I don't think of such mechanics as rewarding for failure, but for rewarding making the game more interesting.  Let's take the torture example - a PC is being waterboarded or something.  The bad guys are trying to get him to betray the other PCs.

Now, the first option is to leave it in the hands of the PC.  The GM described the agony his character is in, but he says "Hells naw Killfuck Soulshitter is a hardcore mofo, he's not talking"  Now that can work for some games, like an over the top action movie feel, but certainly not all.  You can do a simple pass/fail save, but that dissassociates the player from the action.  He's not compromising himself, he's just rolling a die.

By using metagame mechanics, even though the character clearly doesn't want to betray his friends the player might just do so.  The game may offer a reward in Drama Points* or whatever if the character spills his guts.  Further, the reward might keep scaling up but so might the cost.  So we'll go through three rounds of torture - the first one, the PC will get one drama point and will have to tell the bad guy where his friends are.  If he holds out, the GM makes another offer - reveal where they are and what their plan is, and you get three drama points.  If he doesn't give in, the GM makes his final offer.  Give up their location, plans, weaknesses, and personal fears.  Essentially break down and tell them absolutely everything you know.  This will be worth five drama points.  If the character still holds out, the torturer decides he doesn't know anything and stops.  The character recieves NO drama points and may end up with some kind of mental problem from the abuse, but should get some bonus XP for sticking to their guns.

In this way the player becomes tempted to give in to his tormentors, but doesn't give up his free will.  He may justify that he can use the Drama Points to make up whatever advantage the bad guys get.  I haven't put this into practice, I don't torture PCs all that often, but I think it could work.

*By Drama Points I mean any metagame mechanic - hero points, action dice, poker chips, whatever.  If you don't use them, then obviously this won't work for you.

Here's a way to make the player take notice of the severity of the torture / horror / etc.

These "serious" conditions that the player chooses to ignore could result in permanent loss one or more of their character's ability scores.

Too much time on the rack could interfere with your Str, Dex or Con.  The mental stress of torture / horror could be detrimental to their Int, Wis or Chr.

Melting their magic items in a forge might be more horrific for some PCs than whatever might happen to an NPC or other character.  

Repeated save-or-Die poisoning is pretty grim, and an evil necromancer who tortures PCs via level-draining undead will QUICKLY get the players' attention.

Happy Halloween.

Quote from: StuartHere's a way to make the player take notice of the severity of the torture / horror / etc.

These "serious" conditions that the player chooses to ignore could result in permanent loss one or more of their character's ability scores.

Too much time on the rack could interfere with your Str, Dex or Con.  The mental stress of torture / horror could be detrimental to their Int, Wis or Chr.

Melting their magic items in a forge might be more horrific for some PCs than whatever might happen to an NPC or other character.  

Repeated save-or-Die poisoning is pretty grim, and an evil necromancer who tortures PCs via level-draining undead will QUICKLY get the players' attention.

Happy Halloween.

Now this I like. Keep it In Character, In Game. And it makes sense, from an emulation perspective.  You want to resist? Fine, but here's what's going to happen to the character.

Will it stop everyone? No.  If you have a group of players that would still ignore things that affect their characters, then perhaps a torture-for-information scenrio is not your best option.

And here are the times when I think the player should *not* keep control of their character -- meaning the GM over-rules what the player wants.

"I kick down the door."
"No, it's a draw-bridge and your character knows they wouldn't be able to do it."

"I cast cure-light wounds."  
"No, you're a fighter -- you can't cast spells."

"I laugh at the Big-Bad-Monster and charge in to attack."
"No, the thing generates fear and you failed your saving throw -- you can scream and run away, or stand frozen on the spot."

"I jump across the chasm."
"No, it's 1/2 mile wide, and your character isn't insane, so he doesn't attempt it."

"I stab the guy in the eye."
"No, he's the inn keeper, and your character is lawful good.  He wouldn't do that."

"I tell the captain of the guards to shut his stupid mouth."
"No, your character has a 15 intelligence, 16 wisdom and 17 charisma.  Only a fool would say something like that and your character is no fool."

I think the player only controls the character as long as it's supported by what's on the character sheet.  If the player objects they should be encouraged to make different choices for their next character.

If you want a character who acts erratically, makes unwise decisions and is generally an outlet for strange anti-social behaviour -- low Int, Wis and Chr plus a chaotic, possibly neutral (or evil!) alignment are all required.

In systems where the *character* has stats for mental attributes and alignment, those should have an in-game effect.  The player can not have the character take actions not supported by the character's stats.

Quote from: StuartAnd here are the times when I think the player should *not* keep control of their character -- meaning the GM over-rules what the player wants.

I disagree with almost all of these.

Quote"I kick down the door."
"No, it's a draw-bridge and your character knows they wouldn't be able to do it."

So?  Let him roll even if there's no reasonable chance of him succeeding.  Maybe the enemy is distracted or taken aback by this seemingly insane warrior trying to kick their door down.

Quote"I cast cure-light wounds."  
"No, you're a fighter -- you can't cast spells."

Part of me would be tempted to let it work then let the player worry about why it works .  Or tell him "Well you're going to need to study magic to be able to do that."

Quote"I laugh at the Big-Bad-Monster and charge in to attack."
"No, the thing generates fear and you failed your saving throw -- you can scream and run away, or stand frozen on the spot."

That one I can groove with - I mean he did fail a save, so he had a chance but failed it.  Plus the generates fear implies that it's a magical effect, not just that the thing is scary looking.  I like allowing the player to choose how he reacts, reminds me of Unknown Armies 'Fight, Flight, or Freeze' rule.

Quote"I jump across the chasm."
"No, it's 1/2 mile wide, and your character isn't insane, so he doesn't attempt it."

Explain how wide it is, then give him a roll, laugh when his character falls to his death.  Why would you deny yourself this pleasure?  :confused:

Quote"I stab the guy in the eye."
"No, he's the inn keeper, and your character is lawful good.  He wouldn't do that."

This I disagree with completely.  If a GM told me this I'd be ready to leave the game.  Change my alignment if you want, but dammit if I say I want to stab the innkeeper in the eye I want to stab him in the fucking eye!

Quote"I tell the captain of the guards to shut his stupid mouth."
"No, your character has a 15 intelligence, 16 wisdom and 17 charisma.  Only a fool would say something like that and your character is no fool."

This is just like the last one.  I'd just as soon go do something else and let you send me an email telling me what my character did.  At best, I'd note the high mental stats and let them know OOC that this is a bad idea.  It's possible for such a character to realize that this is a bad idea and just not give a damn.

QuoteI think the player only controls the character as long as it's supported by what's on the character sheet.  If the player objects they should be encouraged to make different choices for their next character.

If you want a character who acts erratically, makes unwise decisions and is generally an outlet for strange anti-social behaviour -- low Int, Wis and Chr plus a chaotic, possibly neutral (or evil!) alignment are all required.

In systems where the *character* has stats for mental attributes and alignment, those should have an in-game effect.  The player can not have the character take actions not supported by the character's stats.

Disagree completely.  Mental and social attibutes should be descriptive, not proscriptive.  The low int character is not kept from making plans, but should be rewarded for describing them in a common-sense kind of way, rather than the high int character that presents it all as a carefully thought out strategem.

QuoteI disagree with almost all of these.

I knew someone would.

QuoteThis I disagree with completely. If a GM told me this I'd be ready to leave the game. Change my alignment if you want, but dammit if I say I want to stab the innkeeper in the eye I want to stab him in the fucking eye!

I think the key point to think about is this...

Is it YOU or is it the character?

It's not *your* alignment, it's the fictional characters.

How would the game play differently if the players were encouraged not to say "I want to stab him in the fucking eye!" but rather "Conrad the Meek wants to stab him in the fucking eye!" ?

1st person vs. 3rd person

I know *A LOT* of people play D&D 1st person...  but I'm really starting to like the 3rd person approach.

Make that two someones.

That might be the fastest I went from agreeing with someone to completely disagreeing with that same.

Two of the six examples are possibilities; and one of those I'm not sure I would completely agree.  Oh, I might warn he character about the consequences, explain the modifiers I would apply, discuss the alternatives.  But tell someone they can't do X because it's not what the character would do - that's just completely out of line for a GM, IMNSHO.

Quote from: James J SkachBut tell someone they can't do X because it's not what the character would do - that's just completely out of line for a GM, IMNSHO.

Yup: if there's one thing that falls outside the privileges of the GM, it's dictating how the PCs think.

Quote from: Bagpuss
Basically when if ever do you think a GM should have control of a characters actions?

I don't think the GM should ever take control of a characters actions.

QuoteWhat about situations where the character is tortured, sees unspeakable horrors, suffers insanity, etc? Should the GM take control at those points? What about seduction, bribery and other lesser effects that tempt a person to act differently from normal?

To me all this is roleplaying stuff. Sometimes there is a mechanical (rules) effect esp with regards to torture insanity etc, but normaly I just reward good roleplaying. If a player is being tortured,mind controlled etc she normaly just roleplays the whole thing out - and most of them take great joy in being bad for a brief spell

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R- and most of them take great joy in being bad for a brief spell

QFT

Quote from: StuartI knew someone would.



I think the key point to think about is this...

Is it YOU or is it the character?

It's not *your* alignment, it's the fictional characters.

How would the game play differently if the players were encouraged not to say "I want to stab him in the fucking eye!" but rather "Conrad the Meek wants to stab him in the fucking eye!" ?

1st person vs. 3rd person

I know *A LOT* of people play D&D 1st person...  but I'm really starting to like the 3rd person approach.

I do 1st person, never gamed with anyone who did 3rd.  Don't think it would change things much, I already recognzie that the character is not me.  The fun for me as a player comes in part from figuring out what I would do if I were this character.  So if the GM says "No, your character wouldn't do that" he's getting in the way of my fun.  That, to me, is one of the basic foundations of the social contract, the players have complete license over their characters.  If anything I'm eager to give players more power over the game, not less.

This also points out the weakness of the alignment mechanic.  The terms are vague and ill-defined.  I mean have you ever read a paladin thread?  I've seen people arguing that *genocide* is Lawful and Good.  Maybe I think that it's perfectly appropriate for a NG character to stab this guy in the eye.  When I do play D&D I generally refuse to pick an alignment.  If the GM insists I'll make myself TN and tell him to change it to whatever he thinks is appropriate - I'm just going to play my character and not think about it.  D&D alignments are nothing more than football teams, trying to treat them as a moral system is only going to lead to arguing and circlejerking.

GM control
* the character is being tortured
* it really hurts

GM control guided by character stats and/or ability check (eg. Wis/Will save)
* the character screams
* the character suffers losses to stats

Not controlled by the GM -- totally up to the player
* the character acts dishonorably (eg. tells secret, betrays friends)
* the character acts unheroically (eg. begs for mercy, cries like a baby)

In regular D&D there are no stats for honour, bravery, loyalty, etc. so normal decisions about these actions are completely up to the player.  If the game included a bravery statistic (3-18) and required PCs to make morale checks, then the player would no longer have this absolute control.

Let's take a closer look at the attacking the Inn Keeper example...

The characters are sitting at a table in the Inn with the "mysterious stranger" who is telling them about the "abandoned tower" outside of town.  The players are roleplaying their interaction with the NPC and asking questions about the history of the dungeon they're going to be adventuring in for that evening's game.

Joe decides this is boring and announces: "I walk over to the Inn Keeper and stab him in the eye."  

You say: "Uh, what?  Why would you do that?"

Joe says: "It's my character, and I can do what I want.  I attack him."

As the GM, do you:

* Put Joe's enjoyment first, even though it disrupts the rest of the group -- allow Joe's character to attack the Inn Keeper and potentially have the evening's game move away from "heroic fantasy" to something else.

* Let Joe's character conduct the arbitrary out of character / theme action, but try to "train" Joe by punishing him for this action.  Killing his character, or imposing some sort of lasting penalty (eg. lost items, hp, stats, etc).  Perhaps rewarding the other players for "good" behaviour (eg. xp, items, etc)

* Put the enjoyment of the rest of the group first.  Tell Joe he can't have his character attack the Inn Keeper for in-game reasons (Alignment, Int, Wis, Chr), and possibly tell Joe to smarten up and play the game the way the rest of the players want to (out of game reasons).

I believe the role of the GM is to make the game fun for the majority of  the players, and they should stop Joe from disrupting the game.

I think this issue is closely related to the "Always say Yes" school of thought -- seen in "Say yes, or roll the dice" type of games.  That approach works for SOME types of games -- ones that are closer to the "Who's Line is it anyway?" end of RPGs -- and not ones that are closer to the Wargaming end of the spectrum.*

* (I'm thinking a War Games <--> Theatre Sports type spectrum is actually a good model for thinking about RPGs and is supported by the history of the game (Chainmail-->D&D), as well as modern developments in "Forge Style" games, which move further towards the Theatre Sports end of the spectrum. )

Quote from: Stuart* Let Joe's character conduct the arbitrary out of character / theme action, but try to "train" Joe by punishing him for this action.

I prefer to think of them as natural consequences rather than punishments. Certainly a PC can start slaughtering random strangers, but in that case the player shouldn't pretend to be surprised if the character is arrested, tried and executed for murder afterwards (unless the others care enough to save him). ICA=ICC, to quote the MUSH adage: a troublesome and disruptive player won't necessarily be protected from his own stupidity by a GM who "never says 'no'".

(The whole point of the principle is to keep things running along, whatever may happen, even if it doesn't fit in with your plans. Just roll with it.)

Quote from: StuartAs the GM, do you:

* Put Joe's enjoyment first, even though it disrupts the rest of the group -- allow Joe's character to attack the Inn Keeper and potentially have the evening's game move away from "heroic fantasy" to something else.

* Let Joe's character conduct the arbitrary out of character / theme action, but try to "train" Joe by punishing him for this action.  Killing his character, or imposing some sort of lasting penalty (eg. lost items, hp, stats, etc).  Perhaps rewarding the other players for "good" behaviour (eg. xp, items, etc)

On the first choice, why does this disrupt the rest of the group?  They can try to stop him within the game if it does.  So what if the action changes the course of the evening?  The possibility of abrupt changes is why tabletop play is so great.

I'd punish the action within the game, depending on the nature of the world.  Authorities would try to arrest him or the victim's friends would attack him.  Either the player stops doing stupid stuff or they die a lot.  If a player insists on doing disruptive/stupid actions, you need need to have a talk with them and probably give them the boot - continuously overruling their actions doesn't solve it.

Quote from: StuartAs the GM, do you:
*snip*

Not play with douchebags?