jail they had to come up with an escape plan, which actually worked out really well. Out of four players we have two good plans with no real input from me – they would ask me questions and try things, and I would tell them the outcome.

My system: Player says “I want to do this thing” and I decide if that’s impossible, possible, or guaranteed. If it’s possible he rolls. Otherwise he just succeeds or fails.

So when I described the prison bars one of the players said he was going to try to bend them. I said they look pretty thick, but he wanted to try anyway. So cool, he tries, and fails. Some things are simply impossible. If you balk at that, and think there should be at least a small chance of success for any action, consider the halfling who tries to jump to the moon for half an hour and eventually rolls a 20.

Point is, part of your job as a DM is to describe the world and the NPCs. You’re providing much of the background and the objects of the players’ activities. The PCs are the subjects of the game, and the actions, hopes, desires, and intentions of each PC are the exclusive domain of that PC’s player.

Exceptions that I include are things like Charm, Paralysis, Death, etc. You can’t just decide that your character survived if the dice say he didn’t – we aren’t playing Cowboys and Indians here. But I rarely use Charm and have never used Geas because they (especially the latter) are effectively puppet strings. I’m cool with the players puppeteering a few of my NPCs and monsters, but it sucks when it happens to PCs.

Best advice I’ve heard: The DM gets to play all those characters. Each player gets just one. So if you’re going to play his character for him, why is he even there?

In retrospect, I should’ve not given an example with something magical, as then there’s always an easy out of every situation. …especially, since many games I play(/played) do not involve magic…

Also, I would like to point out that I didn’t bring this up to go for realism, although it might seem so, but to question how this kind of situation (forget the _specific_ example – and just right now I can’t think of a good one for an alternative, as I haven’t really found myself in this situation (yet)) might be presented for the PCs without appearing as a simple “you wouldn’t do that” situation and still not allowing the PC to negate the whole concept.

Of course, this kind of situation would be best avoided in the first place, but sometimes similar concepts can make good story-telling or plot device and I just would like to be able to avoid the kind of pit-fall described without having to alter the plot too much on the spot (well, for the given example it would be easy to get the same end-result without resorting to reflexes at all).

I hope I was able to clarify my question…

Next is just presenting alternatives to the examples you gave how to counter that specific example.

Note that I do agree with your resolutions, they’re all good and valid points, but they do not get the end result I want for story telling purposes, so I’m “negating the negations” as an exercise.

Please do not dismiss the whole premise (read my clarifications above) on the grounds that these present examples of bad/bully GM behaviour (because I agree they do! just want address them anyway, how they might be countered).

First of all, suspension of disbelief is not an issue – the purpose of this was not to bring realism into game, but to have a plot device (admitted, poor example).

The crafters of the magic item might have not taken into account the instincts simply because the intended use was for the base-jumpers for recreational use and not protection for falls in general – therefore the calming effect would be counterproductive.

And yes, the second PC definitely probably would try to avoid grabbing (and would be a subject to a roll – and from experience I can say that it is pretty easy to avoid sudden grabs) but the point was, the the first PC immediately negated the whole concept.

You’re perfectly right about “realistically, this is what would happen…” argument – even in “realistic” game settings.

Basically, this is partly the core of the question: how can I present the situation where PC just negated something I thought was “neat”?

(well, for one, personally I would not likely end up with the specific example situation unless I forgot PC had the ring and would have altered the setting to begin with so that it might happen when the PCs are drunk, for example, but I’m looking for various ways in case I blunder and end up in this kind of situation where I did not see PC possibly negating my storytelling – although usually this kind of situation wouldn’t be critical for the story and I would have alternatives)

And to address your example, if the item is magical and it allows a person to fall without harm why can’t it also induce a calming effect upon the bearer in situations where it may be needed? Wouldn’t the crafters of the magic item take into account human instincts and make sure that those instincts would not screw up the use of the item?

Plus, just as it is realistic for a falling person to grab for a nearby object, it is also realistic for someone in a dangerous situation to avoid such dangers. In other words, why wouldn’t the second PC avoid being grabbed by scooting over a little and dodging as much as possible the attempt to grab him or her?

I find that “Realistically, this is what would hapen…” RPG arguments rarely hold up to scrutiny. Whatever can be applied from the real world can be trumped with a game world exception. You have elves and dwarves runnign around, vampires and magic, 50 ton mecha and aliens, so it takes very little stretching of the imagination to see how a PC would not always do instinctively in the game world what you and I would do in the real world.

Don’t play into that kind of trap, because a good GM will realize that is the imposing of your view of how things work upon the game world instead of collaboratively defining that game world as a group. Maybe the player thinks that after using his “smooth landing” a few times the PC was used to the effect and has been conditioned to expect it and will not grab at objects when falling, and that is just as valid a scene as your description is.

For example: Two people on the ledge of a building and one of them slips. Normal reaction is to grab hold of the nearest thing you find (the other person in this case) and there’s a chance both go tumbling down.

GM: (rolling some dice) You slip and start to fall, instinctively grasping to hold on to something…
PC: (thinking rationally) No I won’t! I have a ring of “smooth landing” so I just let myself fall, no worries at all!

I can explain that’s not how humans react and even offer to roll for it (with some mighty odds) but I know I will get objections (many PCs HAVE difficulties to forget rational thinking and to think what would be the proper action on impulse) and if the PC has read this blog might even point to this article: “You shouldn’t do that, see, I should have a choice”.

I know this is a bit simplistic example, but how would you handle similar situations and how would you present it to the PC so he “gets it” and doesn’t feel hurt afterwards?