DM changing PC's - what's the limit? (or: am I being a crybaby?)

[Abrahadabra]

Hi, I've started a 5e campaign on monday. Basically, I always play party faces (or at least "off-faces"), so I made that once more, this time with a Cleric. We were playing our second session yesterday, and because reasons my character was tortured, to a point where he lost 1 WIS/gained 1 CON and was "traumatized", in a way that he now somewhat avoids being the party face. Welp, this changed my whole character concept and also made him a lot weaker (since I had 16 WIS, and my build was based on maxing WIS at lvl 8, and never planned on raising CON, which now is at 15).

Anyways, I tried talking to the DM, as usual. He said this makes my character "more interesting, unique", but I don't think that's on the DM. I'm the one who has to think the character is "unique", not him. Then he said I'm only thinking about numbers, which is untrue since I mentioned the kind of role that I want my character to fulfill and I'm upset he won't really do that anymore; also, even if I was just thinking about numbers, no one wants their character to be weak, no one wants their build to be messed up.

Other players joined the discussion saying that they understand I'm frustrated, "but well, that's life". Uhh, the whole point of playing RPG's is that they are not life. If I'm not satisfied with the game I can just change it around or stop playing. Also, making such a sudden and significant change on my character in the second session makes me think the game will be a rollercoaster.

Anyways, is the DM overstepping his bounds, am I being a crybaby, is that "just how life works", or what?

(in my opinion, I think the DM should never change a PC unless the character is unbalanced - if they're not unbalanced, leave them alone and let the player play the character he wants, and in the way he wants it to be played)

[KorvinStarmast]

(in my opinion, I think the DM should never change a PC unless the character is unbalanced - if they're not unbalanced, leave them alone and let the player play the character he wants, and in the way he wants it to be played)
While I only know your side of the story, I'd suggest that the DM's being needlessly jerkish for reasons I cannot sort out due to not knowing that person, nor how your group usually plays.

One way to deal with this is, on the next session (if you choose to return) remark that
"If you're gonna f me, how about you kiss me first? Oh, and about that cigarette afterwards ..."

(This is not original: the first half is stolen from a line used by Robert Guillame in the movie "Wanted: Dead or Alive (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094293/)" )

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Hm... That seems like the kind of thing that's okay as a temporary (if long lasting) condition that you have to go find a cure for, but should probably have been discussed with you before hand if it's meant to be permanent.

[mephnick]

I'd never do something like that, if I didn't like a character I wouldn't allow it in the first place.


Anyways, I tried talking to the DM, as usual. He said this makes my character "more interesting, unique"

Oh. One of these people who think it's only proper role-playing if you're weak mechanically. There's no fixing stupidity like this. Sorry.

[obryn]

It sounds like the DM overstepping, to me. Players' character concepts should generally evolve in collaboration with the player (or entirely driven by the player), not by DM fiat. Those stat changes are a major hindrance to a Cleric, and permanent psychological changes are pretty well off-limits for most standard fantasy gaming. (It's not off-limits for Call of Cthulhu, but this isn't Call of Cthulhu.)

In general, "my character was tortured" sends up red flags that are only confirmed by the rest of the post.

[DireSickFish]

It would be different if this wasn't your PRIMARY STAT for the character. Losing a point of Wis on a fighter and gaining some other stat could provide good role-play opportunity or whatever. Docking him strength due to "illness" and making him a straight up worse fighter would not be a good thing unless there was a way to fix it.

You've already tried talking to your GM and other players so good on you for taking the mature first step.

The next step is go give him exactly what he wants, and "interesting" character. And be interesting I mean psychotic and careless with his own life. Your piece of mind has apparently been permanently altered, for the worse. Get laughing mad and all up in peoples faces, make stupid irrational calls that are crazy dangerous. Then when you get killed off in a session or two roll up a character with proper stats.

Is this passive aggressive? Yes. Could this disrupt the game? Yes. Is it immature? Yes. It could still be a hell of a lot of fun, and will get you into playing a character you want without having to convince the DM that he was being unfair.

[Pyon]

No. This is is a bullcrap excuse and you should not stand for it. Because even if it had no mechanical effects, simply stating

"Your character now suffers from PTSD"

Isn't good roleplaying. If I do not want to roleplay a PTSD character, I won't. The DM has the power over the world, and the players have power over their characters. The DM has to consult before hand, ask you if it's ok to give your character PTSD. If you agree, no harm done. If you don't, then your character stays the same. It's just up to you how you roleplay the effects of that drama. To me the mechanical effects just make it worse.

This reminds me of my own campaign where my character rolled a 1 on a check. Sure critical failure, what happens now almighty DM.

"Alright your character says."

And stop right there. My character says what I want, unless magically influenced I hold all control over my character. The DM can say my character tripped, missed dramatically, or even hit themselves in the face. But what my character says, chooses to do, and feels is up to me.

I understand I came off sounding like a really douchey guy I'm actually a nice one I promise :smallbiggrin:

[TrollCapAmerica]

Do you trust that the guy is master storyteller with a cunning plan that will fill you with awe when your character rises from the ashes and heroically saves the day?

If your DM is somebody other than Orson Wells then hes probably a dumbass wasting your time and this is one of the countless indignities your going to face while repeating the mantra "Some game is better than no game"

[hymer]

Is this passive aggressive? Yes. Could this disrupt the game? Yes. Is it immature? Yes. It could still be a hell of a lot of fun, and will get you into playing a character you want without having to convince the DM that he was being unfair.

You're already somewhat isolated. This will isolate you further. It will also be the famous second wrong that does not make a right.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be of the considered opinion that I was being singled out and unfairly penalized - unless this sort of thing is a regular occurrence. Because it is a valid play style, just not one I like (nor you it seems). You've tried to reason with your table (although trying once more when you're not spending game time arguing couldn't hurt), now you have to make up your mind if this destroys your fun to the degree it won't be worth playing. Consider (very respectfully) making a different character. Consider asking to have a few sessions to cool off, if that's reasonable. And finally, consider not playing this campaign any more (don't threaten with this; either do it or don't do it, but don't bring it up unless you've decided to do it - and then be respectful about it). And before starting another with a DM from this table, ask whether you are supposed to expect this sort of thing to occur. Then you can make your choices from there.

[Arial Black]

It would be different if this wasn't your PRIMARY STAT for the character. Losing a point of Wis on a fighter and gaining some other stat could provide good role-play opportunity or whatever. Docking him strength due to "illness" and making him a straight up worse fighter would not be a good thing unless there was a way to fix it.

You've already tried talking to your GM and other players so good on you for taking the mature first step.

The next step is go give him exactly what he wants, and "interesting" character. And be interesting I mean psychotic and careless with his own life. Your piece of mind has apparently been permanently altered, for the worse. Get laughing mad and all up in peoples faces, make stupid irrational calls that are crazy dangerous. Then when you get killed off in a session or two roll up a character with proper stats.

Is this passive aggressive? Yes. Could this disrupt the game? Yes. Is it immature? Yes. It could still be a hell of a lot of fun, and will get you into playing a character you want without having to convince the DM that he was being unfair.

I agree, passive/aggressive is the way forward here. The possible results are:-

a.) acting like the DM says you must is not something he can complain about, legitimately. If he does, say your PC's behavioral problems will be 'cured' at the same time as his wisdom score.
b.) your psychotic aggression can result in your PC's death. Good. Create a new PC that hasn't been tortured and who has the stats you chose.
c.) your DM might not want to 'reward' your psychotic behavior with death, so refuse to kill you. Cool! You are now immortal!
d.) you might get kicked out of the game. Well, at least it saves you walking out. Why would you want to play in a game where you don't even get to control your own PC? If the DM wants some masturbatory fantasy where he gets to control the PCs as well as the NPCs, why would you want to watch?

If he's unhappy with passive/aggressive, try aggressive/aggressive.

[Louro]

Trololo.

May be a reason for him to avoiding you as the party face?
I'm the kind of DM who does similar things, although that "traumatized" handicap is like... - I want to be a fighter. - OK, but you are missing one arm.

The primary stat penalty is harsh but not a big deal since stats will be probably going up and down. The trauma could give you advantage to resist intimidation in the future if you overcome it... dunno. Give it a try to see how the game evolves and either go the polite way asking to roll a new character or be a real "adventurer" and try the passive agressive method of the previous post.

[Gilphon]

Here's something I feel the need to address: Why didn't the other players back you up? Was it just that you were wasting game time by arguing and they wanted to get on with things or they otherwise didn't really want to get involved, or did they actually disagree with you? And if it was the latter, why?

And, perhaps relatedly, what exactly was the DM's problem with the way your character was?

I just think these are questions you should try to find the answers to before taking action.

But in a vacuum, yeah, that's kind of overstepping DM authority.

[Ruslan]

I'd say a permanent change to character's ability scores probably crosses the line of allowable DM fiat.


The next step is go give him exactly what he wants, <snip>

Is this passive aggressive? Yes. Could this disrupt the game? Yes. Is it immature? Yes.Should it be done? No.

Let's just take a step back and figure out what the DM really wants. He wants you to have an interesting character. That's cool. That's fair enough. Problem is, he doesn't really know how to get there. He thinks arbitrarily slapping penalties makes a character more interesting. That's his mistake. That's what you need to talk over with him. How can a compromise be achieved where you're both getting what you both want. An interesting character and one that's, let's say, not mechanically gimped. Show him the way. Help him get there.

[Deified Data]

...why would being tortured lower your WIS?

I mean, if the DM could think of a good reason why it would be so, more power to him - assuming the torture was something your character walked into, could have avoided, or had some insight into what might happen and it didn't just happen out of the blue.

If he insists, just declare you want to spend a session seeking counselling for your trauma. Done.

[Z3ro]

No. This is is a bullcrap excuse and you should not stand for it. Because even if it had no mechanical effects, simply stating

"Your character now suffers from PTSD"

Isn't good roleplaying. If I do not want to roleplay a PTSD character, I won't.

This. This is what I'd do. You mentioned he'd changed your stats a little (which sucks, yes), but if he didn't actually mechanically change anything else. I'm assuming you still have your CHA, still have your skill proficiencies, still have your spells. I'd play your character exactly how you want to, even exactly the same as he was before torture.

You can simply say your character got over it real fast, with no lasting effects. It's rare, but it happens in real life. The DM might get to dictate a lot, but they are not able to dictate how you (the person) act. Don't be passive aggressive about it, just be stern: "this is my character, and this is what he's doing".

[Giant2005]

Whether or not you are being a crybaby depends entirely on the reasons for the torture that you chose to omit.
If the torture came as a result of your character's own terrible choices and you had the ability to avoid them but failed to, then yes you are being a crybaby and should absolutely man up and happily accept the consequences of your mistakes while hopefully learning from them.
If you were essentially railroaded into being tortured without any genuine ability to prevent it from happening, then your DM was being a jerk.

[Temperjoke]

1. I agree that it was dickish for him to declare permanent, fundamental changes to your character without consulting you first. I don't think he meant anything personal (not based on what we've got to go on here), but you took it in a personal way, and that's never good for the long term health of a group.

2. You've talked to the DM and the group, and they all seem to not be inclined to reverse the decision. Maybe they're singling you out, maybe they don't understand how you actually feel about the change, either way, it sounds like it won't get changed.

3. I don't want to sound mean, but it sounds like you planned to take the lead in the group. Maybe the group is tired of having you play the face? It's possible they didn't want to talk to you directly about it, so they talked to the GM, and this was how the GM decided to handle it.

The only thing I can suggest is, why not try to roll with it? If the GM wants your character to be more withdrawn, showing signs of mental trauma, go with that. That also means that you won't be acting as the group's face, or doing much beyond shutting yourself in your room or the local temple praying. Once response would be reluctance to expose himself to danger out of fear. I suspect that this might impact how well the other players do. Give it a couple of sessions and see how things play out. Maybe it's a little passive-aggressive, but it could also lead into a new plotline, to find a way to restore the cleric's confidence, undoing some of the damage that's been done to his psyche?

[JNAProductions]

Actually, there's a good idea:

"My character is too scared of this happening again and so refuses to adventure. I'll need to make a new character."

[some guy]

I've changed stats on characters as a dm, but the only times were with strange curses and weird magic, also never forced on a player only caused by a player's own agency.
There's also plenty of mutations going on in my games, but always reversible and after failed saving throws.



Anyways, I tried talking to the DM, as usual. He said this makes my character "more interesting, unique", but I don't think that's on the DM. I'm the one who has to think the character is "unique", not him. Then he said I'm only thinking about numbers, which is untrue since I mentioned the kind of role that I want my character to fulfill and I'm upset he won't really do that anymore; also, even if I was just thinking about numbers, no one wants their character to be weak, no one wants their build to be messed up.

This sounds like the dm is quite judgemental.


Anyways, is the DM overstepping his bounds, am I being a crybaby, is that "just how life works", or what?

(in my opinion, I think the DM should never change a PC unless the character is unbalanced - if they're not unbalanced, leave them alone and let the player play the character he wants, and in the way he wants it to be played)

Changing pc's is completely within bounds of the dm (when saving throws and a player's agency are respected), what's not within bounds is a dm forcing their opinion on a pc.

[Mjolnirbear]

Alternatively, go nuts with the ptsd.

Can't fight, traumatized.
Can't face, traumatized.
This character's wounds remind me of my horrific torture, can't heal, so sorry.

And when someone tells you why can't you do anything, reply that apparently you get no say on how your character reacts to things. Instead of face-ing, fighting or healing, thr DM has said you're PTSDing.

Or, and keep in mind i hate high-handed power controlling fatheads and also am really annoyed IRL for something completely unrelated, you can give him tge one-finger salute and find greener pastures.

I think everything he's done is technically in his power. I also think everything he said about your character needing to be interesting that this game is less about the group and more about him.

Had it been me, and the torture was legit, then i'd have pulled you aside and worked out how this affects you. Like maybe you're weaker, or have a bum leg, or a scar. Let you decide how you want to react. Only if you said you shrug it off would i, maybe and depending on your reasoning, be a little more heavyhanded that you can't just shrug off torture and i need a legit reaction.

[Temperjoke]

You know, on the trauma angle and your character not wanting to be involved in conflict afterwards, I'd like to reference this part of an episode of Naruto (yes, I know, it's okay, I'm just using it as an example), Tsunade at this point in time was traumatized by the deaths of people who were close to her so that if she saw blood, she became paralyzed and unable to respond or react:

https://youtu.be/sipbkkTNcOQ?t=7m27s

(yes, it's bad acting, I know it's silly and hammed up, but it gets the point across)

[Deified Data]

If DM wanted the PCs to have negative character traits, he should have specified at character creation. Forcing it on you is definitely conflicting with your agency.

[Mr.Moron]

This is the kind of thing that should be discussed up front. The issue here isn't any particular action on either side it's that you were expecting different games. In that sense it's his fault as it's the GMs responsibility to set up expectations and clarify any places he thinks might be seen as deviations from the norm.

[Abrahadabra]

Dayum, so many answers. :smalltongue:

First, let me try to use an analogy to explain the before/after of my character in the game. I made it to be like a mix of Roose Bolton (calculating, cold, greedy, only cruel when needed) and The Mountain (big and brute when fighting people). Now he's Ramsay mixed with Reek: a scarred brute sadist whose tendency to avoid people is higher than the tendency to interact with them. I already think Ramsay sucks. Reek sucks even more. Mix the two and you get a PC I definitely won't like playing.

Let me answer them all at once without any quotes, otherwise this post will be too big.

1) I don't think the DM is a bad person trying any kind of power play or trying to be a ****. He seems to genuinely think this was a good thing for the story and for my character. Most players actually seem to agree with him. However, 2 out of the 3 use cookie-cutter builds with cookie-cutter personalities (evil halfling thief who halflings around and thieves around, sturdy big fighter who fights and bigs), so maybe this would be their way of enriching their own characters, maybe. Not judging at all, but that's not me.

2) The party is already evil, so becoming a chaotic evil destroy-everything kind of player won't even be so disruptive, will just be unfun.

3) I didn't interrupt the game to discuss this. I actually waited for the session to be over (although they did notice I was pretty upset :smalltongue:), only shortly bringing it up when we were coming back home (me, the DM and one of the players live in the same area, so we were all in the same car). And then I brought it up again today in whatsapp, so that the whole group could talk, and that's when the players actually chimed in.

4) I could still try to be a party face, but having a disturbed dude as the "calculating, cold" party face doesn't make any sense. Would either be funny as f* or just awkward. Also, it would feel like trying to use the mouse left-handed while I'm right-handed. Quite the challenge, some people would probably love it. As for me, I just think it's very uncomfortable and unnecessary :smalltongue:

5) The torture was caused by the group's actions, but not directly. A thousand different things could have happened because of those actions, this was the DM's choice. Of course it wasn't out of the blue, if it was 100% absurd I would have left the group at once.

Anyways, finally, after some talking, the group agreed with returning my character to his original condition. But the DM now says he won't change any other characters, even though the rest of the group said they'd like him to... Argh. I said "well, I can't spoil the rest of the group's fun like that" and the other players said it won't. Since we're kinda friends to each other, I'm sticking to the game.


Oh. One of these people who think it's only proper role-playing if you're weak mechanically. There's no fixing stupidity like this. Sorry.

Yea, it kinda sucks. I mean, I like my characters to be interesting both conceptually and mechanically. Actually, every time I tried joining a game in gitp I had massive stories that sometimes even went over the character limit for the post. Quite unnecessary, but I liked the stories/personalities, so I did it. That doesn't mean I didn't try to make them strong. It's a mix of both.

Actually, when we were creating the PC's, I was talking to one of the players about swapping something because it looked weak, and the DM said "you two should stop thinking about numbers, man". What the hell... Numbers are important too.

[obryn]

Whether or not you are being a crybaby depends entirely on the reasons for the torture that you chose to omit.
If the torture came as a result of your character's own terrible choices and you had the ability to avoid them but failed to, then yes you are being a crybaby and should absolutely man up and happily accept the consequences of your mistakes while hopefully learning from them.
If you were essentially railroaded into being tortured without any genuine ability to prevent it from happening, then your DM was being a jerk.
No. The DM can direct the story consequences, but directing the character consequences is crossing the line into the player's domain. Saying "Now you have PTSD and you can't be the party face" is simply too much. Heck; so is the weird stat change. There's no rule beyond Rule 0 which says that's a consequence of torture.

[KorvinStarmast]

3. I don't want to sound mean, but it sounds like you planned to take the lead in the group. Maybe the group is tired of having you play the face? It's possible they didn't want to talk to you directly about it, so they talked to the GM, and this was how the GM decided to handle it. Wait a sec, the GM boosted his Charisma to get him NOT to be the face.
Huh?

[Giant2005]

No. The DM can direct the story consequences, but directing the character consequences is crossing the line into the player's domain. Saying "Now you have PTSD and you can't be the party face" is simply too much. Heck; so is the weird stat change. There's no rule beyond Rule 0 which says that's a consequence of torture.

I agree with that. Personally I'd just ignore the DM's advice on how your character reacts to the torture and play the character how I envisioned it. I wouldn't complain about the ability point changes though - not if they came as a result of my own actions.

[Temperjoke]

Wait a sec, the GM boosted his Charisma to get him NOT to be the face.
Huh?

His CON was boosted and his WIS was lowered, according to the original post

[JAL_1138]

There's a line between "I'd prefer you to take flavorful options rather than CharOp so hard I have no idea of how to challenge you without making this a ludicrously-high-powered game, which I'd rather not do" and "it's only real roleplaying if your character is mechanically gimped." Your DM is on the latter side, it seems, and there's virtually nothing that can be done for it. Likewise, there's a line between being effective and being a munchkin, and he apparently isn't aware of that either.

[Deified Data]

IMO, the DM can make anything and everything within reason happen to a PC, but he can never change who they are. He can make things happen to them that would naturally change someone's personality, like torture, but he can't dictate how a character responds to that event, whether the PC "had it coming" or not. You might as well make them a DMPC if you can change who they are on a core level.

[Louro]

Well well well. I see it now.

Your player is traumatized. OK. Where is the problem?
You can still be the party leader. You will let the others talk during the mundane interactions, remaining silent and allowing them to ask for accommodation, food...
But when it comes to relevant dialogues you ARE afraid. You are actually scare of people so you don't even trust your own partners to allow them to negotiate (Here is where your trauma kicks in).
Maybe you are seeking for revenge now, maybe you want to make sure "that" will never ever happens again. Therefore you are taking the lead when dealing with important business because your feel that your partners are not as insightful/skeptical/mistrustful as you are. And that can be dangerous, because the world is dangerous... Yeah people is dangerous.

[KorvinStarmast]

His CON was boosted and his WIS was lowered, according to the original postOops, I misread that. Thanks.

[Stan]

The only time I've changed character stats was when I was being nice and fudged things. Instead of a pc being killed which will cause a domino effect into a tpk, the character gets a scar or a permanent wound or something. Or their magic shield/sword takes all the damage and is destroyed. It's against the rules but, when it's more fun than a tpk, people generally roll with it.

Forcing behavioral changes is appropriate only for a few specific games where consent for that is implied by playing the game.

[Broken Crown]

The clear solution is to cast Greater Restoration (or get someone to cast it on your behalf): For a material component cost of 100 gp, the spell ends "any reduction in one of the target's ability scores."

Voila. You now have a +1 CON, for the low, low price of 100 gp.

[Sigreid]

The only real problem I see here is it's not the DM's job to make your character more interesting and unique. It sounds like you agree your group chose a course of action where the torture was a understandable outcome. It's logical that torture could cost you some stat points, though subtracting from here and adding to there doesn't make any sense. You're not in any way required to make your character a misanthropic shut in, though it could be interesting to say to you "think about how the torture might have affected your character and run with it." I could also have seen this as a good short term thing, but as a DM I would have told you "It's possible to restore your character's stats, but it's up to you to figure out how to do it. I have a few ideas, but you might surprise me". At the very least I would be thinking greater restoration.

In short, it's his proper role to control the environment you are exposed to. It's your responsibility and not his to have that stimuli have an effect on your character.

[pwykersotz]

I am a proponent of GM's being able to step in and change character stats as a result of the in-game experience.
I am a proponent of GM's telling a player that a certain affliction has been obtained due to the in-game experience (such as PTSD).
I think that it is a mistake to plan a build too far in advance, since what happens in the story should impact your build if it allows, encourages, discourages, or disallows certain options.

That said...I'm with you on this one.

When the player steps into the role of worldbuilding (such as by creating his own city with his vast adventuring wealth) or when the GM manipulates a player's character, both sides need to be willing to give and take. You should be willing to make concessions, but so should he. If your character was tortured, that should be an opportunity. He should ask, "You suffered horrific torture including thumbscrews, poisons, and sensory deprivation. Your constitution ends up strengthened after healing up a bit and your wisdom is damaged because that's the stat that governs sanity. Also, you'll need to play with some PTSD and be gun-shy in circumstances that you used to be confident in. Do you want to continue playing that way and see where it goes, or do you want to play a road to recovery?"

Not that that's the only way to ask it, just the first one I thought of. But just as a player can be affected with exhaustion and conditions, given magical items, given cursed items, and other things like that, tweaks like this can happen too. But you can get a spell to remove a cursed item. Go on a quest to destroy the artifact. Heck, technically greater restoration should take care of this lickety split. But if you're actively bothered by it, full stop, the GM needs to give a way to fix it, or even just handwave it away if it's something you can't tolerate at all.

Keep in mind, I run campaigns that have multi-year spans. I don't recommend the same things for much shorter games. If it's just a quick adventure, the GM tinkering with PC's adds more trouble than any benefit could compensate for. Also, now that this has happened, it's an opportunity to express your dislike firmly and politely. One of my friends did that with me when I changed his character in a way he didn't like. I apologized and made a note to exempt him from that kind of thing in the future as it ruined his fun. BAM, personal growth.

[Abrahadabra]

It sounds like you agree your group chose a course of action where the torture was a understandable outcome.

What I don't agree with is the outcome itself. There was no need for such a game-changing consequence, especially when it's only the 2nd day playing the game. It was supposed to be some kind of punishment for one of the other players asking questions that the group shouldn't (since my character was the leader, he got the punishment). There's a thousand different ways this can be done, none of them so disruptive to the gameplay, but still flavorful.

He could, for example, have just marked my PC's body somehow. Make a mark on his forehead inglorious basterds-style, burn his back, burn the side of his face (you can even make him get -1 to persuasion and a +1 to intimidate, it's way less decisive and still keeps the storyline going well). Remove an eye (although this would probably have a mechanical effect), remove a few fingers, remove one of his ears, remove his nose. Torture and kill his family, especially his heir (he's a noble/knight). Burn his property and steal all his money. Make him get stripped off all titles. I don't know, there's so many options. Choosing instead to nerf the character and change his personality seems to be a really poor decision.

That said, it's all been solved now. DM agreed to revert the changes and still change the other PC's as the story goes, since the other players want that for themselves. I believe everyone is satisfied this way.

[pwykersotz]

That said, it's all been solved now. DM agreed to revert the changes and still change the other PC's as the story goes, since the players want that for themselves. I believe everyone is satisfied this way.

Awesome. This is an excellent resolution. :smallsmile:

[Abrahadabra]

Awesome. This is an excellent resolution. :smallsmile:

Yea, I agree, that actually was my first suggestion. Wasn't so pretty though... I mean, first the DM said "ok, I'll revert the changes, but that means I'm never doing that again to any other character". But the other players wanted him to change their chars. So the only options were 1) I'm satisfied and the other players aren't or 2) the other players are satisfied and I'm not. I said I wouldn't like to spoil the other 3 people's fun because of that, he should still do the same to the others, and he still didn't change his mind. So I chose the 3rd option, leaving the group, that way everyone would be happy, and left. Then he changed his mind and put me back in. Now I'm the one who looks like a spoiled kid, when I had just made what seemed to be the most logical choice to please everyone. Well, whatever, I guess.

[Sigreid]

What I don't agree with is the outcome itself. There was no need for such a game-changing consequence, especially when it's only the 2nd day playing the game. It was supposed to be some kind of punishment for one of the other players asking questions that the group shouldn't (since my character was the leader, he got the punishment). There's a thousand different ways this can be done, none of them so disruptive to the gameplay, but still flavorful.



I'm glad it's resolved. I would like to point out that there isn't really a conflict between your position and mine. I did go on to say that permanent changes to your character where the specifics are dictated wasn't something I was on board with, and I don't get the impression that you would be so upset by a short term challenge to struggle through.

[Pyon]

Can I derail a bit to say....

WHO THE HELL ACTUALLY WANTS THE DM TO CHANGE THEIR CHARACTERS!?!

I understand not everyone likes character creation, roleplaying, and character writing but... Do you simply not care? Is it like a ****ty MMO character where you are just like "Oh yeah this isn't my main". That really boggles my mind... It's like going on a road trip in your brand new car, and telling your friends to drive. But you are still paying for the gas money though.

[Ruslan]

Then he changed his mind and put me back in. Now I'm the one who looks like a spoiled kid, when I had just made what seemed to be the most logical choice to please everyone. Well, whatever, I guess.
I can't help but feel that you want a bit too much here. You want:

a. To get your way
b. To have everyone (incl. the DM) to admit your way is the best way

You got (a). Perhaps, with time, you'll also get (b), but meanwhile, you'll have to be happy with just getting what you wanted. Not the worst outcome, really.

[Strill]

Ignore the DM. RP your character as though nothing happened. He can't force you to RP a certain way.

[Abrahadabra]

I can't help but feel that you want a bit too much here. You want:

a. To get your way
b. To have everyone (incl. the DM) to admit your way is the best way

You got (a). Perhaps, with time, you'll also get (b), but meanwhile, you'll have to be happy with just getting what you wanted. Not the worst outcome, really.

Hahah, yea, that's why I said "well, whatever". I'm not 100% satisfied, but "whatever". :smalltongue:

[Giant2005]

Yea, I agree, that actually was my first suggestion. Wasn't so pretty though... I mean, first the DM said "ok, I'll revert the changes, but that means I'm never doing that again to any other character". But the other players wanted him to change their chars. So the only options were 1) I'm satisfied and the other players aren't or 2) the other players are satisfied and I'm not. I said I wouldn't like to spoil the other 3 people's fun because of that, he should still do the same to the others, and he still didn't change his mind. So I chose the 3rd option, leaving the group, that way everyone would be happy, and left. Then he changed his mind and put me back in. Now I'm the one who looks like a spoiled kid, when I had just made what seemed to be the most logical choice to please everyone. Well, whatever, I guess.

Think about it from the perspective of others, or even from the perspective of a completely different game and you will be able to remove yourself from the situation enough to have an objective view as to why the others might think of you as a spoiled kid in this instance. Quitting the game because you screwed up and ended up statistically inferior as a consequence is akin to playing a game of chess, making a bad move that results in your Queen being needlessly taken, and then opting to stand up and walk away from the game rather than play on with the consequences of the bad move. If you were playing chess and took someone's Queen under those circumstances or even just watching that game, you would probably think that the guy that refused to keep playing was a spoiled kid regardless of his actual motivations.

[Strill]

Think about it from the perspective of others, or even from the perspective of a completely different game and you will be able to remove yourself from the situation enough to have an objective view as to why the others might think of you as a spoiled kid in this instance. Quitting the game because you screwed up and ended up statistically inferior as a consequence is akin to playing a game of chess, making a bad move that results in your Queen being needlessly taken, and then opting to stand up and walk away from the game rather than play on with the consequences of the bad move. If you were playing chess and took someone's Queen under those circumstances or even just watching that game, you would probably think that the guy that refused to keep playing was a spoiled kid regardless of his actual motivations.

That metaphor doesn't really work because the respectful thing to do in that situation is to resign.

[Sigreid]

Think about it from the perspective of others, or even from the perspective of a completely different game and you will be able to remove yourself from the situation enough to have an objective view as to why the others might think of you as a spoiled kid in this instance. Quitting the game because you screwed up and ended up statistically inferior as a consequence is akin to playing a game of chess, making a bad move that results in your Queen being needlessly taken, and then opting to stand up and walk away from the game rather than play on with the consequences of the bad move. If you were playing chess and took someone's Queen under those circumstances or even just watching that game, you would probably think that the guy that refused to keep playing was a spoiled kid regardless of his actual motivations.

Fascinating. I had actually focused in on the forced personality change being the bigger issue. Your analysis makes as much sense as mine, just not the conclusion I jumped to.

[Cybren]

There was a discussion on the GURPS forums on a similar topic recently: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=136980
I don't think it's okay to change the core character concept without the players permission or input, but things that happen in the course of gameplay, as the consequence of actions made with full awareness of consequence (or potential for consequence) are fair game. Arbitraririty is what makes it feel bad.

[Giant2005]

Fascinating. I had actually focused in on the forced personality change being the bigger issue. Your analysis makes as much sense as mine, just not the conclusion I jumped to.

To be fair, I essentially ignored the forced personality change in my response as I don't even believe such a thing is possible. The DM has a lot of influence over how the story is told, but they have no influence over how your character is played. the best they can do is offer a suggestion of what they think would be a reasonable way a character would react to any given situation but the player can ignore that suggestion as they please. And they probably should ignore it too as the player is much more aware of who that character is and what they think or feel, than what the DM could ever be.
I guess the DM could impose some sort of situation where the player is penalized for not roleplaying the character in the way that the DM wants, and in a situation like that any sane player would simply walk away; but without a carrot or stick that incentivises the player to be the DM's puppet, the personality change can not and does not exist.

[Ruslan]

but without a carrot or stick that incentivises the playerI wonder what's your opinion on the Inspiration mechanic.

[Giant2005]

That metaphor doesn't really work because the respectful thing to do in that situation is to resign.

The metaphor works, it is just incomplete - the complete metaphor would include the opposing player offering to take the move back that resulted in the Queen's demise, but only if they and all of their friends play Queenless chess in the future instead of their regular game.
That offer imo is utterly ridiculous and would be thrown out as such, which leaves the only two really viable options - continue playing with your fallen queen, or quit the game and leave. I think most would agree that trying to salvage the game without the queen would be the most mature course of action.

[Giant2005]

I wonder what's your opinion on the Inspiration mechanic.

I like what the inspiration mechanic tries to do but in practice it isn't even close to being enough of a carrot to matter.
I play some other systems that use xp rewards as their carrot to incentivise roleplay and they do the job which the inspiration mechanic is trying to do, but they do it so much better. I have witnessed some pretty poor roleplayers transition into absolutely excellent roleplayers simply because they needed to. Their characters were getting so far left behind in xp that they ended up improving their game just so they could keep up.

[BootStrapTommy]

How your character deals with the trauma is up to you, not the DM. Roleplay the character how you want to, not how the DM tells you to. Sure it's not min-maxed anymore, doesn't mean you can't still do it.

[Corey]

Edit: I wrote this before seeing that the OP's situation had already been resolved. :)


Actually, there's a good idea:

"My character is too scared of this happening again and so refuses to adventure. I'll need to make a new character."

I've done that in similar (not identical) circumstances. There was a disruptive gnome whose player was friends with the DM and other players. My character objected. I was told I should just accept it without confronting the gnome. My character couldn't accept it, so he simply walked away (literally) from the adventure.

In this case, you should contact the DM and say "Unfortunately, the changes you made to my character turned him into somebody who won't be willing to go adventuring. He's afraid of losing yet more of the abilities his goddess relies on him to use in her service. So I guess that means I'm out of the game. Thanks for having me."

[WickerNipple]

I was told I should just accept it without confronting the gnome.

A game where you can't confront a gnome is not a game worth playing.

[coredump]

To be blunt....it sounds to me like you were way too reactionary and entitled. Sometimes bad things happen to PCs... we deal with it an move on.

*You wanted* to be the face and leader... well sometimes the leader bears the brunt of the punishment. Your PC got the punishment... tortured and 'damaged'. That is now part of that PCs story. Does it change how you first envisioned the PC playing...? sure...so what? A 15 instead of a 16 just isn't that big of a deal, the PC is still perfectly viable.

As for no longer wanting to be the 'face'..... you have yet to tell us exactly what the DM told you about that. ALl we have is your interpretation of how you would deal with the situation.

[Abrahadabra]

In this case, you should contact the DM and say "Unfortunately, the changes you made to my character turned him into somebody who won't be willing to go adventuring. He's afraid of losing yet more of the abilities his goddess relies on him to use in her service. So I guess that means I'm out of the game. Thanks for having me."

I'm kind of friends with everybody, and the house where we play is uhh... pretty far from mine, so I go to the game in the same car with the DM and the halfling (the halfling goes in the backseat, obviously), and sessions usually go from 18:00 to 00:00. Leaving in the middle would generate quite an awkward situation hahah

It's all cool now, thank Ao. It's hard for me to find people to play the new version, since nothing has been translated yet (I'm brazilian), and in my experience PbP games tend to die very quickly, so I'd probably end up just not playing the game at all.

[Corey]

I had a couple of thoughts that contradict what I and other folks have said.

1. In some games, major crippling of characters is expected. Perhaps this was one such?

2. The OP's character is described as a combination of two guys from Game of Thrones. Well, among GoTs POV characters are:

Bran -- gets crippled
Ned -- gets his head chopped off
Catelyn -- gets her throat cut
Jaime -- gets his hand chopped off
Tyrion -- gets seriously disfigured
Danerys -- becomes barren
Davos -- had his fingers chopped off in the backstory
Theon -- has various body parts chopped off, including fingers
Jon Connington -- has greyscale, making him the fourth POV character with a maimed hand
Arya -- is blinded, and this is the first example I've mentioned that was proven temporary

[Giant2005]

It's hard for me to find people to play the new version, since nothing has been translated yet (I'm brazilian), and in my experience PbP games tend to die very quickly, so I'd probably end up just not playing the game at all.

You should look into Roll20 - there are usually dozens of games posted there at any given time so it isn't hard finding one which meets your schedule. The longevity of a game can be an issue but in my experience, games there fall in to two categories: games that last 0 or 1 sessions because the DM quickly realizes that they don't actually want to DM, or the game lasts for months/years. There doesn't seem to be any in-between, so even if you do encounter some time-wasters, those time-wasters are at least polite enough to not be wasting too much of your time so you can find that perfect game that endures.

[Arial Black]

The metaphor works, it is just incomplete - the complete metaphor would include the opposing player offering to take the move back that resulted in the Queen's demise, but only if they and all of their friends play Queenless chess in the future instead of their regular game.
That offer imo is utterly ridiculous and would be thrown out as such, which leaves the only two really viable options - continue playing with your fallen queen, or quit the game and leave. I think most would agree that trying to salvage the game without the queen would be the most mature course of action.

A better metaphor is not that the queen was taken, but that the DM arbitrarily decided that his queen could no longer move diagonally but could now move like a knight.

[PoeticDwarf]

You're right, a DM may not change PC's and if he thinks the PCs are OP, he must talk to the player. This is just a bad DM, I would say.

[ImSAMazing]

You're right, a DM may not change PC's and if he thinks the PCs are OP, he must talk to the player. This is just a bad DM, I would say.

Not a bad DM, bad DMing. That's different. We don't know if the DM is bad at being a DM or if this was just a fault. Everyone makes a fault sometimes... If you get an F at a test, that doesn't mean you are dumb, it could also mean you made a mistake while learning.

[Shining Wrath]

I can see a DM including a trap which changed stats by +1 to Wis, -1 to Cha, if triggered. It'd be a bane to some, a boon to others, and would be used in a situation where a near-lethal trap was appropriate.

I cannot see deciding in advance that said effect would in fact be inflicted on this particular character no matter what they do to "make them more interesting". As OP said, the player makes the PC interesting, not the DM.

[Sigreid]

Not a bad DM, bad DMing. That's different. We don't know if the DM is bad at being a DM or if this was just a fault. Everyone makes a fault sometimes... If you get an F at a test, that doesn't mean you are dumb, it could also mean you made a mistake while learning.

This isn't fair. It seems from this thread that the GM and other players are accustomed to and desire a game where the GM does this and the OP didn't realize that. You can't claim bad DM when they are running the game their players want.

[Nifft]

Long-term consequences for failure are a thing which is generally missing from 5e.

That's okay for a lot of games.

Clearly, this DM wanted some kind of long-term penalty -- like a missing hand, or losing an eye, or similar.

He tried to balance the Wisdom loss with Constitution gain, so the obvious penalty (Cleric loses Wisdom) would be partly compensated. That's actually kinda decent, since torture and suffering are not usually good for one's health, and might tend to reduce Con rather than provide a bonus.

- - -

The disconnect seems to be that the DM wants something which is an inherent long-term consequence, and the player wants to play baseline 5e which does not have such things.

It's basically a genre disconnect, I think.

IMHO the player is not being a crybaby to expect to play baseline 5e, but neither is the DM being a jerk. They both have genre expectations, and those expectations don't match.

[DemonSlayer6]

The DM can narrate the results of the adventurers' actions; PHB page 6. This often includes establishing consequences as a result of failed saving throws. However, there are some things to note.


The consequences ought to be consistent. If the saving throw is to dodging a spell, then failure takes away hit points. If the saving throw is towards a physical situation, then the consequence is the acquisition of a condition.
Every such consequence ought to be reversible. You can heal health, and most conditions either wear off or can be removed with spells like Lesser Restoration.
The consequences of torture would be a physical condition. SPecifically, it would be Exhaustion. Anything else is not logical given the rules established by the PHB.
Exhaustion in 5e does not affect the character's ability scores in any way. Level 3 gives disadvantage on saving throws. But once the character has rested for several days, and the exhaustion is removed and he's completely healed, then there should be no remaining physical problems incurred.
THAT SAID, personality might be changed. But ability scores are explicitly not.


Now, he may be playing with some DMG rules that I don't know about. If he is, then he should have made that known. And, likewise, any changes made would necessarily be temporary.

-----

Ninja'd:

Note that "temporary" does not mean "immediately fixed". A level 1 or 2 character doesn't have access to "Lesser Restoration", so most conditions will need to have downtime days spent to recuperate. Being raised from the dead costs a lot of money, so might not always be viable early on in a character's adventuring. Etc, etc.

[Vogonjeltz]

I've done that in similar (not identical) circumstances. There was a disruptive gnome whose player was friends with the DM and other players. My character objected. I was told I should just accept it without confronting the gnome. My character couldn't accept it, so he simply walked away (literally) from the adventure.

In this case, you should contact the DM and say "Unfortunately, the changes you made to my character turned him into somebody who won't be willing to go adventuring. He's afraid of losing yet more of the abilities his goddess relies on him to use in her service. So I guess that means I'm out of the game. Thanks for having me."

If I was really disatisfied I'd have the character suicide themselves in the most expedient way possible that still fit the character. i.e. Making a really bad decision like picking a fight with someone out of their league or becoming reckless in combats, etc... At this point it becomes incumbent on the DM to keep you alive or just let you introduce that twin-sister/brother who was waiting in the wings for our hapless hero to die.

[pwykersotz]

THAT SAID, personality might be changed. But ability scores are explicitly not.

*implicitly

[Battlebooze]

I'd have no problem with this if you could get it fixed with a Greater Restoration.

Otherwise? It's lame if it's permanent in a game where dying isn't permanent.

[DemonSlayer6]

*implicitly

There is no condition that modifies ability scores. All applicable conditions in the PHB that could result from a prolonged confinement without adequate food, shelter, water, or physical mobility lack the ability to affect a character's ability scores in 5e.

Further, every condition in the PHB explicitly does not take away from a character's ability scores. Give disadvantage/advantage on ability checks and saving throws and attack rolls. Penalty this, penalty that...but no penalties have any statement in the PHB's list of conditions to permit or even enable the ability scores to be penalized or adjusted as a result of the character possessing them.

It is very clear and direct (thus explicit), unless the Dungeon Master's Guide says otherwise, that in 5e ability scores are not changed by conditions such as exhaustion (which is the mechanical and physical result of torture). And if the DMG stated otherwise, then the entire thing could be ended with "The DMG says ... on page ...!"

[UXLZ]

It has to be stated directly, that is literally what explicit means. "Stated clearly and in detail." Quote the part of the PHB that states the DM cannot/should not modify player's attributes, and then it will be explicit.

[squiggit]

Whether or not you are being a crybaby depends entirely on the reasons for the torture that you chose to omit.
If the torture came as a result of your character's own terrible choices and you had the ability to avoid them but failed to, then yes you are being a crybaby and should absolutely man up and happily accept the consequences of your mistakes while hopefully learning from them.

Even if the character somehow deserved what he got... the DM instructing the player on how he's now required to roleplay said character is still over the line.



The disconnect seems to be that the DM wants something which is an inherent long-term consequence, and the player wants to play baseline 5e which does not have such things.

Inherent long term consequences are one thing

"Your character now behaves this way" is another entirely.

[pwykersotz]

There is no condition that modifies ability scores. All applicable conditions in the PHB that could result from a prolonged confinement without adequate food, shelter, water, or physical mobility lack the ability to affect a character's ability scores in 5e.

Further, every condition in the PHB explicitly does not take away from a character's ability scores. Give disadvantage/advantage on ability checks and saving throws and attack rolls. Penalty this, penalty that...but no penalties have any statement in the PHB's list of conditions to permit or even enable the ability scores to be penalized or adjusted as a result of the character possessing them.

It is very clear and direct (thus explicit), unless the Dungeon Master's Guide says otherwise, that in 5e ability scores are not changed by conditions such as exhaustion (which is the mechanical and physical result of torture). And if the DMG stated otherwise, then the entire thing could be ended with "The DMG says ... on page ...!"

Explicitly is not a matter of severity. It doesn't make your point any stronger or weaker than using the word implicit. Explicit would be the book saying "Player character statistics cannot be modified by the GM." Implicit is the absence of that statement but indications being present that they meant it anyway.


It has to be stated directly, that is literally what explicit means. "Stated clearly and in detail." Quote the part of the PHB that states the DM cannot/should not modify player's attributes, and then it will be explicit.

Exactly.

[Giant2005]

The DM can narrate the results of the adventurers' actions; PHB page 6. This often includes establishing consequences as a result of failed saving throws. However, there are some things to note.


The consequences ought to be consistent. If the saving throw is to dodging a spell, then failure takes away hit points. If the saving throw is towards a physical situation, then the consequence is the acquisition of a condition.
Every such consequence ought to be reversible. You can heal health, and most conditions either wear off or can be removed with spells like Lesser Restoration.
The consequences of torture would be a physical condition. SPecifically, it would be Exhaustion. Anything else is not logical given the rules established by the PHB.
Exhaustion in 5e does not affect the character's ability scores in any way. Level 3 gives disadvantage on saving throws. But once the character has rested for several days, and the exhaustion is removed and he's completely healed, then there should be no remaining physical problems incurred.
THAT SAID, personality might be changed. But ability scores are explicitly not.


Where are you getting all of that? None of the above is on the cited page 6.
The above also seems pretty dubious due to the fact that is all contradicts the very spirit of the game (Rule 0) and that the semi-cited rule (DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions) isn't even talking about something that would be relevant to the conversation - narrating the result of the character's action is obviously very different to narrating the result of things that others are doing to the character.
It really seems like you made up a bunch of stuff, cited a page as a source to give that made up stuff some credibility, and then just hoped that no-one would actually check the reference.

[UXLZ]

Er, it seems more to me that he cited a page of the book with a general rule.


The DM can narrate the results of the adventurers' actions; PHB page 6

After that, everything is separate but building off of that fact. Points 1 to 6 are his opinion, he's not claiming they're PHB rules. It's more effective to say that the DM does narrate the results of the adventurer's actions, because obviously. That's why they're the DM and not another player.

[endur]

In a way, this is a funny thread. There are some serious issues to it, however.

The funny part: Of course a gm can say that your character is now afraid of the dark, is stronger, weaker, or has turned purple polka dotted and has a strange attraction to violet flowers.

The idea that the GM's decision has somehow created an imcompatible conflict with your concept of a character who is not attracted to violet flowers is hilarious.

The min max objection that this impacts your level up on increasing wisdom -- I'm not going to take that seriously. Some people love min-maxing, but I don't see that as an issue.

The more serious issue is whether a GM can tell a player how to role play their character. I don't think a GM can or should tell a player how to role play their character. I do think a GM can persuade or seduce or lead a player into adjusting how they role play their character, but they shouldn't tell them what to do. Its a fine line, but an important one in my opinion.

For example, regarding torture ... The GM can have the character suffer flashbacks every time someone uses a fork or a knife to eat meat ... or develop phobias ... there are lots of various mental illness rules floating around, if not in 5e, in other editions.

The key is to avoid the problem of "My character wouldn't do that" if not using magical control spells. Even when using magical control spells on a PC, a GM should be very careful.

Remember, this is a game, and the goal is to have fun. For a GM to overtly control a player's PC is not fun for the player.