When your player's character is under one of these effects, do you:

1) take control of his character?

2) TELL him he's under these effects and expect him to roleplay it?

3) give him false/slanted information that reflects the effects of the condition he is under, without telling the player?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen your player's character is under one of these effects, do you:

1) take control of his character?

2) TELL him he's under these effects and expect him to roleplay it?

3) give him false/slanted information that reflects the effects of the condition he is under, without telling the player?

RPGPundit

Good question -- I don't like those effects much; I tend to use them minimally in my games... but in terms of insanity and mind control, I play the character as an NPC.

In the case of illusions, it depends -- if the effect is the sort of thing that can be disbelieved, I just tell the player what his character sees and he can decide if he believes it or not.

I don't like those powers because they (largely) limit a player's involvement in the game and can cause difficulties at the table (if I'm playing a mind controlled character, all the players will know that something's up.. playing their characters as none-the-wiser seems problematic. It could work, but it would be awkward IMO).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Good question -- I don't like those effects much; I tend to use them minimally in my games... but in terms of insanity and mind control, I play the character as an NPC.

In the case of illusions, it depends -- if the effect is the sort of thing that can be disbelieved, I just tell the player what his character sees and he can decide if he believes it or not.

I don't like those powers because they (largely) limit a player's involvement in the game and can cause difficulties at the table (if I'm playing a mind controlled character, all the players will know that something's up.. playing their characters as none-the-wiser seems problematic. It could work, but it would be awkward IMO).

Cheers,
-E.

I'm all about #3. I've run some major PC mindfucks before. That psychology degree has to come in handy for something...

With illusions, I use E's method.  Tell them what they see, they can decide if they see it or not.  Mind control I'll go for #3, just expect them to roleplay it.  IME most players like doing this as it frees them from any teamwork desire and can screw over their party members with no hard feelings.  

For insanity, I'd talk with the player OOC and figure out the best way for the madness to manifest.  Insanity should be tailored to the character and the stimulus that has broken their mind IMO.

Illusions I go for 3, mind control I go for 2, not that either comes up much.

I would never use 1.

The way I run things, it's a mixture of #2 and #3, leaning heavily towards the latter unless the character possesses some means of figuring out more quickly just what is going on than the player could be expected to (or unless the player already knows, of course). #1 would only be a possibility with direct mind control, and that's always been exceedingly rare in my games.

Secret mind control requires the help of the player.  You need to tell them the stuation and have them roleplay appropriately.

Overt mind control could either be handled as above, or switching the character over to NPC mode.  If ther are going to be doing things directly against what the player(s) want, this is a good option -- just keep in mind you don't want a player without a character to play for too long!

Illusions and minor insanity can be handled by treating everything false as "real", or by telling the player what's going on and expecting them to roleplay it.

Extreme insanity -- particulalry long term insanity and insanity that makes the character act in a way the player(s) don't want is a good time for NPC status.

In all cases if the player isn't able to roleplay the effects properly* you as DM need to be able to say "Ok, the character doesn't do that..." "Ok, the character does THIS instead..." or say "Ok, the character is an NPC... (for now?)"

Edit: * And by properly I don't mean "act/roleplay well", I mean "not disregard the in game condition because they don't like being told how to run their character".

Also, #2 & #3, depending on the circumstances. IME, players enjoy the opportunity to ham it up in these situations.

Ned

Quote from: StuartIllusions and minor insanity can be handled by treating everything false as "real", or by telling the player what's going on and expecting them to roleplay it.

Those can also be much more effective and atmospheric if the player doesn't have an OOC rationale at hand. A passing stranger on the street whispers into a PC's ear that "I have always been your friend", and suddenly that character can't prove in any way that the lie isn't true: the creepy confusion which follows would be weakened if the player knew in advance that such-and-such creature is capable of pulling off something that.

Quote from: StuartSecret mind control requires the help of the player.  You need to tell them the stuation and have them roleplay appropriately.

Not necessarily, just as I trust the affected player to play his character as mind controlled I trust the other players to play as if they didn't know that he was mind controlled.

QuoteNot necessarily, just as I trust the affected player to play his character as mind controlled I trust the other players to play as if they didn't know that he was mind controlled.

I think that could work a lot of the time, but there's no way to avoid players taking that OOC info into account when presented with some situations:

"Wow, this sure is a spooky mansion... let's split into pairs and look around."

You *know* the players aren't going to put a weak / essential character with the mind controlled axe wielding one -- even if that's what they might do normally.

An awful lot of option three unless it's something like a charm spell. Then the player chooses how to react with the information given him.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen your player's character is under one of these effects, do you:

1) take control of his character?

2) TELL him he's under these effects and expect him to roleplay it?

3) give him false/slanted information that reflects the effects of the condition he is under, without telling the player?

I tend towards option 2.  I only use #1 when the game mechanics require it, such as the compulsory actions of a confusion spell, a Call of Cthulhu PC reduced to zero sanity, etc.  I rarely use #3 because I'm not clever enough to make that sort of ruse work for more than a few minutes.

I tend toward #2 for mind control/insanity/dopplegangers.  Most players like the chance to change sides for a bit.  For long term situations, I try to tell them in secret and most players like having a secret from the rest of the group.  I can't recall a player refusing to go along.

#3 can work but it generally takes planning ahead for me to think what to tell them.  In theory, #3 is best for illusions but you often get meta knowledge in the way and certain characters should be more susceptible than their players, so I often wind up with #2.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen your player's character is under one of these effects, do you:

1) take control of his character?

2) TELL him he's under these effects and expect him to roleplay it?

3) give him false/slanted information that reflects the effects of the condition he is under, without telling the player?

I never do 1. It strikes me as a bit cheap. In lots of games, the player only has his one PC as a means of interacting with the gameworld, and then I reach over and take control of that like a kid swiping another child's piece off of the Snakes and Ladders board? What sort of prat would I be then?

I would normally go for 2 or 3, depending on the type of game it is. If the players know full well that they're up for a paranoia-and-conspiracies "everything you know is wrong" trust nobody kind of game, I'd go with 3; if they came for something a bit lighter and less ambiguous, I'd go with 2.

Number three is a difficult one to get right: the GM's verbal descriptions are really the only way the players have of knowing what is happening in the campaign world, and I know people whose game experience would be shattered if the very descriptions turned out to be occasionally misleading - they'd be paralysed with indecision and constantly analysing everything I said from that point onwards. I think it's only fair to say upfront whether a campaign is going to involve subtle mindfuckery, so people who don't want to deal with it can bow out before the game starts.