The boundaries of DM control over PC [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

BowStreetRunner

2013-07-31, 12:19 PM

It depends on where the effect is coming from. Do you KNOW that this is just a normal, mundane sort of love? Or could it have been the result of some in-game effect? (I know that the Elixer of Love only creates a Charm effect, but even if there is no RAW effect that does this the DM could still be using a homebrew effect.)

Of course, if you don't like it you could still get around it through role-playing. There are lots of people who fall in love every day and then go off and don't ever do anything about it. As long as you can rationalize your behavior, you still control your character's actions.

Agincourt

2013-07-31, 12:23 PM

Yeah, that's probably bad DMing. It's not clear from your post what caused you to fall in love. If it's a homebrew magical effect, I suppose there could be a justification. If, on the other hand, it "just happened" non-magically, it is taking your character in a direction you may not have wanted to go.

While I want to steer clear of a philosophical discussion of whether being in love is something a real life person can control, I think there are circumstances that can make it more likely. The life of an adventure is just not conducive to falling in love.

I'm sure he's got a "brilliant" plot worked out in his head about where this is going, but that goes well beyond what a DM should have control over. This could have consequences for months or years of game time. Compare this with Charm Person, a magical effect by the way, which lasts 1 hour per spell level.

Octopus Jack

2013-07-31, 12:24 PM

It sounds like with the will save it's some sort of odd supernatural effect that you can fight against a la weak dominate person or a specialized charm person effect. If it is along those lines then it is in his power to do this but generally mind controlling PC's is not a liked or encouraged thing to do for obvious reasons.

The fact he's saying 'try to roleplay it' as opposed to 'You're in love, you spend all your gold on chocolates, put skill points into Peform: Love Poetry and greatly annoy local druids by picking flowers' suggests that it is not some form of mind control and he is attempting to forcibly 'develop' your character.

Feralventas

2013-07-31, 12:28 PM

Charm and compulsion spells are an active and viable part of the game. It's often considered unkind to take control of a PC's character, but I'd think that you have essentially failed a save vs a social interaction debuff (like getting hit by a sword might kill your character, removing your ability to act; your chance to defend yourself was in improving your AC or looking for other ways to avoid getting hit).

However, it's entirely up to you as to how your character Reacts and manifests under that effect. It was a common tactic among some of my fellow players that, when charmed to think an enemy spellcaster was their friend, they would promptly tackle-hug them in exuberant gladness to see an old friend (grapple, hold, pin, tickle).

Consider how your character might display love in ways that would both be in character and potentially problematic or unexpected for the DM and the compulsion-user. Gifts that might have absurdly flashy effects, singing swords that can't shut up, artificial flowers that grow abundantly outside of their pot after a day or so, over-running the room within three. A little creativity will take you a long way, as well as discourage your DM from using such tactics in the future.

The DM can tell you what your character feels if the character at work has an ability which Makes their subject feel such, but it unless you're struck with something which utterly rips control from your hands, it's up to you to decide what to do about those feelings.

If you Are struck by a dominate effect, you're going to have to play the evil genie as much as possible; look for ways to interpret the orders you're given in ways contrary to their purpose but accurate to the letter.

Abaddona

2013-07-31, 12:30 PM

It's completely mundane - other characters got spellcraft ad sense motive checks with really high rolls (25 for sense motive) and DM just said that this is completely mundane falling in love with some bard singer.
My DM just thinks it's funny subplot.
I on the other hand am quite angry cause my character is crazy asexual chaotic evil (well, turning bandits into werewolf to get their skins was evil act) mechanic (in future: golem maker) and loving living people is as far from my character concept as it could be.
EDIT: as for going out of the way during roleplaying it - creating construct shaped as "my beloved" (or turning her into the effigy) would be in character, thing is I don't have resources right now - I play in low wealth (roughly 1/4 of WBL), low XP (usually 100 - 200 XP for really hard encounter), low magic items game.

Octopus Jack

2013-07-31, 12:34 PM

It's completely mundane - other characters got spellcraft ad sense motive checks with really high rolls (25 for sense motive) and DM just said that this is completely mundane falling in love with some bard singer.
My DM just thinks it's funny subplot.
I on the other hand am quite angry cause my character is crazy asexual chaotic evil (well, turning bandits into werewolf to get their skins was evil act) mechanic (in future: golem maker) and loving living people is as far from my character concept as it could be.

The Golem-maker career plan could lead to your insane character deciding that he loves the bard singer but wishes to make her perfect like his creations, wishes to turn her into an ever-living construct monstrosity. A variety of forcibly grafted construct parts as he 'woos' her into becoming the completed being she deserves to be.

Feralventas

2013-07-31, 12:35 PM

If you're upset with the way the game is going, or how the DM is treating character interactions, then the wisest course of action is to Tell them that you don't appreciate the joke and ask for them to cease and desist. The game is a mutually involving endeavor, and if you're not having fun with it there's cause for change, so long as you're not demanding others lose out in their own part for you to be okay with things.

Talk to the DM, talk to the players, and establish discussion on the matter. If you can't resolve it civilly, then it might be time to find a new group.

Agincourt

2013-07-31, 12:36 PM

Then, yes, I say. Talk him out of it. It doesn't fit your character at all. I hesitate to characterize your character for you, but it does sound a bit psychopathic, or at the very least, deeply introverted and misanthropic. Such people do not just randomly fall in love because they saw someone in a tavern for an hour or two.

There are people who fall in love at first sight, but your character is not that character type. I think you DM has deeply intruded into something that is strictly a player's decision.

BowStreetRunner

2013-07-31, 12:45 PM

...my character is crazy asexual chaotic evil...

First of all, consider that IRL people who never expect to do so actually do sometimes fall in love. They can't explain it, but it happens. That doesn't mean they deal with it in the traditional way however. If you do decide to go with this, feel free to role-play the manifestations of your 'love' in unexpected ways. Maybe what happens in your character's heart is that he found something 'perfect' about this bard, the essence of which he will now obsessively try to capture in the form of one of his constructs. Love doesn't have to be sexual, by any means.

If you still do not feel up to the challenge of role-playing this, or if you just don't feel it would be fun to try, let your DM know. He should be understanding, as it is supposed to be up to you to create your character's persona, not him.

Abaddona

2013-07-31, 12:48 PM

Turning her into effigy was first thing I thought - problem is in his worlds there is no knowledge about such things like constructs etc. my character is going on adventures to scavenge 1000 years old ruins to regain old technology and learn to use it and well - golems are something I will discover much farther into the future (and i consider using that knowledge to turn myself into one).
Telling DM what i think about such "plots" was first thing I've done, but he just told me I'm angry without reason and should have fun.
Actually he does such things like "prophetic dreams" (or "hearing strange voices") from the start - and I said I don't like this but this kinda was needed for his plot so I rolled with it (well, I'm planning to use plot relevant artifact to murder whichever god messed with my dreams but this is also distant future).

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 12:48 PM

Rebel7284

2013-07-31, 12:53 PM

Love doesn't have to be all flowers and singing. Consider a Dominant/submissive or a Master/slave relationship. The grafting idea above can also work, but may be more expensive. :)

If she is unwilling to be in that type of relationship, well then just abuse her a bit and then fall out of love. :)

Spuddles

2013-07-31, 01:00 PM

Your DM is way out of line. Just ignore his bull****.

Elricaltovilla

2013-07-31, 01:08 PM

You fell in love with her eyes. Take them. You now have a treasured keepsake on your character sheet to show what happens when the DM tries to make roleplaying decisions for your character.

But yes, tell your DM that if he wanted to play a PC, he's on the wrong side of the screen and he certainly doesn't get to play yours.

I agree with this. That's roleplaying! But don't do it because you want revenge on your DM, do it because your character is an obsessive, psychotic maniac.

Slipperychicken

2013-07-31, 01:12 PM

Tell the DM that you do not want this, that it violates your idea of the character, and it also violates the control you are supposed to have over your character. You decide when your character is in love, not him.

If he wants a plot where your character is in love, he can ask you OOC beforehand you're okay with it, and be prepared for you to say no.

If a DM wants to direct my character's actions and emotions so badly, I would hand him the sheet, walk out, and let him play it. He wants to be a power-tripping bully? He can do it on his own time, not mine.

Eldan

2013-07-31, 01:13 PM

As everyone else says, you are a chaotic evil maniac. So fall in love in a chaotic, evil, maniacal kind of way. Start with stalking and totally inappropriate and disgusting gifts. If she turns you away, in shock, kidnap her and start ranting about how she will now never leave you. Then get creepy.

Abaddona

2013-07-31, 01:20 PM

Well problem is my character is still kinda socialized - in towns he behaves, he only gets "creative" with bandits (we take them alive and then perform "experiments" - such as describing effects of "swallowing alchemical acid" etc. - recently we even started a small company). So going out of the way and kidnapping innocent woman is not what he will do... on the other hand - love is strong emotion...
currently I kinda hesitate between showing him Bigby's expressive single digit and "roleplaying" my character's love "Werter style" or roleplaying by escalating whole thing in such a way that he never tries such antics on me again.

Rebel7284

2013-07-31, 01:20 PM

Also, you can always imprison her until you DO have the resources to turn her into an effigy. :-)

lycantrope

2013-07-31, 01:32 PM

DM gave you a save and you failed it. Deal with it and be a good sport. That's the price of playing a game that requires a DM. They need to have fun too. It's probably just a short subplot, anyway.

Abaddona

2013-07-31, 01:34 PM

Well - I kinda do not have place to imprison her and she is kinda famous so if try kidnaping/murdering then DM my should feel obliged to mess with me by the power of now competent guards. And imprisoning her to turn her into creature about existence of which my character doesn't know can be kinda meta. Still - butchering her and conserving her body in gigantic jar is viable option.
EDIT:
And I'm still kinda pissed off because if DM can do such things then he is also able to "roll a will save. Oh - you failed, you are now in depression and should try to commit suicide".

Lord Torath

2013-07-31, 01:54 PM

Ever read Ella Enchanted by Gail Carson Levine? The fairy gives Ella's father and stepmother the "gift" of always loving each other. Her father chooses to love his odious new wife from afar, and spends most of his time traveling. He still loves her, but still has his free will, and can choose to avoid her.

Or you could treat it as a crush, to be sighed over in private, but never revealed to her at all. Ever. No, not even then!

I still agree that it was a pretty rotten thing for your DM to do. "This is my character, and you do not get to tell me how I feel!"

Do you guys by chance have a Manifesto (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/index.htm)? (Dungeons & Dragons > A D&D Manifesto - basic understandings between players and DM) Point 24 is particularly applicable.

Sith_Happens

2013-07-31, 02:12 PM

Does your character acknowledge his own crazy-evilness? If so, then obviously he realizes that any expressions of his love he might give would be a living hell for his beloved, and therefore the best thing for her would be if he went on living his life just as he has been, never acting on his feelings as much as it pains him.

If your DM objects, just tell him where he can shove his save DCs the next time he thinks something like this would be "fun(ny)."

Segev

2013-07-31, 02:16 PM

You have two options, since talking to the DM hasn't worked.

1) Leave the game, or

2) Accept it, and play it in a way that makes it fun for you. Send her gifts that are seemingly luxurious. Perhaps made from those werewolf pelts. Carve statuettes of her. Make jointed dolls that look like her. Call it love and be obsessive, or deny it's love and call it "aesthetic appreciation," but study her. Closely.

If you're playing "well behaved" and able to hide your weirdness in town, then play the charismatic or shy side of the madman. Send her gifts that do appeal, either secretly or openly. Sweep her off her feet or leave her wondering who this mysterious admirer is; make it romantic in a slightly edgy way, first.

But you're studying her. Stalking her. Build her a shrine. Manipulate your way into a position where others just assume you have a right to be near her.

Make everything you do, on the surface, charming and romantic, but with a horrifying truth behind each thing. You made the doll so perfect because you drugged her wine and measured her in her sleep. The fur coat is made from werewolf fur harvested from men you deliberately got infected in order to have enough. After you fought off bandits who only managed to shave her head (when they were obviously planning much worse), you comfort her and help her recover. The life-sized doll you're making in your basement will have its needed wig when you make the second half of your payment to those bandits.

If you're a bit shy, start "fixing her up" with other men by framing them for your gifts. See what she likes in them, and what she doesn't. Arrange for them to disappear so you can harvest the "best" parts and build her "a man she deserves." When you're out and about, being "creative," perhaps you notice traits in some female enemies that remind you of her. Harvest them.

You may not even be sure yet if you're building yourself a new body to be with her in, or building a new "her" that will be your slave...or both, so she can be "happy" with your construct and you with the one of her. Or perhaps they'll both be ageless and perfect, so of COURSE she'll understand when you lure her in to put HER brain in the perfected immortal body and yours in the one designed to appeal to her.

Or, of course, if you REALLY don't want to deal with it, arrange for her to be kidnapped and held for ransom, and then go to play the hero to rescue her. Fail; she dies. Take her body back (after taking your revenge on the people you hired, since even if this is what you wanted they KILLED her), and join the town in mourning.

Steal the body later on; none need ever know. Preserve it. You'll use her for your finest creation, one day.

NichG

2013-07-31, 02:26 PM

There are in fact systems where this'd be kosher. In 7th Sea, you can have a flaw called 'Starstruck' that means the DM can spend a drama die and make you fall in love with someone. That said, you generally have to invite this by taking the flaw. In a game with social combat mechanics, this could also be a thing. In The Black Eye, characters have a number of negative traits like 'Avarice' or 'Violent Temper' that can force actions when they fail a roll. The common factor in all these cases is that you know that it can happen and can in some way decide what your character will be resilient to and what it will be weak to, even if you can't just choose to be immune to everything.

In D&D though, I consider it weird for this to happen mundanely unless this is something that is consistently happening to everyone at the table in some form or other and can be anticipated because of that. I could easily see a D&D variant where people have to roll against surges of cowardice or avarice or whatever, but it should be happening to everyone then, not just you. (Be glad the DM isn't doing something like using the Diplomacy rules against you though - hey, this guy just hit a 70 and you are now his fanatic follower, no save).

I'd suggest that you ask the DM how you can do the same thing, since its just a mundane effect. Ask to be able to provoke will saves in other people for them to fall in love with you or otherwise be emotionally affected. That will at least encourage him to systematize it, and to be careful when doing so lest it become an overpowered option (which will likely reduce the power it has when he pulls this stuff against you).

Also, as a side-note, it may very well be that the DM is clumsily trying to get your character to be about more than psychopathic evil, so that later on things can have meaning to your character that otherwise you'd logically just say 'hell no, I'm killing more bandits for parts' to. You might as well ask him OOC if this is the case, and then negotiate something for your character to care about with him. That way he gets the hook he needs to make plot hooks relevant for you later, and you get some control over it so it doesn't clash too terribly with your character idea.

tomandtish

2013-07-31, 02:30 PM

My first choice is to side with those saying to talk to your DM. Barring undue influence, you should always have the final say in whether your character falls in love.

If you don't want to go that route (or your DM does indicate there's an influence), but you still want to get your point across, then (as others have suggested) you could always become truly obsessed. She spent time talking to someone else? He must die! (Doesn't matter that it’s her brother, she spent time with someone other than you!). Send her expensive dresses, and make sure to destroy all her other (obviously inferior) ones! Even her pet cat isn't allowed to take her attention away from you, so nail it to her door! (ah la Angelus from Buffy). She's now the center of your universe, so therefore you must be the center of hers (and woe to anyone who gets in the way). "Obsessed", "Hand that Rocks the Cradle", "Fatal Attraction", Fear". These and many other movies can give you ideas on "appropriate behavior" for interacting with the new love of your life.

Lord Vukodlak

2013-07-31, 02:38 PM

Point out that players can't be effected by diplomacy and bluff can only convince someone romantic intentions are sincere they can't force the target to act on them.

cerin616

2013-07-31, 02:52 PM

Could also be a high level bard.... Perhaps your friends failed their sense motive and spellcraft checks. A bard can cast glibness and add 30 to their bluff, which is much higher than your friends 25 sense motive. and if your wizard doesnt have a somatic or verbal compnent to work with (IE if i use still and silent spell) then you don't get to identify the spell.

Either your DM si really bad and is forcing you to fall in love,

or your DM is really good, had a spell cast on you, got you all to fail your rolls, and convinced you a spell was never cast.

Its sounds exactly like what i would say if you couldnt detect any of the spell because as far as your character knows, it IS just mundane love.

Agincourt

2013-07-31, 02:56 PM

DM gave you a save and you failed it. Deal with it and be a good sport. That's the price of playing a game that requires a DM. They need to have fun too. It's probably just a short subplot, anyway.

I strongly disagree with this. The saving throw does not make it okay. Players get to decide their characters personality, aspirations, and motives. Taking that away from a player through mundane means is not okay. The saving throw invented by the DM does not excuse this removal of player agency.

There are limitless ways a DM could deprive a character of agency if you let them. Inventing a saving throw could potentially let a DM choose a player's alignment, their desire to "fight fair," or even their player class. (No, you just rolled a saving throw and failed. You are no longer are interested in Divine Magic. It all seems pointless to you and just a postponement of inevitable death. Find another class to play.)

Giving the DM the benefit of the doubt, I can see how the DM thinks this is funny. Playing against type can bring a lot of humor. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be fun for the player.

The cynic in me thinks this might be the DMs way of saying he doesn't like your chaotic evil character and wants to smooth over some of the rough edges.

lycantrope

2013-07-31, 03:03 PM

Agincourt

2013-07-31, 03:07 PM

All of the things you listed exist in the srd as cursed items, if my memory serves.

This is mundane, though. That's a crucial difference. Mundane effects should not overtake a player's character concept.

Also, I should note that cursed items are not used by every DM precisely for the reason that they can overbear a player's will. Players who know that their DM uses cursed items will not interact with magic items until they have been identified.

Mundane effects are all around us all the time. If you give the DM the ability to control player's wants and desires, then the DM might as well be off rolling dice alone.

Tvtyrant

2013-07-31, 03:19 PM

I would suggest making a golem that looks just like the bard and loving that instead. "I love you my sweet. So cold, so still, so perfect. Life is like poetry but you my dear are like a painting."

dascarletm

2013-07-31, 03:27 PM

I would suggest making a golem that looks just like the bard and loving that instead. "I love you my sweet. So cold, so still, so perfect. Life is like poetry but you my dear are like a painting."

*Shudders* :smalleek:

Krobar

2013-07-31, 03:28 PM

Some people strangle the ones they love most.

I bet the DM wouldn't see THAT coming.

Elricaltovilla

2013-07-31, 03:33 PM

"If I can't have her, no one can!"

Trust me, its a classic.

malmblad

2013-07-31, 03:42 PM

I strongly disagree with this. The saving throw does not make it okay. Players get to decide their characters personality, aspirations, and motives. Taking that away from a player through mundane means is not okay. The saving throw invented by the DM does not excuse this removal of player agency.

Player agency isn't an issue here. Abaddona still has full agency to do as he sees fit with his character he was asked/told to roleplay a failed roll in the game and has to work under its constraints. I would argue the scenario gives players more agency than a failed saving throw against lets say a fireball.

You're character takes x damage. As a character you have 2 choices. Find a way to heal yourself or risk death with further adventuring. That's so unfair, only giving us 2 paths to choose from! What kind of shameful GM would do that?

Now in this scenario, you fail a will save... You fall in love with NPC x. Your choices: deny it, obsess over it, revile it, succumb to it etc... you get to pick based on your character's motivations, personality and aspirations.

Most players accept the fireball because it has mechanics behind it. Everyone here would be fine with it if it was a permanent charm person. I don't think the issue is what the GM has done. The issue is that it feels unfair because there are no concrete mechanics behind it. All the GM has done is given his player opportunities to roleplay instead of hack&slash in character.

To caveat this, if the GM starts saying 'your character wouldn't do that. He's in love' then yes, player agency is being violated. But 'your character gets a funny feeling around NPC x' totally fine with or without a saving throw. Sometimes you meet people in life that you can't help feel something towards and if the GM wants to incorporate it into his game don't immediately think he's being unfair or horrible. It's a game he's trying to have with fun too. If you feel it's at your expense, talk about it.

Agincourt

2013-07-31, 03:45 PM

Now in this scenario, you fail a will save... You fall in love with NPC x. Your choices: deny it, obsess over it, revile it, succumb to it etc... you get to pick based on your character's motivations, personality and aspirations.

No, the OP explicitly said his character is asexual. That is a real life personality trait that he has chosen. His DM has overridden it by fiat and not by a game mechanic.

Boci

2013-07-31, 03:46 PM

Now in this scenario, you fail a will save... You fall in love with NPC x. Your choices: deny it, obsess over it, revile it, succumb to it etc... you get to pick based on your character's motivations, personality and aspirations.

That's great if the player really is given full agency to roleplay this out. But there is at the very least evidence of the case being otherwise.

BowStreetRunner

2013-07-31, 03:50 PM

No, the OP explicitly said his character is asexual. That is a real life personality trait that he has chosen. His DM has overridden it by fiat and not by a game mechanic.
Falling in love is not always about sex. It is perfectly possible for someone to fall in love with another without having any sexual desire for them whatsoever. If your character is asexual, then it would be perfectly in-character for you to exhibit some other form of love in such situations.

Myself, I've actually fallen in love with inanimate objects before - including this really great pecan pie I was served in a diner near Fort McClellan, AL where I was stationed in the army. MMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm.... And no, unlike the movie American Pie, I did not....well, let's just not go there, okay?

Boci

2013-07-31, 03:53 PM

Falling in love is not always about sex. It is perfectly possible for someone to fall in love with another without having any sexual desire for them whatsoever. If your character is asexual, then it would be perfectly in-character for you to exhibit some other form of love in such situations.

Myself, I've actually fallen in love with inanimate objects before - including this really great pecan pie I was served in a diner near Fort McClellan, AL where I was stationed in the army. MMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm.... And no, unlike the movie American Pie, I did not....well, let's just not go there, okay?

I think based on this (and knowledge in general) it is safe to say that love is incredably complex and so a DM should be careful about introducing it into a RPG, especially a specific PC.

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 03:55 PM

Myself, I've actually fallen in love with inanimate objects before - including this really great pecan pie I was served in a diner near Fort McClellan, AL where I was stationed in the army. MMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm.... And no, unlike the movie American Pie, I did not....well, let's just not go there, okay?
So, you're saying he should bake her into a pie.

Segev

2013-07-31, 03:57 PM

"Love" can happen totally aesexually, but infatuation, which is "love at first sight" (since you really can't know all that much about them yet, save how they look and maybe an action or two that they took in your presence), is almost universally at least partially sexual. It's based on finding the target of the emotion attractive.

Falling in love - really loving this other person - generally requires getting to know them.

Abaddona

2013-07-31, 04:00 PM

Well - actually my character is in my opinion rather complex - looking for old ruins in order to find lost technology, trying to persuade local rulers to organize archeological expeditions, restoring old fortress (I don't take material awards for completing quests for persons of high status but insist that they will instead give me a favour in future). Also I want in future to create powerfull empire (as a player, this is not my character goal yet... he must still go from "CE mad scientist" to "LE overlord wanting to optimize the world"). Performing "experiments" on bandits is a side-job (and again - I started company which will help me produce unusual materials - recruited evil dwarf and tasked him with a job to find other people of "certain character and beliefs" and organize cover (normal merchandise). So this is not "i slay bandits for fun" but rather more like "i will look for ways to upgrade the standard of life everywhere regardless of whether someone may consider may methods as evil. Also - I'm curious.". And one more thing - he's rather ugly (well not deformed but... Hagrid from HP is good reference here... altough this may be good ocasion for my character to shave and maybe lose some weight).

Segev - thank you for advice. Kidnapping/murdering her is not something my character would do, but going all psychotic (creepy gifts, frankenstein monsters maked from slayed bandits etc.) is excellent advice.

Bard is definetely low level - probably even lower level than we so powerfull magic is not an option - we actually play in a homebrew world when by level 12 we probably will be the most powerful persons in whole world (unless he will expand it).

And as for the love - mechanically problem for me is that if DM may do something like that he can basically take over entire character (roll DC 15, oh, you failed - you don't feel like adventuring, your next level will be commoner). On the other hand emotionally - my character simply would be quicker to fall in love with his sword (I don't even have masterwork weapon because I want to craft one myself instead of buying one and don't have enough downtime) or with some strange mechanical device rather than with living person.

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 04:03 PM

Segev - thank you for advice. Kidnapping/murdering her is not something my character would do, but going all psychotic (creepy gifts, frankenstein monsters maked from slayed bandits etc.) is excellent advice.
In that case, I strongly advise you compose her a song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ryNJVreiY).

Tvtyrant

2013-07-31, 04:04 PM

*Shudders* :smalleek:

I would actually love to play a character like that. Alas, all of my characters end up as LN Clerics or CN Bards. I think pragmatism should be a separate alignment, but it is not to be.

malmblad

2013-07-31, 04:25 PM

No, the OP explicitly said his character is asexual. That is a real life personality trait that he has chosen. His DM has overridden it by fiat and not by a game mechanic.

Is he 'asexual' or a eunuch? I get his intent was to have a character with no sex drive. But those people can still form hormonal attachments. They just don't feel the need to consummate anything. (Asexual as a real life personality trait means you don't identify as a male or female. It does not mean you have no sex drive) If he is a eunuch then all my arguments are invalid.

Edit:
My point is that a player should be as flexible as the GM for the sake of the group. The GM might just be poking a little to relieve some of the frustration from having to figure out how many werewolf pelts it takes to make a cloak, or werewolf hide armor or whatever else the OP wanted those pelts for.

eggynack

2013-07-31, 04:33 PM

Have you considered doing absolutely nothing? Like, your character is still a crazy asexual golem maker, and he doesn't care one whit about his feelings about this woman, because the call to science is the greatest call there is. The Adventure Time episode, "The Suitor", could be relevant to this sort of thing. Your character might not be able to control his feelings, but he's fully able to control his actions. Maybe someday, when things quiet down, and he's achieved his mad scientific dream, he can create a golem that's identical to her, and have it bring her down to his incredibly creepy basement. That's a dream for another day though.

Agincourt

2013-07-31, 04:41 PM

Is he 'asexual' or a eunuch? I get his intent was to have a character with no sex drive. But those people can still form hormonal attachments. They just don't feel the need to consummate anything. (Asexual as a real life personality trait means you don't identify as a male or female. It does not mean you have no sex drive) If he is a eunuch then all my arguments are invalid.

From the context of the OP's statements, I don't think he used the word "asexual" to mean he doesn't identify as male or female. Generally, when talking about asexuality and humans, it DOES mean a lack of sex drive. See, for example, the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality) and http://www.asexuality.org/home/.

Boci

2013-07-31, 04:51 PM

Edit:
My point is that a player should be as flexible as the GM for the sake of the group.

I disagree. The DMs has an entie world, the player has one character.

malmblad

2013-07-31, 04:59 PM

From the context of the OP's statements, I don't think he used the word "asexual" to mean he doesn't identify as male or female. Generally, when talking about asexuality and humans, it DOES mean a lack of sex drive. See, for example, the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality) and http://www.asexuality.org/home/.

Perfectly willing to admit your correct on that point. I have a friend (and have met some of hisher circle of friends) that use the term as i describe. That still doesn't invalidate that both those sites say that romantic and emotional components are still operative. Hence love even love at first sight is possible. Because feeling funny in your pants when you first meet someone is different from feeling funny in your gut when you first meet them.

malmblad

2013-07-31, 05:03 PM

I disagree. The DMs has an entie world, the player has one character.

Exactly why players should be just as flexible. The onus on the DM is much greater. It's easier to make mistakes. It's easier to be out maneuvered because you have 2+ brains working against your 1. It's easier to get overwhelmed. And it's easier to get frustrated because a player is unwilling to bend even though you let them have their werewolf pelts and are working with them to create golems in the future.

Boci

2013-07-31, 05:05 PM

eggynack

2013-07-31, 05:13 PM

Exactly why players should be just as flexible. The onus on the DM is much greater. It's easier to make mistakes. It's easier to be out maneuvered because you have 2+ brains working against your 1. It's easier to get overwhelmed. And it's easier to get frustrated because a player is unwilling to bend even though you let them have their werewolf pelts and are working with them to create golems in the future.
This seems to be the opposite of true. If a player decides to start up a romantic relationship with an NPC, it's no big loss to the DM, because he has a million other NPC's available to him at all times. He could literally just create a character with an identical personality, and different hair color, and have that character fill the intended narrative role of the original NPC. I'm not saying he should do that, but he can. He has complete creative control of the world. If he feels overwhelmed, then he can have some of his NPC's start up arbitrary romantic relationships.

The player, on the other hand, only has one character. If the DM says that character is in love, the player has control over nothing. Like, actually nothing. What's to stop the DM from rolling will saves to avoid spontaneously going swimming? Or reflex saves to avoid bursting into spontaneous dance? Or fortitude saves to decide whether the character runs out of the room screaming during a boring lecture? The PC's actions, feelings, and personality are all sacrosanct, primarily because nothing else in the game is. There's magic that can bypass this self control, but that's its own special case, and even that can easily get on a player's nerves if it goes too far. If the DM wants to blow off some steam, he can do it without touching the PC's.

Uhtred

2013-07-31, 06:18 PM

The player, on the other hand, only has one character. If the DM says that character is in love, the player has control over nothing. Like, actually nothing. What's to stop the DM from rolling will saves to avoid spontaneously going swimming? Or reflex saves to avoid bursting into spontaneous dance? Or fortitude saves to decide whether the character runs out of the room screaming during a boring lecture? The PC's actions, feelings, and personality are all sacrosanct, primarily because nothing else in the game is. There's magic that can bypass this self control, but that's its own special case, and even that can easily get on a player's nerves if it goes too far. If the DM wants to blow off some steam, he can do it without touching the PC's.

I agree wholeheartedly. I had a character whose backstory had him as a disgruntled bouncer at a club who hated every aspect of his job, so he went adventuring to escape the grind. My GM's story took us to a different club, and my character's job was to sit at the bar and be gigantic intimidating backup if the task required it. So as I'm sitting at the bar, waiting for a message to do my bruiser thing, he had me roll a Will save, and when I failed told me I was on the floor dancing. When I asked why, the answer was "the song is catchy." It wasn't magical music, it wasn't a mind-altering effect, it was just a mundane band making mundane music. Never mind that my character had been a bouncer at a club and hated all aspects of clubs, the dancing, the music, etc. The song was catchy, so all my character development, personality, and backstory got tossed out the window. My whole character concept went against it, but it didn't matter. I called the GM on it. He didn't appreciate being questioned, and I was not invited back to the table. It sucked, but to this day as a GM I would never force my players to RP in a way that conflicted so much with their established characters.

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 06:25 PM

I'm not sure I understand what you being in "love" (an assumedly alien concept to your character, much like the first time he smelled or tasted something) has to do with how you play your character. Seriously, if I were in your shoes and my DM told me this I'd say "Huh, Never felt this before......" and go on about my daily life with the lingering reminder that this bard woman makes you feel weird and uncomfortable.

EDIT: And a note, lay off the DM a bit. He created a world, and a worlds worth of people and places so you guys can enjoy game. I doubt he would do something that would eternally change your character without your consent. at the end of the day, he's still your friend.*

*Spoken as a DM. it's our job to inconvenience you guys occasionally. if we didn't you'd be playing some crappy slice of life no conflict game.

Boci

2013-07-31, 06:42 PM

EDIT: And a note, lay off the DM a bit.

Errrrr no. Its bad DMing. He singled out a single PC and din't consult them befopre hand and did dicatate their characters reaction. That's bad DMing. Maybe nothing major, but still 3 bad things.

*Spoken as a DM. it's our job to inconvenience you guys occasionally. if we didn't you'd be playing some crappy slice of life no conflict game.

Yeah, but you can do that in so many better ways.

kaminiwa

2013-07-31, 07:07 PM

Flirt. Gratuitously. I've found ~90% of GMs are really seriously uncomfortable roleplaying out an actual romance (and I am one of them :)). The goal here isn't even "creepy Chaotic Evil stalker". You want to aim for "bumbling, head-over-heels first-time-in-love teenager". You even mentioned your character is asexual, so it's just roleplaying his innocence and naivety! :smallwink:

On the off chance the GM isn't already squicked, move in to BDSM. Your character *likes* experimenting on people, after all, and what better way to explore romance for an asexual? If you start small, maybe a little flogging and a blindfold, and build from there... you might end up just getting a willing submissive for your experiments, but that actually seems like a lot of fun :)

Of course, if she ends up rejecting you, you will have to mope constantly and sing horrible poetry until the GM relents and lets you fall out of love.

If you want to be particularly creepy, and you're reasonably sure your GM is at least mildly homophobic, then be sure to bring actual flowers and chocolates to the session, as "roleplaying props" (and be sure the chocolates get shared with the other players, so that they'll put up with all of this ^_^)

Suffice to say, most GMs don't invite me back after incidents like this :smallamused:

Elricaltovilla

2013-07-31, 07:12 PM

kaminiwa

2013-07-31, 07:14 PM

If you were in my game and acting like this I'd probably invite you back just for the chocolates. :smallamused::smallcool:

Aww, thanks! Part of why I pull stunts like that, is because the people who still invite me back are clearly worth my time :smallcool:

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 07:21 PM

Errrrr no. Its bad DMing. He singled out a single PC and din't consult them befopre hand and did dicatate their characters reaction. That's bad DMing. Maybe nothing major, but still 3 bad things.

Yeah, but you can do that in so many better ways.

I don't particularly see this as bad DM'ing. There are things that take away free will all over the place, and because this DM chose to actually use one on his PC's doesn't make him bad.

Again, its not like this is some permanent thing he's never going to recover from, its a temporary effect that will go away once he puts up with a small subplot that has no determining factors on the way his character works.

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 07:27 PM

I don't particularly see this as bad DM'ing. There are things that take away free will all over the place, and because this DM chose to actually use one on his PC's doesn't make him bad.
This is inventing something new to take away free will from characters (which, just because they exist in RAW, still does not make them acceptable) and done for a petty purpose. If your DM won't allow you control over the petty things in your character's life, what's going to stop them from hijacking your character over the big things?

Boci

2013-07-31, 07:28 PM

I don't particularly see this as bad DM'ing. There are things that take away free will all over the place, and because this DM chose to actually use one on his PC's doesn't make him bad.

Yes, and they are spelt out clearly in how they do and don't work. "You're in love, roleplay it" doesn't. Hence it's bad. Compare to "Hey, would your character mind a romantic subplot?" which is good DMing.

Again, its not like this is some permanent thing he's never going to recover from

Hopefully.

crazyhedgewizrd

2013-07-31, 07:28 PM

Errrrr no. Its bad DMing. He singled out a single PC and din't consult them befopre hand and did dicatate their characters reaction. That's bad DMing. Maybe nothing major, but still 3 bad things.

Now it my job as a DM to consult with my player before a game and tell them what is going to happen and get they ok.

From what I'm getting from the OP is that my DM says my character fell in love and i want you people to tell me they were wrong to force this on me.

As others have pointed out you can just ignore this subplot and not follow it, it's not like the DM is playing out what your character is doing and you are just sit there doing nothing.

Grollub

2013-07-31, 07:30 PM

Boci

2013-07-31, 07:34 PM

Now it my job as a DM to consult with my player before a game and tell them what is going to happen and get they ok.

When it comes to dictating how their character's feel it is.

As others have pointed out you can just ignore this subplot and not follow it

He might be able to, or the DM may be unreasonable.

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 07:38 PM

Yes, and they are spelt out clearly in how they do and don't work. "You're in love, roleplay it" doesn't. Hence it's bad. Compare to "Hey, would your character mind a romantic subplot?" which is good DMing.

Hopefully.

He failed a save. His allies failed their checks (I don't even know why sense motive was there) What you call "Good DMing" I call boring, un inventive and cowardly DMing. Your definition of good is no better then mine, so let us stray from terms like those. You also assume without knowledge. This is an isolated incident as of now, and from what we can see it is meant only as a harmless subplot with some minor creative liberties thrown in on the DM's part.

This is inventing something new to take away free will from characters (which, just because they exist in RAW, still does not make them acceptable) and done for a petty purpose. If your DM won't allow you control over the petty things in your character's life, what's going to stop them from hijacking your character over the big things?

Yea, because homebrew isn't a thing, and the PC's have a right to know every single little detail about what happens behind the DM screen. Also, I'm not seeing anything the DM has to gain for giving his PC a subplot, so I'm not seeing where this is done for a petty purpose.

Boci

2013-07-31, 07:41 PM

He failed a save. His allies failed their checks (I don't even know why sense motive was there) What you call "Good DMing" I call boring, un inventive and cowardly DMing. Your definition of good is no better then mine, so let us stray from terms like those. You also assume without knowledge. This is an isolated incident as of now, and from what we can see it is meant only as a harmless subplot with some minor creative liberties thrown in on the DM's part.

Except that the player didn't like it and feels its a violation of his character, ergo I'm right and its bad DMing.

crazyhedgewizrd

2013-07-31, 07:43 PM

Definately, since the GM is messing with you, and as suggested by others, you need to set him straight. As a golem crafter, I would kill this person and use the parts to make a golem AKA "perfect version" of them.

what happens if the girl is the daughter of a noble or the king, and by killing them you have screwed your character over to the point that you can't continue your characters goals.

Alex12

2013-07-31, 07:44 PM

Another amusing option might be to, in-character, assume that this bizarre emotion is a hostile magical effect. Just because you and your party didn't recognize it as a spell or anything really doesn't mean anything. It could even mean that the bard is much more powerful than she's letting on, and is trying to control you for unknown reasons.

Even though you, OOC, know this isn't true, well, that's metagaming. And you're trying to avoid metagaming.

Boci

2013-07-31, 07:45 PM

what happens if the girl is the daughter of a noble or the king, and by killing them you have screwed your character over to the point that you can't continue your characters goals.

The PC made a choice, and the negative consequences that occured do not rob them of agency over their own character. Plus one door closes and another opens. The PC should gain some opertunities with the enemies of the king.

BowStreetRunner

2013-07-31, 07:45 PM

Except that the player didn't like it and feels its a violation of his character, ergo I'm right and its bad DMing.
Essentially, bad DMing equates to not being aware of the limits of what your players will accept. If you don't ask them beforehand, you have to be very careful not to push past their boundaries.

My own worst experience with this was a Star Wars game where the DM started to go all homebrew with the force, giving it a feel more like magic than anything. It reached its worst when he transformed my character into a space-whale because he though it was a better character idea than the one I was playing. Then he tried to discourage me from finding a 'cure', so I left the game.

There are worse things than falling in love, I guess.

Boci

2013-07-31, 07:47 PM

Essentially, bad DMing equates to not being aware of the limits of what your players will accept. If you don't ask them beforehand, you have to be very careful not to push past their boundaries.

My own worst experience with this was a Star Wars game where the DM started to go all homebrew with the force, giving it a feel more like magic than anything. It reached its worst when he transformed my character into a space-whale because he though it was a better character idea than the one I was playing. Then he tried to discourage me from finding a 'cure', so I left the game.

There are worse things than falling in love, I guess.

I agree completly. As bad DMing goes the OP's case is pretty minor, but its still bad DMing.

Abaddona

2013-07-31, 07:51 PM

Averis Vol - basically what Deophaun said. Controlling people through magic is well - magical, but there are also magical defenses which are blocking it - for example simple amulet of protection from good/evil. And I am ok with this - a wizard may try to make my character his slave if I step on his toes, but there are ways for me to protect myself from this if I want to do the stepping. But now DM basically invented new rule "for fun" and for my knowledge there is no way of protecting myself from this. Unwanted romantic subplot doesn't have mechanical repercussions but hey - if he can dictate how my character feels at any moment because some roll gone badly how can I (or any other player) be certain now that he doesn't use this mechanic in other ways? Simply making one character fall in love with BBGE (evil sorceress for example) can create enough confusion to result in TPK.

And one more thing - I am trying to roleplay and I am putting some effort into it (as I said before I don't even have decent equipment because I want to craft it myself). And this isn't even problem about "not knowing what love is" or consciously ignoring it because for my character simple idea of "falling in love with living person" should be something alien, for gods sake I planned for this guy to make himself a construct as a effect for his pursuit of perfection and his view of human aging body as something not perfect. What's more DM knew my plans because I asked him if i can take "construct graft" feat in future for this exactly reason. And now I simply don't know how to roleplay whole thing, probably will go with some sort of being creepy and obssesion about preserving ideal beauty but still it doesn't fit so well as I would like.

Alaris

2013-07-31, 07:53 PM

Well, I'll inject my 2 cents here.

It is my belief that the player should be in control of whether or not his character falls in love. Now, this can be with an NPC the DM had no intention of being a love interest, and stuff like that... that's what makes it interesting.

Hell, I've had 2 of my PCs have romantic subplots. The first one absolutely HATED the 'love interest,' at least for their first major adventure. Couldn't stand her. But eventually, he started falling for her... and eventually, she was stolen away. He realized he fell in love with her (during the second major adventure), and decided to have the party rescue her. And it was all kinds of fun (and completely my choice).

The second one... I had inadvertently challenged my DM, that he couldn't make an NPC that my character would fall in love with. And damn was I wrong. She did, and I still had fun with it.

At the end of the day, I believe that it should be the player's choice if his character falls in love. I'm not saying that DMs can't TRY romantic subplots... but if the player is uninterested... it isn't going to happen.

All-in-all, as far as I'm concerned, DM was wrong in this respect. The player is clearly uncomfortable with the choice, and would rather it not have happened. If it had been the result of something the PC did (for instance, a foolish consequence of a decision. He killed a guard, so now he's being hunted, or something like this), then it would make sense. But it seems it happened because... what? He was in the presence of this bard?

Player, I recommend you talk to your DM. TALK. TO. HIM! That's the only way this will get resolved in a good way.

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 07:54 PM

Except that the player didn't like it and feels its a violation of his character, ergo I'm right and its bad DMing.

Okay, you're going to keep putting up your opinion like its fact. Alright then. I'm going to give this last reply and say the DM has yet to force anything, and has only said that he has an attraction to the NPC in question. If the PC is uncomfortable with this he can stop playing or rush through the subplot and be done with it. This is petty, angry attitude over nothing at all, just take a chill pill and get it over with, OP.

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 07:57 PM

Boci

2013-07-31, 07:59 PM

Okay, you're going to keep putting up your opinion like its fact.

Its a pretty widely accepted opinion that (barring horror games) when the GM makes the player feel uncomfortable they are doing a bad job.

This is petty, angry attitude over nothing at all, just take a chill pill and get it over with, OP.

How about rather than just telling him to relax you actually address his points on why he feels this is a big deal, instead of just handwaiving them aside as not important?

Eulalios

2013-07-31, 08:15 PM

Its a pretty widely accepted opinion that (barring horror games) when the GM makes the player feel uncomfortable they are doing a bad job.

"Widely accepted" != "correct."

"opinion" != "correct."

It is an equally[cite needed] widely held opinion, that good art makes people think, and that good participatory art makes thinking people uncomfortable.

There are many options for character-appropriate response to the stimulus of "your character has fallen in love with NPC XX." This does not look like bad DMing. It just looks like sandbox DMing.

jindra34

2013-07-31, 08:20 PM

Okay, you're going to keep putting up your opinion like its fact. Alright then. I'm going to give this last reply and say the DM has yet to force anything, and has only said that he has an attraction to the NPC in question. If the PC is uncomfortable with this he can stop playing or rush through the subplot and be done with it. This is petty, angry attitude over nothing at all, just take a chill pill and get it over with, OP.

Its a character develop side plot, involving a completely new aspect of a character, that the player of said character did not actively pursue. I'd call that derailing a character pretty throughly, wouldn't you?

Boci

2013-07-31, 08:21 PM

"Widely accepted" != "correct."

"opinion" != "correct."

Really, I never knew that1 /sarcasm

It is an equally[cite needed] widely held opinion, that good art makes people think, and that good participatory art makes thinking people uncomfortable.

But a D&D game isn't art in that sense.

This does not look like bad DMing. It just looks like sandbox DMing.

The overall plot may be that, but this love subplot is not sandbox.

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 08:34 PM

Its a character develop side plot, involving a completely new aspect of a character, that the player of said character did not actively pursue. I'd call that derailing a character pretty throughly, wouldn't you?

Except he's not forced into anything as of now. The DM gave him weird new feelings that he may or may not be ready to deal with. I Know when I'm looking for a girlfriend I'm probably the most socially awkward and distant person when I find someone I like, and I'm probably not that different from many others. Now, had the DM taken over his character and basically had an interactive date with himself, then I would be ready to say tell your DM to **** off and find a new one.

but that's not whats happening as far as I can gather. What I see is the DM going "Hay! heres a thing! do it when you want!" rather then holding the two character sheets together and saying "now kiss".

Basically, if I'm getting the wrong interpretation of the scenario and the DM is strong arming him into doing his little sidequest, ignore what I've said. but as long as it's optional to do there is nothing wrong with it.

Boci

2013-07-31, 08:40 PM

Except he's not forced into anything as of now. The DM gave him weird new feelings that he may or may not be ready to deal with. I Know when I'm looking for a girlfriend I'm probably the most socially awkward and distant person when I find someone I like, and I'm probably not that different from many others. Now, had the DM taken over his character and basically had an interactive date with himself, then I would be ready to say tell your DM to **** off and find a new one.

but that's not whats happening as far as I can gather. What I see is the DM going "Hay! heres a thing! do it when you want!" rather then holding the two character sheets together and saying "now kiss".

But if that's the case, why have PC fall in love with the NPC and not the other way around?

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 08:49 PM

But if that's the case, why have PC fall in love with the NPC and not the other way around?

Does it really matter? I mean, as long as its harmless, it's, well, harmless!

Abaddona

2013-07-31, 08:55 PM

Deophaun

2013-07-31, 09:00 PM

Killing her because she cast a spell on me - this might be interesting (my character absoutely hate mind control) but other PC are fairly certain that there were no magic involwed (Sense motive check DC 25 lets you sense if someone is under control of enchantment spell, also spellcraft check was 20+).
Nothing says you have to believe your teammates.

Boci

2013-07-31, 09:00 PM

Does it really matter? I mean, as long as its harmless, it's, well, harmless!

Yes, however little the DM has told you how your character felt rather than letting you decide. And "its unimportant" goes both ways: if its unimportant, why bother with it in the first place.

Not that it matters now apparantly.

Hamste

2013-07-31, 09:15 PM

Does it really matter? I mean, as long as its harmless, it's, well, harmless!

It does, one involves saying a character does something without the player's permission (I do count as forcing the character to have emotion as doing something as it may affect spells that can affect him and how he would have reacted to that character) and the other opens an option for the character if they choose to pursue it.

It is like saying that a character won't do an action because it is not their alignment to do so or that they have to make a will save or do an action because of their alignment. Let the character grow as the player wants it to and make it clear that it is an option open to them if they want to take it. Put them into an awkward position for sure but do not just say that "Ooh, there was no spell but you failed a save so now you character feels this way. What? It's totally out of your characters personality to feel that way? Well too bad, you should have invested more into your will save against emotions."

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 09:25 PM

One thing - my character first reaction was "I am going outside and putting my head in rainwater barrel, because this beer I drank clearly was stale or something" - and as far as I am concerned that was pretty clear try of "ignoring not desired subplot" - thing is "funny feeling" still remained and DM said that I my try to roleplay it as platonic knightly type loving from far away (thing is those are three words which are pretty far from my character concept). So no - ignoring this whole thing is rather not an option. Also behaving like confused kid is not an option. Killing her because she cast a spell on me - this might be interesting (my character absoutely hate mind control) but other PC are fairly certain that there were no magic involwed (Sense motive check DC 25 lets you sense if someone is under control of enchantment spell, also spellcraft check was 20+). And to be honest - if I would like to roleplay a romance I would go to a club.

Okay, thats a new change of events. Don't do it if it is that against your character. This is one of those things that if it isn't magical, you first of all shouldn't have gotten a save as that is completely misleading, you are not compelled to pursue. if you have to bring it up say, "If it isn't a spell or spell like ability or innate ability, you really can't force me into following this quest. If you want to either admit that I'm under a spell effect or give me a good reason to act in a completely different fashion then I have all game, I'm not doing it."

it comes to a matter of principles at some point (And yea, this is completely hypocritical of my earlier posts) where you have to put a foot down and hold a bit of conviction in your own rights.

Boci

2013-07-31, 09:32 PM

it comes to a matter of principles at some point (And yea, this is completely hypocritical of my earlier posts) where you have to put a foot down and hold a bit of conviction in your own rights.

I don't think you're being hypocritical, you just draw the line a later (love is fine, love you cannot ignore isn't).

Now its just the waiting game to see if Abaddona's DM shifts their stance/posts on this thread.

kaminiwa

2013-07-31, 09:33 PM

Except he's not forced into anything as of now.

Actually, he did force the player to "roleplay it."

If the GM is genuinely willing to let the PC just walk away from it because they're uncomfortable, then they've done nothing wrong. But at a dead minimum, they've given the impression that the PC is required to roleplay this out, and that presumably means meeting the GM's own particular ideals (or, at least, winning a debate arguing that your own ideals are perfectly valid here).

In short, the GM has made it clear that he is planning to force the character's roleplaying. I'm really not sure how that possibly qualifies as "not forced into anything", when the player in question is making it clear that they feel coerced and uncomfortable.

If your point is just that the player might be overreacting, that's cool, but (a) I think you already made that point and (b) arguing with the actual player in question just seems downright offensive.

FatJose

2013-07-31, 09:36 PM

Well, now you have added inspiration to become a cold, unfeeling machine.

Averis Vol

2013-07-31, 10:12 PM

Actually, he did force the player to "roleplay it."

well, yea, I said that, but that was before the OP straight up told us that the DM said he had to do it.

Segev

2013-08-01, 02:13 PM

Out of curiosity, what happens if you just refuse to role play it, and say, "no, I don't feel that way?"

On the other hand, what if it turns out that it is a magical effect? Perhaps you were slipped - by somebody else entirely - a love potion that Charmed you on her behalf. Or did their Sense Motive scores indicate that YOU are not Charmed, rather than that SHE did not Charm you?

I'm not saying this is so. But how would you, the player, feel about it if it turned out that this WAS in fact magic? I'm asking mainly to get a feel for where your "acceptance" zone lies.

In the end, your choices are to go along with it, to ignore it, or to walk away if ignoring it is not allowed. Well, or to talk to the DM about it; if you trust the DM, you can run with it until you are certain your trust has been violated (e.g. finding out that no, this really is just a ham-fisted DM-playing-your-character, and not a really-well-hidden game-mechanics-are-causing-your-character-to-act-oddly). If you don't trust him/think he'd pull the kind of crap that you're seeing...well, maybe this isn't the game for you.

The Fury

2013-08-01, 02:59 PM

I knew a DM that did this and it always bothered me. Not just because he used it as a mechanic to force players into line, but also claimed to be a great authority on the nature of love and how it should be roleplayed. On top of that he was insanely quick to torpedo any attempt to work around it. A paraphrased workaround attempt:

DM: "She makes her seduction check. You're in love with her, you have to roleplay it."

Player: "Nope, my character's gay."

DM: "What? You can't make a gay character!"

Player: "Yes I can. Why can't I?"

DM: "*sigh* OK, roughly 10% of all people are gay, I'll roll percentiles. *rolls* You're straight. Roleplay it."

Yeah. I think it's pretty clear that I'm from the "players ought to be in charge of their own character's emotional reactions barring exceptional circumstances" side of the argument. Those exceptional circumstances should also be supported by RAW, otherwise I call shenanigans.
If there's no way around it at all being allowed, the acting like a creepy stalker might be fun-- take a page from Belkar's playbook. Craft Disturbing Mental Image!

Well, now you have added inspiration to become a cold, unfeeling machine.

Hey, that's actually pretty good!

Alex12

2013-08-01, 03:13 PM

As another alternate solution, ask the DM for mechanics on this. After all, if some random low-level bard can do it, why not you (or at least the party face)
Then optimize the hell out of it, and hammer everything you face into oblivion with the power of love.

kaminiwa

2013-08-01, 03:41 PM

hammer everything you face into oblivion with the power of love.

"I defeated my last GM with the power of My Little Pony. Do NOT force me to break out the Twilight Sparkle mini for my Paladin's mount a second time :smallfurious:"

... :smallbiggrin:

Drake2009

2013-08-01, 03:44 PM

Kill her and take a part of her body like a finger or something. Make it look like an accident. Shes had too much ale and her liver failed our something. Then once you can cast 9th level spells get her raised and use programmed amnesia to make her your slave or girlfriend. or just make her into a golem.

Sarison

2013-08-01, 03:48 PM

I played a White Wolf game and was able to abuse the rules a bit, mostly because the GM explained them poorly and I ran with it. He thought a lot about how to fix this without neutering my character and came up with the olf "Turn about is fair play" and used my abilities back on me.

You could try to do the same thing to your GM, ask, out of character, all about the (mundane?) power, what class gets it, how it works, how you can get it. Then Multi-class into it, and abuse them back. It's never a good idea to try to surprise rules lawyer the GM, so let him know what you are doing, but hey, if those are the rules you guys have in your world, might as well use them.

dascarletm

2013-08-01, 03:52 PM

The player, on the other hand, only has one character. If the DM says that character is in love, the player has control over nothing. Like, actually nothing. What's to stop the DM from rolling will saves to avoid spontaneously going swimming? Or reflex saves to avoid bursting into spontaneous dance? Or fortitude saves to decide whether the character runs out of the room screaming during a boring lecture? The PC's actions, feelings, and personality are all sacrosanct, primarily because nothing else in the game is. There's magic that can bypass this self control, but that's its own special case, and even that can easily get on a player's nerves if it goes too far. If the DM wants to blow off some steam, he can do it without touching the PC's.

All of those are actions, this is a feeling.

1. As you enter the torture chamber a feeling of dread falls over you. (you may now do as you please).

2. A monster jumps out of a bush roll a ref..... you are startled. (you may now do as you please).

3. An elven bard catches your heart. (you may now do as you please).

I don't see it as an inherent problem.

The difference is a big one between your examples and mine. In yours the character is forced to do something that represents who they are as a person. Emotions/feelings are more like senses, and it is the act of response to the stimuli that defines us. In my 3 examples above characters could do many different things to showcase their personality: A: hardcore badass, B: Cowardly dude, and C: Tactical wizard.

1A: I push down these feelings and press onward telling my crew if they are too afraid they can go back. I will not hold it against them.
1B: I lag back close to the exit. I comment, "Maybe we should turn back, the Orb of Destiny is probably not here..."
1C: I cautiously scan the surroundings. "Perhaps one of these victims indicated to the torturer as to the Orb's secrets. Let me see if I have a spell to help us."

2A: I wheel to face the beast, interposing myself between my allies and it, channeling my fear to fight it.
2B: I yelp!
2C: I immediately begin casting a defensive spell and formulating a plan of attack.

3A: I saunter towards the woman, chest puffed out. "Hey..."
3B: I quietly begin composing a love note, careful not to let anyone see...
3C: I decide that a romantic entanglement would not suit my current lifestyle, and would be far too dangerous for the lass. I make a mental note of the town and the woman. I grab a keepsake for potential scrying if my life ever does settle down, so that I may find her.

eggynack

2013-08-01, 04:07 PM

All of those are actions, this is a feeling.

1. As you enter the torture chamber a feeling of dread falls over you. (you may now do as you please).

2. A monster jumps out of a bush roll a ref..... you are startled. (you may now do as you please).

3. An elven bard catches your heart. (you may now do as you please).

I don't see it as an inherent problem.

The difference is a big one between your examples and mine. In yours the character is forced to do something that represents who they are as a person. Emotions/feelings are more like senses, and it is the act of response to the stimuli that defines us. In my 3 examples above characters could do many different things to showcase their personality: A: hardcore badass, B: Cowardly dude, and C: Tactical wizard.

1A: I push down these feelings and press onward telling my crew if they are too afraid they can go back. I will not hold it against them.
1B: I lag back close to the exit. I comment, "Maybe we should turn back, the Orb of Destiny is probably not here..."
1C: I cautiously scan the surroundings. "Perhaps one of these victims indicated to the torturer as to the Orb's secrets. Let me see if I have a spell to help us."

2A: I wheel to face the beast, interposing myself between my allies and it, channeling my fear to fight it.
2B: I yelp!
2C: I immediately begin casting a defensive spell and formulating a plan of attack.

3A: I saunter towards the woman, chest puffed out. "Hey..."
3B: I quietly begin composing a love note, careful not to let anyone see...
3C: I decide that a romantic entanglement would not suit my current lifestyle, and would be far too dangerous for the lass. I make a mental note of the town and the woman. I grab a keepsake for potential scrying if my life ever does settle down, so that I may find her.
It's different, but it's a thin line, and getting from feelings to actions isn't the biggest step. I also don't think that the DM should decide how the character feels about things, because that's still up to the player. If the character is a consummate bad ass who faces monsters on a constant basis, it's not up to the DM to decide that this particular enemy is one the character is scared of, at least without some mechanical fear ability. Emotions fall under the purview of personality, and that's not something for the DM to dictate. If the DM wants there to maybe be a romantic subplot, he can present the NPC, have that NPC do or say something that is potentially attractive to the character, and let the player make the decision to fall in love or not do so. Just saying, "You're in love with this woman," is a bad choice from a game perspective, and it's a bad choice from a narrative perspective. The best way to make sure that an audience dislikes someone is to keep telling you how much you should and do love them.

Boci

2013-08-01, 04:29 PM

All of those are actions, this is a feeling.

1. As you enter the torture chamber a feeling of dread falls over you. (you may now do as you please).

2. A monster jumps out of a bush roll a ref..... you are startled. (you may now do as you please).

3. An elven bard catches your heart. (you may now do as you please).

I don't see it as an inherent problem.

The difference is a big one between your examples and mine. In yours the character is forced to do something that represents who they are as a person. Emotions/feelings are more like senses, and it is the act of response to the stimuli that defines us. In my 3 examples above characters could do many different things to showcase their personality: A: hardcore badass, B: Cowardly dude, and C: Tactical wizard.

1A: I push down these feelings and press onward telling my crew if they are too afraid they can go back. I will not hold it against them.
1B: I lag back close to the exit. I comment, "Maybe we should turn back, the Orb of Destiny is probably not here..."
1C: I cautiously scan the surroundings. "Perhaps one of these victims indicated to the torturer as to the Orb's secrets. Let me see if I have a spell to help us."

2A: I wheel to face the beast, interposing myself between my allies and it, channeling my fear to fight it.
2B: I yelp!
2C: I immediately begin casting a defensive spell and formulating a plan of attack.

3A: I saunter towards the woman, chest puffed out. "Hey..."
3B: I quietly begin composing a love note, careful not to let anyone see...
3C: I decide that a romantic entanglement would not suit my current lifestyle, and would be far too dangerous for the lass. I make a mental note of the town and the woman. I grab a keepsake for potential scrying if my life ever does settle down, so that I may find her.

Here is my rule of thumb:

Barring a lack of ability (spells, terrain manipulation) anything the DM can do to my PC, I should be able to do to his NPCs.

NPCs can ambush my character, my character can ambush NPCs.

NPCs can use mind magic on character, my character can use mind magic on NPCs (either with their own spell casting ability or a magical item).

The DM can make the ground fall out under my characters feet, my character can, in the right circumstances, make the ground fall out from underneath NPCs' feet.

So if the DM can make my PC fall in love with NPCs, I should be able to make NPCs fall in love with my PC.

If the DM would be uncomfortable with me having such power, they should not wield it against my PC.

eggynack

2013-08-01, 04:33 PM

Here is my rule of thumb:

Barring a lack of ability (spells, terrain manipulation) anything the DM can do to my PC, I should be able to do to his NPCs.

NPCs can ambush my character, my character can ambush NPCs.

NPCs can use mind magic on character, my character can use mind magic on NPCs (either with their own spell casting ability or a magical item).

The DM can make the ground fall out under my characters feet, my character can, in the right circumstances, make the ground fall out from underneath NPCs' feet.

So if the DM can make my PC fall in love with NPCs, I should be able to make NPCs fall in love with my PC.

If the DM would be uncomfortable with me having such power, they should not wield it against my PC.
This makes a lot of sense to me. There's a good logic to it, and it's a good rule of thumb to use for DM'ing in general.

Abaddona

2013-08-01, 04:50 PM

Well I'm fairly sure that this is mundane effect - DC25 (DC15 for dominate person line) sense motive check let's you identify if target is under enchantment and one of the players hit that. My DM doesn't know many rule books (he owns only DMG + MM + PHB but is letting us to use other materials if we consult this and he accepts them) so I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know that there are feats who can let spellcaster raise this DC. He doesn't also optimize (in his opinion arcane archer is great PrC and Mystic Theurge is broken...) so this is probably just normal girl with few bard levels (it's possible that she is level 1) who apparently charmed me by the virtue of having 16+ charisma.
If such effect was magical (love potion or something) - well, in this case I would probably be a little disgruntled (because no one likes when his character gets charmed) but not so much: simply I wasn't carefull and must face consequences (and obtain ways to procure own food and water). Also this would mean that my character was magically controlled in opposition to naturaly becoming something which I didn't intended for him.

As for roleplaying - I tried to ignore it trough roleplay (putting head in the cold water to clear thoughts) but DM didn't allow me doing this. If I refuse to roleplay this I almost certainly won't face any mechanical consequences (my DM probably will give me ironic comments from time to time) but - to put it simply I'm trying to roleplay and in our group there is no such thing as retcon. So this whole love thing is basically carved in stone fact now and if I ignore this DM will probably brag that I wasn't up to his "challenge".

Then roleplaying options: killing her (because she totally cast a spell on me - it's really great idea) will be a little problematic because she will surely return as a ghost (currently the world has little problems with dead not wanting to stay in graves and life energy going wild - dead newborns, undead plague, living plants etc. effect of the few gods going crazy). Magic is not available to us (no magical items, party caster is DMG Witch, hiring a wizard would be too costly and he will probably ask too many questions). There is high chance that town guards suddenly will become competent. There is a possibility of creating werewolf dead squad (in a month) but this will result in destroying villages in the area and completely blocking trading routes (no reliable way of controlling CE lycantrophes).

Lord Vukodlak

2013-08-01, 05:05 PM

Here's how you can actually end this in a roleplay fashion. Dump her on the pretext that YOU are a horrible person and your evil and you know so in a rare act of kindness you distance yourself from her so she won't be hurt by getting close to you.
If the DM shouts back but you love her! You can reply you love her enough to know she deserves a good man which you are not.

dascarletm

2013-08-01, 05:18 PM

It's different, but it's a thin line, and getting from feelings to actions isn't the biggest step. I also don't think that the DM should decide how the character feels about things, because that's still up to the player. If the character is a consummate bad ass who faces monsters on a constant basis, it's not up to the DM to decide that this particular enemy is one the character is scared of, at least without some mechanical fear ability. Emotions fall under the purview of personality, and that's not something for the DM to dictate. If the DM wants there to maybe be a romantic subplot, he can present the NPC, have that NPC do or say something that is potentially attractive to the character, and let the player make the decision to fall in love or not do so. Just saying, "You're in love with this woman," is a bad choice from a game perspective, and it's a bad choice from a narrative perspective. The best way to make sure that an audience dislikes someone is to keep telling you how much you should and do love them.

True, I would be more receptive to a DM saying a monster is frightening vs it frightens you. Similarly, I'd rather a DM say this elven bard sends shivers down your spine vs you love her.

Here is my rule of thumb:

Barring a lack of ability (spells, terrain manipulation) anything the DM can do to my PC, I should be able to do to his NPCs.

NPCs can ambush my character, my character can ambush NPCs.

NPCs can use mind magic on character, my character can use mind magic on NPCs (either with their own spell casting ability or a magical item).

The DM can make the ground fall out under my characters feet, my character can, in the right circumstances, make the ground fall out from underneath NPCs' feet.

So if the DM can make my PC fall in love with NPCs, I should be able to make NPCs fall in love with my PC.

If the DM would be uncomfortable with me having such power, they should not wield it against my PC.

I agree with you in general, however in a game with a trusted DM that is experienced I'm more apt to allowing them more free reign over my character in certain aspects. Though admittedly more subtle than the OP. For example: I'd be fine with him saying some NPC "catches my eye," but I'd not expect him to let have my character "catch the eye" of NPCs.

For my main man Squad5, when he DMs, I'd allow him to have more free reign. Since I'm here to have fun, I trust that he will do these things for the benefit of the game in whole. Something that would add to the fun, even if I wouldn't normally do it. It's a matter of trust.

EDIT:

Snip.

Did you ask the DM why he is doing this/what he hopes to get from this?

If it is not interesting to you tell him, you find that trope boring and overdone. If he still enforces it, you could just show lack-luster and go through the motions. If he is any sort of perceptive he'll pick up on it. Every DM I know/myself wants the PCs to have fun as our main goal. He'll probably accommodate.

Thrudd

2013-08-01, 07:56 PM

My DM just announced to me that my character fallen in love (i get will save but rolled badly) and I should roleplay it (which is completely not the thing which my crazy-craftsman would do) - are those things completely in his power or is this just bad DMing and screwing with players?

No living person is immune to love and desire, I don't think it is out of order as long as the dice rolling was all done fair and square. Sometimes an awesome fighter gets presented with a challenge he can't chop his way out of, characters are thrown challenges they don't expect, that's a part of playing the game. A socially inept wizard gets nailed with someone's high charisma, it's an environmental hazard. How your character deals with this "environmental hazard" is up to you. Maybe the feelings disturb your character so much that he determines to find a way to make them stop and spends his days researching ways to cease being human (or whatever race he is) so the emotions will end. Maybe she becomes the inspiration for your "perfect vision" construct, and this event can be the start of that forming in your characters head. I would not advise going the psycho-killer/body part collector route. Unless your character is unredeemable or you are planning on becoming so.

Segev

2013-08-01, 08:04 PM

The issue is that there's no real mechanic at play here. The DM, so far as anybody can tell, just randomly made up a DC against...the DM's arbitrary whim. It's nothing the Bard did, nothing about her mechanics that influenced it. Because of this, there's no "fair" dice rolling involved. The DM wanted to dictate something about the character, and so he did. The DC was high enough that the DM was sure it would work. And if it didn't, but the DM wants this to happen, another save, another NPC, would have happened. Until he failed.

At least, that's the kind of thing that this arbitrary random dictation tends to lead to.

I could be wrong. But obviously, the OP doesn't trust the DM to be doing this in a manner conducive to his own enjoyment, nor to be playing with some mechanics that the PC could use to their ends if they wanted. The die roll is illusory. Like the points in Whose Line, it didn't really matter.

Thrudd

2013-08-01, 08:22 PM

Also: Think Gimli's love for Galadriel. He is completely smitten by her, but it's not like he ever gets close to her again, after their first meeting. He just talks about her and has this perfect vision of her in his head. You could keep the DM happy like this. If anyone ever asks you who the most beautiful woman in the world is, it is her. If someone talks about her in an insulting way, you get a little upset.

Sith_Happens

2013-08-01, 08:39 PM

Well, now you have added inspiration to become a cold, unfeeling machine.

SO MUCH THIS. DO THIS.

Deophaun

2013-08-01, 08:46 PM

1. As you enter the torture chamber a feeling of dread falls over you. (you may now do as you please).
My character worked under the High Inquisitor. He is actually amused at what passes for a "torture chamber" here.

2. A monster jumps out of a bush roll a ref..... you are startled. (you may now do as you please).
Actually, I've got both the inattentive and unreactive flaws. Not only am I not startled, but I keep on walking. (I actually had almost that exact exchange with a DM)

3. An elven bard catches your heart. (you may now do as you please).
An elven bard killed my sister, which is why I have sworn vengeance on everyone with pointy-ears or a lute. The bard can now prepare to die.

I don't see it as an inherent problem.
In these examples, the problem is slight and is easily corrected by player input. Lots of time it's innocent fluff; the DM is just trying to convey a sense of the scene and accidentally dips his narrative into the players' characters. No big deal. It becomes a big problem when, after being corrected, the DM still tries to overrule player input onto the inner soul of their character, as it gets in the way of the player developing his character's personality.

Edit:
The issue is that there's no real mechanic at play here. The DM, so far as anybody can tell, just randomly made up a DC against...the DM's arbitrary whim. It's nothing the Bard did, nothing about her mechanics that influenced it. Because of this, there's no "fair" dice rolling involved. The DM wanted to dictate something about the character, and so he did. The DC was high enough that the DM was sure it would work. And if it didn't, but the DM wants this to happen, another save, another NPC, would have happened. Until he failed.
This is another big problem. Technically, if "Make a Will save or fall in love" was an actual mechanic, it means that everyone would be in love with at least 1/20th of the people they encountered.

Segev

2013-08-01, 08:57 PM

Well, if there was a mechanic at play, it would likely be something the Bard did, or some sort of social mechanic, or the like. It would be something that would have a measurable DC, calculated based on the stats of the things involved. It would likely require some action, or at least the player of the thing responsible (the DM, if it's an NPC or the like) deciding to trigger it. It would be something that the players could understand was a risk in playing the game.

As it stands, it comes off as arbitrary and the only "game" aspect is that the DM pretended there was a saving throw. I say "pretended" because, if he's going to just make things like this up, he's likely to keep it coming until the throw is failed, in one form or another. And there's no defense other than "hope I roll well," because there's no mechanic other than "the DM said so."

crazyhedgewizrd

2013-08-02, 01:01 AM

The issue is that there's no real mechanic at play here.

I think he might be using the second bardic music ability fascinate.

7thW1ckedness

2013-08-02, 02:57 AM

Falling in love is not always about sex. It is perfectly possible for someone to fall in love with another without having any sexual desire for them whatsoever. If your character is asexual, then it would be perfectly in-character for you to exhibit some other form of love in such situations.

<creepy voice mode>
I . . . .like . . .your . . . PARTS . . . . let me improve them a little, it wont hurt much, my sweetheart.
<end creepy voice mode>

Seriously, it does sound a little arbitrary, but use it as a leg to get some really chaotic and evil going on. Hell see if you can spin the aforementioned love object into becoming some sort of research assistant. NPC followers for free are always worth the cost right?

dascarletm

2013-08-02, 09:01 AM

My character worked under the High Inquisitor. He is actually amused at what passes for a "torture chamber" here.

There isn't really an inquisition in this world, and I would have remembered hearing that in your backstory...

But even in this situation someone desensitized could still have those feelings deep within the back of their mind, and your narrative could just as easily of read... "Working for the High Inquisitor my character is used to scenes like this, his feelings of disgust and dread securely in the deep recesses of his mind. I scoff at the poor excuse for a torture chamber." I think players and DMs should work together, be a little more loose, and not get bent out of shape when either slightly crosses the line. As for the OP, idk if it's too far over the line. It might be, though in actuality it is up to the players and DMs involved.

Actually, I've got both the inattentive and unreactive flaws. Not only am I not startled, but I keep on walking. (I actually had almost that exact exchange with a DM)

I said no flaws at character creation! Damnit Deophaun! :smallbiggrin:

An elven bard killed my sister, which is why I have sworn vengeance on everyone with pointy-ears or a lute. The bard can now prepare to die.

Those things work, and I agree with you, for character specific examples. Most of the time though any specific character wouldn't negate most of those things. (If they did I'd catch it) which brings me to trusting the DM.

In these examples, the problem is slight and is easily corrected by player input. Lots of time it's innocent fluff; the DM is just trying to convey a sense of the scene and accidentally dips his narrative into the players' characters. No big deal. It becomes a big problem when, after being corrected, the DM still tries to overrule player input onto the inner soul of their character, as it gets in the way of the player developing his character's personality.