DM overruling a Player's play of his character

[Testament]

In some cases, I'd poke the player with the "Smells like metagame" stick, but there's only one real circumstance where the GM gets to dictate PC actions, and that's when there's spells with the [mind-affecting] descriptor being slung. I've walked from tables where a GM has dictated my actions, and I wouldn't expect any player I know to stand for it either.

In this case, it'd be the stick, and a post-game vote to establish some kind of consistency on Fear effects.

 

[fusangite]

I have a question for those who think it appropriate for a DM to seize control of a character over this screaming/not screaming thing: When you are scared out of your mind, do you act 100% identically to the way you acted the last time you were scared out of your mind? If so, do you think all human beings are the same in this respect?

 

[Zappo]

I'm honestly surprised that so many people think that the character should react in the same way in both situations. He screams when that's useful. I can't see how that could be considered metagaming.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

A DM can make rulings about character behavior, but only if they've got strings tied to the player and stand on a platform well above the player and pulls the strings to make the player's arms and legs move around.

Actually, I've been very badly burned by a DM coopting my PC (and the PC's of other platers in the group) for the sake of the plot he was trying to work the party over with. I am very leary of this type of thing and would suggest speaking to the player about the issue rather than even temporarly assuming control of the character. That type of thing should be avoided unless the characters fall under some sort of mind control of an NPC.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I have a question for those who think it appropriate for a DM to seize control of a character over this screaming/not screaming thing: When you are scared out of your mind, do you act 100% identically to the way you acted the last time you were scared out of your mind? If so, do you think all human beings are the same in this respect?

There is no seizing of control, there is an instruction to try again, to act in character. I wouldn't look to real life situations for an answer, I'd merely expect some continuity from the character without the player just playing their character in a throw-about manner. The stated example is really a bit of an over-reaction from the dm, because as mentioned there are plenty of good reasons to act as they do & also by the rules there is no reason for a fleeing character to strongly warn (free action) their companions to flee.

The only time I'd call a player in the above scenario would be if they had disregarding their character as a person previously & in context this looked like them just playing themself again. Mind you, I'd like to think I could address this much earlier because I think it would be a symptom of distress rather than a cause.

 

[Barak]

Hehe. That's hilarious.

If someone acting as tough as they can manage when scared around their friends, and yet acting like a "girly man" (to quote Ahnold) when scared by themselves is metagaming, I guess a lot of people manage to metagame in real life. And that, my friends, is quite a feat. No, not a D&D feat, either.

As for not crying out when stabbed, and crying out when being dragged into a lake (or whatever).. Well there's a World of Difference there as well.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

As for not crying out when stabbed, and crying out when being dragged into a lake (or whatever).. Well there's a World of Difference there as well.

Getting OT, I've got a house rule whereby you cannot speak until no longer flatfooted, just for rogues to take down guards.

 

[BSF]

I can think of a couple of times when I have had to overrule a player's actions.

One was when the party barbarian got hit with a fear affect. Now a Barbarian has a good move speed, so it is quiet possible to get well away from the demon they were fighting. Rather than run directly away from the demon, the barb wanted to run sideways toward the cleric to get healing. I might have let it slip except he was going to incur AOO to do that. It's supernatural fear, the rules state run directly away, the barb could, and to do anything else would be taking more risk. I pointed the problem out and the player corrected the action.

The one that chapped me though was when the party bard was hit with a compulsion, failed the save, and was commanded to 'surrender'. The player basically ignored the failed save and began casting a spell. The 'justification' was that the bard wasn't attacking. I decided to countermand that one and had the bard choose to throw down her sword and, well, surrender.

As for the exact circumstances listed? As a messageboard post I can easily sit back and proclaim that the DM probably shouldn't intervene. But without seeing the table environment, or a clear pattern of behavior, it is hard to say. I would probably comment on the disparity and give the player the opportunity to explain what is happening in the PCs mind. That might also give the rest of the players the opportunity to learn more about the PC in question.

 

[jasper]

I will call this possible megagaming. Then would have to review in my mind the players actions when come to megagaming stuff. And make the call then.
A good example is it sop imc for thieves to check for traps at common places, doors, chests etc. To save time I only have players roll when their is a trap and just make a note about the time. However had a game where the player fumbled roll. They then wanted to back off and let the fighter open the chest. When told your pc thinks there are no traps they still wanted to back off. The group and I took over his pc and have trip the trap.
Sorry when a pc has been doing something the same way and then wants to change when it is going to hurt the pc I do call megagaming and have the player step on the land mine.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

In the scenarios presented, the PC has in game reasons to scream or not scream. This is simply not metagaming at all. It may not be the most inspired roleplaying on the part of the player, but this boils down to the DM demanding that a PC who acts in one way when surrounded by friends act in precisely the same manner when alone & isolated.

By the book, panicked characters do not take any actions other than fleeing. Therefore they never scream.

The DM is allowing a free action for fun. Just go with the flow and let the player play his own PC.

The tactical advantage gained over what the other PCs would theorectically be allowed to gain from a Listen check is miniscule. Or nonexistent. The Listen DC for a sound of a battle is -10. Throw in a reasonable circumstance penalty and a distance penalty, and the party is surely going to know enough act appropriately anyway, scream or no scream.

As a DM, your practical options are (A) roll all those Listen checks and tell each individual player precisely what their respective PC discerns based on his exact roll, or (B) let the player decide whether to scream.

From where I sit, that allegedly "gamey" player just did the DM a favor. Do not overthink it.

Better put than the way I stated it. The circumstances are different, and so are the actions.

The Auld Grump