How far is too far when describing what a PC senses and feels?

[iserith]

The thing with telling a player what his or her character thinks, however innocuously intended, is effectively constraining the reasonable choices the player can make without objection. The DM tells the player the character would find the scene before him or her frightening, for example. So now all responses other than a fear response (which can vary, certainly) are effectively off the table. The player is put in the position of either accepting this limitation or objecting to it in the middle of the game.

This is not a position I want to put my players in. The environment already constrains their choices. It seems too controlling to me to then want to constrain their choices further by suggesting how their character feels about things even if the DM professes that the player can have the character act freely. If the DM truly wants them to act freely, then establishing how the character feels about something is superfluous anyway. There's just no reason to do it.

When it comes to D&D 5e, the DM already controls two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game - describing the environment and narrating the result of the adventurers' actions. Plus the DM decides if and when the game mechanics come into play. All the player can do is describe what he or she wants to do, controlling what the character does, thinks, and says. That's it. I don't want to start intruding upon the ONE thing the player is tasked with doing in the game. I've got more than enough on my plate. I don't need to eat off the player's plate, too.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So, going back to the question of the thread, I really don't want the DM telling me what my character thinks and feels, how my character interprets what he experiences. Deciding those things for myself, hopefully to the surprise and delight of my tablemates, is a big part of the fun.

This.

When it comes to D&D 5e, the DM already controls two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game - describing the environment and narrating the result of the adventurers' actions. Plus the DM decides if and when the game mechanics come into play. All the player can do is describe what he or she wants to do, controlling what the character does, thinks, and says. That's it. I don't want to start intruding upon the ONE thing the player is tasked with doing in the game. I've got more than enough on my plate. I don't need to eat off the player's plate, too.

And this.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And given the choice between telling the player that their character’s hair is standing on end and their heart is racing, versus setting the stage so that the PLAYER’S hair is standing on end and their heart is racing, I will go for the latter every time.

I won’t always succeed, but I will try.

 

[Charlaquin]

Something I’ve not delved into much, but I see Matt Mercer do quite often, is describing the internal state of a PC, even up to recalling memories and having thoughts...

An important thing to keep in mind about Matt Mercer is that he’s directing a piece of performance art as much as he’s DMing a game of D&D. When I DM, my players are the only audience. When Matt Mercer DMs, the viewers on stream are his audience. Obviously he wants the players to enjoy the game as well, but they’re not really the primary audience, they’re his fellow performers. And I get the sense that the Critical Role cast enjoy the game partly as an improvisational acting exercise, as much as a roleplaying game. So within that context, I think Matt’s decision to occasionally narrate the characters actions or reactions is fitting. It also looks to me like a very well-run 3e or Pathfinder game, which the first campaign was at first. They changed systems when they decided to stream the game, but Matt retained the DMing style he had been employing the whole time.

There is a lot I really like about Matt’s DMing style, and a couple of things I really, really dislike. I would say that the way he narrates actions is not one of the things I dislike, even if I would dislike it in a different context.

 

[Shiroiken]

In general I stick to automatic responses that a person could not control. This can include instinctive reactions such as shying away from something repulsive or wrinkling their nose at a foul smell. It can also include narration for saving throw results, such as jumping back from a opening pit, or ducking away from a fireball.

I will also use stray thoughts occasionally, but mostly to keep the story moving. For example if I know that a PC would have experienced/remembered something I will tell them when it's relevant, even thought the player may not ask. This can help speed up the game if the players have forgotten something (especially if we haven't played in a few weeks) or if I know they'll ask and I don't want a check.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

This is the most intelligent and thought provoking question I've seen asked on here: props to the OP.

Telling characters physiological sensations they're feeling is just flavor or might even convey crucial information ("you can taste a hint of bitter almonds in your wine").
Telling characters what emotions they feel is, I think, usually fine: your emotional reaction to something is beyond your control. A lot of games have mechanics for this:Call of Cthulhu, Delta Green, Deadlands, others.
Having characters relive memories their players don't remember them having is fine...as long as there's an in-game reason for their memories to have been messed with. ('Would you kindly?')
Telling characters WHAT THEY DO (unless they are dominated or something) is NEVER OKAY. I mean, it's usually not THE END OF THE WORLD but it shouldn't happen. The only place I've seen this done was in the prepared text for some adventures in the earliest editions of my beloved Shadowrun.

 

[robus]

An important thing to keep in mind about Matt Mercer is that he’s directing a piece of performance art as much as he’s DMing a game of D&D. When I DM, my players are the only audience. When Matt Mercer DMs, the viewers on stream are his audience. Obviously he wants the players to enjoy the game as well, but they’re not really the primary audience, they’re his fellow performers. And I get the sense that the Critical Role cast enjoy the game partly as an improvisational acting exercise, as much as a roleplaying game. So within that context, I think Matt’s decision to occasionally narrate the characters actions or reactions is fitting. It also looks to me like a very well-run 3e or Pathfinder game, which the first campaign was at first. They changed systems when they decided to stream the game, but Matt retained the DMing style he had been employing the whole time.

I often see this response to Critical Role and I think it’s mistaken. This group was playing for a couple of years before the stream began. It was absolutely not created with live streaming in mind. Do they emphasize their social interactions? Sure, but we do have to stop dismissing as some kind of performance art that occasionally rolls D&D dice. I think Matt is a masterful DM in his ongoing ability to excite and challenge this larger group of talented players. Do i disagree with some of his choices? Sure. But I would give my eyeteeth for chance to play at his table!

 

[Oofta]

I often see this response to Critical Role and I think it’s mistaken. This group was playing for a couple of years before the stream began. It was absolutely not created with live streaming in mind. Do they emphasize their social interactions? Sure, but we do have to stop dismissing as some kind of performance art that occasionally rolls D&D dice. I think Matt is a masterful DM in his ongoing ability to excite and challenge this larger group of talented players. Do i disagree with some of his choices? Sure. But I would give my eyeteeth for chance to play at his table!

We don't know if his style has changed for streaming, just that they were a gaming group before they started streaming. Not saying they changed or did not, we have no way of knowing.

On the other hand, all of his players are actors. They're used to being told what their character thinks and feels as part of their job so being told what their PC feels is probably not particularly different. I think this whole topic is probably something that should be discussed in a session 0 because some players absolutely hate being told what their character feels emotionally.

 

[robus]

The thing with telling a player what his or her character thinks, however innocuously intended, is effectively constraining the reasonable choices the player can make without objection. The DM tells the player the character would find the scene before him or her frightening, for example. So now all responses other than a fear response (which can vary, certainly) are effectively off the table. The player is put in the position of either accepting this limitation or objecting to it in the middle of the game.

I dunno that seems a bit overboard, the DM has not imposed the frightened condition, they’ve simply informed the players that their characters are challenged by the scary circumstances. Bravery is continuing on despite being scared, so the players are under no obligation to run away or act frightened. They can simply describe their characters actions to overcome this mental obstacle.

“My PC thinks of the poor lost NPC that disappeared in these spooky woods and steels themself against what horrors lurk within.”

I dunno, it doesn’t seem over playing the DMs hand?

 

[iserith]

I often see this response to Critical Role and I think it’s mistaken. This group was playing for a couple of years before the stream began. It was absolutely not created with live streaming in mind. Do they emphasize their social interactions? Sure, but we do have to stop dismissing as some kind of performance art that occasionally rolls D&D dice. I think Matt is a masterful DM in his ongoing ability to excite and challenge this larger group of talented players. Do i disagree with some of his choices? Sure. But I would give my eyeteeth for chance to play at his table!

I don't think it's dismissive to call it what it is: A game for an audience broader than the table at which it is played. That absolutely necessitates that they do things that groups without the audience don't do because the priorities are different. Constraining choice in the manner he does definitely fits with the format.

And while I don't care for Critical Role, I do wish more podcasts would act like they do have an audience (even if they don't) because most of them are boring as hell in my opinion. They play as if nobody is watching - and that's probably why nobody is.