D&D 5E (2014) player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Crimson Longinus]

May I edit that?

It's not that I can stop you but I can't see what was achieved by that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Are cases of charm, suggestion, dominate monster and the like different?

If Valindra had successfully charmed the player in question, could they still scream out she was a lich and try to attack, even though they viewed her as a "friendly acquaintance"? Can charm always be worked around by a resourceful player since they could think their friendly acquaintance had been replaced by a doppelganger, or maybe had been cursed where the only way to save their soul was to kill them before they committed some evil act?

I know this has moved on, but I'd like to answer cleanly. Yes, these are different, but each in different ways. The difference here is that the game has rules that are now limiting the kinds of available actions when compulsion effects come into play. Much like you cannot use the Attack action to make a melee attack on a target if the target is not within your melee reach, these effects add constraints to allowable actions in very specific ways. Their existence, and the fact that they may constrict allowable action declarations, doesn't translate into anything more general -- these effect exist only within the embrace of the compulsion effect, much like the restrictions on when you can employ the Attack action only apply there.

That said, suggestion is pretty straightforward -- you can do whatever you like so long as you can do it while following the suggestion. This one is very close to dominate in that it requires a specific action. Nothing more is necessary, so long as you abide by the specified action. Dominate is pretty clear as well -- the player loses all control over their character and it becomes a limited NPC for the duration. I usually leave the player in charge, and just direct the actions, if it comes up.

Charm person, on the other hand, allows a huge range of possible actions. I believe someone asks later how one acts like a friendly acquaintance, and that's my touchstone -- my idea isn't any better than my players', so I'm going to let them decide. If something seems very odd, I might ask them to tell me what their character is thinking here -- not because I'm going to deny the action, but because I'm curious. Every time this has come up (which, honestly, is less than a handful), the player has a perfectly valid way to think about it that I didn't consider. This reinforces my preference for letting the player decide how to act under charm effects. I see that examples such as attacking the charmer are proposed, but this really goes to 'don't play with jerks' rather than an adjudication style. If you feel you need to assert control over your player's ability to play their characters because, if you don't, they'll turn into rage machines that auto-attack people that charm them because you don't worry much about metagaming, I'd say find new players. I don't worry about metagaming, and my players are present to play a fun game. I don't think argumento ad jerkum is a valid point, because it can be applied to any position, including anti-metagaming (as has been pointed out in this thread). Anti-metagaming doesn't prevent this, not gaming with jerks does.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's not that I can stop you but I can't see what was achieved by that.

Really?

I was just trying to express that your concepts of what makes a game believable and realistic and consistent are valid but subjective.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Really?

I was just trying to express that your concepts of what makes a game believable and realistic and consistent are valid but subjective.

Yes. That is given.

 

[Cadence]

Charm person, on the other hand, allows a huge range of possible actions. I believe someone asks later how one acts like a friendly acquaintance, and that's my touchstone -- my idea isn't any better than my players', so I'm going to let them decide. If something seems very odd, I might ask them to tell me what their character is thinking here -- not because I'm going to deny the action, but because I'm curious. Every time this has come up (which, honestly, is less than a handful), the player has a perfectly valid way to think about it that I didn't consider. This reinforces my preference for letting the player decide how to act under charm effects. I see that examples such as attacking the charmer are proposed, but this really goes to 'don't play with jerks' rather than an adjudication style.

I have no problem with any of that. Never asking or never considering them a jerk at some point kind of feel as not good to me as asking very frequently and having a low threshold for starting to ascribe jerkiness. You need to trust your players if they're worth playing with. Not everyone is worth playing with.

 

[Charlaquin]

Er, you left out "to buy." You know, the action.

Oh, sorry, let me rephrase. “I want to buy a lottery ticket” isn’t a declaration of action. There’s nothing there for the DM to adjudicate.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean I totally agree that letting people just roleplay being charmed generally works perfectly fine.

And I only worry about metagaming on the internet. In the real life I don't need to worry about it because it is not happening.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, just like I said in the part you omitted, you're hung up on physically preventing part. Nothing physically prevented the ancient Egyptians from making gunpowder but their lack of understanding of chemistry did. In practice it is just as real limitation. There really is not any more 'mother may I' here than any other denied action.

This is a good point -- I am (usually) hung up on preventing the physical part. But, this is an outcome of the method, not an intention of it. Why is that? Well, because, as GM, I have the authority to adjudicate what is true for the vast majority of the game world. There's only a vanishing little sliver where I do not have that power, and that's over what a character thinks or tries to do. That's entirely the authority of the player. So, if a player decides their character thinks something, I have no authority over this -- the character thinks that. If the player then has the character act on that thought, I am, again, powerless to prevent this. What I do have power over is the truth of the world. Once the action is attempted, it's in the realm of what is true, and I, as GM, have authority to adjudicate the truth of the outcome. This is usually, because of the type of game, going to be constrained by the current situation which will largely be physical. So, usually, I'm hung up on the physical parts.

If, though, a player decides to check on the truth of what they think, they can declare an action to call on my to adjudicate this. Here I will use my adjudication to confirm, deny, muddle, or enlighten, depending on how I believe that would go. I will usually ask for an ability check to do so, because that's the big tool I have in my toolbox. Once this is complete, I will have adjudicated the truth of what the character's action attempt was, but the player is still free to continue to have their character think and try whatever they want.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. Let's forget 7-11 and I'll use a D&D example.

Suppose the party is fighting Caholdus Impersonatus, who loves to use Hold Person against his enemies. He casts the spell on one of the PCs who fails his save and is held. 3 other players take their turns and the turn of the held PC comes up. For the sake of this example, let's assume that he was distracted by something and has forgotten that his PC is held. For his turn he declares in good faith that his PC is going to attack Caholdus.

Are you guys really going to argue that I can't adjudicate a, "No you can't do that. You don't get an action due to being held. Make your save."? Because I'm pretty sure that I can adjudicate a denial of the action declaration under those circumstances.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, sorry, let me rephrase. “I want to buy a lottery ticket” isn’t a declaration of action. There’s nothing there for the DM to adjudicate.

Yes it absolutely is a declaration of an action. The action I want to do is buy a lottery ticket. It's no different than a player saying to the DM that he wants to attack the orc.