PDA

View Full Version : Paranoia is the most boring character trait (for a PC)



Lapsed Pacifist
2015-05-04, 06:53 AM
I'm starting to dread playing with people whose idea of a fun character is, say, a paranoid wizard who plans for every contingency. In most games, the PCs are supposed to be heroes, and take risks, and experience dramatic conflict. Paranoia tends to negate all of these. It's also a supposed 'character flaw' which will usually benefit the player because of metagame constraints and conservation of detail. If a PC is on watch, and the GM says 'you hear a strange noise, but it's probably just the wind', and the PC says, 'well, my character is paranoid about being attacked, so I better check it out' that's going to benefit them, because it's not going to be just the wind. Another problem is it tends to lead to flat characters who have no reason to develop. Once again, because of the constraints of the genre, it's not like the character is suddenly going to encounter a lack of ambushes and lots of trustworthy people and become a more trusting person. I'm okay in theory with someone who is paranoid as an actual weakness, it's just in five years of roleplaying I've never seen someone play a paranoid character as something other than 'Stop having fun guys, I just want to win in the dullest way possible.'

Kalmageddon
2015-05-04, 07:21 AM
That's why "Paranoia" is an actual talent that cost xp points in the various Warhammer 40k Roleplaying Games. :smalltongue: There is always something lurking in the dark, or attempting to your life, or trying to eat your soul! ALWAYS!

WarKitty
2015-05-04, 07:44 AM
Could be worse.

You could have the "I'm so paranoid I won't take a freaking plot hook because I'm convinced everything is a trap."

That very nearly ended in a TPK due in part to GM frustration.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-04, 07:52 AM
This is why most characters will probably wallow in obscurity after achieving whatever world-saving accomplishments they are into -- no people skills. They're weird in ways that are hard to get along with.

Sleeping in armor
Setting watch while resting in a tavern
Interrogating random people
Always having a dagger and/or pistol in their boot
Breaking and entering into associates' homes
Snooping into employers' business/properties
Placing hand on the hilt of their weapon when dealing with civilians
Casting spells on civilians
Buying livestock to take into caves and old tunnels

The only people I know like this IRL are career criminals or have PTSD. In the case of PC's they probably are casualties of a rough world, their sanity sacrificed so suburbanites can sleep well at night.

Bless them all....but don't invite them over for dinner!

goto124
2015-05-04, 07:53 AM
Paranoia is also the name of a certain tabletop system...

Lacco
2015-05-04, 08:05 AM
I would object to the notion that paranoia is the most boring character trait. In my opinion, it may be a very interesting trait.

See Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.

The problem, as even you state, is that the players take the potentially interesting concept and don't roleplay it actually.

But the same goes for Elves... yes, I have never seen a player really roleplay an Elf. They had elven character, pointy ears, longevity, dying race and stuff...but they were just roleplaying humans with pointy ears...
...are elves the most boring race?
:smallbiggrin:

But to turn around... what would you accept as good roleplay in case of "paranoia" as trait?

goto124
2015-05-04, 08:11 AM
I thought the elves bit applied to many races. Humans with funny hats and such.

Back on topic, isn't that the player being paranoid? :P

Segev
2015-05-04, 08:37 AM
If a player always treats every bit of detail given as a threat, then the solution is to make it sometimes be just the wind...and keep track of things like sleep and spell recovery and healing. Also, give details which, if treated like threats, can make the character look silly or, worse, can CAUSE problems if handled with prejudice. Maybe that "just the wind" noise was beyond an unfortunately-concealed ravine into which the PC might fall. Or step on an aligator which was sleeping peacefully until he woke it up, and the fight drew the attention of the goblin gator-wranglers who had lost it the other day.

JeenLeen
2015-05-04, 12:37 PM
There probably is a good way to balance it, but in general I agree with you. I've made characters who wind up rather paranoid because I worry about 'losing' (i.e., getting killed or not completing the in-game objectives) due to something I could prevent, but it's a pain. I found it more fun when I just force myself not to care about certain things, though I still feel back when something backfires and I could've prevented it through more paranoia.

If the players (not PCs) want paranoid PCs as a survival mechanism, I can see setting up a default "we do x before y, unless stated otherwise", like for example, before opening a door, take a moment to look it over for traps, put on a glove (in case of contact poison), and open it while standing slightly to the side (in case an explosion follows). If it's understood, you don't have to waste time and lessen fun by acting it out.
Of course, the DM's style of trapping and/or warning PCs could also factor into this.

Now a paranoid guy who acts kinda crazy can be fun (as long as it's not detrimental to the party's overall cohesion.) Ah, the somewhat Jhor-crazed Euthanatos in our Mage game was kinda a hoot :smallbiggrin:

Keltest
2015-05-04, 12:45 PM
I don't think its especially boring, but as a DM you have to really roll with it. If the only time you ever have ANYTHING happen during watch is when something actually is out there, even the characters that aren't paranoid are going to react when you bring it up, because youre basically telling them that they have to.

Give the wizard lots of red herrings. Make him waste resources investigating things that aren't there. Have him deprive the party of sleep for the night because he jumps at the tiniest noise, or no noise at all, and the forest is loud. Have him irritate important people with his suspicions.

BayardSPSR
2015-05-04, 01:27 PM
I thought the elves bit applied to many races. Humans with funny hats and such.

Hang on, are you saying races are supposed to be something other than different stats, bonuses, and appearances to give your human character? What game is that the case in?

To be fair, I guess most players are human, so it's probably to be expected...

illyrus
2015-05-04, 01:59 PM
Normally when I see paranoid characters/players it is with good reason.

The party begins setting a watch in the inn because one of them was assassinated while resting in or the party had their valuables stolen while resting inside.

Or they're suspicious of civilians because the GM has a great love for evil shapeshifters etc.

I think the paranoid PC is only a problem when they're also the unofficial party leader. If they're not then you can have the following:
Paranoid guy: I'm not going in there!
Rest of Party: Have fun staying in the van then, we'll be inside.

As far as GMing paranoid players goes, I find them fairly predictable and having the baddies use a bit of chaos to their advantage throws them for a loop. Even if it seems like a bad idea for the baddies to do, just do it. Have the dumb troll take 4 AOOs to reach the man making funny gestures and saying funny things (wizard) in the back. Player paranoia generally comes with the idea that the baddies are taking the most efficient path too, if you deviate from that then it wrecks their planning in a way that being more paranoid doesn't help.

You can apply it at the strategic level as well, party wants to rest 8 hours after every encounter in their rope trick while dealing with the cult, cult decides to abandon base and wipe out the town on their way out while they pick a less populated spot to perform their ritual (or just wait in town to ambush the PCs).

Atanvarno
2015-05-04, 04:21 PM
Now I want to play a paranoid, hypochondriac wizard who only ever prepares for the most outlandishly unlikely situations while leaving himself wide open to the everyday mishap. Play it as an *actual* disadvantage rather than a superpower. :smallamused:

icefractal
2015-05-04, 07:42 PM
Sleeping in armor
Setting watch while resting in a tavernWe tried sleeping like normal people one time. Got to the big city, figured we'd take a break from the murder-hobo mindset and just relax a bit. That night, assassins attacked and killed two of us (would have been more, but there were some lucky rolls). Wasn't the GM trying to mess with us either, this was an official part of the module.

So ... a certain amount of paranoia can be justified. It's hard to roleplay when your character is dead.

Keltest
2015-05-04, 07:51 PM
We tried sleeping like normal people one time. Got to the big city, figured we'd take a break from the murder-hobo mindset and just relax a bit. That night, assassins attacked and killed two of us (would have been more, but there were some lucky rolls). Wasn't the GM trying to mess with us either, this was an official part of the module.

So ... a certain amount of paranoia can be justified. It's hard to roleplay when your character is dead.

Ill be honest, as a DM, if anyone started regularly "sleeping" in anything heavier than Leather Armor, they would start taking stat damage as a result of fatigue. Clerics would need longer periods of inactivity to regain their spells. Fighters might eventually start losing their extra attacks per round.

Having said that, I recognize theres a certain amount of gameplay and story segregation that needs to go on during periods of rest.

ReaderAt2046
2015-05-04, 08:01 PM
Ill be honest, as a DM, if anyone started regularly "sleeping" in anything heavier than Leather Armor, they would start taking stat damage as a result of fatigue. Clerics would need longer periods of inactivity to regain their spells. Fighters might eventually start losing their extra attacks per round.

Having said that, I recognize theres a certain amount of gameplay and story segregation that needs to go on during periods of rest.

Actually, the D&D rules explicitly state that anyone who tries to sleep in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day.

TheCountAlucard
2015-05-04, 08:17 PM
It's hardly paranoia when someone is really out to get you. Jumping at sounds in unfamiliar or even hostile territory isn't paranoid behavior, nor is setting up watches to sleep at an inn in a city where you're foreigners or a city known for its thieves or something similar.

It's when they do these things while lacking a rational reason to be so careful that it's paranoia. But, generally speaking, there's usually pretty good reason for PCs to behave in this fashion; they do travel to strange lands, they do run with shady characters who are often actual thieves, they do steal things and rack up body counts and otherwise make themselves loads of enemies, they do encounter enchanters and illusionists and shapechangers.

Of course, acting like this has its downsides, too - a PC in my seafaring game spent the whole time constantly in his armor, shouting naval regulations, demanding punishments be carried out, and going without any sleep at all; it came to a head when he began boasting how he could slaughter the entire crew single-handedly, so when he went down in a lifeboat shortly after, the crew fired their ballistas at his boat until it sank.

jaydubs
2015-05-04, 08:24 PM
Paranoia is useful in most games, because an unreasonable percentage of the things in the world are out to get the PCs. If you want to make paranoia more of a flaw, just change that percentage to something less stacked.

For instance, I just ensure that the majority of NPCs in my campaigns either want to help the PCs, or don't have a particular interest in them. Consequently, being paranoid gets them into trouble more often than it saves their butts. I've seen players burn bridge after bridge after bridge, solely because "this NPC seems too helpful, he/she must be up to something."

Mastikator
2015-05-04, 08:37 PM
I don't think I've ever witnessed paranoia do anything positive in any game I've played. I've seen paranoid PCs turn down entire adventures and campaigns simply due to "taking the safe route" away from the game.

Then complain that nothing happens. EVERYTHING HAPPENED AND YOU RAN AWAY FROM IT! Geez!

Tvtyrant
2015-05-04, 08:46 PM
My most paranoid character used to believe that everything was out to get her, and would have random freak outs about mundane things. Door shut due to the wind was an invisible stalker, crickets were well trained assassin bards, the sun setting meant vampires, etc. She couldn't sleep without a sleep spell, and was consistently fatigued. Sure the stick cracking could be an enemy, but no one listens to Casandra.

Edit: My point being that paranoia is not necessarily beneficial, and has major drawbacks. If the player is ignoring those drawbacks than you need to talk to them, because they are using it as an excuse to metagame. A Fantastic Fear of Everything is a comedy example of why paranoia isn't a good trait to have.

Lord Raziere
2015-05-04, 09:14 PM
simple solution:
simply make all the reasons why Paranoia is a bad trait apply to the game as well. make all the NPC's secretly trustworthy, then watch all their contingency plans begin to backfire on them.

Slipperychicken
2015-05-04, 09:39 PM
So ... a certain amount of paranoia can be justified. It's hard to roleplay when your character is dead.

If someone really is out to get you, it's not paranoia. If everyone is out to get you, it's common sense. If the DM is out to get you, it's a survival skill.



The only people I know like this IRL are career criminals or have PTSD. In the case of PC's they probably are casualties of a rough world, their sanity sacrificed so suburbanites can sleep well at night.

The PCs aren't average joes going about their normal lives. You're talking about worlds where the PCs have powerful enemies (often some of the most influential people in the whole setting), make their living from a series of extremely dangerous missions, and have a 20% chance to get jumped every time they step outside. They'd be stupid not to be paranoid.


If you don't want paranoid PCs, then don't give them reasons to be paranoid. Talk to your players OOC, reach an understanding that no, the treasure chests are not trapped, and nighttime ambushes will not happen (if such do happen, then the PCs will rightly revert to murderhobo-mode again). So assured, their PCs might begin to open packages like normal people and take their armor off before bed.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-04, 10:33 PM
a PC in my seafaring game spent the whole time constantly in his armor, shouting naval regulations, demanding punishments be carried out, and going without any sleep at all; it came to a head when he began boasting how he could slaughter the entire crew single-handedly, so when he went down in a lifeboat shortly after, the crew fired their ballistas at his boat until it sank.

The ending caught me off guard...had a good laugh.

Callos_DeTerran
2015-05-05, 01:18 AM
This is why most characters will probably wallow in obscurity after achieving whatever world-saving accomplishments they are into -- no people skills. They're weird in ways that are hard to get along with.

Sleeping in armor
Setting watch while resting in a tavern
Interrogating random people
Always having a dagger and/or pistol in their boot
Breaking and entering into associates' homes
Snooping into employers' business/properties
Placing hand on the hilt of their weapon when dealing with civilians
Casting spells on civilians
Buying livestock to take into caves and old tunnels

The only people I know like this IRL are career criminals or have PTSD. In the case of PC's they probably are casualties of a rough world, their sanity sacrificed so suburbanites can sleep well at night.

Bless them all....but don't invite them over for dinner!

Holy crap...aside from the 'keeping a dagger/pistol in boot' are there people who actually do these things? Damn...I thought these were just jokes...

Lacco
2015-05-05, 01:51 AM
Holy crap...aside from the 'keeping a dagger/pistol in boot' are there people who actually do these things? Damn...I thought these were just jokes...

Some of them...at least for me:


Sleeping in armor - check (solved through OOC discussion and nice fatigue penalties)
Setting watch while resting in a tavern - check (the same)
Interrogating random people - nope (not yet)
Always having a dagger and/or pistol in their boot - check (one of my players wears "decorative" stilleto in her hair)
Breaking and entering into associates' homes - nope
Snooping into employers' business/properties - check (only in Shadowrun though - it's expected there)
Placing hand on the hilt of their weapon when dealing with friendly civilians - check (but the murderhobo player has been removed from group)
Casting spells on civilians - nope (because we play low-magic setting)
Buying livestock to take into caves and old tunnels - nope (luckily, they still try to be "heroic")



If you don't want paranoid PCs, then don't give them reasons to be paranoid. Talk to your players OOC, reach an understanding that no, the treasure chests are not trapped, and nighttime ambushes will not happen (if such do happen, then the PCs will rightly revert to murderhobo-mode again). So assured, their PCs might begin to open packages like normal people and take their armor off before bed.

I can only agree. Had this issue (one of my players NEVER took off armour due to possibility of nighttime ambushes, slept with sword drawn and in hand (makes scratching quite...dangerous :smallsmile:). We talked it out. I promised that I will not play the "random" nighttime attack card - their enemies may try to off them in sleep sometimes, but they expect that. He promised he will remove armour before sleep and put it on only during his watch.

It helped that I let him play with a huge penalty to his fatigue during one game because he slept in full banded armour.

And also, it helped that I appealed to his sense of heroism (I think I used the phrase "what is cooler - Conan driving off night assassins in his full armour...or Conan driving them off in his underwear ...?"


Hang on, are you saying races are supposed to be something other than different stats, bonuses, and appearances to give your human character? What game is that the case in?

To be fair, I guess most players are human, so it's probably to be expected...

Naaaah, that would just be crazy talk... :smallsmile:

It's off topic, so if there is interest - we can make a new thread. But yes, if someone wants to play an elf in my fantasy campaign, I expect them to want to roleplay an elf/hobbithalfling/orc/dwarf/whateverwolf. At least to try - a honest attempt is fine - but if they don't even try, I ask them to change character to human.

Slipperychicken
2015-05-05, 02:02 AM
I can only agree. Had this issue (one of my players NEVER took off armour due to possibility of nighttime ambushes, slept with sword drawn and in hand (makes scratching quite...dangerous :smallsmile:). We talked it out. I promised that I will not play the "random" nighttime attack card - their enemies may try to off them in sleep sometimes, but they expect that. He promised he will remove armour before sleep and put it on only during his watch.

I like this compromise. I think I'm going to bring it to my group.



And also, it helped that I appealed to his sense of heroism (I think I used the phrase "what is cooler - Conan driving off night assassins in his full armour...or Conan driving them off in his underwear ...?"

There's a surprising amount a DM can accomplish by goading or guilt-tripping. One DM I knew managed to get his whole party to buy soap in-character by asking which of their PCs bathed that day, and then chiding them for being smelly.

Lacco
2015-05-05, 02:14 AM
I like this compromise. I think I'm going to bring it to my group.

Well, the compromise is, that he wears soft leather armour during sleep. While camping. In inns/cities, he sleeps in the nude (which makes for a lot of interesting interactions) since as a true "son of North" he dislikes the heat and misses the cold.


There's a surprising amount a DM can accomplish by goading or guilt-tripping. One DM I knew managed to get his whole party to buy soap in-character by asking which of their PCs bathed that day, and then chiding them for being smelly.

...my players insist on regular baths. The fencer likes to roleplay her character's compulsion to keep herself clean at all times...

But yes, these are two powerful weapons in the GM arsenal. And the best - no need for chiding them. Just mention that the girls in tavern wince and move a bit away from the hero covered in goblin blood... :smallbiggrin:

goto124
2015-05-05, 03:14 AM
Don't forget the creepy insane girl who's attracted to blood :P

HammeredWharf
2015-05-05, 04:50 AM
It can be quite annoying when you're trying to make a harmless social encounter. I kid you not, this actually happened with my group:

Me: The waitress gives you some beer and a basket of bread while you wait.
Players: Wait! Who has the highest Fort save? What if the food is poisoned? Bob, what's your Fort?
Bob: Don't we have poison immunity from Heroes' Feast?
Players: But what if it's not normal poison? We use Arcane Sight to scan the bread!
Me: It's completely mundane.
Players: What about the waitress? I scan her with Arcane Sight, too!
Me: She doesn't have any magic on.
Players: OMG no magic? What if she has Nondetection on and can beat my CL?
Players: I've got Scent! I smell her! What does she smell like?
Me: Rather nice and human-y. She's a bit sweaty and wears rose perfume.
Players: I'm a Church Inquisitor! I can see through illusions! I she a demon?
Me: No.
Players: A construct? A devil? A doppelganger?
Me: She looks human.
Players: Did you hear that, guys? She "looks" human. I bet-
Me: Bob, your Sense Motive check of 83 tells you that sometimes, bread is just bread.

I've also had them, a party of lvl ~15 adventurers, go full nova on a bunch of street thugs, because they were scared the thugs would beat them. I suppose they have fun, but it slows sessions down to a crawl.

goto124
2015-05-05, 04:59 AM
I guess being on your toes all the time isn't a good thing...

Once, I gave unpoisoned bread to an NPC, and he nearly choked on that thing. He then attacked me for 'attempted murder' (and somehow he was actually good at combat). Not really related, but thought it was funny to share.

Ettina
2015-05-05, 09:52 AM
If a PC is on watch, and the GM says 'you hear a strange noise, but it's probably just the wind', and the PC says, 'well, my character is paranoid about being attacked, so I better check it out' that's going to benefit them, because it's not going to be just the wind.

Have it actually be the wind, and he has to suffer penalties from not getting enough rest.

Ravens_cry
2015-05-05, 10:06 AM
Ok, I have a problem right there, the GM telling the player what they think. Worse, it's the classic/cliche line for those really stupid guards who could have someone shank them in the back and gurgle. with their dying breath, 'It's the wind . . . '
It's one of my pet peeves is when the GM puts words in my character's mouth. Describing it in more general terms, like,"You hear nothing that sounds threatening." would be better.
Heh, now I want to make an infiltrator character called 'The Wind'. Even if I am defeated, no one is going to brag about it for finally breaking me,

Keltest
2015-05-05, 10:08 AM
Ok, I have a problem right there, the GM telling the player what they think. Worse, the classic/cliche line for those really stupid guards who could have someone shank them in the back and gurgle. with their dying breath 'It's the wind . . . '
It's one of my pet peeves is when the GM puts words in my character's mouth. Describing it in more general terms, like,"You hear nothing that sounds threatening." would be better.
Heh, now I want to make an infiltrator character called 'The Wind'. Even if I am defeated, no one is going to brag about it for finally breaking me,

At the end of the day, the player isn't the character. Sometimes its necessary to put words in character's mouths, so to speak, to get things moving along. Especially when something artificial is making you act that way (a cursed item, for example).

goto124
2015-05-05, 10:15 AM
How do players feel about cursed items that affect their PCs' emotions like that? It comes off a lot like the DM putting words in your mouth, to be honest. As if a bit of agency has been taken away from you.

Keltest
2015-05-05, 10:18 AM
How do players feel about cursed items that affect their PCs' emotions like that? It comes off a lot like the DM putting words in your mouth, to be honest...

It is the DM putting words in your mouth. That isn't necessarily a bad thing though. "You feel an overwhelming urge to take the shiny coins you see just lying there in your friend's pack." The player can then do whatever they want with that urge. They might give into it, they might freak out, they might use their immense discipline to resist it and keep it quiet (in which case maybe give them penalties for fighting themselves to that degree). How your character feels and what they do are separated enough that the DM can feed you the first part without it taking away your control of the character.

Ravens_cry
2015-05-05, 10:19 AM
At the end of the day, the player isn't the character. Sometimes its necessary to put words in character's mouths, so to speak, to get things moving along. Especially when something artificial is making you act that way (a cursed item, for example).
Unless it truly is an in game effect, the GM does not have a say in what my character thinks exactly, and even then. I'm more than willing to role play the bad with the good.
EDIT: Maybe I wasn't clear, reading the above. I am talking about the difference between the GM talking in general terms about the effects a magical compulsion, as stated above and saying "You suddenly think 'Oh, goody , goofy gum drops, I must have those gold coins, I must, I must!'"

goto124
2015-05-05, 10:38 AM
It is the DM putting words in your mouth. That isn't necessarily a bad thing though. "You feel an overwhelming urge to take the shiny coins you see just lying there in your friend's pack." The player can then do whatever they want with that urge. They might give into it, they might freak out, they might use their immense discipline to resist it and keep it quiet (in which case maybe give them penalties for fighting themselves to that degree). How your character feels and what they do are separated enough that the DM can feed you the first part without it taking away your control of the character.

'Why is my character feeling this way? You don't have control over her feelings!'

The DM does have the control if it's in the game mechanics. But if it's not... maybe it's my personal opinion, but I will flip out, at least until the DM explains. Am I unreasonable?

Keltest
2015-05-05, 10:39 AM
'Why is my character feeling this way? You don't have control over her feelings!'

The DM does have the control if it's in the game mechanics. But if it's not... maybe it's my personal opinion, but I will flip out, at least until the DM explains. Am I unreasonable?

Maybe a little bit, if flipping out happens before asking "why?". I agree if the DM is providing no explanation, that's bad, but you the player don't have all the context and knowledge your character does, so you will think differently at times.

Segev
2015-05-05, 10:55 AM
It's not typical in most D&D games anymore, but earlier editions practically expected the party of adventurers to have hirelings. Not followers who were loyal out of undying devotion (per Leadership), and certainly not fellow-combatants who would venture deep into hazardous dungeons, but people hired to work for them and travel with them.

Hirelings perform a number of services - they cook, they clean, they make and break camp, they even help inventory loot (though most adventuring parties do their own inventory anyway). They also can be armsmen who stand guard. Again, they usually aren't going to dungeon delve or even engage in full-on military efforts (and if the party is joining a mercenary or national military, they probably won't have their own men-at-arms hirelings at all).

Guards are NPCs who are paid to be observant, to stand watch, and to generally provide some basic assistance in defending base camps and even tavern stays. Much like nobility and modern-day VIPs of various sorts, they're bodyguards whose job it is to let your party get a good night's sleep and unwind every now and again. The trick is to have enough of them that between aid another and lucky rolls, people won't slip by to sneak-assassinate you in your sleep. Even if their job is just to raise the alarm, they can help mitigate the need for full-on paranoia.

Obviously, it won't help with the lack of armor for the fighter-types (which is another way that fighter-types suffer in the face of mages, who can just cast an armor spell), but it will at least prevent PCs dying in their sleep. It can even permit a PC to go off "on his own" and still be able to sleep and otherwise be other than a paranoid wreck.


Hirelings do cost money, though. Pay rates are given in the PHB, even in 3e. And PCs who are built for it will be better; the hirelings are just one more layer of defense, and something that gives you long enough to bring the PC online without making the PC no fun to exist as.


Followers, as earned by Leadership, are diffrent. They can do similar jobs, and may require support, but they work for you out of pure loyalty. You can trust them more, and even have them do things hirelings wouldn't. But they cost a feat. (If you make your party's hirelings your followers, you're still gaining loyalty over and beyond what they might have already given, and they're also more willing to do things that are outside their contracted job descriptions.)

Ravens_cry
2015-05-05, 12:03 PM
Maybe a little bit, if flipping out happens before asking "why?". I agree if the DM is providing no explanation, that's bad, but you the player don't have all the context and knowledge your character does, so you will think differently at times.
I'd day that's pretty bad GMing if the player information and character knowledge are so out of kilter in the character's 'favour''. Now, sometimes, a character will know something a player does not but a gentle reminder or notification can be enough without taking a character over like that.

Keltest
2015-05-05, 12:07 PM
I'd day that's pretty bad GMing if the player information and character knowledge are so out of kilter in the character's 'favour''. Now, sometimes, a character will know something a player does not but a gentle reminder or notification can be enough without taking a character over like that.

You seriously think "You feel an urge to grab some coins" is taking over a character?

Ettina
2015-05-05, 12:10 PM
It is the DM putting words in your mouth. That isn't necessarily a bad thing though. "You feel an overwhelming urge to take the shiny coins you see just lying there in your friend's pack." The player can then do whatever they want with that urge. They might give into it, they might freak out, they might use their immense discipline to resist it and keep it quiet (in which case maybe give them penalties for fighting themselves to that degree). How your character feels and what they do are separated enough that the DM can feed you the first part without it taking away your control of the character.

How I would handle it (assuming some sort of mechanics-based compulsion). "You feel an overwhelming urge to take the shiny coins you see just lying there in your friend's pack. Make a Will save."

Ravens_cry
2015-05-05, 12:33 PM
You seriously think "You feel an urge to grab some coins" is taking over a character?
See my edit on post #36 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19209377&postcount=36). No, it's not if it's from an outside source or they took a flaw that made them a kleptomaniac, though if the DM just said that with no cavats, yes, yes it is.

Sith_Happens
2015-05-05, 04:14 PM
Holy crap...aside from the 'keeping a dagger/pistol in boot' are there people who actually do these things? Damn...I thought these were just jokes...

Speaking for my own group:


Sleeping in armor

Anyone wearing light (or Restful) armor is assumed to be wearing it at all times unless specified, anyone with (non-Restful) medium or heavy armor is assumed to take it off to sleep.


Setting watch while resting in a tavern

Never done this, although in one campaign we probably should. Then again, in that campaign my Bard knows Alarm.


Interrogating random people

Define "random?" And "interrogate?" We definitely grill anyone we have reason to think might know something relevant pretty thoroughly.


Always having a dagger and/or pistol in their boot

Has never come up, I don't think we've ever been required to disarm. That said, I'm also pretty sure none of us have ever voluntarily not had our weapons within reach.


Breaking and entering into associates' homes

Guilty as charged.


Snooping into employers' business/properties

Guilty as charged.


Placing hand on the hilt of their weapon when dealing with civilians

One player does this, it's just for flair or when he's trying to intimidate someone though. Within most game systems I know of this doesn't actually help you draw it faster anyways.


Casting spells on civilians

Duh? This means a lot of things, I'd be surprised at a group that hasn't done it at some point.:smallconfused:


Buying livestock to take into caves and old tunnels

Three words: Trapfinding class feature.


I've also had them, a party of lvl ~15 adventurers, go full nova on a bunch of street thugs, because they were scared the thugs would beat them. I suppose they have fun, but it slows sessions down to a crawl.

I really hope you threw an actual encounter at them right after this.:smallamused:

Ravens_cry
2015-05-05, 08:33 PM
Anyone wearing light (or Restful) armor is assumed to be wearing it at all times unless specified, anyone with (non-Restful) medium or heavy armor is assumed to take it off to sleep.
:
Or slap on a lesser restoration in the morning. It's even nicknamed the 'Morning cup of coffee' spell in my group. Given how long it takes to don most armour even hastily in D&D, it's just prudent and, if anything, speeds up the game in the event of a night or morning ambush, as it means all the party is up and ready.

jguy
2015-05-05, 09:01 PM
Sleeping in armor is handled with 500g and a Restful Crystal. It just makes sense to sleep in it when you are in the wilderness and it takes 10 minutes to put the full plate on. Smelling bad is handled through prestidigitation and once the PC's get everfull mugs and everlasting rations all it takes is one poisoned drink in a game 5 years ago to make it so they never eat anything else again. Also, it only takes one criminal sneaking into your room to steal gold or an attempted assassination for the PCs to only ever sleep in Rope Tricks or Magnificent Mansions. PC's /have/ to be paranoid because everything really is out to kill them.

My issue with PC paranoia (as a player and a DM) is a trapped dungeon. A single hallway becomes a HP tax if you don't have a rogue or a high spot check. I've done everything from summoned celestial monkeys to an unseen servant dragging a ball and chain to avoid all the pit traps and fireballs. Doors might as well be ambush points with big red signs on them. All it takes is on person raising an alarm to make every room a fight for who has to open the door. I once had a DM who made every enemy ready an action to fire crossbows at the door when it opened. He started getting upset when we took doors and tables with us to soak up the initial volley, saying that was "metagaming" and something "our characters wouldn't do"

Simply put, PC's will be paranoid if the DM gives them reason too. It only takes one time to ruin it forever.

Sith_Happens
2015-05-05, 11:45 PM
Sleeping in armor is handled with 500g and a Restful Crystal.

The Restful property from Dungeonscape costs exactly the same, lets you use a different armor crystal, and has the additional benefit that you only take a -5 penalty to Listen for being asleep (down from -10) and can choose whether to wake up depending on what you hear.


once the PC's get everfull mugs and everlasting rations all it takes is one poisoned drink in a game 5 years ago to make it so they never eat anything else again.

Until they can afford a Horn of Plenty, of course.:smallcool:


My issue with PC paranoia (as a player and a DM) is a trapped dungeon. A single hallway becomes a HP tax if you don't have a rogue or a high spot check. I've done everything from summoned celestial monkeys to an unseen servant dragging a ball and chain to avoid all the pit traps and fireballs.

Even if you do have someone with Trapfinding, if the DM has ever put a trap in the middle of an empty hallway (rather than only in places you might reasonably expect to be trapped) then it's either search every square of the dungeon or use one of the many "rogue alternatives" anyways. Of course my own group's rogue alternative in the 3.5 campaign with any traps to speak of is just having the ranger (pumps his AC + goof Reflex + Evasion) go in front and be the one getting Shield Other from our shield guardian (for if he does get hit by something).


Doors might as well be ambush points with big red signs on them. All it takes is on person raising an alarm to make every room a fight for who has to open the door.

Once again, my group's solution is either "have the ranger do it," or, if it's a door that needs to be persuaded to open, "have the shield guardian punch it down."


I once had a DM who made every enemy ready an action to fire crossbows at the door when it opened.

Now that's just playing dirty. Of course it's also easily circumventable by opening the door in such a way that you aren't standing in the doorway. Then you rush in after they've wasted their shots or, if the ready trigger is "someone in the doorway," throw in a splash weapon to scatter them and break the ready actions.:smallcool:

Maglubiyet
2015-05-06, 08:40 AM
I once had a DM who made every enemy ready an action to fire crossbows at the door when it opened.

Of course it's also easily circumventable by opening the door in such a way that you aren't standing in the doorway. Then you rush in after they've wasted their shots or, if the ready trigger is "someone in the doorway," throw in a splash weapon to scatter them and break the ready actions.:smallcool:

Clearly you are no graduate of the Imperial Stormtrooper school of assaulting a room. The correct answer is: charge in, one or two at a time, and let the first guys through take the damage. Extra points if you shoot the ceiling and wall.

We could all take a page out of the Stormtrooper book of completely non-paranoid chilling out. "What was that?" "Ah, it was nothing."

Segev
2015-05-06, 08:40 AM
Personally, I think Trapfinding would have been better as a class feature if it allowed a reflexive Search check for traps. Let anybody find traps regardless of DC; rogues get to actually put out their arms to stop their companions as they notice the tripwire while walking along.

Flickerdart
2015-05-06, 10:32 AM
Paranoia isn't a character trait, it's a necessity of the trade. "I heard a sound but it was probably nothing" is exactly the kind of thing that gets people killed, and not investigating something like that while on guard duty is incredibly sloppy. It might sound paranoid to armchair generals, but amateurs don't survive long in the dungeon.

Lord Raziere
2015-05-06, 10:46 AM
idea: design a dungeon that turns player paranoia against itself.

checking a single room for too long locks you inside.

illusions of strange noises constantly happening at inopportune times, the trap only activating if they actually investigate.

a magical room that while looking like a good place to stop to camp for the night, keeps the characters wide awake and puts thoughts in their head about their watch killing them all in their sleep....but only if they actually post a watch.

and probably more. the only way to get through would be to act completely stupidly in any other circumstance. :smallbiggrin:

Segev
2015-05-06, 10:48 AM
If you want to capture the "feel" of the adventurer so skilled that he seems at ease (rather than paranoid), you want to incorporate the ability to discern real threats from imagined ones into their relevant skill checks. Whether this is a number of additional skill checks they can make reflexively (knowledges, perhaps, to identify what they think they saw/heard), or just roll it into a higher-DC result on the perception-type check (DC 20 to notice that shadow; DC 30 to realize whether it's a goblin assassin or just a shadow without bothering to go over there and investigate), this will let your badass adventurers act like stereotypical badasses rather than paranoid survivalists with PTSD.

JAL_1138
2015-05-06, 11:07 AM
idea: design a dungeon that turns player paranoia against itself.

checking a single room for too long locks you inside.

illusions of strange noises constantly happening at inopportune times, the trap only activating if they actually investigate.

a magical room that while looking like a good place to stop to camp for the night, keeps the characters wide awake and puts thoughts in their head about their watch killing them all in their sleep....but only if they actually post a watch.

and probably more. the only way to get through would be to act completely stupidly in any other circumstance. :smallbiggrin:

You are utterly and completely evil. Acererak-level evil. I love it.

Lord Raziere
2015-05-06, 11:15 AM
You are utterly and completely evil. Acererak-level evil. I love it.

Thank you. I try, I try. :smallcool:

Callos_DeTerran
2015-05-06, 09:28 PM
Sleeping in armor is handled with 500g and a Restful Crystal. It just makes sense to sleep in it when you are in the wilderness and it takes 10 minutes to put the full plate on. Smelling bad is handled through prestidigitation and once the PC's get everfull mugs and everlasting rations all it takes is one poisoned drink in a game 5 years ago to make it so they never eat anything else again. Also, it only takes one criminal sneaking into your room to steal gold or an attempted assassination for the PCs to only ever sleep in Rope Tricks or Magnificent Mansions. PC's /have/ to be paranoid because everything really is out to kill them.


Speaking personally, the only one of those things any of the PCs I've played that I can think of would actually do is...handling the smell through prestidigitation. Just because you can bath in nearby water doesn't make it a good idea. That's...that's about it. Are PCs really this paranoid in other games? Cause...well...I'm wondering what's so very different about my games.

Slipperychicken
2015-05-06, 10:11 PM
Are PCs really this paranoid in other games? Cause...well...I'm wondering what's so very different about my games.

I used to be play PCs this paranoid. As a result, my PCs used to live longer than they do now. And they didn't get swindled as much as they do now. And they got more loot than they do now.

These "paranoid" behaviors usually are justified in-universe. It becomes more apparent when you see the difference in longevity between a careful PC and a careless one. A careless PCs' life is measured in sessions; a careful PC outlives the campaign. Even a silly-looking habit like prodding suspicious objects with 10ft poles can make the difference between a hero and a corpse.

Callos_DeTerran
2015-05-06, 11:14 PM
I used to be play PCs this paranoid. As a result, my PCs used to live longer than they do now. And they didn't get swindled as much as they do now. And they got more loot than they do now.

These "paranoid" behaviors usually are justified in-universe. It becomes more apparent when you see the difference in longevity between a careful PC and a careless one. A careless PCs' life is measured in sessions; a careful PC outlives the campaign. Even a silly-looking habit like prodding suspicious objects with 10ft poles can make the difference between a hero and a corpse.

I'll be honest, "paranoid" behaviors have never been justified to me in-universe...almost the opposite in fact! Every time I've been careful and methodical, my character usually dies soon after. It's my carefree ones that learned not to sweet things like assassination attempts, being swindled, and so on that tend to outlive the campaigns but also lead a happy life in the process.

Though...I can't think of a time that I've been successfully swindled IC, mostly cause my characters figured it out and one time because pure dumb luck meant the swindler didn't have anything my PC wanted to spend a stupid amount of gold on.

Keltest
2015-05-07, 06:43 AM
As far as I am aware, my group has minimal D&D experience outside of what they do with me every other week. I very rarely have them trapped or betrayed. And yet, when they come across an NPC who I am clearly going to do something with, there is a serious portion of the group who want to kill him out of reflex.

I mean, he totally will betray them eventually, but that's beside the point!

illyrus
2015-05-07, 08:21 AM
I'll be honest, "paranoid" behaviors have never been justified to me in-universe...almost the opposite in fact! Every time I've been careful and methodical, my character usually dies soon after. It's my carefree ones that learned not to sweet things like assassination attempts, being swindled, and so on that tend to outlive the campaigns but also lead a happy life in the process.

Though...I can't think of a time that I've been successfully swindled IC, mostly cause my characters figured it out and one time because pure dumb luck meant the swindler didn't have anything my PC wanted to spend a stupid amount of gold on.

I think a lot depends on who your GM is. A GM that has cultists send 2 invisible stalkers after you while you're resting in an inn to coup de grace you in your sleep is different than a GM who has an archer fire a single arrow at you in the marketplace. The first is an assassination attempt that has a high chance of success without any precautions and the second is more of a "someone doesn't like you" event.

Same thing for theft, someone stealing a wizard's spellbook is a much bigger deal than a pickpocket stealing a bit of gold.

Hawkstar
2015-05-07, 10:23 AM
idea: design a dungeon that turns player paranoia against itself.Counters:


checking a single room for too long locks you inside.And from then on, players always maintain control of the entry point.


illusions of strange noises constantly happening at inopportune times, the trap only activating if they actually investigate.Improve investigation methods.


a magical room that while looking like a good place to stop to camp for the night, keeps the characters wide awake and puts thoughts in their head about their watch killing them all in their sleep....but only if they actually post a watch. Never sleep outside an Extradimensional space. Also, remember to check each other's "I'm a PC" card to ensure loyalty.


and probably more. the only way to get through would be to act completely stupidly in any other circumstance. :smallbiggrin:Or double-down on the paranoia.

Segev
2015-05-07, 10:52 AM
Something occurs to me: Why is the paranoia viewed as a problem?

Is it slowing down the game? Then allow for more hand-waving of "yes, you do your standard paranoia procedure" to speed in-game things along. Is it preventing them from biting plot hooks? Then make the plot hooks bounce off their paranoia and trigger them needing to proactively pursue the threat their paranoia warned them of. Is it making them too hard to kill? Then, Mr. DM, you've already done your job. Let them be cautious. Remember: the enemies can, too.

ComaVision
2015-05-07, 11:41 AM
I try to add lots of unnecessary details so the group doesn't know something's up if I get descriptive. Memorably, they decided to search some beds in a barracks and I jokingly commented that one of the beds was comfier than the others, leading to an investigative review of the (entirely mundane) bed.

I've failed to do this with statues though. My group knew that if there were statues, they probably weren't statues. Mental note to add more statues that don't animate.

TheCountAlucard
2015-05-07, 06:29 PM
I've failed to do this with statues though. My group knew that if there were statues, they probably weren't statues. Mental note to add more statues that don't animate.This is why smart players have their characters bring along manacles big and strong enough to restrain golems/animated statues - if the statues wait for a scripted event to come to life and attack, you're free to cuff 'em beforehand and thus hamper their ability to fight. :smallamused:

Smart players also often carry a hand of the mage, allowing them to apply said manacles from a safe distance, and otherwise trigger traps remotely[/i].

jguy
2015-05-07, 10:07 PM
This is why smart players have their characters bring along manacles big and strong enough to restrain golems/animated statues - if the statues wait for a scripted event to come to life and attack, you're free to cuff 'em beforehand and thus hamper their ability to fight. :smallamused:

Smart players also often carry a hand of the mage, allowing them to apply said manacles from a safe distance, and otherwise trigger traps remotely[/i].

You have to cuff the arms to the opposite legs. If the hands are just to each other then they can still bash attack or wield a two-handed weapon no problem.

Battlebooze
2015-05-08, 02:49 AM
It can be quite annoying when you're trying to make a harmless social encounter. I kid you not, this actually happened with my group:

Me: The waitress gives you some beer and a basket of bread while you wait.
Players: Wait! Who has the highest Fort save? What if the food is poisoned? Bob, what's your Fort?
Bob: Don't we have poison immunity from Heroes' Feast?
Players: But what if it's not normal poison? We use Arcane Sight to scan the bread!
Me: It's completely mundane.
Players: What about the waitress? I scan her with Arcane Sight, too!
Me: She doesn't have any magic on.
Players: OMG no magic? What if she has Nondetection on and can beat my CL?
Players: I've got Scent! I smell her! What does she smell like?
Me: Rather nice and human-y. She's a bit sweaty and wears rose perfume.
Players: I'm a Church Inquisitor! I can see through illusions! I she a demon?
Me: No.
Players: A construct? A devil? A doppelganger?
Me: She looks human.
Players: Did you hear that, guys? She "looks" human. I bet-
Me: Bob, your Sense Motive check of 83 tells you that sometimes, bread is just bread.

I've also had them, a party of lvl ~15 adventurers, go full nova on a bunch of street thugs, because they were scared the thugs would beat them. I suppose they have fun, but it slows sessions down to a crawl.

You left out some very important information.

This "waitress" was met on the 73 level of the Abyss in a massive carnage room filled three feet deep with fresh corpses. All the PC's have had dreams of this "waitress" slaughtering them in painful ways, in this very room, dressed exactly as she was. The previous twenty times they met a "waitress" who offered them food, they were poisoned, cursed, attacked, and generally screwed over.

And you say they were paranoid.

:P

Brookshw
2015-05-08, 06:31 AM
I can agree its boring if used in excess in as much as it can limit the types of encounters and interactions players have. To some extent it can feel more as playing the metagame more than the actual game. Likewise though I can't imagine wanting to stop players from it.

Also, nice touch lord Raz!

Flickerdart
2015-05-08, 10:17 AM
You left out some very important information.

This "waitress" was met on the 73 level of the Abyss in a massive carnage room filled three feet deep with fresh corpses. All the PC's have had dreams of this "waitress" slaughtering them in painful ways, in this very room, dressed exactly as she was. The previous twenty times they met a "waitress" who offered them food, they were poisoned, cursed, attacked, and generally screwed over.

And you say they were paranoid.

:P
Unfortunately, this seems to happen far too often - DMs keep trying the same tricks and then get upset when the PCs stop falling for them.

Lord Raziere
2015-05-08, 02:50 PM
Counters:

And from then on, players always maintain control of the entry point.

Improve investigation methods.

Never sleep outside an Extradimensional space. Also, remember to check each other's "I'm a PC" card to ensure loyalty.

Or double-down on the paranoia.

Maintaining control at entry point leads to the entry point itself killing you. better investigation methods just activate the trap in worse ways, making it more damaging. the entire dungeon detects extradimensional spaces and automatically makes them pop, spilling the contents out into the world.

also, ten foot poles? traps that turn them into ten foot snakes with poisonous bites, that then attack you. same for eleven and twelve foot ones.

Flickerdart
2015-05-08, 02:58 PM
Maintaining control at entry point leads to the entry point itself killing you. better investigation methods just activate the trap in worse ways, making it more damaging. the entire dungeon detects extradimensional spaces and automatically makes them pop, spilling the contents out into the world.

also, ten foot poles? traps that turn them into ten foot snakes with poisonous bites, that then attack you. same for eleven and twelve foot ones.
So basically effect has been completely uncoupled from cause?

Keltest
2015-05-08, 03:04 PM
So basically effect has been completely uncoupled from cause?

Sounds about right. Certainly its a good way to punish excessive paranoia, but it will quickly become un-fun when the players have to basically abandon good sense.

As an exercise in screwing over the players, it works pretty well. as a fun mission... I would just leave the dungeon.

Segev
2015-05-08, 03:10 PM
At that point, it's not punishing paranoia. It's telling you that your DM is going to punish you for being in the game and pretend it means he's smarter than you.

Townopolis
2015-05-08, 03:18 PM
I'm not sure if punishing paranoia is the way to go. Paranoia in the PCs, when it isn't a genuine roleplaying trait, stems from a gripping desire to keep the character alive and capable. As has been pointed out, most of the paranoid behavior endemic in adventurers stems from the various things that will seize upon any credulousness or break in vigilance to screw the party over.

Assuming player paranoia is detracting from the game, it's better to look at why they're being paranoid in the first place. Most likely, it's a risk/reward issue. Not being paranoid rewards the players with more fun, but they risk getting screwed over--often to the tune of death or instant mission failure. Understandably, a lot of players think this risk outweighs the reward. So, if you want to reduce paranoia, you need to reduce the risk that normalcy entails (and you need to make this abundantly clear to the players). If not checking every 5' for traps won't screw the players over and checking every 5' drags down the game, then they'll stop slowing every dungeon crawl to a crawl. Of course, this assumes they agree that paranoia detracts from the game in the first place. Also, bear in mind that risk is a combination of likelyhood and magnitude.

On the other hand, if the players are screwed for not being paranoid and then screwed again for being paranoid, there are only 2 sane options--leaving the game or metaparanoia. Okay, one sane option and one less-insane-than-the-rest option.

Lord Raziere
2015-05-08, 03:33 PM
So basically effect has been completely uncoupled from cause?

no, I just don't believe in PC's being completely safe. I like a game where I have to take risks and the PC's are never completely safe, both GM and player. safety and caution is for NPCs! for lives of boredom and peace! not adventurers going out and braving the the dangers of the unknown! paranoia and caution leads to safety, leads to complacency leads to following wrote dogma about paranoia procedures- which leads to the whole thing not becoming exciting anymore. if everything is as you expect, what is the point? I want to keep my players guessing, keep them unable to know exactly what they are up against.

what, do you want to put up signs saying "USE YOUR TEN FOOT POLES HERE!!" or something? unironically? I mean, for ironic purposes to screw with the players head I would do it but....really. uncertainty is what I game for, and what I GM, because life is often uncertain, especially when your an adventurer!

Keltest
2015-05-08, 04:32 PM
no, I just don't believe in PC's being completely safe. I like a game where I have to take risks and the PC's are never completely safe, both GM and player. safety and caution is for NPCs! for lives of boredom and peace! not adventurers going out and braving the the dangers of the unknown! paranoia and caution leads to safety, leads to complacency leads to following wrote dogma about paranoia procedures- which leads to the whole thing not becoming exciting anymore. if everything is as you expect, what is the point? I want to keep my players guessing, keep them unable to know exactly what they are up against.

what, do you want to put up signs saying "USE YOUR TEN FOOT POLES HERE!!" or something? unironically? I mean, for ironic purposes to screw with the players head I would do it but....really. uncertainty is what I game for, and what I GM, because life is often uncertain, especially when your an adventurer!

Well in your death dungeon, you haven't changed the uncertainty, you've just changed the conditions and preparations needed to be absolutely save, or utterly screwed.

Karl Aegis
2015-05-08, 04:38 PM
I find it hard to believe that the most boring character trait isn't "boring". How many boring characters have actually been exciting? I can only really remember three of them.

Lord Raziere
2015-05-08, 05:05 PM
Well in your death dungeon, you haven't changed the uncertainty, you've just changed the conditions and preparations needed to be absolutely save, or utterly screwed.

There is no absolutely safe. There is only "maybe" and "danger of dying". I just have to make it more dangerous for it to be true of the paranoid players.

Hawkstar
2015-05-08, 07:10 PM
This is why smart players have their characters bring along manacles big and strong enough to restrain golems/animated statues - if the statues wait for a scripted event to come to life and attack, you're free to cuff 'em beforehand and thus hamper their ability to fight. :smallamused:

Smart players also often carry a hand of the mage, allowing them to apply said manacles from a safe distance, and otherwise trigger traps remotely[/i].

And - 'restraining' statues is more economically viable than pre-emptively destroying them (Which is also an option), because if you're wrong about the Statue, you can still salvage it (If you destroy it in a fit of paranoia, and it turns out to have been Mundane All Along... congratulations, you just destroyed several hundred if not thousand GP worth of art)

jguy
2015-05-08, 10:00 PM
Best way to take care of golems without expensive chains or destroying them is cloth bags. Get an unseen servant/mage hand/telekinesis to place the cloth over the statues head. Now if the golems turn on and take them off, you have a fight. If they are golems but don't take them off then you can sneak by since they cannot see you. If they aren't golems you only spent 1cp on a bag. This also works with Silent Image. One defused a whole room of Iron Golems with silent image by making them think they were in a stone box. Took them out one by one after that.

Kazyan
2015-05-08, 10:13 PM
Yes, yes, paranoia is necessary and beneficial and expected and doesn't make sense not to have and blah blah blah.

...I agree with the OP anyway. I can't give the peer-reviewed paper I know someone's going to demand as support for my opinion, but I just find it more narratively interesting when my characters make poor decisions, let their guard down, eat the perfectly normal berries they found when nat-1'ing a survival check, etc.. I also like playing characters with these imperfections that make them relateable.

goto124
2015-05-09, 03:50 AM
congratulations, you just destroyed several hundred if not thousand GP worth of art)

Was I supposed to loot these statues to sell? Or will the owner make me compensate for the loss? Even if the owner isn't already dead, aren't I going to kill her anyway?

Hawkstar
2015-05-09, 09:16 AM
Best way to take care of golems without expensive chains or destroying them is cloth bags. Get an unseen servant/mage hand/telekinesis to place the cloth over the statues head. Now if the golems turn on and take them off, you have a fight. If they are golems but don't take them off then you can sneak by since they cannot see you. If they aren't golems you only spent 1cp on a bag. This also works with Silent Image. One defused a whole room of Iron Golems with silent image by making them think they were in a stone box. Took them out one by one after that.Except the Golem doesn't need to see to fight you. In 3.5, "Listen" and "Move silently" are different skills from "Spot" and "Hide". In 4th and 5th editions of D&D, the sneaking is not automatic.

However, it does give some strong defensive abilities.


Was I supposed to loot these statues to sell?
Of course! Either that, or turn them into a museum exhibit for constant influx of wealth.

Segev
2015-05-09, 11:21 AM
Yes, yes, paranoia is necessary and beneficial and expected and doesn't make sense not to have and blah blah blah.

...I agree with the OP anyway. I can't give the peer-reviewed paper I know someone's going to demand as support for my opinion, but I just find it more narratively interesting when my characters make poor decisions, let their guard down, eat the perfectly normal berries they found when nat-1'ing a survival check, etc.. I also like playing characters with these imperfections that make them relateable.

Sure. But you can't fault players who want to play characters as if they're trying to live in a world where things are trying to kill them as much as they really are trying to kill them.

My take-away from this thread mostly is: if the players make paranoid PCs, the DM is the one who taught them to play that way.

My second take-away is: If you want them to play less paranoid, then let them have means of being sure of their safety that don't require active paranoia. Whether it's invulnerabilities, better sensing capabilities, or what-have-you, if they know they're safe they will act less paranoid.

If you think you're being clever by finding ways around their senses and defenses, you might be right...but it's your own fault they'll be paranoid about it in the future. All you've done is taught them, "You didn't plan hard enough, nor take enough precautions." So they'll plan harder, and take more paranoid precautions.

Slipperychicken
2015-05-09, 12:08 PM
My take-away from this thread mostly is: if the players make paranoid PCs, the at least one of their DMs is the one who taught them to play that way.


Fixed that for 'ya. It's not always the current DM's fault; many players learn paranoia from one DM (or even other exposure to RPGs, like video-games), then take it into other games. It can be very hard to un-learn that kind of behavior, especially when it works so well most of the time (and when toning down the paranoia usually results in getting eaten by an ooze).

Lord Raziere
2015-05-09, 12:39 PM
If you think you're being clever by finding ways around their senses and defenses, you might be right...but it's your own fault they'll be paranoid about it in the future. All you've done is taught them, "You didn't plan hard enough, nor take enough precautions." So they'll plan harder, and take more paranoid precautions.

Then they haven't truly learned the real lesson yet:
You can never plan hard enough or take enough precautions. Get over it.

illyrus
2015-05-09, 01:57 PM
Then they haven't truly learned the real lesson yet:
You can never plan hard enough or take enough precautions. Get over it.

Your previous examples seem to fall under mostly an encounter/dungeon design of "players spring trap in room B regardless of actions taken". The lesson you may end up teaching those players is to not be invested in their characters or the game in general because their actions have little effect on the outcome.

I dunno, I just don't derive pleasure from dropping "gotcha!" events on the players. I'm not there to "teach them a lesson" I'm there in hopes we all have fun playing a game and if player's behavior is getting in the way of all of us having a good time I'd rather talk with them and come to a compromise then screw with them.

Keltest
2015-05-09, 02:03 PM
Your previous examples seem to fall under mostly an encounter/dungeon design of "players spring trap in room B regardless of actions taken". The lesson you may end up teaching those players is to not be invested in their characters or the game in general because their actions have little effect on the outcome.

I dunno, I just don't derive pleasure from dropping "gotcha!" events on the players. I'm not there to "teach them a lesson" I'm there in hopes we all have fun playing a game and if player's behavior is getting in the way of all of us having a good time I'd rather talk with them and come to a compromise then screw with them.

Indeed.

If you absolutely feel compelled to punish paranoid players, you need to make sure there is a definite observable link between their paranoia and the results. not just "oh, sorry, I decided to kill your character again for the heck of it."

Lord Raziere
2015-05-09, 02:05 PM
very well. I'll try to think up of other ways for paranoia to be detrimental.

Cluedrew
2015-05-09, 02:22 PM
very well. I'll try to think up of other ways for paranoia to be detrimental.

How about how it is detrimental in the real world? If you never trust anyone (at all) people don't like you. If you don't trust that the food is not poisoned you go hungry (people have actually starved themselves to death over this). If you don't believe you can sleep safely you are always tired. If you believe everything and everyone is out to get you there are many problems that can result from it.

I do however agree that their is a difference between caution and paranoia. Not riding your bike because the brakes aren't working is caution, not riding your bike because someone might have tampered with the brakes is paranoia. Unless there is evidence someone tampered with your brakes, it is only paranoia if it doesn't make sense (pretty sure).

On the other hand, if role-played properly paranoia can be a very interesting character trait, but that is generally not what we are taking about here.

awa
2015-05-09, 02:36 PM
like others have said a lot of paranoia is just becuase the pc live in a very different world then ours and many of the normal penalties can be overcome with magic. but that is a price if they buy rings of substance do avoid poisoning and ambush whether that was a good investment or not depends on how often they come up

the ways to punish paranoia is to make it not cost effective. If you have a guest rights culture sharing food can be an important ritual if you refuse to eat then they will be insulted becuase it says you don't trust them the same for casting detect evil/poison/ magic.

Heres the thing though if you throw poison at them all the time then having people think you are rude is not a bigger penalty then the poison was unless you make people irrational insulted in which case they wont see it as punishment for paranoia but just crazy people attacking them.

Like wise searching every 5ft in a dungeon often comes from illogical trap design where people are for all intents and purposes doing the equivalent of planting land mines in there living room. If traps are only in logical spots and more important often have some kinda hint that this is a spot that should be looked at and you combined this with a time limit you will see a lot less search every square.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-09, 04:37 PM
The best way to punish paranoia is to make it be completely for naught and then mock the PC when their crazy behaviour makes them seem... well, crazy. :smalltongue:

I disagree with the premise of this thread, though. The most boring character trait isn't paranoia - on the contrary, paranoids can be really fun to follow for their quirks and convoluted thinking. The worst trait is apathy.

Friv
2015-05-09, 06:58 PM
Speaking personally, the only one of those things any of the PCs I've played that I can think of would actually do is...handling the smell through prestidigitation. Just because you can bath in nearby water doesn't make it a good idea. That's...that's about it. Are PCs really this paranoid in other games? Cause...well...I'm wondering what's so very different about my games.

I am reminded of my dwarf fighter, from many games ago, who would take off his plate mail every night, and then change into his bedtime chain shirt.

Keltest
2015-05-09, 07:02 PM
I am reminded of my dwarf fighter, from many games ago, who would take off his plate mail every night, and then change into his bedtime chain shirt.

Your dwarf only slept in a chain shirt? You mean he didn't carry around a pile of rocks to make a bed out of?

Hawkstar
2015-05-09, 08:10 PM
Then they haven't truly learned the real lesson yet:
You can never plan hard enough or take enough precautions. Get over it.

That's because it's a false lesson. Yes, yes you can.

Lord Raziere
2015-05-09, 08:14 PM
That's because it's a false lesson. Yes, yes you can.

No, no you can't. The world is wider than you. The world is greater than you- all that you can plan for can be wiped out by mere chance deciding to screw you over today and then you have to improvise and muddle through without the luxury of knowing what will happen anyways. The expectation that planning will get you through everything isn't realistic. Only fools think they can control everything.

Hawkstar
2015-05-09, 08:21 PM
No, no you can't. The world is wider than you. The world is greater than you- all that you can plan for can be wiped out by mere chance deciding to screw you over today and then you have to improvise and muddle through without the luxury of knowing what will happen anyways. The expectation that planning will get you through everything isn't realistic. Only fools think they can control everything.

No, only sheep think they can't control everything, and cry about being a victim. Adventurers don't give a damn about that level of incompetence.

'Paranoia' among adventurers isn't - It's not paranoia if everything really is out to get you. As for 'traps being in logical places' or 'who would trap their own living room?' Go read through "The All Guardsman Party" - if PCs can do it, so can the DM's creatures. And again - it's not paranoia if they're right (Through experience).

Lord Raziere
2015-05-09, 08:27 PM
No, only sheep think they can't control everything, and cry about being a victim. Adventurers don't give a damn about that level of incompetence.

'Paranoia' among adventurers isn't - It's not paranoia if everything really is out to get you. As for 'traps being in logical places' or 'who would trap their own living room?' Go read through "The All Guardsman Party" - if PCs can do it, so can the DM's creatures. And again - it's not paranoia if they're right (Through experience).

Independence is not control. Competence is not control. I don't need to obsessively prepare and plan to make sure the job gets done. That is only setting expectations that get in the way of adapting to the challenges that come before me, plans and preparation are a promise. Not a guarantee. Rely on them too much and its only another weakness, because plans don't survive contact with the enemy.

I'd rather be adaptable than prepared. prepared only works once. adaptability works all the time.

Cluedrew
2015-05-09, 08:41 PM
No, only sheep think they can't control everything, and cry about being a victim. Adventurers don't give a damn about that level of incompetence.If by sheep you mean anyone without a god complex yes. For some reason I find myself thinking of Ugway's speech in Kung Fu Panda


As for 'traps being in logical places' or 'who would trap their own living room?' Go read through "The All Guardsman Party" - if PCs can do it, so can the DM's creatures. And again - it's not paranoia if they're right (Through experience).This is actually why I love The All Guardsmen Party, because it is so over the top it barely makes sense and only does because they live in a incredibly harsh world, even more so than most D&D campaigns.

In fact that might be the problem there, paranoia is not the problem, the problem is the player's paranoia is miss-matched with the type of game being played. Its like someone bringing a highly optimized wizard to a game where people have points in Knowledge(Architecture) or Profession(Baker).


I'd rather be adaptable than prepared. prepared only works once. adaptability works all the time.I'd rather be both, "plan to throw one away".

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-09, 08:46 PM
Whether you can be prepared or not depends on the situation. In the abstract, preparing for everything is impossible, but for a given game scenario? It can be quite easy.

The really crazy errors happen when someone prepares too much and tie themselves in a logical knot, trying to defend against a threat which is not there.

Almarck
2015-05-10, 12:43 AM
You know, all this talk of excessive paranoia from players reminds me of an idea one of my friends had. Basically, an entire dungeon where every hint or suspicion of danger manifests into that very danger. There are no traps at all until the rogue goes out to look for them.

It's the most cruel way to punish paranoia ever, in my opinion, because the players end up effectively narrating their own character's demises. On the otherhand, maybe it'll "cure" excessive paranoia if the players realize that their own paranoia leads them into more danger than if they just decided to go through it all carefree.

Ettina
2015-05-10, 03:37 AM
I once had a DM who made every enemy ready an action to fire crossbows at the door when it opened. He started getting upset when we took doors and tables with us to soak up the initial volley, saying that was "metagaming" and something "our characters wouldn't do"

Same group of enemies? If so, the characters would have to be idiots not to consider ways around their familiar enemies' favorite tactics.

Different group of enemies? It could fly either way, depending on characterization.

PersonMan
2015-05-10, 04:55 AM
Your previous examples seem to fall under mostly an encounter/dungeon design of "players spring trap in room B regardless of actions taken".

You're missing the context - the idea is 'a dungeon that becomes more dangerous the more closely investigated/checked it is'. The entire point is that the characters need to stop pentuple-trap-checking everything to get past without going through a constant trap-filled hell. It's not about "players spring all traps because I said so", it's a dungeon that isn't trapped, at all.

...Until the rogue checks for them.

Then someone said, 'aha, we'll just check for traps harder', and the response was a predictable 'well that makes the dungeon make traps even harder then'.

Necroticplague
2015-05-10, 05:53 AM
Your previous examples seem to fall under mostly an encounter/dungeon design of "players spring trap in room B regardless of actions taken". The lesson you may end up teaching those players is to not be invested in their characters or the game in general because their actions have little effect on the outcome.

Or the alternative,the also bad lesson "I am a spiteful jerk of a DM."

awa
2015-05-10, 09:04 AM
You're missing the context - the idea is 'a dungeon that becomes more dangerous the more closely investigated/checked it is'. The entire point is that the characters need to stop pentuple-trap-checking everything to get past without going through a constant trap-filled hell. It's not about "players spring all traps because I said so", it's a dungeon that isn't trapped, at all.

...Until the rogue checks for them.

Then someone said, 'aha, we'll just check for traps harder', and the response was a predictable 'well that makes the dungeon make traps even harder then'.

That wont make player less paranoid it will make them infinity more paranoid if you do it only once they will either die or figure it out then assume its a unique occurrence and go right back to normal behavior. if you do it twice they will become super extra special paranoid not just testing for traps but testing reality itself every time they enter a dungeon.

Part of the problem is that some of the games class features most notable search and disable traps only function if your searching every thing. A problem i have encountered with dms who dislike searching and keep in mind its a small sample size is they disliked players not falling in traps and ambushes they wanted every one to just kick in the doors take there hit point damge and get on with the fights setting off every trap, alarm, or ambush in the place and they became visibly frustrated when player detected ambushes and turned the tables on them. if you don't want them to be paranoid don't make them live in a world where paranoia is the only logical out viable life style.

Keltest
2015-05-10, 11:48 AM
That wont make player less paranoid it will make them infinity more paranoid if you do it only once they will either die or figure it out then assume its a unique occurrence and go right back to normal behavior. if you do it twice they will become super extra special paranoid not just testing for traps but testing reality itself every time they enter a dungeon.

Part of the problem is that some of the games class features most notable search and disable traps only function if your searching every thing. A problem i have encountered with dms who dislike searching and keep in mind its a small sample size is they disliked players not falling in traps and ambushes they wanted every one to just kick in the doors take there hit point damge and get on with the fights setting off every trap, alarm, or ambush in the place and they became visibly frustrated when player detected ambushes and turned the tables on them. if you don't want them to be paranoid don't make them live in a world where paranoia is the only logical out viable life style.

Most of the time, player paranoia is simple pattern recognition. If theyre checking for traps every 2 feet, its because someone in the past put a trap every 2 feet. In that case, the appropriate response would be to inflict consequences to them taking forever.

However, players are (usually) at least a little intelligent. If they split up and the rogue just happens to pick the way with the traps every time, they'll almost certainly figure out that SOMETHING abnormal is going on here.

Lord Raziere
2015-05-10, 12:03 PM
what if by being paranoid, you activated only FAKE traps that don't do actually harm you or do anything? would that be acceptable?

illyrus
2015-05-10, 12:10 PM
You're missing the context - the idea is 'a dungeon that becomes more dangerous the more closely investigated/checked it is'. The entire point is that the characters need to stop pentuple-trap-checking everything to get past without going through a constant trap-filled hell. It's not about "players spring all traps because I said so", it's a dungeon that isn't trapped, at all.

...Until the rogue checks for them.

Then someone said, 'aha, we'll just check for traps harder', and the response was a predictable 'well that makes the dungeon make traps even harder then'.

awa did a good job of voicing my concerns with that approach, I only have two things to add.

How do you voice this to the players that the dungeon worked this way and didn't have the most convoluted trap design ever?

GM: The traps were not there, they only existed because you looked for them Rogue-san, they were in you all along...
Rogue: Wait what?
GM: Oh and give me a reflex save.

The other is let's modify apply that trap design to an encounter. Let's say I want the players to talk to these goblins and not fight them because they always kill any goblin they meet. So going by that trap design if the players talk to the goblins everything goes fine but if not then the goblins turn out to be immune to all PC methods of harming or escaping from them and beat up the PCs.

That sort of design stinks of the "Only One Answer" and expects the players to be psychic because the presentation gives scant evidence from the player's perspective; or worse, expects them to fail because failure is the default state with little evidence of what they did wrong past the GM telling them when it is over.

PersonMan
2015-05-10, 12:24 PM
How do you voice this to the players that the dungeon worked this way and didn't have the most convoluted trap design ever?

I don't, that's how, 'cuz it's not my idea. :smalltongue:

I just dislike people missing the context/reason for something and arguing about something that, as a result, is completely unrelated to the actual topic, so I cleared the matter up as best I could. I don't have a side here, I'm just the guy trying to keep everyone on the same page. It's better to read a discussion about X, rather than one guy explaining why to do X while another adamantly tells him that Y is a horrible thing.

illyrus
2015-05-10, 12:36 PM
I don't, that's how, 'cuz it's not my idea. :smalltongue:

I just dislike people missing the context/reason for something and arguing about something that, as a result, is completely unrelated to the actual topic, so I cleared the matter up as best I could. I don't have a side here, I'm just the guy trying to keep everyone on the same page. It's better to read a discussion about X, rather than one guy explaining why to do X while another adamantly tells him that Y is a horrible thing.

And my problem wasn't with the original idea, but when they expanded upon it to make the dungeon a dynamic screwjob. I read the whole thread. That subsection was more of:

A: Do x
B: That won't work due to a good chance of y
A: Then do z to counter
C: z is bad

Perhaps you missed part of that exchange when you were reading through.

PersonMan
2015-05-10, 12:44 PM
I wouldn't say that 'take more precautions' is in any way different from 'take precautions', myself.

Banjoman42
2015-05-10, 01:00 PM
I think some of the misunderstanding here is that there are many levels of paranoia. For instance, one of my current characters is slightly paranoid. He doesn't trust new party members or NPCs unless he has proof other wise. He tries to convince everyone to check each dungeon door, but sometimes he is lazy and just says "screw it, go through the door". He does not, however, plan for every situation incessantly, but instead plans for possible contingencies. For instance, he doesn't wear a tin foil hat because he believes the government is controlling his mind via radiowaves.

If he did check every door and asked to roll sense motive every time anyone says anything, that would be annoying and tiring, for both the players and the character himself. It's hard work being paranoid.

awa
2015-05-10, 01:13 PM
I had a character once who was insane and one of his things was growing paranoia. He when he was low level would pay for his room stuff pillows under the blankets and then sleep invisible under the bed (warlock) he would also fill the room with marbles (good balance meant he could not fail the check) and caltrops (immune due to dr 1)

although on the other hand when we were ambushed in the inn he ended up virtually soloing the encounter becuase most of the party was basically helpless (a more merciless dm would have slaughtered the sleeping pcs)

My points is paranoia only has to pay off once for a pc to decide it was worth it and they only need to to fall for a preventable mistake once for them to feel justified. Its a matter of cost paranoia cost my pc nothing so any benefit is a net gain

Kazyan
2015-05-10, 01:44 PM
Wait, what is the line between being paranoid and being reasonably prepared? I think much of this conversation is based on having different thresholds for paranoia. I mean, yeah, I check for traps when it looks like there might be traps, but when does that get excessive?

Almarck
2015-05-10, 01:53 PM
I think we can all agree that paranoia is too much when it bogs down the game and prohibits plot or dungeon progress.
How much is too much is probably dependant on party, but when the rogue "tripplechecks" for traps on the same treasure chest...well that might be excessive. 4 times is right out

Necroticplague
2015-05-10, 02:45 PM
How does being paranoid bog down a game? Even if the preparation would take forever IC, it can usually be glossed over OOC pretty quickly, especially if it's a regular routine.

"I triple-check the traps" Roll 3 search checks, barely takes any more time than 1.
"Rules don't actually have any penalty for sleep deprivation, so I won't sleep" Just note he's the one making the spot checks (yes, I've had players who did this. They were encouraged by me).
"I take the pole, and use it to shove a series of bearing one-by one across the floor, then hitting all available surfaces. Then, I repeat this for the next five feat." Takes time the first time, he can simply say 'I search using the pole and bearings like before' for the rest of the times.
"I scatter marbles and caltrops all over the floor of the room i sleep under the bed" Barely takes a moment to note.

Segev
2015-05-10, 02:55 PM
Then they haven't truly learned the real lesson yet:
You can never plan hard enough or take enough precautions. Get over it.You're not teaching that lesson. To teach that lesson, you need to have them facing somebody who knows of their preparations and is playing chess with them. You also need to have that person be fallible, such that the PCs can win, too, even when their paranoia didn't come into play.



If you absolutely feel compelled to punish paranoid players, you need to make sure there is a definite observable link between their paranoia and the results. not just "oh, sorry, I decided to kill your character again for the heck of it."This is an important part of it. Paranoia has its costs. Those costs are both overt and opportunity. Give them opportunities which, if they had been less paranoid, they could have taken. Show others - rival adventuring parties, for instance - benefiting from them. Make their paranoia cost them and then demonstrate that there was no danger.

Conversely, do NOT take every gap in their defenses as a reason to screw them. IF you do, they will assume that it was failure to be paranoid enough.


The best way to punish paranoia is to make it be completely for naught and then mock the PC when their crazy behaviour makes them seem... well, crazy. :smalltongue:This, too, helps. Make them weird to the rest of the world, and make their paranoia unjustified by not threatening them that much.

Give them warning when they should ramp up their paranoia, or they'll keep it up all the time. Remember that they aren't experiencing the discomforts and privations their paranoia involves; their characters are. It's a lot easier to say "I do this" when you don't, personally, have to than it is to actually do it. So don't make the punishment - losing all or part of the game - for NOT doing so greater than the costs - IC discomforts and inconveniences the players don't have to endure - of doing so.


Most of the time, player paranoia is simple pattern recognition. If theyre checking for traps every 2 feet, its because someone in the past put a trap every 2 feet. In that case, the appropriate response would be to inflict consequences to them taking forever.Indeed. This is why "teaching" them by making their paranoia INSUFFICIENT will only make it worse.


However, players are (usually) at least a little intelligent. If they split up and the rogue just happens to pick the way with the traps every time, they'll almost certainly figure out that SOMETHING abnormal is going on here.Not necessarily. What they might take from that isn't, "The game is creating these," so much as, "The DM is tailoring adventures to us."

GloatingSwine
2015-05-10, 02:55 PM
The trouble with extreme paranoia as a character property is that anyone who is that paranoid has no business being in an adventuring party in the first place. Because if they were truly paranoid they'd see threats everywhere, and especially from each other.

I mean nobody with any sense would volutarily associate with other people of relatively even levels and therefore potentially threat, let alone trusting them to be around when they're asleep.


Properly paranoid parties should basically auto-resolve as they should be killing each other or splitting up because the most threatening thing in the world is someone you thought was an ally.

Grim Portent
2015-05-10, 03:03 PM
I tend to encourage the healthy paranoia of checking your quarters for spying equipment, keeping an eye out for snipers, taking precautions against poisoning, doing everything you can to bulletproof your body and not trusting people with clearly evil facial hair.

I discourage checking for traps most of the time, as they're not something I tend to use in the areas people are actually going to be spending time in, so it's usually a waste of time. Simple traps in the nooks and crannies that can't be blocked off but aren't going to be used for anything? Sure, keeps out thieves, looters, local kids and animals. Poison arrows, scything blades and so on in the door to the armoury? Why the hell would you do that?

Keltest
2015-05-10, 03:09 PM
Not necessarily. What they might take from that isn't, "The game is creating these," so much as, "The DM is tailoring adventures to us."

I didn't say they'd necessarily figure out what was actually going on. I actually find it a lot more fun when they think something completely different than the reality is happening. But if only the rogue ever seems to go down the hallway with the traps, theyre going to notice something abnormal. Even if they don't get any further than that.

Cluedrew
2015-05-10, 03:28 PM
Paranoia is the most boring character trait (for a player)

It just occurred to me that this is actually what we seem to be talking about. Paranoid characters have all sorts of potential, paranoid players have significantly less so. If you have a paranoid player:

Conversely, do NOT take every gap in their defenses as a reason to screw them. IF you do, they will assume that it was failure to be paranoid enough.Plus have conversations with the players to speed up the process of them realizing it is unnecessary.

Banjoman42
2015-05-10, 04:01 PM
How does being paranoid bog down a game? Even if the preparation would take forever IC, it can usually be glossed over OOC pretty quickly, especially if it's a regular routine.

"I triple-check the traps" Roll 3 search checks, barely takes any more time than 1.
"Rules don't actually have any penalty for sleep deprivation, so I won't sleep" Just note he's the one making the spot checks (yes, I've had players who did this. They were encouraged by me).
"I take the pole, and use it to shove a series of bearing one-by one across the floor, then hitting all available surfaces. Then, I repeat this for the next five feat." Takes time the first time, he can simply say 'I search using the pole and bearings like before' for the rest of the times.
"I scatter marbles and caltrops all over the floor of the room i sleep under the bed" Barely takes a moment to note.
Maybe so, but if you have more than one paranoid character then it can be very bad. "I don't believe him when he says there are no traps" "I don't want him to stay awake, I don't trust him" are both things that have been said in my games.

Even with only one character, extreme paranoia can seriously detract from games. I once had a player stalk an NPC for a week to see what he was up to. What if the ten-foot pole method isn't the only thing they use to check for traps? What if they also cast detect magic, detect traps, and detect secret doors? I've had an entire group of 4 people each take ten minutes searching a room for traps individually. Those are 40 minutes of my life that I want back.

Plus, if a person doesn't know addition well, rolling three search checks might take upwards of ten seconds.

icefractal
2015-05-10, 04:16 PM
How does being paranoid bog down a game? Even if the preparation would take forever IC, it can usually be glossed over OOC pretty quickly, especially if it's a regular routine.IME, this. Protocols don't take much (or sometimes any) extra time when the GM is ok with them and just lets them be used. It's when the GM dislikes them and tries to discourage them that it slows the game down.

Ex 1 (no prepation):
Player: I open the door.
DM: There's a circular room with a pool of water in the middle.

Ex 2 (preparation the DM is ok with):
Player: I search the door the standard way*, then open it if it's clear.
DM: No traps found. When you open it, there's a circular room with a pool of water in the middle.
* Which was previously established to mean searching it for traps, listening at it, and detecting magic on it.

Ex 3 (preparation the DM resists):
Player: I search the door the standard way ...
DM: I'm not making this paranoia the default, say what you're doing.
Player: First I detect magic on it.
DM: There's magic in front of you. That's all you get at first.
Player: I keep concentrating on it the other two rounds.
DM: Ok fine, the magic was from the barbarian's sword, not the door.
Player: Now I search it, taking 10.
DM: You can't take 10, the dungeon is too threatening. Roll it.
Player: *rolls* Fine, a 26.
DM: You think you find nothing on the door. Aren't you worried a monster will show up while you're ******* around here?
Player: *sigh* And now I listen at the door. *rolls* 18.
DM: You don't think you hear anything. Ready to open the door now, captain paranoid?
Player: Yes, I open the ...
DM: You touch the handle?!
Player: ... yes?
DM: It's fine, no trap, just goes to show your paranoia wouldn't have helped you if there was poison or something!
Player: *sigh*
DM: There's a circular room with a pool of water in the middle.

The last is not just hyperbole, I've (briefly) had DMs who acted like that.

Ravens_cry
2015-05-10, 10:39 PM
On the counter side, the most annoying trait in a GM is one who plays in direct confrontation with the players, the DM who looks at it as a game of 'me verses them' and isn't happy until they see a TPK.

Almarck
2015-05-10, 11:02 PM
On the counter side, the most annoying trait in a GM is one who plays in direct confrontation with the players, the DM who looks at it as a game of 'me verses them' and isn't happy until they see a TPK.

Unless of course the game is named "Paranoia", ironically enough...



Personally though, I agree, at least in part with your statement. In many games, the DM has to play with the other players to accomplish things, not act as the enemy, unless the group is fine and needs the DM to be one for whatever reason.

Ravens_cry
2015-05-10, 11:47 PM
Unless of course the game is named "Paranoia", ironically enough...

Even in that game, there is enough ways the players can be screwed with that a DM must show some restraint or the game won't get past the briefing room, if that.




Personally though, I agree, at least in part with your statement. In many games, the DM has to play with the other players to accomplish things, not act as the enemy, unless the group is fine and needs the DM to be one for whatever reason.
Especially in a game like D&D where the GM has ultimate power, the GM can't bring the full force of their power in creating obstacles and challenges, or it just devolves into 'rocks fall, everyone dies',

goto124
2015-05-11, 03:47 AM
what if by being paranoid, you activated only FAKE traps that don't do actually harm you or do anything? would that be acceptable?

'A rubber chicken drops from the ceiling.'
'Highly suspicious. I use Detect Magic on it.'
'No magic.'
'Mundane bomb. I throw my real chicken at the rubber chicken.'



Ex 3 is probably fun for about... the first 3 times or so.

Sith_Happens
2015-05-12, 02:17 AM
DM: You don't think you hear anything. Ready to open the door now, captain paranoid?
Player: Yes, I open the ...
DM: You touch the handle?!
Player: ... yes?
DM: It's fine, no trap, just goes to show your paranoia wouldn't have helped you if there was poison or something!

And this is the part where they're a scumbag DM. Because, yes, if there was poison on the handle then your paranoia would theoretically have helped you, assuming that the Search check you were "paranoid" enough to make was high enough.

Brookshw
2015-05-12, 05:45 AM
So what about the reverse and paranoid npcs? Likewise boring? How does the frequency of paranoid npcs affect things? The paranoid innkeeper? Paranoid bbeg? Paranoid town/city/country/organization? Do people feel what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Segev
2015-05-12, 07:59 AM
There is merit to the idea of the paranoid NPC. They can even, done well, be used to illustrate what the PCs must look like to the rest of the world. The problem is that the temptation, as DM, is to use them to "show up" the PCs. Crazy-prepared is a relatively rare trait because usually the "crazy" part takes over, first. Just as the precautions that PCs take get ludicrous and start making them behave strangely, NPCs behaving similarly should look nuts and have low quality of life (or at least less personal liberty) precisely because their precautions are discomfitting.

Even the paranoid mage who sleeps nightly in a Magnificent Mansion has to keep none of his own personal possessions there (lest they be dumped out when the spell ends), and has to be very careful leaving it lest he be ambushed, and... and...

The temptation is to make the "paranoid NPC" live perfectly normally, except that he's got defenses in place for everything without them somehow interfering with his life.

Paranoid PCs do not have this luxury, as a general rule, unless you, the DM, help them invent ways to do it. (A suggestion I came up with the other day - making Trapfinding let Rogues auto-search whenever a trap is about to be triggered and give warning if they so choose - would be a step towards such a thing.) Paranoid PCs may have players gloss over the ludicrousness of their layered defenses and precautions, but the amount of time, energy, discomfort, and social avoidance involved is staggaring.


I think, honestly, the best ways to deal with overly-paranoid PCs revolve around recalling and calling out the costs involved. All those searchings for traps and tricks take time. Have time pressure be a thing. Wandering monsters, if established as regular things ahead of time (rather than just being brought out when the game seems to slow and the PCs need a push) will provide pressure. (Used just to push, and they feel like the DM punishing the players for not falling for his "clever" traps; established as a thing that is just happening, and they create a time pressure.)

Having objectives which are time-sensitive can help, too.

And sometimes, do let their paranoia reward them. But perhaps not in the way they thought.

That warlock with the caltrops sleeping invisibly under his bed? Let his room be robbed at night. Not by assassins, but a sneak thief who trips his traps. Maybe he even catches her. Depending how it goes, she could be a plot hook, or a potential future ally or rival, or any number of things. (Personally, if I were the DM, I'd be tempted to make her decide that this warlock's room MUST be pilfered as a challenge to her skills. And have her persistently come after him to try to circumvent his defenses. Not as a punishment, but as a reminder that his defenses work, or...if she ever succeeds...revealing a hole in them.)

The party that only sleeps in a Rope Trick? Let them. Just periodically remind them that this means they always sleep together in the same "room," that they're always effectively camping out, and ask them where they keep their stuff. Are they really hauling it all up in there with them? Eventually, they might graduate to Magnificent Mansions, which at least provide separate rooms, but even then...they're dependent on their party mage. What happens if he's out of commission for some reason? And again: what about all their stuff? Do they keep it easily portable and packed? Do they just have that little? Remember that these spaces are temporary. And, in theory, people sometimes just want time to themselves.

Play up the inconveniences. Sure, they'll work to find ways around them, but often that will put gaps in the defenses.

Don't always exploit those. Maybe let another PC realize them if the player who created them doesn't...and then realize nothing happened. If they choose to keep playing paranoid, let them. But be certain you're not teaching or reinforcing the lesson of paranoia being crucial, if you find it annoying.

Hawkstar
2015-05-12, 07:56 PM
On the counter side, the most annoying trait in a GM is one who plays in direct confrontation with the players, the DM who looks at it as a game of 'me verses them' and isn't happy until they see a TPK.I disagree. For dungeon crawl games, these can be really awesome and intense. However, the DM's goal isn't to TPK the party (At least not with a single encounter) - that's too easy given the power of the DM unless they have rigid restrictions on what they're able to field (Such as random monster charts). The goal is to challenge the players but leave a few alive.

icefractal
2015-05-14, 07:02 PM
I think, honestly, the best ways to deal with overly-paranoid PCs revolve around recalling and calling out the costs involved. All those searchings for traps and tricks take time.The problem with that is that often, it creates the very problem it seeks to solve. The more you "call out" the PCs' paranoia, the more you move toward Example 3, above. Maybe not in as jerkish a way, but still, you're turning something that doesn't need to add any extra RL time to something that slows the game down.

In terms of time pressure - sometimes it works. Sometimes it becomes very artificial. You just have three days before the vampire arises? Fine, makes sense, means resting after every encounter is a bad idea. But sometimes the extra time for paranoia is an order of magnitude less than other time expenditures, in which case making things hinge on it seems ... suspicious, at best.

"So we had time to take five days traveling here, and we had time to retreat and come back, which took about 16 hours, but that extra 12 minutes we spent checking the room carefully ... that was what made us too late to save the day? That's a suspiciously specific amount of deadline."

Segev
2015-05-15, 12:42 AM
Oh, sure. Don't do it ham-fistedly. Don't just introduce it when they're stopping to be cautious. The time limit should be real, not "clock starts when you get to the dungeon."

This works best in a living world.

Though in a pure dungeon crawl, still, that's the whole point of the wandering monster. It doesn't show up only when you slow down the game; the roll is made in specific intervals of time spent in the dungeon. If you take forever, you'll get more of them, is all.