I feel like a hypocrite (CHA skills and RP)

[Kahuna Burger]

There's no need to get snippy. Whats with this giant chip on your shoulder you always seem to carry?

I have a chip on my shoulder because I base my veiws on torture on experts rather than capitalization of opinion? If you are going to flat out state that something is so, rather than just the way you like your stories, back it up. Attacking me for contesting your assertions is a little weak.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Just a quick question: is it reasonable for a character who fails a save against, say, Charm Person, to be forced into revealing info the player really doesn't want to, but unreasonable for the same character to give up info after failing a "torture save"?

No, it is unreasonable for someone who fails their save against charm to automaticly spill the beans, because charm person is not a dominate spell. For instance, I had a "double agent" character in a game who was lying to other PCs who she really was close friends with and cared about. If you told me that charm person made her tell the truth to the caster, I would tell you to reread the spell description.

That said, the torture situation is no different to me than the diplomacy one the OP suggested. If there is a situation of trust between the DM and player, the player should be willing to have his or her character react in character, and the DM would accept reasonable actions/reactions.

Btw, I don't plan on ever running or being in a game where mechanics for torture matter, but why no love for concentration/autohypnosis? I would say Fort to not be bothered as much by the pain, then Will to maintain your opposition even when the pain is getting to you, with the possibility of a trained concerntration or autohypnosis check replacing either.

 

[sniffles]

Just a quick question: is it reasonable for a character who fails a save against, say, Charm Person, to be forced into revealing info the player really doesn't want to, but unreasonable for the same character to give up info after failing a "torture save"?

I would say it is unreasonable for either effect to force the player to reveal info he really doesn't want to. Charm Person states that the target regards the caster as 'a trusted friend and ally'. If the PC would tell such information to a trusted friend, then it is reasonable for him to do so, but if he wouldn't tell that info to anyone if he could help it, then he shouldn't blurt it out to the caster of the spell.

I've seen some misinterpretation of Charm Person - the spell description states that it does not allow the caster to control the target as if he were an automaton, but many GMs and players in my experience seem to think the spell is equivalent to total mind control.

I still object to (almost) any situation in which the GM dictates the behavior of a player-character. The GM can suggest to the player that if his PC is being tortured he'd be likely to tell what he knows, but the GM should not talk for the PC, IMO.

 

[buzz]

I still object to (almost) any situation in which the GM dictates the behavior of a player-character. The GM can suggest to the player that if his PC is being tortured he'd be likely to tell what he knows, but the GM should not talk for the PC, IMO.

Torture seems like a situation in which it would be reasonable to force a PC to reveal information they normally would not. The problem is simply that D&D doesn't have any rules that cover how adjudicate this fairly, unless someone knows of rules in a supplement somewhere. The rules in Spycraft 2.0 are the closest thing I can think of.

 

[sniffles]

Torture seems like a situation in which it would be reasonable to force a PC to reveal information they normally would not. The problem is simply that D&D doesn't have any rules that cover how adjudicate this fairly, unless someone knows of rules in a supplement somewhere. The rules in Spycraft 2.0 are the closest thing I can think of.

I can't completely disagree with that. I just disagree with the idea that the GM can tell a player what his character does. If the GM can't persuade the player to go along with roleplaying the PC spilling his guts, then there's a bigger problem than the lack of rules to adjudicate the situation. More than likely if the player really resists cooperating, he'd resist even if the system had clearly defined rules for that situation.

Anyway, it hardly seems worth it to wrangle over such situations in D&D or other similar fantasy systems. If the GM is really determined to extract information, he can just have the NPC use a psionic ability or some type of spell.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I would say it is unreasonable for either effect to force the player to reveal info he really doesn't want to. Charm Person states that the target regards the caster as 'a trusted friend and ally'. If the PC would tell such information to a trusted friend, then it is reasonable for him to do so, but if he wouldn't tell that info to anyone if he could help it, then he shouldn't blurt it out to the caster of the spell.

I've seen some misinterpretation of Charm Person - the spell description states that it does not allow the caster to control the target as if he were an automaton, but many GMs and players in my experience seem to think the spell is equivalent to total mind control.

Just a point - from charm person

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

Charm person is more powerful than just making the target your friend. I don't think it should be, but it is. Less powerful than dominate to be sure - but more than you give it credit for.


As for me - I apply the 'immune to dip/bluff/intimidate' on both sides. Bluff makes someone think that YOU believe something is true. Diplomacy makes someone (potentially) your best friend, not a mind controlled slave. Intimidate does the exact same thing (only replace 'best friend' with 'friend'). You're not going to be able to seduce the average character away from something important to them without a hell of a setup first (ie - you know he/she is single, interested and has someone to cover for them, or reasonably think they won't get caught/nothing will go wrong). You won't be able to intimidate the average henchman into giving up his boss, unless there's already some weakness there (the boss isn't particularly scary or benevolent, or again - you could set up ahead of time: evidence that the boss already dropped him in it, the head of his boss, that sort of thing).

Note - I'm not saying that you have to give a long, complex speech and I'll be swayed by your presentation, but in much the same way as making tactical choices in combat, out of combat interactions will be far more effective if you do more than just "charge him and hit him with my sword" so to speak.

In general - taking out a foe through social interaction should be as hard and varied as taking them out through combat - sometimes they're just waiting there for a friend (with combat: the creature is asleep, all your spells are targeted at his weaknesses etc), sometimes you have some work cut out for you (the foe is awake and alert and you have no special advantage), and sometimes it's just not gonna happen (the foe is awake, alert and happens to be immune to all of your primary offensive tactics). Other parallels (ie - the entire party should be involved, preparation makes a huge difference etc) can also be drawn in a manner that will greatly enrich the social game.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Personally I don't like the idea of saves, mainly because this means at lower levels the DM is more likely to be able to influence a PCs actions than at higher level. The characters personally is just as likely to be one that doesn't succumb to temptation or torture at a low-level as it is at a high level and I think it should still be a player choice and not random.

I think saves cover it pretty well. A higher-level character is better at resisting a wizard's mind control or a beasts deadly venom, why not seduction (a matter of will) or torture (a matter of will and/or fortitude)?

Some things just are "random". You don't say that a dominated player character still gets to act however he wants, do you? The characters are (usually) no gods. They're living beings with limitations.

As I said, it's all nice and well for the player to say: "My character resist the torture and doesn't talk", because he's not subject to said torture. So the way to do this properly is either to torture the player (maybe not the best course of action) or to "dictate" his behaviour somehow, just like with magic and the like.

 

[maggot]

As for me - I apply the 'immune to dip/bluff/intimidate' on both sides. Bluff makes someone think that YOU believe something is true. Diplomacy makes someone (potentially) your best friend, not a mind controlled slave. Intimidate does the exact same thing (only replace 'best friend' with 'friend').

Seems the most sensible suggestion so far. Thanks.

 

[buzz]

More than likely if the player really resists cooperating, he'd resist even if the system had clearly defined rules for that situation.

Well, then that player would be a dickweed. Seriously, as long as there's a system in place that gives my PC a fair chance to resist and make die rolls and whatnot, I'm good. If I lose, I lose, same as if I failed a save vs. a fireball or got hit with a sword. Refusing to abide by such rules is just as asinine as whining about going to negative hp. If you didn't want that to happen, don't play.

Anyway, it hardly seems worth it to wrangle over such situations in D&D or other similar fantasy systems. If the GM is really determined to extract information, he can just have the NPC use a psionic ability or some type of spell.

True, which is probably why there are no torture rules in the core.