DM telling players what their PC's are thinking and feeling. Normal?

[Roentgen]

Our (relatively novice) DM has a habit of explaining what our PC's are thinking or feeling and the descriptions can often become elaborate to the point of saying the PC moves or does something physical in response. Personally I find it annoying and my kneejerk reaction to it is to ask in response to "you're thinking..." is "am I?". Hopefully this was a one off but in our last session he asked all the PCs to roll a reflex save to avoid walking off the large elevated walkway we were all on because all of us were distracted looking at the lights in the eyes of statues that lined the walkway sporadically and lit it up. The drop off the side was a fatal one into pitch darkness. Although none of us fell off the scenario bothered me because it made all of our characters do something outrageously stupid, if not out of character for all of us considering we're old hands at dungeoneering being roughly level 18 across the board. We had also discerned earlier that the lights in the statues were nothing more than harmless dancing lights.

Is it normal for DMs to take control of PCs in this way and to determine what they're thinking or feeling rather than the players themselves?

[Jormengand]

Saying "You get the idea that this guy shouldn't be trusted" is fine. I mean, that's what Sense Motive's there for. If an enemy has an attack which specifically distracts, stuns or controls you, then fine, you're distracted, stunned, or controlled. But in general, no, it's not normal and it's the sign of a bad DM.

[Chijinda]

Depends on the circumstances I would think.

Something minor like: "You get a feeling this guy shouldn't be trusted" As Jormen stated is probably not a big deal.

Also, if the GM sees your character going totally against the "feel" of the world your characters inhabit without good reason (eg. I play Dark Heresy, and I would expect my GM to remind us that our characters hate and despise anything non-human if we were to interact with it).

The last one is through external effects from someone. Like if someone was actually altering your character's thoughts or planting ideas, then obviously it's totally cool for the GM to say: "Your character starts thinking that he really likes this guy and wants to help him."


Apart from those three though, no, it's probably not a good idea for the GM to be telling you what your characters are thinking or feeling.

[Theoboldi]

I agree with what has been said by the others above me, though I would argue that the system used is also an important circumstance. Some of them give characters sanity or more vague willpower scores, and fully expect the DM to tell his players that their characters are scared of something, thus losing their 'mental hp'.

[Strigon]

It depends strongly on how it's done.
Certain things invoke certain emotions, and a DM can occasionally get away with saying this sleezy street vendor leaves a bad taste in your mouth, or the sultan's palace inspires awe. There's also the chance that you could encounter something with a magical aura; an extremely evil artifact might leave someone feeling dread as they approach it.

It sounds like this is crossing a line, though - almost to the point of deciding how your characters feel about certain things, and how they should react. This is not good, as this is a sign that the DM views it as more of a storytelling exercise than a cooperative game. It's definitely something you should bring up, as there's a pretty good chance the more it goes unchecked, the more liberties he'll take (and the less you'll have!)

[Roentgen]

The system is D&D 3.5 just to be clear. I wish it was simple sense motive/magical compulsion effects! I'll give you an example off the top of my head of what it's like. Seemingly benign yet diminishes player agency to define their own character:

DM: "You all walk outside and look up into the sky and see a massive floating airship. [Roentgen] you stagger backwards in awe and you're thinking "What an amazing airship. I've never seen anything like this.""

At this point I'm thinking "Am I staggering back in awe? Do I think it's amazing? Have I never seen anything like it?" I feel for that moment the agency of my character was taken away and it annoys me. Sometimes the DM may be right in guessing how my character would react to something but even then it still makes me bristle.


This is not good, as this is a sign that the DM views it as more of a storytelling exercise than a cooperative game.

This is definitely accurate. The DM has often said he views the game system as a framework for telling a story.

[Chijinda]

The system is D&D 3.5 just to be clear. I wish it was simple sense motive/magical compulsion effects! I'll give you an example off the top of my head of what it's like. Seemingly benign yet diminishes player agency to define their own character:

DM: "You all walk outside and look up into the sky and see a massive floating airship. [Roentgen] you stagger backwards in awe and you're thinking "What an amazing airship. I've never seen anything like this.""


Yeah this isn't cool. I'd be a little annoyed if my GM did that, as that can totally ruin some concepts of certain characters. If you're trying to play the cool, collected guy that doesn't get his feathers ruffled by anything, then having your GM have you gawk at this big flying ship would definitely be an annoyance. Or hell, if you're running a character that hates flying, or has any number of reasons NOT to be impressed by the airship. That's totally your call on how your character feels unless the airship literally has a spell on it to MAKE everyone who sees it be incredibly impressed with it. Which I doubt is the case.

[Krazzman]

The system is D&D 3.5 just to be clear. I wish it was simple sense motive/magical compulsion effects! I'll give you an example off the top of my head of what it's like. Seemingly benign yet diminishes player agency to define their own character:

DM: "You all walk outside and look up into the sky and see a massive floating airship. [Roentgen] you stagger backwards in awe and you're thinking "What an amazing airship. I've never seen anything like this.""

At this point I'm thinking "Am I staggering back in awe? Do I think it's amazing? Have I never seen anything like it?" I feel for that moment the agency of my character was taken away and it annoys me. Sometimes the DM may be right in guessing how my character would react to something but even then it still makes me bristle.

This sort of example is the time where you say firmly "no" in a polite fashion.

If compulsion effects are in play, then maybe, but always asking if it is one and rolling a will save can probably be seen as passive aggressive...

Feelings on the other hand are really a whole can of worms. Since again it depends on wheter it is an Ability (i.e. fear aura, or some sort of field of dread or similar) or if it just is the mood he wants to set (The fighter has a non ability non saving throw aura that basically just scrambles your emotions a bit and makes you feel wary or somesuch).

Your initial question is quite true for some dm's. Since they don't know how to handle player agency in any meaningful way, yet. Sometimes they learn after a few kneejerk reactions or a "lengthy" talk about it... some won't even bother learning. But talking, discussing is often times the only way for them to do it.

Always remember to use constructive criticism instead of just bashing, which can happen really fast if one were to assume a defensive position. Maybe he just doesn't realize.

[goto124]

Putting aside this particular GM, is there really a way to have emotion-affecting mechanics that don't come off as contrived and annoying? If my character got hit with a spell and the GM doesn't let me (the player) know my character got hit with a spell, but just tells me 'you feel really good about this guy', I wouldn't even stay at the table for one second.

I can deal with "this item radiates an aura of dread, make a Will save to avoid the Staggered condition", when it's used very sparingly. Otherwise, not really.

[Chijinda]

Putting aside this particular GM, is there really a way to have emotion-affecting mechanics that don't come off as contrived and annoying? If my character got hit with a spell and the GM doesn't let me (the player) know my character got hit with a spell, but just tells me 'you feel really good about this guy', I wouldn't even stay at the table for one second.

I can deal with "this item radiates an aura of dread, make a Will save to avoid the Staggered condition", when it's used very sparingly. Otherwise, not really.

I think it's fine if it's clear (to the players) that it's some kind of spell or ability that's making you feel this way. As a personal example, my GM's been toying with emotion-affecting abilities lately, and over the last three session's he's hit our characters with supernaturally induced depression. We've not been too bothered by it, because everytime it's been involved, we know /why/ our characters are feeling this way, and know that it's not that he's taking control of our characters, but that our characters are being afflicted by something within the game itself, to make them feel this way. Perhaps more importantly though, he lets US decide how our characters react to this sort of thing. He merely informs us that our characters suddenly feel as though the most terrible thing they could possibly imagine just happened to them (providing such examples as: "The way you feel is as though your wife and son just died in front of you because of YOUR failure"), and then lets us decide how our characters actually DEAL with this emotional shift.

The difference in OP's case though is that the GM is arbitrarily telling him how his character feels about something clearly NOT magical or supernatural, AND how he reacts to this. That's the problem.

[Keltest]

Putting aside this particular GM, is there really a way to have emotion-affecting mechanics that don't come off as contrived and annoying? If my character got hit with a spell and the GM doesn't let me (the player) know my character got hit with a spell, but just tells me 'you feel really good about this guy', I wouldn't even stay at the table for one second.

I can deal with "this item radiates an aura of dread, make a Will save to avoid the Staggered condition", when it's used very sparingly. Otherwise, not really.
Triggering passive checks is always a tricky situation. Personally, im in favor of the "dm makes the roll" approach, as having the players know something bad/suspicious is happening but unable to do anything about it breaks immersion far more than the DM feeding you unusual information.

[Darth Ultron]

This is always a gray area with RPGs.

A player does not know 99.9% of the things their character would know. And it is almost impossible for a player to play a character in a game world where they know almost nothing. And it is impossible to give a player a lifetime of character memories and knowledge.

So RPG's just wing it, and have some rules so the players know some stuff......and have the DM fill in all the blanks. And it works, most of the time.

The first big problem comes up by the players that don't role play. Far too many players act like ''a modern day fast food worker'' and not ''a savage barbarian''. The game gets really dull when Zorda the wizard of the white wastes says things like ''yo, dudes we should go eat some pizza, yum!''. And it is the same problem when Jord the barbarian has no reaction to seeing something wondrous to his world view, as it is something that does not impress the player.

The second problem comes from the players that don't act. A character that sees something wondrous, or horrible should react, but most players won't even bother to do so much as even bat an eyelash.

And the third problem is that comes from players is that they don't do negative things.

So you have a DM, creating all sorts of things for the game world that are wondrous, or amazing or whatever....and the most players can do is just sit there and say ''whatever''.

So a lot of DM's end up forcing their players to role play, act and do negative things.

And then enter the gray. Most players are just fine with a DM telling them what their character thinks and feels...right up to the random second when they are not. Where is the line? No one knows...

[Tetraplex]

Most players are just fine with a DM telling them what their character thinks and feels...right up to the random second when they are not. Where is the line? No one knows...

I've had problems with this. My regular players are pretty awesome, all things considered, but it's easy to see their differing expectations. One is in it for the story, and it only enhances his enjoyment when I include callbacks to his backstory and his actions have realistic consequences. Another would love an 'Unstoppable Cool Guys VII: Never Say Die Hard With a Vengeance' type of game and will often dispute any action or result of his action that ends up leading to failure. He's getting better about this, but he'll probably be pretty grumpy after next session, where he plans to 'spy' on the bbeg before the final showdown by tearing a magically-warded wall down in the caverns the guy's holed up in. Alone. I'll be mentioning a lot of 'bad feelings' his high-WIS character has, I suspect.

[Keltest]

I've had problems with this. My regular players are pretty awesome, all things considered, but it's easy to see their differing expectations. One is in it for the story, and it only enhances his enjoyment when I include callbacks to his backstory and his actions have realistic consequences. Another would love an 'Unstoppable Cool Guys VII: Never Say Die Hard With a Vengeance' type of game and will often dispute any action or result of his action that ends up leading to failure. He's getting better about this, but he'll probably be pretty grumpy after next session, where he plans to 'spy' on the bbeg before the final showdown by tearing a magically-warded wall down in the caverns the guy's holed up in. Alone. I'll be mentioning a lot of 'bad feelings' his high-WIS character has, I suspect.

Its scenarios like that where you bring out the voice in the back of your head that sounds like your mother. Everyone knows when that voice comes out, youre doing something dumb.

[Cluedrew]

Yeah, that is a pretty normal red flag. ... Well depends on how much, with what and to what degree. I've seen it come up in the worst player thread (deserving that place) a couple times, your DM isn't that bad it seems to be enough to be a problem.

It can be used well, one to translate mechanical (not always magical) effects to the players without saying all the mechanical terms. This includes everything from a really persuasive speaker to the high wisdom example, however in these cases a player could just do these themselves.

Another is it can be used occasionally for dramatic effect, a kind of once off version of the above. For instance I played a game when we found "the city" and DM had us will save vs. awe, because it was that epic. You could say it was heavy handed but I refused to roll and said I failed because (from my character's perspective at least) it was that epic. This one should be used sparingly.

If you want to take back control of your character... I would recommend just doing it. Not super aggressively but if you can bring up a previously established aspect of your character and use it to justify having a different reaction. This means you will have to both establish some of your character traits and think about them a bit, but if you are into the character building anyways that shouldn't be a burden. Say the character is a dwarf in the airship example: "Um... I'm playing a dwarf. The main though going through my head is 'those people are lunatics for going so far away from the ground.'"

I think describing the character's reactions might be some sort of story telling crutch. Unsure on how to evoke a certain reaction, they just say the reaction is evoked.

[pi4t]

He's getting better about this, but he'll probably be pretty grumpy after next session, where he plans to 'spy' on the bbeg before the final showdown by tearing a magically-warded wall down in the caverns the guy's holed up in. Alone. I'll be mentioning a lot of 'bad feelings' his high-WIS character has, I suspect.

One trick I've picked up from one of my GMs is to ask the player to make a wisdom check - or another appropriate roll - and then only tell them they think it's a bad idea if they pass a DC. As a player, I found that made it feel more like extra information your character realises because stats rather than the GM arbitrarily declaring what your character is thinking. And if they fail the wisdom check, that can be fun too :belkar: (In a game I was GMing, my players were trying to sneak into a goblin stronghold when the ninja decided she wanted to crash through the roof to get in. I had her roll a wisdom check, and she got a 1. Only the quick reactions of the Cryptic she was carrying at the time in disintegrating a hole in the roof for her to fall through saved them from alerting the entire stronghold!)

[LnGrrrR]

Putting aside this particular GM, is there really a way to have emotion-affecting mechanics that don't come off as contrived and annoying? If my character got hit with a spell and the GM doesn't let me (the player) know my character got hit with a spell, but just tells me 'you feel really good about this guy', I wouldn't even stay at the table for one second.

I can deal with "this item radiates an aura of dread, make a Will save to avoid the Staggered condition", when it's used very sparingly. Otherwise, not really.

That's when you throw in phrases like, "For some strange reason" and "Oddly" and "You don't know why but...".

Regarding the original issue, I've heard that phrased as "powerposing", and it's usually frowned upon for the reasons you've mentioned. Instead of saying, "You're awed", you say something like, "It's by far the biggest airship you've ever seen. The amount of ammo on there could probably lay waste to a small country, and it probably needs that many people just to man the damn thing."

[Darth Ultron]

The real secret is the DM needs to craft things for the players, not the characters.


Joe, who works at the Circle K should be the target audience, not Rogar the barbarian. Unless Joe is a spectacular role player. But most of the time Joe is just ''normal''.

And a flying ship just does not impress Joe.

But Joe can be impressed, of course. Though you often just need to crank the fantasy up. Like ''Overhead floats a ship made out of pure nightmares...there horse-like bodies flowing around and together to make the body of the solid looking ship. A couple of individual nightmares float down from the ship and slaughter a couple of innocent by standers with their hooves, leaving bloody messes in the street.''

See that is much more impressive then just a flying ship.

[Keltest]

The real secret is the DM needs to craft things for the players, not the characters.


Joe, who works at the Circle K should be the target audience, not Rogar the barbarian. Unless Joe is a spectacular role player. But most of the time Joe is just ''normal''.

And a flying ship just does not impress Joe.

But Joe can be impressed, of course. Though you often just need to crank the fantasy up. Like ''Overhead floats a ship made out of pure nightmares...there horse-like bodies flowing around and together to make the body of the solid looking ship. A couple of individual nightmares float down from the ship and slaughter a couple of innocent by standers with their hooves, leaving bloody messes in the street.''

See that is much more impressive then just a flying ship.

True. However sometimes you don't want to awe Joe, of Circle K. You want to awe Rogar the Barbarian. Because the NPCs don't know about the players controlling their reality and aren't going to go out of their way to be as over the top as possible when their regular flying ship is already awe-inspiring to Rogar the barbarian.

Yes, a flying nightmare ship of doom is much cooler. You are also straining the game world when that becomes your standard "That's cool" moment. Sometimes Rogar is awed when Joe is not. And that's OK, because Joe is not Rogar.

[Darth Ultron]

True. However sometimes you don't want to awe Joe, of Circle K. You want to awe Rogar the Barbarian. Because the NPCs don't know about the players controlling their reality and aren't going to go out of their way to be as over the top as possible when their regular flying ship is already awe-inspiring to Rogar the barbarian.

Yes, a flying nightmare ship of doom is much cooler. You are also straining the game world when that becomes your standard "That's cool" moment. Sometimes Rogar is awed when Joe is not. And that's OK, because Joe is not Rogar.

But this goes back to the problem of Joe, who is controlling Rogar is not impressed, is bad at role playing, can't act, does not care, is lazy and so on. So, sure, a ''normal'' flying ship should impress Rogar, but Joe will never play the character that way.

And that is where you get the DM stepping in to say ''Joe, Rogar is impressed and amazed when he sees the flying ship''.

[Cluedrew]

Actually I will say that given the amount of fiction I have read I would probably never be awed by any "epic" thing you could throw at me. Entertained yes, amused yes. But in the end I realize that the DM/writer can say anything they want so it is hard to impress me as someone outside the story world. However I can understand and appreciate how someone in the world could be awed by something. But maybe that is just me.

[Darth Ultron]

Actually I will say that given the amount of fiction I have read I would probably never be awed by any "epic" thing you could throw at me. Entertained yes, amused yes. But in the end I realize that the DM/writer can say anything they want so it is hard to impress me as someone outside the story world. However I can understand and appreciate how someone in the world could be awed by something. But maybe that is just me.

It is a bit much to say you can't be awed by anything. Have you never read any fiction that awed you? Never?

[goto124]

That's when you throw in phrases like, "For some strange reason" and "Oddly" and "You don't know why but...".

That works well.


Another is it can be used occasionally for dramatic effect

Rephrase it!


Instead of saying, "You're awed", you say something like, "It's by far the biggest airship you've ever seen. The amount of ammo on there could probably lay waste to a small country, and it probably needs that many people just to man the damn thing."

Essentially, don't say "you are awed by the ship", say "the ship is awe-inspiring". I personally would even changed "the biggest airship you've ever seen" to "this airship is even bigger than [largest ship characters have witnessed]" or "even a whale would be smaller than this airship".

Needless to say, the players will start calling the airship "Giant Space Whale". :smallamused:

So, don't try to "amaze" the players. At least, not with going crazy on the description of an airship, or trying to mind-control their characters. It doesn't work anyway.

[hifidelity2]

A lot of this I think is down to how good (or how good the DM thinks) you are at role-playing

Examples
Air-Ship

Its up to the DM to advise if air-ships are 10 a penny or this is the 1st you have ever seen (and indeed heard of) one

As a DM I give XP for Role-Playing

If air-ships are unheard of then I would expect role-playing that encompasses the PC’s character traits.
Those that just go “Whatever” who aren’t playing someone who is unfazable just wont get as many XP at the end of the adventure (it may only be a few but it adds up over time)


Charm
Here I will let someone save v Charm but might have to “nudge” the PC and remind them what they are feeling “This is your friend and you want to help them etc”

[snacksmoto]

Our (relatively novice) DM has a habit of explaining what our PC's are thinking or feeling and the descriptions can often become elaborate to the point of saying the PC moves or does something physical in response.

Red flag. Outside of magical or other rules effects, the player has agency over the PC, not the DM. Full stop.


Our (relatively novice) DM...

There's the problem, inexperience. Talk with your DM about it. Hopefully it will be a learning experience and your DM can become better given the chance.


...our last session he asked all the PCs to roll a reflex save to avoid walking off the large elevated walkway we were all on because all of us were distracted looking at the lights in the eyes of statues that lined the walkway sporadically and lit it up. [snip] We had also discerned earlier that the lights in the statues were nothing more than harmless dancing lights.

The dancing lights in the eyes of the statues don't have the ability to forcibly transfix or distract the PCs. The PCs probably don't have anything in their background that would make a simple dancing lights effect extraordinary. A no-magic world would push a magical dancing lights effect into the realm of extraordinary, thus presenting a possible reason why experienced characters could become distracted.


DM: "You all walk outside and look up into the sky and see a massive floating airship. [Roentgen] you stagger backwards in awe and you're thinking "What an amazing airship. I've never seen anything like this.""

It is still up to you to decide to have your own character stagger backwards in awe, not up to the DM. With the assumption that the DM knows your character's history, it could be something your character has never seen anything like it and can still be described as such but it still the player's decision on how their character reacts.


Actually I will say that given the amount of fiction I have read I would probably never be awed by any "epic" thing you could throw at me. Entertained yes, amused yes. But in the end I realize that the DM/writer can say anything they want so it is hard to impress me as someone outside the story world. However I can understand and appreciate how someone in the world could be awed by something. But maybe that is just me.

It goes back to the unwritten rule that you are not your character. You might not be in awe, for whatever reasons, but is your character? Your character might be completely awestruck and would naturally and logically react in that fashion. Why not play it up?

[Mr.Moron]

It all depends on group style and individual preferences. I've flat out had players ask me how they feel, or who just don't act until given explicitly direction. I've had players who even balk and told someone an NPC is "Pretty" because obviously that's subjective and not what their character thinks (I personally find this kind of insufferable). I find most folks fall at happy medium.

They're content with rolls to know if something is scary, tasty or smelly. They'll gladly accept something like "Impressive" or "Forgettable" in a description. I even find players tend to resolve things themselves with rolls or the like rather than insisting they have perfect knowledge of their character's feelings.

Exchanges like this are not at all totally uncommon:

"They serve you a meal: Oats with vegetables and onions"
"Is it any good?"
"I don't know. It's got a pretty firm texture compared to something to normal oatmeal but still a porridge. Slightly salty, the vegetables are very earthy - think collard greens but more so. The onion flavor is pretty fait they on ly used a few - What would you character think of that?"
"Hmmm." *pulls out a d6* "I guess if I roll a 4 or higher, my character likes it otherwise it's kind of gross"

As are ones like this:


"They serve you a meal: Oats with vegetables and onions"
"Is it any good?"
"Well, yeah. It's rich and earthy, with plenty of salt. A hearty mean if you're into that sort of thing"
"Actually, I think that sounds gross" -or- "Neat. I take seconds"

You can of course substitute the food here for anything a character might have an opinion on or feelings about. Not everyone's the same. Of course it's probably best if GMs that like giving more in depth narration and RP queues are matched up with players that prefer to have their actions be a bit more guided, and players that want more freedom and dislike GM "intrusion" are paired up with GMs that enjoy that too. It doesn't make anything right or wrong here.

[Fri]

I think it's more because of the relative novicity of the GM. I used to do that when I started GMing years back then as well. I learned not to do that anymore.

[Spiryt]

Obviously rather complicated stuff.

I would say that it is indeed 'normal', but the catch is obviously in details.

Characters are living, sentient beings similar enough to 'us', that they don't have complete control and understanding of their emotions and thoughts.

Describing everything so painstakingly that player, may, or may not feel or understand it can get impossible.

So while saying 'your character's woe is so great that he leaps into the gorge' is unacceptable, informing player that some strong, uncontrollable feeling is trying to urge them to act is OK.

Ideally it should obviously be connected to actual storytelling and information, so the player can imagine and understand why could the character feel that way.

Giving some penalties/modifiers to certain activities, after a failing throw, informing player that character 'finds it hard to stop gazing at ______" can be done well, I think.

Informing player that character straight out fails at something, or that it actually won't stare at anything else save______ is trickier and should be avoided.

Although plenty of systems have mechanics working quite like that - failing saving throw to not look at Basilisk eyes in D&D 3.5...

[MrNobody]

I think that a DM can suggest feelings and thoughts as long as they are general impressions that are not definitive and that each player can elaborate.

If a party of good pcs enters the Great Temple of the Super Evil God, a place build using titan's bones as pillars and dragon's ribs to make the ceiling, with horrible statues alla around, the DM has the right to suggest that the group "feels overwhelmed by nature of the place and intimidated (not the condition, just a generic sensation of unease)". That would be the "human" reaction upon seing the place that each player would then elaborate.

The player who plays a paladin could say that since his PC is immune to fear he acknowldges these feelings but will use them as a push to strike harder on the High Priest of the Super Evil God and to better protect his fellows. The player of the sneaky rogue could say that his character enters in a paranoid state and starts to look for traps everywhere. The wizard could be so bold and overconfident in his magic to ignore the feeling and instead to focus his attention on which type of dragons were used to build the temples, and so on.

[neonchameleon]

Our (relatively novice) DM has a habit of explaining what our PC's are thinking or feeling and the descriptions can often become elaborate to the point of saying the PC moves or does something physical in response. Personally I find it annoying and my kneejerk reaction to it is to ask in response to "you're thinking..." is "am I?".

This is a textbook "Don't do that" rule for DMs. (It can be done very carefully if you know exactly what you are doing).


Hopefully this was a one off but in our last session he asked all the PCs to roll a reflex save to avoid walking off the large elevated walkway we were all on because all of us were distracted looking at the lights in the eyes of statues that lined the walkway sporadically and lit it up.

Bwuh? Wait, what?

You can sometimes, carefully say "Roll will to avoid jumping back" - but a distraction? First that's a will save anyway. Second, walking of your own free will when you know about the edges? nonono.


Is it normal for DMs to take control of PCs in this way and to determine what they're thinking or feeling rather than the players themselves?

It's not uncommon for brand new or inept DMs - but it doesn't last long. Either they learn better or someone else DMs.

[Cluedrew]

It is a bit much to say you can't be awed by anything. Have you never read any fiction that awed you? Never?Yeah, I tried to be precise about that but I guess I should go a little further. First off I am referring a very particular thing of being awed by something in the story, which is actually different from being awed by the story itself. One of the best stories I have ever experienced (including reading, playing, watching, listening) was based around this computer system that was mind-blowingly advanced. The story filled me with awe, the mind-blowing tech in the story on the other hand was completely unimpressive. Why? Because the author just says it is there and it works and that is that. That isn't hard or impressive I can do that. However hard it may be to build an infinitely high tower I can say one exists in my story. Even your nightmare airship you just said it was there and I was unimpressed. If you told an epic tail about its construction and history I would be impressed, maybe even awed, but the ship itself will never do that. Not any more. (Used to be impressed by that sort of thing, but then I realized the things I have said here.)


Rephrase it!To what end? Was I too general, too specific. Is what I said ambiguous, does it not match something else I said? Is the wording just awkward? I mean this very seriously, what is the issue?


It goes back to the unwritten rule that you are not your character. You might not be in awe, for whatever reasons, but is your character? Your character might be completely awestruck and would naturally and logically react in that fashion. Why not play it up?Hey, in the example I gave I was some where between "meh" and "that's nice", my character shed a tear over it.

[goto124]

If a party of good pcs enters the Great Temple of the Super Evil God, a place build using titan's bones as pillars and dragon's ribs to make the ceiling, with horrible statues alla around, the DM has the right to suggest that the group "feels overwhelmed by nature of the place and intimidated (not the condition, just a generic sensation of unease)". That would be the "human" reaction upon seing the place that each player would then elaborate.

(After describing the temple) "This temple is clearly designed to make good people feel overwhelmed and intimidated by its very nature".

[halfeye]

It is a bit much to say you can't be awed by anything. Have you never read any fiction that awed you? Never?
It gets old, very fast.

Awe in fiction is a very cheap emotional reaction in characters, often aimed for from readewrs, rarely achieved.

Mile long spaceship? how about a ten mile long spaceship? how about we put a motor on Ceres (it's be a motorised snowball, but it'd be a 950 kilometre long (and wide) motorised snowball)?

[DireSickFish]

It gets old, very fast.

Awe in fiction is a very cheap emotional reaction in characters, often aimed for from readewrs, rarely achieved.

Mile long spaceship? how about a ten mile long spaceship? how about we put a motor on Ceres (it's be a motorised snowball, but it'd be a 950 kilometre long (and wide) motorised snowball)?

Or a robot several time the size of the universe that can throw galaxies like ninja stars at another equally larch mech! Who the hell do you think we are!?

[Douche]

I've only been playing Tabletop RPGs for a few months, but I have done a lot of roleplaying in forums & in WoW, and telling others what their characters do is called Godmodding. It's universally frowned upon.

You can say "[My character] slashes at [your character] with his axe, hoping to cleave him in twain"

You cannot say "[My character] slashes at [your character] with his axe, cleaving him in twain and laughing gleefully at the shower of gore" - that's up to them to decide how they react to getting attacked with an axe.

Similarly, you can't tell someone how they feel or what they're thinking. Describe the environment all you like; say its below zero - but you can't say that someone elses character is shivering, that's up to them how they react... TRPGs are a little different, since there are mechanics in place for being feared, or trekking through a frozen tundra - but that's what the dice are for. The DM should be there to facilitate those scenarios, but he shouldn't be micromanaging every thought you have.

[Keltest]

You can say "[My character] slashes at [your character] with his axe, hoping to cleave him in twain"

You cannot say "[My character] slashes at [your character] with his axe, cleaving him in twain and laughing gleefully at the shower of gore" - that's up to them to decide how they react to getting attacked with an axe.

That's a terrible example, up there with mind control magic. The Dm is not taking control of your character, an NPC is acting in a manner that affects your character. Or do you expect the player to say, for their turn, that they are in fact cleft in twain? Charm magic is at least even more of a grey zone than normal because it is explicitly not you/your character in control of the actions as the intended effect.

[Douche]

That's a terrible example, up there with mind control magic. The Dm is not taking control of your character, an NPC is acting in a manner that affects your character. Or do you expect the player to say, for their turn, that they are in fact cleft in twain? Charm magic is at least even more of a grey zone than normal because it is explicitly not you/your character in control of the actions as the intended effect.

I was actually explaining it in terms of roleplaying combat... Like WoW, instead of using PvP to settle roleplaying conflicts, people will instead type out what they do more expressively. Instead of acting out "I spam auto attack and use colossal strike whenever it comes off cooldown" people will actually roleplay their fight, and use opposing /roll emotes to see whether the player hits or misses. They'll also agree upon how many times each person can get hit before they lose.

Point being, even if you win the roll, you still can only say what you do - not what the result is. If player 1 says "I slash at your hand and cut it off" then player 2 will think you're a godmodding child who has never done roleplaying before, and will probably just walk away.

Anyway, you're right, probably not the best example if you directly translate it... I was just trying to draw a parallel. Obviously, the DM can say what an NPC does to a PC - provided the PC doesn't make the save - but they still need the chance to make the save. And as others have pointed out, you can't tell a player what he's thinking. That's godmodding too. If the players see a cult about to sacrifice a child, you can't say "You feel like you should save that kid," because for all you know, they might feel like grabbing some popcorn and watching

[The Fury]

I'd say it's appropriate when describing what magic or supernatural abilities are doing as some of them do manipulate a character's emotions. For example:

Player: "I drink that potion of Heroism."

DM: "You feel extremely confident, like you could punch through a brick wall!"


or:


Player: "Dang! a 9 doesn't make the save does it?"

DM: "After the spell goes off, you feel an overwhelming sadness come over you."

Player: "MOM AND DAD NEVER LOVED ME!"

DM: "...Err... you have a minus 2 penalty to attacks, saves, and skill checks."

Similarly it's probably OK to say what a character thinks based on the result of a skill check. Like, "You think you've figured out the trap's triggering mechanism," or something similar.

But yeah, a DM just arbitrarily deciding what a player character's reaction to something is generally lame, though it was something I accepted as normal for a quite a while.

[goto124]

In both cases, the player knows why their character feels a certain way - magical effects.

In the latter case, the player gets to contribute to and elaborate on how their character reacts.

Helps when dealing with mental effects.

[The Fury]

In the latter case, the player gets to contribute to and elaborate on how their character reacts.



Huh. I guess that's right. I hadn't considered that though, I was mostly thinking of my role-playing style and how I might have my character react to suddenly feeling incredibly sad. Namely, making things awkward.

[Nightcanon]

That's a terrible example, up there with mind control magic. The Dm is not taking control of your character, an NPC is acting in a manner that affects your character. Or do you expect the player to say, for their turn, that they are in fact cleft in twain? Charm magic is at least even more of a grey zone than normal because it is explicitly not you/your character in control of the actions as the intended effect.
My reading of it is that it's a good example. You can state what you want to do, and use the game mechanics to see if you can succeed. So you can't say you will cleave someone in twain (unless you are administering a coup de grace on a helpless foe) without rolling the dice to see if you manage it.
Similarly, the DM can't tell you that you are distracted by sparkly gems and almost fall to your death (reflex save or die); if they have decided that the gems have a particular distracting property, it's reasonable to set a will save or other mechanic to avoid being distracted if it is merited, or simply try to distract the players with your description (You notice the statue appears to have red gems in place of eyes/ Oooh, Rubies! I go take a closer look/ As you walk over to the statue, you hear a click as you step on a tile.../ D'oh! I've spent the whole session checking for traps all down the hallway, and I fall for the trapped ruby-eyed idol trick again...).
Likewise, they can state that there is an airship overhead, and (if true) that it is the biggest the character has ever seen (or even that they've never seen anything like it before, it which case describing what appears to be a full-sized ship, suspended beneath a vast mass of what appears to be canvass, the size of one of the watch towers of the fabled Keep of Arbraxos, blocking out the sun, etc etc, in terms intended to inspire awe, is better than saying it's an airship. But they can't tell you that you are awed by it. NPCs can be awed by it, horses can act scared (ride check to stay in control of your mount), but the player gets to decide whether they are awed, impressed (cool...), covetous (got to get me one of those...), intrigued (I wonder what the big bag is for) or indifferent (now, where did that that bandit we were chasing get to?...).

I kind of disagree with Goto124 here: mind-affecting magic is one of the few occasions when I think the DM can legitimately 'push' a feeling onto a PC, and if that's the only time it happens can be a more subtle way of indicating to the player that their PC is being affected (it doesn't work if the DM also tells them how they think every time they meet someone with a charisma modifier, though). A sense motive check is an example were a player can legitimately ask the DM to tell them what they are thinking in the context of a specific interaction with an individual.

[Darth Ultron]

Similarly, you can't tell someone how they feel or what they're thinking. Describe the environment all you like; say its below zero - but you can't say that someone elses character is shivering, that's up to them how they react... TRPGs are a little different, since there are mechanics in place for being feared, or trekking through a frozen tundra - but that's what the dice are for. The DM should be there to facilitate those scenarios, but he shouldn't be micromanaging every thought you have.

The problem is that characters don't have feelings and thoughts, unless the player says they do. But the player does not know about the game world, other then what the DM describes. And that little voice inside of 'you' is not 'you', exactly. Like when you start to do something, and then that little voice says it is not a good idea, so you stop. Well, where does that voice come from?

If the DM does not add in thoughts and feelings, it is rare for the players to do so. And that makes the game kinda boring. The DM can describe anything, for several minutes, and the players will often be like ''whatever''.

Though, as above, I guess a lot of players are very detached anyway and don't care. It is a wonder they even want to play a socal game.

[The Fury]

If the DM does not add in thoughts and feelings, it is rare for the players to do so. And that makes the game kinda boring. The DM can describe anything, for several minutes, and the players will often be like ''whatever''.

Though, as above, I guess a lot of players are very detached anyway and don't care. It is a wonder they even want to play a socal game.

That's something I've considered too. A few players that I've adventured with wanted their characters to be too cool to feel anything other than (un)restrained anger or blase indifference. I guess if that's all the players are actually bringing to the table it would sort of make sense that a DM would make their characters have some other type of emotional reaction. Like, "The Bard's music makes you nostalgic," or "You see the Barrier Mountains in the distance, they strike you with a sense of awe."

Though I still don't quite agree with that justification. In my own experience players that make characters that are too cool to look at the explosion behind them will continue to act that way no matter what the DM says they feel. Maybe they can get a grunt and a nod out of them on a good day.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I find it really depends on the GM. My Marvel GM does it a little but I don't mind. He does not hijack our characters to do things but adds subtle details that mesh nicely with out powers and tend to enhance the experience overall. I expect if a lesser storyteller were to do it I would get angry quickly though.

[Roentgen]

Interesting discussion so far. I had my own discussion with the DM and he thanked me for bring it to his attention and said he was basically on auto-pilot in regards to describing the thoughts and feelings of characters. He has agreed to be more self aware that hes doing it and phase it out going forward.

[sktarq]

Been meaning to post here for a couple days but been horridly ill-

I think it is okay---with great care---did the architect try to build a super awe inspiring building-toss in a will save and say what the characters feel perhaps but allow the characters to respond to that feeling themselves (with possible exceptions if they totally flubbed a roll)


It can be very easily overdone and be highly damaging-it should be the voice that sits in the back of your head that you don't control.

And there is a massive exception for horror/psychological (CoC types) arena of RPG's as that is a key part.

[Spore]

To shorten thi: Feelings are fine, opinions about topics are not.

[Keltest]

To shorten thi: Feelings are fine, opinions about topics are not.

I would suggest even opinions are fine it the player is asking for that kind of information (for example, they roll a sense motive, and the result gives "you neither like nor trust this guy and feel he is hiding something.")

[Mastikator]

I would suggest even opinions are fine it the player is asking for that kind of information (for example, they roll a sense motive, and the result gives "you neither like nor trust this guy and feel he is hiding something.")

Those seem like emotions to me.

[Darth Ultron]

Though I still don't quite agree with that justification. In my own experience players that make characters that are too cool to look at the explosion behind them will continue to act that way no matter what the DM says they feel. Maybe they can get a grunt and a nod out of them on a good day.

Though, ultimately, it does not mean anything. The DM can say character thinks or feels something and the player can just ignore it.

[Keltest]

Those seem like emotions to me.

Perhaps. The line between feelings and opinions is quite blurry.

[neonchameleon]

Though, ultimately, it does not mean anything. The DM can say character thinks or feels something and the player can just ignore it.

The DM can also turn up to the table having not showered in a month or changed their underwear in a week and the players can ignore that too.

[Mr.Moron]

The DM can also turn up to the table having not showered in a month or changed their underwear in a week and the players can ignore that too.

Except these are not at all comparable. One is a gross breach of universal (in 'Murcia anyway) social convention that holds true inside gaming and out. It's unhygienic and has real physical consequences in the actual world. The other is a game style difference that's narrowly confined to particular subset of issues in a particular subset of gaming. Dude shows up to my house and has broadly different ideas on where the dividing lines between Players, PC Thoughts & the game world are and it can't hurt anything, though maybe we won't play a game together.

Dude shows up with underpants filled with week old crusty poop and he's going to:

A) Make me feel nauseous
B) Ruin my chairs
C) Possibly make me sick.

There's no excuse for that level of lacking hygiene. There are plenty of valid stylistic reasons a particular GM might be more inclined to provide RP cues in the form PC thoughts than another.

[solidork]

This was something that annoyed me about Titansgrave to be honest.

[Darth Ultron]

The DM can also turn up to the table having not showered in a month or changed their underwear in a week and the players can ignore that too.

Ok?

In most normal games, the players are free to ignore any suggestions the DM might make in the game about the game play such as what the characters should do or what the characters think or feel.

I'm not sure how you make the leap to anti social jerk....

And most games have houserules about such nasty stuff......it is a gaming must.

[Ashtagon]

Telling a player what their character sees or hears is fine.

Telling them their character gets a feeling about someone or something, I'd say that's also fine.

Telling a player that their character has a physical reaction to something that isn't caused by a specific special ability or magical effect? That's pretty much right out. I'd consider doing that only if a) it required a failed save, and b) the physical reaction has no game-mechanical effect.

[Segev]

One thing a number of GMs I've had have done is say things like, "There's an airship hovering overhead. I don't think you've ever seen one before, so it's probably awe-inspiring to you, Rothgar. I know Prince Damien of the Sky Elves saw them regularly, so it's probably less special, but honestly, after a month underground and years away from his people, it probably is a relief, too."

"Nah, Rothgar just thinks it looks like an overgrown bird. Something to hunt."
"Oh, really? He's hunted birds that big?" "No, but he's hunted T-rexes on the plains; now THOSE are awe-inspiring." "Okay, then maybe he's just excited by the possibilities."

"Damien's definitely relieved to see something that reminds him of home, yeah. But it's actually tainted; he always HATED the artificial design of ships like these. So it's a mixed reaction from him."

"Well, Suzy's 12, and has only seen them from a distance before. She's excited!" "Thank you, Suzy."



In short, the GM suggesting what he thinks you should be feeling based on what he knows of your character and how common things are in his setting is reasonable. Negotiation may occur if you have differing visions or think your character would have a different perspective, but it's not unreasonable for the GM to assume certain things by default.

I would agree that the "distracting lights" only should trigger that reflex save if a) the PCs are described by their players as so distracted, b) there's a magical effect in place (and that probably deserves a Will save, first, to resist), or c) the lights are in an otherwise dark place and make it literally hard to see the cliff's edge.

[Mr.Moron]

One thing a number of GMs I've had have done is say things like, "There's an airship hovering overhead. I don't think you've ever seen one before, so it's probably awe-inspiring to you, Rothgar. I know Prince Damien of the Sky Elves saw them regularly, so it's probably less special, but honestly, after a month underground and years away from his people, it probably is a relief, too."

"Nah, Rothgar just thinks it looks like an overgrown bird. Something to hunt."
"Oh, really? He's hunted birds that big?" "No, but he's hunted T-rexes on the plains; now THOSE are awe-inspiring." "Okay, then maybe he's just excited by the possibilities."


Funny thing about players like these if the GM had said

"There's an airship overhead. I don't think you've seen one before Rothgar, so it kind of might look like a big bird or something from a distance. It's about about the size of a T-Rex they had back on home on the plains"

the player would in all likelihood respond

"What? No Rothgar isn't that stupid, he can tell the difference between a BIRD something he's seen a million times before and something that clearly IS NOT A BIRD. It's obviously a big dumb machine and he does't care. T-Rexes aren't that big once you get used to them ya know?

Because they aren't concerned with having total dominion over their character's thoughts, or mainting a consistent vision of their character in the head more than they are just being too cool for school and always needing to be contradictory.

[goto124]

We started off with "get a better GM", anf have arrived at "get better players".

[neonchameleon]

Except these are not at all comparable.

You mean I was using hyperbole to show how silly the "You can just ignore it" example for monumental bad manners in DMing is? I thought that the very OTT nature of my comment made that clear.

But it is monumental bad manners for the DM to tell the players what they are feeling. Monumental bad manners, in part because it is almost always counter-productive. When the DM tells the players how the characters feel even the smallest miss is going to get backlash because it's artificially trying to impose emotions. Whereas if the DM doesn't decide "I control the world and the NPCs. I should get the PCs too" the players are much more likely to invest in it - and to respond roughly as intended rather than be irritated by a greedy DM deciding that just being the DM doesn't give them enough opportunities.

Yes, "Anti-social jerk" is, I think, about right.

[Mr.Moron]

You mean I was using hyperbole to show how silly the "You can just ignore it" example for monumental bad manners in DMing is? I thought that the very OTT nature of my comment made that clear.

But it is monumental bad manners for the DM to tell the players what they are feeling. Monumental bad manners, in part because it is almost always counter-productive. When the DM tells the players how the characters feel even the smallest miss is going to get backlash because it's artificially trying to impose emotions. Whereas if the DM doesn't decide "I control the world and the NPCs. I should get the PCs too" the players are much more likely to invest in it - and to respond roughly as intended rather than be irritated by a greedy DM deciding that just being the DM doesn't give them enough opportunities.

Yes, "Anti-social jerk" is, I think, about right.

Except isn't "monumental bad manners", it's a style issue. I've literally had players ask me how they're feeling and seen players do it under other GMs. You're ascribing malice and "Greed" to a GM that might be doing anything from simply adding flavor text to dealing with a player who genuinely wants direction.

I've seen plenty of players ask questions like "Am I afraid of [THE THING]?" or "Do I like [THE THING]?", particularly among new players.

Similarly I've seen players that just kind of stare blankly when told "The tower is 200 feet tall and trimmed with gold. There are flags on the top made of some kind of glowing cloth". They don't react and just kind of wait for someone else is doing. When given that same situation as "The tower is 200 feet tall and trimmed with gold. There are flags on the top made of some glowing cloth. You've never seen this before, it's really exciting the sort of thing that makes you want to go inside and take a look" all of sudden that same player is curious, asking questions looking around and trying to understand how the details fit into the current situation.

Certainly giving too much direction can be "Anti-social jerk" ground if you're going into a group where that isn't the expectation and people have asked you not to do it. It's far from universally so though, and probably not something you can claim as the default. In D&D you'll often have a group with half people who really want to RP, and half that just kinda want to bash monsters. A little bit of direction can often go along way to getting the "bash monsters" guys involved in the RP. Just like making sure the monsters tie into character motivations and the consequences of RP choices can get the RP heavy folks more exciting about bashing the monsters.

There are honestly a great deal of players who hold no opinion on what their characters feel and have relatively minimal interest in thinking about or generating those feelings on their own.

[Keltest]

You mean I was using hyperbole to show how silly the "You can just ignore it" example for monumental bad manners in DMing is? I thought that the very OTT nature of my comment made that clear.

But it is monumental bad manners for the DM to tell the players what they are feeling. Monumental bad manners, in part because it is almost always counter-productive. When the DM tells the players how the characters feel even the smallest miss is going to get backlash because it's artificially trying to impose emotions. Whereas if the DM doesn't decide "I control the world and the NPCs. I should get the PCs too" the players are much more likely to invest in it - and to respond roughly as intended rather than be irritated by a greedy DM deciding that just being the DM doesn't give them enough opportunities.

Yes, "Anti-social jerk" is, I think, about right.

That has, in fact, been the absolute opposite of my experience as a DM. My players appreciate the roleplaying prompts, especially because I don't do them frivolously. If I tell them "you do not feel this person is especially trustworthy" it is because I am stressing that they should not trust him.

Honestly, a player who picks a fight with the DM about whether their character "feels" something trivial like that is much more of an anti-social jerk than the DM is.

[goto124]

The GM and the players could, er, communciate. The players could say "please give up a little direction" or "please don't tell us how our characters feel unless it's some sort of magic".

[neonchameleon]

Except isn't "monumental bad manners", it's a style issue. I've literally had players ask me how they're feeling and seen players do it under other GMs.

I ask to be helped across the road when I'm carrying heavy boxes. Therefore pushing me across the road when I'm not asking for it is fine? Right. Gotcha.


You're ascribing malice and "Greed" to a GM that might be doing anything from simply adding flavor text to dealing with a player who genuinely wants direction.

No. I'm ascribing serious bad manners to them in a way that is otherwise indistinguishable from DMs who don't have boundaries. They might be trampling on the player in ignorance. But that's still bad manners.


I've seen plenty of players ask questions like "Am I afraid of [THE THING]?" or "Do I like [THE THING]?", particularly among new players.

And that is with the player asking first. As I have said, this is an entirely different situation. And I've never seen a prompted comment like that blocked.


Similarly I've seen players that just kind of stare blankly when told "The tower is 200 feet tall and trimmed with gold. There are flags on the top made of some kind of glowing cloth". They don't react and just kind of wait for someone else is doing.

To me these people fit two groups. The first is social gamers. There to drink with their friends. The second is people who actually want old-school Board Game+ D&D. And one of the core things 2E took out of D&D was the XP mechanic; in 1e you got 1XP for each GP you recovered. "Woah, look at that. How can we steal the flags and cladding" is a perfectly decent response. And one that draws the players forward without cutting across people. Game design is mind control - and Arneson was a great designer and Gygax far the best developer RPGs have ever seen.

And the problem in such cases is that what the game is about isn't clear enough. I've created amazing front foot play from previously unengaged social gamers by the simple expedient of "We're dropping XP entirely. Instead when your character makes it back to base camp for each new level they've been on they gain a level."


There are honestly a great deal of players who hold no opinion on what their characters feel and have relatively minimal interest in thinking about or generating those feelings on their own.

And to use another analogy "There are honestly a great deal of people without peanut allergies. So that means that not adding peanut warning labels onto food is just peachy.

If the people who have little interest in something are cool both ways and the people who actually care aren't then you don't go both ways.