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.
Quote from: BalbinusIllusions I go for 3, mind control I go for 2, not that either comes up much.
I would never use 1.
:ditto:
I'm not sure about "never", but I avoid #1...with extreme prejudice. :) I like to trust my players.
P.S. I'm another one of the people that aren't quite clever enough [a stone face liar :p ] to pull off #3 with consistancy, although I do giv'er the old college try from time to time.
For illusions I tell them what the illusion looks like and they react to that. For mind control I usually let them act it out, but if it's possession then I take over because it's not the character anymore, it's the possessing entity. For insanity they always get to play it out.
In all three instances I reserve the right to veto actions. Practiccally the only times I've ever had to use the veto is if I've failed to adequately explain an aspect of the situation.
All of the above, although rarely #1 and as people have mentioned #2 for mind control and #3 for illusions. Depending on the type of insanity, I'd use #1, #2 or #3.
Depending on the type of mind control I might use #1 as well. For example a failed save on against the Command spell doesn't really leave any room for player interpretation, so that's effectively #1, but Charm Person does so that's #2 in my book.
If the insanity is long term and debilitating and/or means the player will attack other party members then I tend to go with #1 over the other methods. If it's just a case of seeing things that aren't there then go for #3.
Just so people know, I usually use number 2, because I generally trust my players to RP the effects of these sort of things, and most of them get seriously into it.
I will use number 1 when the effect of whatever we're talking about basically makes PCs catatonic, like with insanity effects in CoC; where they temporarily become NPCs.
Number 3 tends to be too difficult to keep up in the long term, and only tends to work really well when its something that affects the party as a whole.
That said, I had at least one very memorable example of a number 3 technique in an Amber campaign (one where all the other PCs were in on the trick except the player who's character was affected), and likewise a very very good case of the longest term "number 2" I can remember happening, in that same Amber campaign.
RPGPundit