DM overruling a Player's play of his character

[Squire James]

I wouldn't overrule a player's action even if he is meta-gaming. However, I will note that the player MUST show some obvious sign of fear in ALL cases (he failed a Will save to get there, so he's gotta be a little off his desired demeanor regardless). If the player refuses to act scared when hit with a Fear spell, I feel justified in taking over his character for that purpose.

The meta-gaming is a separate issue. I'll warn them that I'll dock XP if they continue the meta-gaming action. They can still do it, I apply the XP penalty, and go on as if nothing had happened.

Fortunately, my group isn't bad about acting like proper scardy-cats even when the source of the fear isn't magical!

 

[Steel_Wind]

I have absolutely no trouble at all with a DM over-ruling a player choice when the choice is motivated by metagaming concerns. I have even less of a problem when there is a precedent set for it - but it is by no means a necessary ingredient.

Take out the precedent - and over-ruling a metagaming action is still entirely 100% legit. Period. Full Stop. No right of appeal. The fact that some DMs don't do this as a matter of style does not in any way detract from or call into suspicion the acts of this particular DM. It is entirely within his discretion to do so.

The DM is there to run The Game. Not only the NPCs - not only the the monsters - The Game. Preventing metagaming actions is an entirely legitimate and frequent role of a DM.

This is not a DM "playing" a player's character - it is a DM preventing a metagaming choice by a player. Quite apart from being offensive and objectionable - it is the very purpose and role of the DM to do so in the first place.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

No, it is a DM deciding that a PC would not have different reactions under different circumstances. In other words running some one else's character.

A compromise would be to allow a second will save to either A. Not scream, or B. Scream to attract help, with both representing how much self control the character can muster.

But to outright tell the player that his character does somethng in a particular way under these circumstances is the DM METAGAMING!* Yes, DMs can be guilty of this crime as well.

The Auld Grump

*If one side shouts, then both sides can shout.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think we agree to disagree.

("Shouting" would be using all caps. Using a different typeface is called "emphasis").

 

[Paradigm]

I'd actually would have asked why the PC why he didn't scream during the first effect. Depending on his answer, I would have either nailed him for it or given him a hard time for it later when he opts to scream later for metagame reasons.

"Ohhh. Mr. 'I said my PC was too disiplined a warrior to scream' now wants to shriek like a little girl? Sounds like a player is sweating that he'll be lost from the party soon. So does your PC scream or not scream when you are afraid? It's a involutary reaction, so what you say now sticks. *smiles evily*"

 

[Wormwood]

It's rare that I get such an easy question.

The player controls his character's actions—however cheesy those actions are.

 

[Erratic K]

I agree with Pogre.

and I stack on the reward for roleplaying well. If play smacks too much of metagaming, or if I'm gritting my teeth over something like that, then I just don't reward that player. I don't punish, I just give out XP here, XP there for good play.

Positive reward works better than pointing out errors or inconsistency. If they truly are oblivious then you have to point it out.

-E

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

If these incidents stuck out in my mind I would would ask for a brief rationalization for the difference in behaviour, but I'd leave it at that.

I have overruled inappropriate behaviour in the past & told the player to do it again. This was when the character behaviour was discordant with the world & imo wasn't treating the campaign with minimal respect for verisimilitude.

Players play characters within a world. If I see players playing themselves & not recognizing their characters as people I will object & this applies to me as the dm as well; my friends as players have a right to expect me to play npcs within character. Where I as dm take into account the needs of the players is in my preparation, once I've used this to determine the npcs I feel obligated to play them based upon their defined npc character.

Background & personality notes, although perused by myself, exist primarily for the players benefit. They help the player to play a character that is in accordance with their world (once the notes are edited by me) and should therefore have a clearly profitable direction that they move towards. Given that personality springs from background, these characters shouldn't need asking for such clarification as say a background-less character.

And so, it would be the ill defined character that would likely have their seemingly odd behaviour questioned & potentially held to account.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I wouldn't have any problem at all with the player behavior you described. I don't even think it's metagaming, just gaming. They're too tough to yell, but when the chips come down and they're alone, they yell? That's an interesting character portrayal.

Heck, I don't even dictate behavior when they're mind-controlled -- I tell them there's certain things they have to do, but give them whatever leeway they want to do them.

My personal rule of GMing is "Say yes or roll the dice." I really don't want to tell someone what they can or can't do with their character. I think something like "I walk up the wall" would be the only place I'd step in, if they were violating physical laws.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.