Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How far is too far when describing what a PC senses and feels?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7598575" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Things that are OK.</p><p></p><p>* Telling the player what their character perceives - color, cold, odor, mystic perceptions, etc. - including things that happened to them involuntarily, like the floor giving way and that they've fallen into a pit. </p><p>* Telling the player that their character recalls some fact that they learned off stage.</p><p></p><p>Things that should be used sparingly.</p><p></p><p>* Implanting anything into the player's backstory without the player's consent.</p><p>* Mind control or any other thing which temporarily removes agency over the character from the player.</p><p>* Hand waving player actions in order to quickly advance the story without prior and continuing player consent.</p><p>* Imposing player actions on a character through narration, rather than allowing the player to narrate their own consequences. For example, describing to the player what their character does as they tumble backwards down stairs is a gray area. It's preferable that the player self-narrates, but many are uncomfortable taking on a thespian role and it's sometimes helpful to immersion to help the player see what is happening.</p><p>* Stopping a player to check if they understand what the consequences of their proposition might be. Sometimes players don't think through the legal, moral, or social ramifications of an act. If you think that the player is unaware of something that the character would well know, or that the player might be confused regarding the fictional positioning, or confused regarding what his declaration entails, then it may be a good time to stop them. In my campaign, a good example of this would be casting Charm Person. No single spell is more likely to get a neophyte confused. To begin with, casting a spell normally involves clearly and firmly speaking in a strange language and often making hand gestures and the like. This means that not only is the target of the charm, if they make their saving throw going to remember that you did this, but everyone around watching you is likely to see it as well. Magic is common enough that even ordinary commoners know theoretically what casting a spell looks like, and social custom requires that people not start casting a spell without explaining their purpose and getting permission from those around them. If you don't, people will - with good cause - tend to assume that you are casting a hostile spell on them, and most people - for good reason - will be terrified of this prospect. As a result, if you just start saying 'magic words' in public you are likely to start a riot. On top of that, mind effecting magic is considered a sort of witchcraft, so that if you do charm someone, you'll have been considered to be guilty of the crime of 'mind rape'. This is a crime punishably by death, typically death by immolation (burned at a stake), and so feared is "witchcraft" and other "dark arts" that it's highly likely that a lynch mob will try to kill you well before you get a fair trial and the law will tend to look the other way. So invariably, I have to stop players and make this sort of speech to them early on in every game I run, and ask them, "Now that you understand this a bit better, do you still want to go through with it." To not do this, and instead play "gotcha" is to run a Kraag Wurld. However, to do this sort of thing all the time, is to subtly play the player's character for them.</p><p></p><p>Clearly over the line.</p><p></p><p>* Telling the player how to play their character in anyway, such as...</p><p>* Telling the player that their character would do this or wouldn't do this.</p><p>* Telling the player what is in or out of character for the character.</p><p>* Telling the player how their character behaves or responds to things. </p><p>* Telling the player how they are thinking, feeling, or otherwise assuming their internal mind state. This includes telling the player that they like or dislike an NPC, or telling the player that a certain scene makes them feel afraid, disgusted, or whatever. All of that is playing the character for the player.</p><p></p><p>From that, things like "when encountering some scary creature he might suggest that the PCs feel a sense of dread and a cold pit in their stomach. When encountering an intimidating NPC he might describe a PCs throat going dry.", are going over the line for me.</p><p></p><p>In Matt Mercer's defense though, if any GM is entitled to put on a Director hat during play (which is the GM stance that we are talking about when you tell the player how to play their character), it's a guy running a game primarily intended to be an entertaining episodic show. That is to say, perhaps the fact that the primary consumer of the game is an audience, justifies Director stance better than a normal game would.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7598575, member: 4937"] Things that are OK. * Telling the player what their character perceives - color, cold, odor, mystic perceptions, etc. - including things that happened to them involuntarily, like the floor giving way and that they've fallen into a pit. * Telling the player that their character recalls some fact that they learned off stage. Things that should be used sparingly. * Implanting anything into the player's backstory without the player's consent. * Mind control or any other thing which temporarily removes agency over the character from the player. * Hand waving player actions in order to quickly advance the story without prior and continuing player consent. * Imposing player actions on a character through narration, rather than allowing the player to narrate their own consequences. For example, describing to the player what their character does as they tumble backwards down stairs is a gray area. It's preferable that the player self-narrates, but many are uncomfortable taking on a thespian role and it's sometimes helpful to immersion to help the player see what is happening. * Stopping a player to check if they understand what the consequences of their proposition might be. Sometimes players don't think through the legal, moral, or social ramifications of an act. If you think that the player is unaware of something that the character would well know, or that the player might be confused regarding the fictional positioning, or confused regarding what his declaration entails, then it may be a good time to stop them. In my campaign, a good example of this would be casting Charm Person. No single spell is more likely to get a neophyte confused. To begin with, casting a spell normally involves clearly and firmly speaking in a strange language and often making hand gestures and the like. This means that not only is the target of the charm, if they make their saving throw going to remember that you did this, but everyone around watching you is likely to see it as well. Magic is common enough that even ordinary commoners know theoretically what casting a spell looks like, and social custom requires that people not start casting a spell without explaining their purpose and getting permission from those around them. If you don't, people will - with good cause - tend to assume that you are casting a hostile spell on them, and most people - for good reason - will be terrified of this prospect. As a result, if you just start saying 'magic words' in public you are likely to start a riot. On top of that, mind effecting magic is considered a sort of witchcraft, so that if you do charm someone, you'll have been considered to be guilty of the crime of 'mind rape'. This is a crime punishably by death, typically death by immolation (burned at a stake), and so feared is "witchcraft" and other "dark arts" that it's highly likely that a lynch mob will try to kill you well before you get a fair trial and the law will tend to look the other way. So invariably, I have to stop players and make this sort of speech to them early on in every game I run, and ask them, "Now that you understand this a bit better, do you still want to go through with it." To not do this, and instead play "gotcha" is to run a Kraag Wurld. However, to do this sort of thing all the time, is to subtly play the player's character for them. Clearly over the line. * Telling the player how to play their character in anyway, such as... * Telling the player that their character would do this or wouldn't do this. * Telling the player what is in or out of character for the character. * Telling the player how their character behaves or responds to things. * Telling the player how they are thinking, feeling, or otherwise assuming their internal mind state. This includes telling the player that they like or dislike an NPC, or telling the player that a certain scene makes them feel afraid, disgusted, or whatever. All of that is playing the character for the player. From that, things like "when encountering some scary creature he might suggest that the PCs feel a sense of dread and a cold pit in their stomach. When encountering an intimidating NPC he might describe a PCs throat going dry.", are going over the line for me. In Matt Mercer's defense though, if any GM is entitled to put on a Director hat during play (which is the GM stance that we are talking about when you tell the player how to play their character), it's a guy running a game primarily intended to be an entertaining episodic show. That is to say, perhaps the fact that the primary consumer of the game is an audience, justifies Director stance better than a normal game would. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How far is too far when describing what a PC senses and feels?
Top