PDA

View Full Version : You did "what" to my character!?



Ravian
2016-02-25, 11:30 PM
I'm sort of having an issue with a session I've had recently.

I've been in a fairly not serious game recently, lots of weird nonsense and such. More than a few things have happened to our characters, weird curses, people being transformed into other things, the works. I was kind of rolling with most of it. My character (a lawful-good monk) was basically a straight man through it all.

But then today something happened that I really wasn't too happy with. During an incident with a character, my monk was caught up in what amounted to a cloud of inhaled drugs, and from it she's now addicted to the substance.

And for some reason despite all of what we've dealt with already, this really bothers me.

Even ignoring the ridiculousness of becoming addicted to something from a single hit, even with the fact that I could probably get it removed with enough magic, there's something that just really bothers me about this that I can't really explain.

I'm absolutely fine with the idea of my character possibly dying, or even something as undignified as a bizarre curse or whatever, but for some reason this incident just really bothers me.

Maybe I'm just too attached to this character, but I feel that something as "real" as addiction happening to her just makes me feel a little too uncomfortable.

The GM and the others seem content to treat it like a temporary poison that'll clear out as soon as my character makes enough fortitude saves, but it still bothers me despite all of that.

What do you guys think. Am I overreacting? I've often heard about people drawing the line between sex and their character, but are there any other lines that people feel shouldn't be crossed without permission in an RPG?

Parvum
2016-02-25, 11:42 PM
Well yeah. Respect everyone's boundaries. Even if you don't understand it, even if they don't understand it, don't push people out of their comfort zones without their permission. At the heart of it, everyone came here to have fun with other people. If anyone's being pushed away and made uncomfortable, the game is failing them. Adjustments need to be made (to the game, not the people) until everyone can enjoy what's happening at the table without feeling alienated.

Slipperychicken
2016-02-26, 01:10 AM
Did they at least make an appropriate roll to determine whether your character became addicted? Also, being in a cloud of something isn't the same as a single hit.


Either way, if it bothers you so much, you might want to share your feelings with the GM. That's what I'd do if I felt my GM crossed the line like that. If the in-game effects are somehow important, then for fairness' sake I might suggest a compromise like retconning the penalties to have come from a weird immune reaction or something.

Ravian
2016-02-26, 01:34 AM
I did have to make a couple of fortitude saves (which I admit I did poorly on) But I feel that's kind of irrelevant. Having the chance to make a saving throw to avoid sexual assault wouldn't excuse the fact that your character is being sexually assaulted.

I feel the root of the problem here is that everything else that we've went through still felt like a joke or at least an expected part of the game. But this, just felt like if it was a joke was in poor taste.

I'm not usually like this, and normally I'd be perfectly willing to make a character with a drug problem, but I feel it's something I would have preferred doing at my own pace. I could reasonably play a character treating their drug problem in a serious manner. I could even play one doing it in a humorous manner if I tried. But In this case, where it's just a character who was suddenly subjected to addiction against her will, it just feels really uncomfortable.

Godskook
2016-02-26, 01:49 AM
I think that induced drug addiction(chemical or magical, but not mental*) is a perfectly fine thing for a DM to throw at players, unless said players say explicitly otherwise beforehand. Hell, D&D is (partially and normally only tangentially)FOR exploring these kinds of things in a safe environment.

If you don't like it, after you clear it out, tell your DM you don't want that again, and you'll take a more vanilla poison next time.

(Personally, I think the only things really off-limits are sexual, or things associated with a player's known struggles. Like, I wouldn't purposely kill off a player's wife-NPC right around when their wife died.)

*Mental drug addiction is, unlike chemical or magical, a character's -choice- and is outside a DM's legit choices.

goto124
2016-02-26, 02:03 AM
Clear it up with the DM, there shouldn't be too much problem.

To have an analogy, it's like introducing giant spider monsters, only to turn out that one of the players is arachnophobic. The giant spiders can then be refluffed into a different creature. A sufficiently large fraction of players are alright with fighting giant spiders in an RPG, which is why the GM felt it alright to include giant spiders in the first place without warning the players. But if a player in the group is not alright with it, it's changed.

By the way, how much change would you like? Change the addiction into a different debuff, such as -1 to social checks?

Slipperychicken
2016-02-26, 02:15 AM
I feel the root of the problem here is that everything else that we've went through still felt like a joke or at least an expected part of the game. But this, just felt like if it was a joke was in poor taste.

I'm not usually like this, and normally I'd be perfectly willing to make a character with a drug problem, but I feel it's something I would have preferred doing at my own pace. I could reasonably play a character treating their drug problem in a serious manner. I could even play one doing it in a humorous manner if I tried. But In this case, where it's just a character who was suddenly subjected to addiction against her will, it just feels really uncomfortable.

It sounds like your GM meant well, but didn't foresee that it could bother you. Telling him what you told us should be sufficient.

Fri
2016-02-26, 04:11 AM
Clear it up with the DM, there shouldn't be too much problem.

To have an analogy, it's like introducing giant spider monsters, only to turn out that one of the players is arachnophobic. The giant spiders can then be refluffed into a different creature. A sufficiently large fraction of players are alright with fighting giant spiders in an RPG, which is why the GM felt it alright to include giant spiders in the first place without warning the players. But if a player in the group is not alright with it, it's changed.

By the way, how much change would you like? Change the addiction into a different debuff, such as -1 to social checks?

This. Everyone have different pet peeve, trigger, or phobia.

For example, for me the biggest thing a person can have is their identity, their history. So Discworld Novel Nightwatch, which is a very good novel and a lot of people's favourite novel, really bother me because its premise is that someone lost their actual identity/history forever there.

I also have a mild phobia of worm. I don't have any problem fighting giant worm monster in theatre-of-mind tabletop thankfully, but I can barely see a picture or video of one.

I remember story of a GM who whip up some spider miniature to use as monster in his table, look at one of his player's face, and turn what supposed to be a tough fight a single round sweep up and get rid of the miniature in an instant.

If you never mention it to your GM he wouldn't know that you have a pet peeve or phobia against it.

Ashtagon
2016-02-26, 04:57 AM
Socially pro-active GMs would have players write/email to them privately to specify anything that they don't want to appear in a game because it would be personally triggering. This is probably a bit of a high standard to expect though.

goto124
2016-02-26, 06:21 AM
I remember story of a GM who whip up some spider miniature to use as monster in his table, look at one of his player's face, and turn what supposed to be a tough fight a single round sweep up and get rid of the miniature in an instant.

He should've replaced the miniature with a small piece of paper with a cute drawing of a spider (http://www.27bslash6.com/images/spiderdrawing2.gif) instead :smalltongue:

Or cover the miniature in paper or cloth.

kraftcheese
2016-02-26, 07:22 AM
Or cover the miniature in paper or cloth.

I have to disagree with that one goto, because then you get a GHOST SPIDER which is at least twice as scary

Douche
2016-02-26, 08:08 AM
I feel like it may upset you because it's changing the personality of your character for the hell of it.

Like, if you get cursed into dropping the b-word at the end of every sentence, then you're still yourself at the core. But if you become an addict, then you are changed as a person.

However, the way you describe it doesn't sound like you're being forced to act like an addict. Are they telling you that you have to role play wanting to chase down more drugs? If not, then you're technically not an addict, you're just suffering withdrawals. That's different from being an addict. You can do heroin for a week and not get addicted (if you're lucky) but your body will still suffer the pain of withdrawal even though your brain doesn't necessarily desire more. I don't know the chemistry/psychology behind it but there is a difference. The way you describe it, you can just say "well I'm suffering withdrawals but I have no desire to do drugs again, so I'll just suffer the penalty for however long til I make those fortitude saves"

As a result, I think you just need to reframe your perspective of addiction and forgive your friends for not knowing the distinction. Or maybe I'm just assuming too much and am completely wrong about how you feel, i dunno lol

goto124
2016-02-26, 08:13 AM
I feel that something as "real" as addiction happening to her just makes me feel a little too uncomfortable.

This says otherwise. The OP feels the addiction is too close to harsh reality than comfortable for the type of game.


even with the fact that I could probably get it removed with enough magic

Hope you find a cure soon! How long will it take to remove the curse (if/when the addiction gets refluffed into a curse)?

OldTrees1
2016-02-26, 09:13 AM
And for some reason despite all of what we've dealt with already, this really bothers me.

-snip-

What do you guys think. Am I overreacting? I've often heard about people drawing the line between sex and their character, but are there any other lines that people feel shouldn't be crossed without permission in an RPG?

Are you overreacting? No. It bothers you, that is an uncontrolled reaction. Overreaction is only applicable to our controlled reactions to external and internal(Ex: uncontrolled reactions) stimuli.

Step 1: That this bothers you is something the DM was previously unaware of and they would want to know in order to help make the game better for all of you.

Step 2: Work with your DM on a speedy, potentially even retconned solution. Maybe that was the stage 1 effect that got replaced, effective immediately, by *roll on curses table again*.

Godskook
2016-02-26, 11:23 AM
Clear it up with the DM, there shouldn't be too much problem.

To have an analogy, it's like introducing giant spider monsters, only to turn out that one of the players is arachnophobic. The giant spiders can then be refluffed into a different creature. A sufficiently large fraction of players are alright with fighting giant spiders in an RPG, which is why the GM felt it alright to include giant spiders in the first place without warning the players. But if a player in the group is not alright with it, it's changed.

I love this analogy. Its *EXACTLY* what this is like.


By the way, how much change would you like? Change the addiction into a different debuff, such as -1 to social checks?

As I understand OP, he doesn't care about mechanics, he cares about roleplay. Simply refluffing the spiders into something less spider-like would be his aim, afaik.


Are you overreacting? No. It bothers you, that is an uncontrolled reaction. Overreaction is only applicable to our controlled reactions to external and internal(Ex: uncontrolled reactions) stimuli.

The definition of "overreacting" does not rely on the concept of "uncontrolled". There is a distinction that a 'controlled' overreaction would likely be self-restrained enough to avoid behaving inappropriately.

Airk
2016-02-26, 11:30 AM
Are you overreacting? No. It bothers you, that is an uncontrolled reaction. Overreaction is only applicable to our controlled reactions to external and internal(Ex: uncontrolled reactions) stimuli.

Step 1: That this bothers you is something the DM was previously unaware of and they would want to know in order to help make the game better for all of you.

Step 2: Work with your DM on a speedy, potentially even retconned solution. Maybe that was the stage 1 effect that got replaced, effective immediately, by *roll on curses table again*.

Pretty much this. If it bothers you, it bothers you. Examine it and make sure that it's not going to have a bad impact on the rest of the game, and that you're not objecting for some sort of weird, vindictive reason or something (This won't, and you're not - I'm just trying to say that it's always a good idea to examine why something might be bothering you to make sure that it's really the thing and not that, say, you're pissed off at one of the other players for something and this is just how that is showing up) then talk to your GM and say "Hey; This is actually really bothering me. Can we change it up somehow?" Any reasonable person should be willing to work with you there - retconning it into, I dunno, a debilitating poison would be super easy. Now you're not addicted to anything, you're just going to be sick for a while. Problem solved. Or however you guys pick to sort it out.

This is totally the sort of thing that should be easily resolved by a conversation between mature adults.

Segev
2016-02-26, 11:42 AM
Socially pro-active GMs would have players write/email to them privately to specify anything that they don't want to appear in a game because it would be personally triggering. This is probably a bit of a high standard to expect though.

Eh. While this can be useful if you've reason to believe that you have players who might be sensitive to what you're going to introduce, it is not necessary under most circumstances. Moreover, it doesn't look like it would have helped, here, because the OP's reaction caught himself by surprise. He wasn't expecting this to impact him this way.

In a sense, he's learned a bit about himself he didn't know before, though that's not the take-away here.

The take-away is, the mature and healthy thing to do is what others have suggested: talk to the GM about it openly, and discuss solutions. I think the best solution would be finding that "enough magic." Let this effect bother the PC as much as it does the player; have her seek out the "cure" (magical or otherwise) and make that a relatively quickly-doable thing.

dascarletm
2016-02-26, 11:43 AM
There is a difference between being an addict and being addicted to something. Your monk sounds like the kind of person that wouldn't act upon this addiction and would just go through the pain of withdrawals until it is cleared up. In that case it isn't much different than a long lasting poison.

That being said if that concept still makes you feel weird then do as the others have said and work it out with the DM. Something being off-putting isn't necessarily bad for an RPG, but look to your limits.

Personally I wouldn't mind if anything happened to my character, but are you overreacting? No. Maybe if you cursed out the DM without informing him/her of this feeling, but you seem very rational about the issue.

Segev
2016-02-26, 12:02 PM
There is a difference between being an addict and being addicted to something. Your monk sounds like the kind of person that wouldn't act upon this addiction and would just go through the pain of withdrawals until it is cleared up. In that case it isn't much different than a long lasting poison.

That being said if that concept still makes you feel weird then do as the others have said and work it out with the DM. Something being off-putting isn't necessarily bad for an RPG, but look to your limits.

Personally I wouldn't mind if anything happened to my character, but are you overreacting? No. Maybe if you cursed out the DM without informing him/her of this feeling, but you seem very rational about the issue.

I think the main concern - and I could be totally wrong about how it's handled mechanically - is that "addiction" is modeled at least in part through will saves to avoid having your character give in to the compulsion to indulge. Which is why being "an addict" and having "an addiction," in game mechanical terms, may not be all that different.

If I'm wrong, then yeah, just suffer through the withdrawal penalties and it will be over.

OldTrees1
2016-02-26, 12:04 PM
The definition of "overreacting" does not rely on the concept of "uncontrolled". There is a distinction that a 'controlled' overreaction would likely be self-restrained enough to avoid behaving inappropriately.

I think you flipped which word was being modified by which word.

A reaction of the will (a controlled reaction) can have various degrees as a result of there being a will deciding the degree of the reaction. A reflex of the body (an uncontrolled reaction) has only 1 level. Overreacting applies the judgment of "over" to the reaction. You can only be over/under a correct value if the reaction had at least 2 degrees. Since a reflex of the body has no degrees, overreaction does not apply to such reflexes. On the other hand, the reactions of the will do have degrees and thus overreaction is a potential result.

Summary: Over/Under rely on multiple possible states which is not true for uncontrolled reactions.

Analogy:
When an apple falls barely missing you, you don't say the tree had bad aim in contrast to when your friend lobs an apple at you but misses.

ComaVision
2016-02-26, 12:27 PM
I think you're overreacting but I don't know if you have some experience with addiction in your life that makes you feel strongly about it. As usual though, best answer is communication with your DM.

My table is pretty coarse so I don't think anyone easily offended would or should stick around.

dascarletm
2016-02-26, 03:06 PM
I think the main concern - and I could be totally wrong about how it's handled mechanically - is that "addiction" is modeled at least in part through will saves to avoid having your character give in to the compulsion to indulge. Which is why being "an addict" and having "an addiction," in game mechanical terms, may not be all that different.

If I'm wrong, then yeah, just suffer through the withdrawal penalties and it will be over.

Hrm. Well I suppose I can see where that would be off-putting. If there is something that is close to what your character has now that wouldn't bother you (like removing the will save part) see if your DM won't mind.:smallcool:

Forum Explorer
2016-02-26, 09:12 PM
I'm sort of having an issue with a session I've had recently.

I've been in a fairly not serious game recently, lots of weird nonsense and such. More than a few things have happened to our characters, weird curses, people being transformed into other things, the works. I was kind of rolling with most of it. My character (a lawful-good monk) was basically a straight man through it all.

But then today something happened that I really wasn't too happy with. During an incident with a character, my monk was caught up in what amounted to a cloud of inhaled drugs, and from it she's now addicted to the substance.

And for some reason despite all of what we've dealt with already, this really bothers me.

Even ignoring the ridiculousness of becoming addicted to something from a single hit, even with the fact that I could probably get it removed with enough magic, there's something that just really bothers me about this that I can't really explain.

I'm absolutely fine with the idea of my character possibly dying, or even something as undignified as a bizarre curse or whatever, but for some reason this incident just really bothers me.

Maybe I'm just too attached to this character, but I feel that something as "real" as addiction happening to her just makes me feel a little too uncomfortable.

The GM and the others seem content to treat it like a temporary poison that'll clear out as soon as my character makes enough fortitude saves, but it still bothers me despite all of that.

What do you guys think. Am I overreacting? I've often heard about people drawing the line between sex and their character, but are there any other lines that people feel shouldn't be crossed without permission in an RPG?

What happened to your character would not have bothered me if it had happened to my character.

However you being bothered by it is a perfectly fine thing to happen. Simply tell your DM that you are not comfortable exploring addiction through your character, and see if you can get it changed to lingering disease or something.

Like others said, everyone has their own personal phobias and boundaries. There are places and times where I feel someone should be prepared to push those phobias and boundaries, but I don't think a fun game of D&D must be one of them.

Durzan
2016-02-26, 10:21 PM
First, off i agree that you should talk with your GM.

However, I DO think you overreacted just a little bit... You can learn to control your own reactions. There have been quite a few times where stuff I outright hated on in an overreaction grew on me (Vanacian Magic), that I later grew a bit more tolerant of. If I can do it, so can you.

The point is, just because something like that bothers you, doesn't mean you have to let the fact that it caught you off guard bother you. Makes sense.

Try to shrug it off, but if it continues to bother you, then talk with your GM.

goto124
2016-02-27, 03:03 AM
When an apple falls barely missing you, you don't say the tree had bad aim in contrast to when your friend lobs an apple at you but misses.

What, you don't? :smalltongue:

Misery Esquire
2016-02-27, 03:45 AM
Quotes aren't for emphasis.

That aside, its unfortunate that the DM inflicted something on your character that made you uncomfortable out of character - but it is a game in which your characters can slowly die of disease, explode from cancer, and have many things that are horrific in real life happen to them. You can only really address them when they come up - and as long as everyone is reasonable it should be easy to have a discussion that precludes it from happening again.

Or possibly to discover that the group isn't wholly compatible in terms of what they are expecting as reasonable in the game. Either way.

OldTrees1
2016-02-27, 07:51 AM
What, you don't? :smalltongue:

Nope. We trees never miss, our apples always land precisely where we wanted them to. :smalltongue:

goto124
2016-02-27, 09:44 AM
Thank you for helping us discover gravity!

Back on topic, what sort of issues have people found uncomfortable when they crop up in a game?

OldTrees1
2016-02-27, 09:57 AM
Thank you for helping us discover gravity!

Back on topic, what sort of issues have people found uncomfortable when they crop up in a game?

I am pretty laid back, I would be uncomfortable if sex came up, vivid descriptions of some (but only some) kinds of torture, or if a player said something that made me worry about/for them. Other than that I tend to be ok with the situation.

Strangely I have an abnormally strong reaction to someone calling a Player evil (yes, I understand the normal reaction is plenty strong already) and variants on that theme. Happened once.

Segev
2016-02-27, 10:00 AM
Nope. We trees never miss, our apples always land precisely where we wanted them to. :smalltongue:

But, can OldTrees learn new tricks?

OldTrees1
2016-02-27, 10:03 AM
But, can OldTrees learn new tricks?

Sure. It is called grafting. I can drop pears too!

LokiRagnarok
2016-02-27, 05:34 PM
But can you drop bears?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear

I think I would be uncomfortable with sex or if my character was forced to do something embarrassing (like strip naked in midst of the court). Traumatic? Like being forced to kill your favorite NPC due to a mind-control effect? Traumatic I could probably work with. Embarrassing, no.

OldTrees1
2016-02-27, 06:47 PM
But can you drop bears?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear

I think I would be uncomfortable with sex or if my character was forced to do something embarrassing (like strip naked in midst of the court). Traumatic? Like being forced to kill your favorite NPC due to a mind-control effect? Traumatic I could probably work with. Embarrassing, no.

Embarrassment is doubly contagious. You can feel it if you see someone feel embarrassed or feel it if you see someone in a circumstance where you would be embarrassed.

Personally embarrassment in sitcoms can be torturous to watch, but not in RPGs. Perhaps it is the lack of visual cues decreasing the empathic/sympathic bond?


I can drop limbs, dropping drop bears can't be much harder (well it might be harder on the drop bears :smallbiggrin:).

goto124
2016-02-27, 09:17 PM
I think I would be uncomfortable with sex or if my character was forced to do something embarrassing (like strip naked in midst of the court).

I think "strip naked in front of the court" would fall under "sexual", which is why it makes me uncomfortable.

"Chicken dance in front of the court" is alright. "Strip naked" is not.

Segev
2016-02-29, 03:19 PM
I think "strip naked in front of the court" would fall under "sexual", which is why it makes me uncomfortable.

"Chicken dance in front of the court" is alright. "Strip naked" is not.

Don't get pulled up before the Temple Court of the Church of the Silence, then.

goto124
2016-02-29, 08:53 PM
I'm not sure what that temple court is, but I really hope that the GM doesn't use it in the game without warning all of us beforehand of the... shenanigans that takes place there.

Segev
2016-03-01, 01:03 AM
I'm not sure what that temple court is, but I really hope that the GM doesn't use it in the game without warning all of us beforehand of the... shenanigans that takes place there.

It's a Doctor Who reference. I don't know if they really have court at their temples, but the Church of the Silence expects people to be nude on their holy ground.

goto124
2016-03-01, 01:15 AM
I wasn't thinking of "non-sexual nudity" (assuming the players and GM aren't too immature), more "mind-controlled into stripping self naked".

I don't like mind control.

Segev
2016-03-01, 08:54 AM
I don't like mind control.

Typically, the only people who do are the ones who plan to inflict it on others. And then, they tend to have a double standard (disapproving of its use on themselves).

OldTrees1
2016-03-01, 09:33 AM
Typically, the only people who do are the ones who plan to inflict it on others. And then, they tend to have a double standard (disapproving of its use on themselves).

Even outside the typical, those that do like mind control on themselves tend to want veto power/hard limits.
Ex: A frenzied berserker asking prior to the frenzy to be brought out of the frenzy even if it requires minor mind control (hard limit)
Ex: Voluntarily accepting a mentally binding oath with a common sense override clause (veto power & hard limit)

Segev
2016-03-01, 09:48 AM
Even outside the typical, those that do like mind control on themselves tend to want veto power/hard limits.
Ex: A frenzied berserker asking prior to the frenzy to be brought out of the frenzy even if it requires minor mind control (hard limit)
Ex: Voluntarily accepting a mentally binding oath with a common sense override clause (veto power & hard limit)

Good points. I agree on both the fact that these are relatively atypical and that they are valid reasons for good-aligned and well-intentioned people on both sides to be okay with mind control.

In Rifts, there's a spell called ensorcel which is generally used as a villainous control power: the target gets no save against any further mind-altering effect the ensorcel-caster wants to use on him, and even without that, he has to make a Horror Factor check (similar to a D&D 3e Will Save, in this context) or lose any action he attempts to take against the caster.

But part of its control is in its exclusivity: it renders the target completely immune to any mind-control effects from any source other than the caster, and grants a bonus to saves against certain other forms of magic which might turn the target against the ensorcel-caster.

A party who trust each other might well want to have the party caster use this on them before going into, say, a vampire lair, where mind control is a major concern.

OldTrees1
2016-03-01, 10:23 AM
Good points. I agree on both the fact that these are relatively atypical and that they are valid reasons for good-aligned and well-intentioned people on both sides to be okay with mind control.

In Rifts, there's a spell called ensorcel which is generally used as a villainous control power: the target gets no save against any further mind-altering effect the ensorcel-caster wants to use on him, and even without that, he has to make a Horror Factor check (similar to a D&D 3e Will Save, in this context) or lose any action he attempts to take against the caster.

But part of its control is in its exclusivity: it renders the target completely immune to any mind-control effects from any source other than the caster, and grants a bonus to saves against certain other forms of magic which might turn the target against the ensorcel-caster.

A party who trust each other might well want to have the party caster use this on them before going into, say, a vampire lair, where mind control is a major concern.

Yes. Trust and consent frequently define when people would be okay with mind control. This of course highlights why the initial reaction of disliking mind control is such a reasonable and widespread reaction. Even those that can be okay with mind control only do so conditionally.

Airk
2016-03-01, 11:23 AM
Quotes aren't for emphasis.

Oh, yes, thank you for calling this out. I was going to, but got distracted.

If you want to emphasize something, use underline or bold. If you can't use those, use _underline_.

Putting something in quotes if it's not an actual quote carries connotations of the reality being kindof like, but not really the same as, the thing in quotes.

As in:

Contains real "apple" juice (not actually from apples).
or
Contains "real" apple juice (not actually real)