PDA

View Full Version : DM influence on player decisions



Lawleepawpz
2016-03-15, 12:40 PM
On a whole, we all know players can be really unpredictable, and there are several opinions on how much input a DM has on what the players do (usually none, in my experience)

However, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. For instance; a player has an ancient curse upon his family (be it the system telling the DM to make it, or the player wanting to be unaware of it and asks the DM to make it up and not tell him) that drives any of them in a position of power to madness. In this case, a DM needs to manipulate his player to act in ways that may or may not be in the perceived "development path" or in a way the player is not 100% happy with.

So the idea I put forth is that a DM occasionally must manipulate their players, be it to drive them toward adventure (even if not in one particular direction)or to a goal the DM has in a story they want to tell (Separate from railroading, where a player has an idea to tell a story of his character's rise to power in a guild, the DM wants to tell a story of internal character development, or influence his choices)

Please keep in mind I fully acknowledge that this will not apply to all games; In my opinion, it will primarily apply to sandbox games, or games where the players want their adventures to tell their story as they unfold rather than "this is the story I want to tell; I want to slay the Gorgon Medusa and free my mother from this impending marriage".

So, thoughts on manipulation of the players by the DM, or even the reverse?

Toilet Cobra
2016-03-15, 12:43 PM
Anything is allowed with player consent. The kind of thing you're talking about is perfectly fine (and probably unnecessary) if the player is on board from the beginning. If not, don't ask them to take that part in the story.

The OTHER type of DM influence on Player decision making ("No you don't pickpocket the archmage") doesn't really bear thinking of.

Red Fel
2016-03-15, 12:54 PM
So, thoughts on manipulation of the players by the DM, or even the reverse?

Generally not a fan, with very few exceptions. Let me first address your proposed scenarios, and then some of my exceptions.

1. To drive the PCs towards adventure. If the PCs aren't seeking out adventure - that is, if they sit in the tavern saying, "I roll to get drunk," all day, the players don't want to play the game. Taking control of the PCs to push them towards adventure doesn't solve this problem. What solves the problem is creating engaging stories that the players want their characters to pursue.

2. The DM has a story he wants to tell. You say this is separate from railroading, but it isn't. The world belongs to the DM, but the PCs are the stars of their own stories. If the DM has decided that the story can only be told if the PCs do X, the DM is railroading. That's not generally okay; if the PCs are pawns in the DM's story, then there's no real reason for the players to be involved at all.

3. A PC is subject to a curse or compulsion. This is a corner case, and I'll address it in my exceptions.

Basically, without player consent, I don't think it's okay for the DM to "manipulate" the players or PCs into doing something. He can encourage them by offering engaging stories; he can appeal to the players by pointing out that he has prepared a great adventure or that he was expecting something else; but these are direct methods, not indirect, forceful, or manipulative.

Now, with player consent, things become muddy. Let's look at the curse scenario again. Where the PC is subject to a curse or compulsion, I think the best method is for the DM and player to work out a signal of some kind. Basically, the DM writes the PC a note, saying something like "You feel suddenly very territorial about the relic," or "You suddenly realize that the Mayor is one of Them," or something like that. A hint, a nudge, on which the player can act as he chooses. Where there is consent, this kind of thing makes for fantastic gameplay, because it allows the player to control his PC, but still subjects him to a degree of unpredictable outside influence.

That said, there's a line, again, between a DM who gives gentle nudges like these, and one who outright "manipulate[s] his player to act in ways that may or may not be in the perceived 'development path' or in a way the player is not 100% happy with." The former allows the player to retain full agency most of the time, with the occasional eddy of unpredictable compulsion. The latter is basically an understanding that the DM has a plan for the PC, and the player really has no say in it.

Lawleepawpz
2016-03-15, 01:14 PM
Generally not a fan, with very few exceptions. Let me first address your proposed scenarios, and then some of my exceptions.

1. To drive the PCs towards adventure. If the PCs aren't seeking out adventure - that is, if they sit in the tavern saying, "I roll to get drunk," all day, the players don't want to play the game. Taking control of the PCs to push them towards adventure doesn't solve this problem. What solves the problem is creating engaging stories that the players want their characters to pursue.

2. The DM has a story he wants to tell. You say this is separate from railroading, but it isn't. The world belongs to the DM, but the PCs are the stars of their own stories. If the DM has decided that the story can only be told if the PCs do X, the DM is railroading. That's not generally okay; if the PCs are pawns in the DM's story, then there's no real reason for the players to be involved at all.
I feel I failed to properly convey my point. I'll use my own experience with my group here, instead of a hypothetical scenario.

My group used to tell me on occasion "We have no idea what to do." A part was they were new, a part was they were in a sandbox game (As I've never really taken to outright giving them adventures and stuff without preceding setup) In those cases, I outright told them "Here are some things to do"

And on the second point, I once again feel I misspoke. I myself try to set up as many possible adventures as I can, but as is human, I favor one over the others. I feel it undercuts it if the DM outright says "Hey would you guys go do this? It's pretty cool."

The DM is a player too. Just because he's got the entire world to play in doesn't mean he can't make adventures he thinks everybody (including himself) would enjoy more than random stuff, and personally, I feel that a good story needs to be believable, even in fantasy.

I love your idea of passing them cards; I do it myself when they are speaking to NPC's as a group. In a one-on-one conversation (for instance, the other characters are outside or elsewhere) I'll make him seem seedier, less trustworthy, make the player think he's out to get them.

I try to avoid personal examples in these types of things, I feel they detract from any discussion that may occur as I by no means regard myself as an expert on anything, let alone social interactions. Combine that with the fact I'm not particularly eloquent, and it can cause misunderstandings fairly easily.

Final Hyena
2016-03-15, 01:15 PM
Generally not a fan

Who are you and what have you done with Red Fel!?

:P

Back on topic, I like my players doing whatever they want within their power, it makes things fun as I never truly know what will happen. However you get those situations of 'a curse makes you do this' and that's understandable if it's their for a purpose and not just railroading. Which reminds me of the wonderful story of a player who had a magic intelligent hat that could charm the player (essentially an excuse for the gm to control him) The player was going to go out and solve the quest and the DM made the hat charm him to go home, later maths showed that he could charm every turn meaning that the player would have to of saved at least hundreds of times to do what he wanted. Why did the DM do this? Because if the PC solved the quest his DMPCs couldn't solve the quest. That entire campaign was the PCs watching the DM solve his own quests......

Segev
2016-03-15, 02:40 PM
If the PLAYERS ask for guidance, then showing them to the rails and offering to take their bags as they climb aboard is just fine. Just be ready to stop the train the moment they want to hop off and explore something. There's nothing INHERENTLY wrong with rails as a tool to help the players get to the point they can play the game. What's wrong with them is when they become a constraint rather than an enabler.

SethoMarkus
2016-03-15, 03:35 PM
I generally think of three different types of games, each of which can be done well or done poorly. (For the purpose of the following examples, I am assuming both the GM and Players must contribute towards the game for it to be sucessful.)

The first is the open sandbox. This is much like an unexplored jungle. The GM prepares an environment for the gameplay and lets the Players completely dictate the direction the game takes. Done well, Players have complete agency. Done poorly, there is no story or progression.

The second is the railroad or story. This is like boarding a train, acting in a play, or playing a video game. The GM has a story that they want to tell through the Players. Done well, the GM leads the Players on an adventure through engaging them and causing them to want to play along with the plot. Done poorly, and the GM is merely writing a fanfiction with an audience.

The third, and his is what I think the OP is trying to get at, is the middle ground between the two. This is like an unexplored jungle that has a well work path down the middle. The Players have agency to diverge from the path if they want, and they can blaze a trail through uncharted territory or forge their own path, but the GM has pointed them in a direction and laid clues for them to follow. Done well, everyone has had input into a fulfilling story. Done poorly, and no one is quite satisfied with the results.

Realistically, there isn't much of a diference between any of the games when done well, but I don't think there is anything wrong with trying any method, as long as everyone agrees to do it the same way.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-15, 03:49 PM
Coming from this as an MC in Apocalypse World and its hacks over other options, this is an interesting question and bumps into some of my most important thoughts on this matter.

Namely:
The PCs are the ONLY thing the players have control over in the campaign once play begins. To tread upon their control should be done only with permission.

However, once you have permission to do a thing, feel free to do it.

On the other hand, I think it is fine to make moves and counter-moves against your players that put them into a spot. This doesn't necessarily force them to do anything, but creates tension. And as always, whenever you make your moves ask them "What do you do?"

I don't consider that manipulation, especially if you tell them from the beginning that you and the world will be pushing back.

Manipulating the characters is, generally, fine and dandy. It makes for good twists later. (Turns out the kindly wizard was the real bad guy ALL ALONG!)
Manipulating the PLAYERS is a no-no, though. Doing things like lying to them (DM to Player) and guilt-tripping them are just really crappy behavior in general.

It should be noted that one of the MC Moves in Apocalypse World is "Explain the possible consequences and ask if they're sure." This isn't manipulation. Explaining the possibilities is different from pushing them towards only one or two things and ONLY THOSE.

So yeah. Manipulating characters? Cool.
Manipulating players? Not cool.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-15, 05:14 PM
It depends on what you mean by "manipulate."

I see it like this;

The players have absolute power over their character's choices and actions outside of magic that forces them to act or influences the mind.

The DM has control over literally everything else in the world. Barring the PC's employment of options that give them control over elements outside of their character.

The DM can do whatever he thinks is reasonable with NPC's and natural events in respose to PC actions or in absence of PC actions.

Players act and react to the events in the world around them as they see fit.

If a DM can accurately predict how the PC's will react and reacts to them reasonably then he -can- direct the story without getting too railroady.

From there it's just a matter of everyone making expectations and preferences known to each other.

In a sense, the players and DM manipulate each other through their in-game actions. The game only really needs to stop if somebody commits a breach of etiquette.

Pushing outside of someone's comfort zone, forcing a plot to go forward without being able to justify it or in spite of player objections/ disinterest, making in-character decisions based on OOC... anything but the group's shared expectations and desires really; these are things to avoid.

Beyond these general guidlines, anything goes, IMO.

Darth Ultron
2016-03-15, 05:29 PM
So, thoughts on manipulation of the players by the DM, or even the reverse?

I'm a big fan. I do this all the time in my games.

Though I'm not a big fan of the whole player asking part. I'll do it, if a player asks, but it's mostly a huge waste of time. Most players just are not good at thinking stuff up, and only think up of easy positive things.

And if you waste the time to ask a player if they would like to say role play under a curse that would very much effect their game play and they will give an answer like ''no way my character must be Superman at all times''.

But, when you force a player to do something without their knowledge or consent, they often have a ton of fun and love it.

Lawleepawpz
2016-03-15, 06:31 PM
From what I'm getting, it's off to a thesaurus for less negative synonyms of "manipulate" given the generally negative-connotation it holds in regards to people.

I myself feel that "manipulation" can only go so far as the DM trying to get a player to arrive at a specific outcome, without just saying so or restricting their agency.

It's basically been said up above, though.

goto124
2016-03-15, 11:11 PM
Let's say there's mind control going on. How can it be done skillfully without making it unfun for the player? How does one achieve the middle ground between "might as well hand the character over to the DM" and "might as well not have mind control at all"?

Darth Ultron
2016-03-15, 11:29 PM
Let's say there's mind control going on. How can it be done skillfully without making it unfun for the player? How does one achieve the middle ground between "might as well hand the character over to the DM" and "might as well not have mind control at all"?

The way I do mind control is to simply mislead the player. The mind control makes them see and hear things. This works out to be a great middle ground. The player keeps total control of the character, but they are still under the control of an outside force.

A good half of this can be done just be choice words and descriptions. Making things look more menacing or nicer or anything in between. And if your the type of DM that does the fourth wall breaking stuff you can even add in false thoughts and feelings. And the other half is just knowing the player.

And for even more fun, you can add in real effects from the mind control....crossing the line between reality and fantasy.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-16, 12:14 AM
Let's say there's mind control going on. How can it be done skillfully without making it unfun for the player? How does one achieve the middle ground between "might as well hand the character over to the DM" and "might as well not have mind control at all"?

Talk to the players about this in systems where it happens. I'll sometimes incentivise it a little if it will create good drama. Karma in Shadowrun, a pog of XP in Apocalypse World, maybe 50-100xp (based on level) in D&D, etc.

As always, it's important to make sure you're not stepping on sensitive areas. Loss of agency is generally a scary thing in real life, and any players who have actually experienced such events may be very uncomfortable with the notion. Just talk it out before it comes up. If it means bending your plans a little, that's fine. Better than causing problems.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-16, 02:12 AM
Let's say there's mind control going on. How can it be done skillfully without making it unfun for the player? How does one achieve the middle ground between "might as well hand the character over to the DM" and "might as well not have mind control at all"?

It depends on the effect. I'm a D&D 3.5 kinda guy, so I'll give a couple examples.

Charm: this one's easy. You just remind the player that his character's charmed when it comes up. No problem. If he's a good player then he'll play along. If he's not, you've got a bigger problem, deal with that first.

Dominate: tickier. I prefer using dominate in a more subtle way for the most part. The dominated PC is instructed to go about his business as normal except that he's to regularly report in, somehow, so that the effect can be renewed and to act as he can to misdirect his allies, without getting caught, in their attempts to thwart the BBEG's plans. Naturally, also include an instruction to avoid blanket dispelling effects, magic circles and protection from <alignment>, and telling his allies he's dominated. You don't seize control entirely until the actual showdown with the BBEG, assuming the PC's haven't figured it out and broken the effect before then.

Information is much more powerful than some face-wrecker minion.

Ultimately, the important things here are to make sure this doesn't push anybody's comfort zone, at least not too far, and use it sparingly.

Segev
2016-03-16, 09:53 AM
For things short of dominate, mind control can be done by telling the player what his character senses or feels. "She is the most beautiful woman in the world, and her smile is more valuable than the happiness of your friends." "You can't possibly distrust his motives, because you know he's always got your best interest at heart." "Your duty to protect that creature is every bit as strong as any duty you've ever felt towards your allies." "Can you really trust that wizard? How do you know he hasn't been charming you this whole time?"

For dominate, if the controlling entity is actively puppetting the PC, then I just tell the PC what he's doing and let his player roll dice for it if he wants. For more general control, I tell the player what he's compelled to do, and let him go about doing it as long as he doesn't seem to be trying to subvert it in ways that the spell wouldn't permit. (If it would permit it, great; I let him try all those sorts of shenanigans he likes.)

goto124
2016-03-16, 10:13 AM
For things short of dominate, mind control can be done by telling the player what his character senses or feels. "She is the most beautiful woman in the world, and her smile is more valuable than the happiness of your friends." "You can't possibly distrust his motives, because you know he's always got your best interest at heart." "Your duty to protect that creature is every bit as strong as any duty you've ever felt towards your allies." "Can you really trust that wizard? How do you know he hasn't been charming you this whole time?"

Even in those examples, mind control can be frustrating because being told you feel a certain way sets off red flags and is rather obvious.* Trying to act against mind control would end up with a wall of "no you don't do that". (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/comics/darths0694.jpg) It's a result of the disconnect between the mind-controlled character and the not-mind-controlled player.

Let's not even talk about getting out of mind control (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0706.html).

Or at least, the way you show it to be done. Perhaps it would be better if it were more subtle? Illusions are a form of mind trick that doesn't reduce player agency.

Red Fel
2016-03-16, 10:23 AM
I myself feel that "manipulation" can only go so far as the DM trying to get a player to arrive at a specific outcome, without just saying so or restricting their agency.

That is restricting their agency, though. And not just saying to the player, "This is the outcome at which I want you to arrive," is in my mind particularly bad.

Let me explain. First, what is player agency? Agency is, in essence, a player's ability to know that his decisions with respect to his character will have some kind of meaningful impact. When you tell a player - or don't tell him - that no matter what happens, this specific outcome will result, that is restricting his agency. His actions become less meaningful, because he has no ability to influence the outcome. That's not to say you have to cave and let the player do whatever he wants, but he has to at least be able to try, and to have at least some possibility of success if he does.

Second, not telling the player is worse than telling the player, in my mind. If you're direct with your goals - "This is what I really want to happen in the game, you guys" - you're being transparent with the players, who know what you want out of the game and (assuming they're decent people-slash-friends) will accommodate you. When everyone understands everyone else's expectations, they can accommodate one another - or, at least, can anticipate whether they'll enjoy the game.

But if you're secretive about it, if you don't tell the players that your plan is for them to arrive at a specific outcome, they may feel betrayed when it happens irrespective of their actions. If they don't know that they're on a train, they may find it frustrating when they pull into the station. That's really the sort of thing you want to clarify upfront.

Segev
2016-03-16, 10:34 AM
Even in those examples, mind control can be frustrating because being told you feel a certain way sets off red flags and is rather obvious.* Trying to act against mind control would end up with a wall of "no you don't do that". (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/comics/darths0694.jpg) It's a result of the disconnect between the mind-controlled character and the not-mind-controlled player.

Let's not even talk about getting out of mind control (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0706.html).

Or at least, the way you show it to be done. Perhaps it would be better if it were more subtle? Illusions are a form of mind trick that doesn't reduce player agency.

Oh, sure. The suggestions I made are for when the PLAYER is okay with playing out his character being mind-whammied. It's like talking to an actor (I imagine) and giving them their motivation. "Yeah, normally, Billy-Joe is all about fighting everything he sees, but something about the way that hot orc chick's chainmail hangs on her form makes him want to impress her and please her, not test himself against her. Challenging her won't be as impressive as beating up something she deems a worthy foe," is not meant to simulate to Billy-Joe's player how Billy-Joe feels, but to let the player take the altered motivation into account and act on it.

There's really no way to adequately simulate PCs being under mental influence (or social influence) if you can't trick, convince, or manipulate the player into thinking the same way. That doesn't mean trying is always bad, but that really gets into system-level design if you want to try to work it out. (I'm a huge fan of corruption mechanics where the corruption isn't just some "taint points" that eventually let the GM take control of the PC, but instead reward the PC for behaving in a corrupted manner, and make it harder for him to behave in an uncorrupted manner. Usually by making his more powerful abilities granted by the taint be fueled by some sort of corrupt behavior. Like a vampire who is stronger, faster, and tougher if he's fed upon a human being to the point of killing it, versus one who subsists on animal blood or won't kill.)

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-16, 10:35 AM
Even in those examples, mind control can be frustrating because being told you feel a certain way sets off red flags and is rather obvious.* Trying to act against mind control would end up with a wall of "no you don't do that". (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/comics/darths0694.jpg) It's a result of the disconnect between the mind-controlled character and the not-mind-controlled player.

Let's not even talk about getting out of mind control (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0706.html).

Or at least, the way you show it to be done. Perhaps it would be better if it were more subtle? Illusions are a form of mind trick that doesn't reduce player agency.

Meh. Having your character stabbed in the face repeatedly can be frustrating. Sometimes frustration is unavoidable. The trick is to make sure it doesn't stay in play for too long. Being captured in battle has similar problems. Sometimes bad stuff happens to characters.

Of course the player knows he's under a mind controlling effect. Why would you try to conceal that from him? If you're worried about metagaming from the other players then you can pass the affected player a note.

You can see things like this as an affront to your agency or you can see it as a roleplaying challenge. You can always change your mind about which of these it is if it lingers too long.

goto124
2016-03-16, 10:38 AM
You can see things like this as an affront to your agency or you can see it as a roleplaying challenge.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--xI9hEEpY--/j9jeymxflima9j6zzqag.jpg

Sometimes I feel there's a thin line between "allowed to roleplay" and "forced to roleplay".

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-16, 11:23 AM
<Why not both> Sometimes I feel there's a thin line between "allowed to roleplay" and "forced to roleplay".

Offense is taken not given. If you're going to take offense when the DM presents you with adversity, you're not going to have much of a game. If being under someone else's control is a serious hot-button issue for you then that needs to be discussed before the game begins. If you trust your DM to handle the game with aplomb then take it in stride. If you don't then you have bigger issues at your table.

Keltest
2016-03-16, 11:58 AM
Offense is taken not given. If you're going to take offense when the DM presents you with adversity, you're not going to have much of a game. If being under someone else's control is a serious hot-button issue for you then that needs to be discussed before the game begins. If you trust your DM to handle the game with aplomb then take it in stride. If you don't then you have bigger issues at your table.

Agreed. At the end of the day, the difference between "You need to do this quest because bad things will happen if you don't" and "you need to do this quest because you are charmed" is negligible. DM manipulation happens. it is literally their job. They can be more or less heavy handed about it, but its going to happen, period, because the game world exists and affects the players. It doesn't become a problem until the player is literally unable to play the game because of it.

Lawleepawpz
2016-03-16, 03:28 PM
That is restricting their agency, though. And not just saying to the player, "This is the outcome at which I want you to arrive," is in my mind particularly bad.

Let me explain. First, what is player agency? Agency is, in essence, a player's ability to know that his decisions with respect to his character will have some kind of meaningful impact. When you tell a player - or don't tell him - that no matter what happens, this specific outcome will result, that is restricting his agency. His actions become less meaningful, because he has no ability to influence the outcome. That's not to say you have to cave and let the player do whatever he wants, but he has to at least be able to try, and to have at least some possibility of success if he does.

Second, not telling the player is worse than telling the player, in my mind. If you're direct with your goals - "This is what I really want to happen in the game, you guys" - you're being transparent with the players, who know what you want out of the game and (assuming they're decent people-slash-friends) will accommodate you. When everyone understands everyone else's expectations, they can accommodate one another - or, at least, can anticipate whether they'll enjoy the game.

But if you're secretive about it, if you don't tell the players that your plan is for them to arrive at a specific outcome, they may feel betrayed when it happens irrespective of their actions. If they don't know that they're on a train, they may find it frustrating when they pull into the station. That's really the sort of thing you want to clarify upfront.
I'm sensing a fundamental misunderstanding we have. By "not restricting their agency" I had meant that decisions and outcomes are not forced upon them. They can choose whatever they want, including completely ignoring the adventure. Attempt to coerce them to one outcome through NPC interaction or other actual, non-"I say so" means is manipulating the players to follow your plans of their own free will. It also tells a story you want to tell while allowing them to say "No" or do whatever they want at any time.

I also feel we have a different expectation from the way we run/play games, as I tend to feel actions of PC's shouldn't be meaningful in the world, unless they actually earn that right. Though I may be misunderstanding you. :/


Incidentally, another question for the collective: inducing player paranoia through the 4th wall. I handle this depending on the type of paranoia (scared paranoia or "everybody is an enemy" paranoia, etc)
Scared paranoia by saying "Your reflections hair is skewed around your horns, blocking your eyes" "Wait, what?!?" "What?" Etc.
"Everybody is an enemy" by "Roll me sense motive. Yeah, they are totally lying to you." "Roll insight. They are obviously trying to set up an ambush for you in that alley"

Segev
2016-03-16, 03:31 PM
For most players I've gamed with, "too good to be true" presentations tend to breed paranoia. Things too often come with hidden downsides, so the bigger the seeming boon, the more the players tend to assume there's a hidden downside. And that it's big.

So throw no-strings-attached potential boons their way. Then watch them treat it like a sub-critical hunk of uranium that they have to carry through a uranium dust-storm.

Red Fel
2016-03-16, 03:52 PM
I'm sensing a fundamental misunderstanding we have. By "not restricting their agency" I had meant that decisions and outcomes are not forced upon them. They can choose whatever they want, including completely ignoring the adventure. Attempt to coerce them to one outcome through NPC interaction or other actual, non-"I say so" means is manipulating the players to follow your plans of their own free will. It also tells a story you want to tell while allowing them to say "No" or do whatever they want at any time.

I also feel we have a different expectation from the way we run/play games, as I tend to feel actions of PC's shouldn't be meaningful in the world, unless they actually earn that right. Though I may be misunderstanding you. :/

Okay. Misunderstanding is always possible. By your terms, then, yeah, you're not restricting agency.

And I don't think that the actions of PCs should automatically be meaningful in the whole world. Rather, I feel that the PCs should have the opportunity for their actions to impact their situation.

The PCs can't simply announce, for instance, "We're going to kill the king and take over the continent." You can try, of course, and I won't just no-sell your attempts out of spite.

Rather, if the PCs are looking for a resolution to the immediate circumstance - slaying the Dragon, or escaping from the cave, or locating the MacGuffin - I want them to feel that they have a chance to succeed, and that their choice of how to pursue this goal will make a difference in how it resolves.


Incidentally, another question for the collective: inducing player paranoia through the 4th wall. I handle this depending on the type of paranoia (scared paranoia or "everybody is an enemy" paranoia, etc)
Scared paranoia by saying "Your reflections hair is skewed around your horns, blocking your eyes" "Wait, what?!?" "What?" Etc.
"Everybody is an enemy" by "Roll me sense motive. Yeah, they are totally lying to you." "Roll insight. They are obviously trying to set up an ambush for you in that alley"

My favorite source of paranoia is the players themselves. I pursue it through completely innocuous means - mentioning the wind rattling through the shutters, or shadows flickering in the candlelight, or the sight of giggling children dashing into a nearby alley. Individual coincidences which add up to atmospheric panic. Similarly, I ask for rolls. Roll Spot, roll Listen, that sort of thing. Doesn't matter what they roll, there's nothing necessarily there. But they don't know that. All they know is that they just rolled Spot and saw nothing. Freaks them right out, proper.

I'm a monster. :smallsmile:

kyoryu
2016-03-16, 05:10 PM
Agreed. At the end of the day, the difference between "You need to do this quest because bad things will happen if you don't" and "you need to do this quest because you are charmed" is negligible.

Eh, I think there's actually three different possibilities:

1) You need to do this because I'm overtly controlling your character in some way "You've been compelled to rescue the Princess"
2) You need to do this because otherwise some third party is going to do bad things to you "If you don't rescue the Princess, the King will have you executed"
3) You need to do this because the results are pretty bad and you don't want them "If you don't rescue the Princess, she'll be turned into a giant demon and will nom nom the town"

I vastly prefer the third.

But, really, I think that issues of this nature are best solved out-of-character. If I'm going to run Monster of the Week, the players are told up front "this is a game about investigating and defeating monsters. Why you're motivated to do so is up to you, but you *are* motivated to do so, because the game is about monster hunters." If they don't want to play that game, they can tell me then. If they agree to play the game, but then decide not to hunt monsters, they're being jerks.

Darth Ultron
2016-03-16, 08:55 PM
not telling the player is worse than telling the player, in my mind. If you're direct with your goals - "This is what I really want to happen in the game, you guys" - you're being transparent with the players, who know what you want out of the game and (assuming they're decent people-slash-friends) will accommodate you. When everyone understands everyone else's expectations, they can accommodate one another - or, at least, can anticipate whether they'll enjoy the game.

This type of metagaming just feels so wrong. Where a DM will just say ''I want to run a huge army battle'' and then the players are like ''oh, um, our character's go raise an army, um for no reason, and attack the kingdom''. It's just no fun when everything is so false.

Worse is the DM/player disconnect. They are not playing the same game in the same way, so how can you expect them all to agree? You can't.




But if you're secretive about it, if you don't tell the players that your plan is for them to arrive at a specific outcome, they may feel betrayed when it happens irrespective of their actions. If they don't know that they're on a train, they may find it frustrating when they pull into the station. That's really the sort of thing you want to clarify upfront.

Well, a good DM would never have the train pull into the station....

goto124
2016-03-16, 09:41 PM
1) You need to do this because I'm overtly controlling your character in some way "You've been compelled to rescue the Princess"
2) You need to do this because otherwise some third party is going to do bad things to you "If you don't rescue the Princess, the King will have you executed"
3) You need to do this because the results are pretty bad and you don't want them "If you don't rescue the Princess, she'll be turned into a giant demon and will nom nom the town"

Sorry, "nom nom" cracked me up :smallbiggrin:

But yes, the third kind is typically more realistic because the others tend to make one wonder "why does the world hate me specifically?"

In a sense, the player should already be 'compelled' to rescue the Princess, whether through IC reasoning or OOC game agreement, where the latter can help protect from players going outside genre even if IC reasoning somehow fails.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-16, 10:58 PM
This type of metagaming just feels so wrong. Where a DM will just say ''I want to run a huge army battle'' and then the players are like ''oh, um, our character's go raise an army, um for no reason, and attack the kingdom''. It's just no fun when everything is so false.

This is one of those times where I'll regret posting and potentially getting rolled up in things. But here we go anyways.

This argument only works if everyone involved has never played a TRPG before, and/or has the intelligence of an unusually stupid rock.

When you establish the core premise of a campaign, it means that characters will be made based on that core premise. (Or should be)

Let's say I'm running Stars Without Number and I want to go the route of Interstellar Espionage. I talk to my players about this and one of two things happen:
1. An insufficient number of my player group is interested. In response, I don't run this campaign and save it for later.
2. A sufficient number of my player group is interested. We play this campaign!

Now, situation 2 is the situation your argument tries to present as flawed. If everyone has signed on to a campaign focused around Interstellar Espionage, we will probably not see characters from primitive worlds who primarily enjoy swinging axes and screaming a lot, but who ended up on the ship after a drunken party. (Unless I'm going with the Archer angle.) We will also probably see player goals and backstories centered around Espionage and Spy Stuff, not "I have vowed to personally murder every member of the Silver Thumb Triad." That's a good goal, but not a good goal for this campaign. Which we can talk about.

Is this metagaming? Sure, in a rather indirect way. It's more like creative cohesion, but sure. We can call it metagaming if it tickles your fancy.

Is it random or unguided? No. The players and DM have a shared expectation for the campaign, and should be working along those lines.

Basically, if someone shows up to that game with a D&D Wizard, they're probably very confused or have failed to understand what was happening.




Worse is the DM/player disconnect. They are not playing the same game in the same way, so how can you expect them all to agree? You can't.

Different people have different opinions, so general consensus is impossible in small groups!

Bruh.
Bruh.
Bruuuuuuhhh.
Wut r u doin

goto124
2016-03-16, 11:03 PM
This is one of those times where I'll regret posting and potentially getting rolled up in things. But here we go anyways.

This argument only works if everyone involved has never played a TRPG before, and/or has the intelligence of an unusually stupid rock.

When you establish the core premise of a campaign, it means that characters will be made based on that core premise. (Or should be)

Let's say I'm running Stars Without Number and I want to go the route of Interstellar Espionage. I talk to my players about this and one of two things happen:
1. An insufficient number of my player group is interested. In response, I don't run this campaign and save it for later.
2. A sufficient number of my player group is interested. We play this campaign!

Now, situation 2 is the situation your argument tries to present as flawed. If everyone has signed on to a campaign focused around Interstellar Espionage, we will probably not see characters from primitive worlds who primarily enjoy swinging axes and screaming a lot, but who ended up on the ship after a drunken party. (Unless I'm going with the Archer angle.) We will also probably see player goals and backstories centered around Espionage and Spy Stuff, not "I have vowed to personally murder every member of the Silver Thumb Triad." That's a good goal, but not a good goal for this campaign. Which we can talk about.

Is this metagaming? Sure, in a rather indirect way. It's more like creative cohesion, but sure. We can call it metagaming if it tickles your fancy.

Is it random or unguided? No. The players and DM have a shared expectation for the campaign, and should be working along those lines.

Basically, if someone shows up to that game with a D&D Wizard, they're probably very confused or have failed to understand what was happening.



Different people have different opinions, so general consensus is impossible in small groups!

Bruh.
Bruh.
Bruuuuuuhhh.
Wut r u doin

Heck, different people have different opinions, yet general consensus is possible in large enough groups to form entire countries and societies. There may not be complete agreement, but there's enough agreement to go ahead and do something.

With small groups of... 5?... it's far from impossible.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-16, 11:15 PM
This type of metagaming just feels so wrong. Where a DM will just say ''I want to run a huge army battle'' and then the players are like ''oh, um, our character's go raise an army, um for no reason, and attack the kingdom''. It's just no fun when everything is so false.

Well, yeah. If you do such a piss-poor job as that in implementing it then it does feel forced and weird.

If, however you say, "I'm thinking of implementing some large scale military engagements. Y'all cool?" then they can just give you a simple yes/no. If they agree to it, then you start implementing elements of strife in the politics of the game world that gradually ramps up to a war. The players knew to expect this and that they're going to take part so they're -watching- for plot-hooks to get involved. You lay down a couple different plot-hooks to get them involved in one way or another and let them decide which side of the conflict they want to side with. You can also lay down some plot-hooks for them to get involved with the war indirectly. If they, instead of biting any of the plot-hooks, decide to proactively use the opportunity to raise an army and carve out their own little kingdom, all the better.

No matter which option they choose, you'll have your opportunity to run that battle and maybe even a couple more.

If, on the other hand, they agree and then ignore every opportunity to get involved in the war in any way, they're being asshats and you can call them out on it. Honest communication is key.


Worse is the DM/player disconnect. They are not playing the same game in the same way, so how can you expect them all to agree? You can't.

If you can't agree with the people you're playing with on what you want to play then why are you playing with them? If they can't agree because you refuse to express your desire to them so that they have any idea what you're trying to get them to agree with, then you're being a dink. Clear, honest communication isn't that hard. Compromise isn't that hard, uless you have an ego problem, and it -is- necessary, regardless.

Segev
2016-03-17, 12:15 AM
This type of metagaming just feels so wrong. Where a DM will just say ''I want to run a huge army battle'' and then the players are like ''oh, um, our character's go raise an army, um for no reason, and attack the kingdom''. It's just no fun when everything is so false.

Others have already reacted to this, but... well, I can't resist.

Nobody plays this way, and insinuating that it was in any way implied by Red Fel's post is ludicrous. If the DM says, "I am going to run a huge army battle," he doesn't need the players to go gather an army. He has one in the world already. And the DM having an established setting and having NPCs who will do things is not "railroading." Letting the players know that there's a "huge army battle" coming up is telling them where the DM expects things to go. If the players don't want to do that, they can tell the DM, "we're not thinking that sounds like fun. We would like to avoid it/do something else." At which point the DM can either try to convince them, or stop wasting his time preparing something they wouldn't enjoy and would actively strive to avoid. He could run it in the background and tell them about it through rumors and reports from NPCs later, too, if he wanted. It's something that happened because the PCs didn't get involved; presumably they had adventures elsewhere.

And, of course, if the DM wants to do "a huge army battle," he could premise the campaign on that. If the DM says the game's going to be about huge army battles, the players who show up not wanting to do that are the bad sports. They are not obligated to play in the game, but if they do, they should consent to the premise.

Having a premise, before anybody says otherwise, isn't "railroading," either.

Railroads are things which happen in game when the DM no-sells player choices in order to keep them from disrupting pre-defined plot items.

NichG
2016-03-17, 02:21 AM
I guess for me the thing is, I don't see much of a line between 'I provide an adventure hook I know will appeal to this one player because I know he likes this kind of thing' and 'I'm manipulating my players'. Any kind of choice I make as a DM that takes who my players are into account is some kind of manipulation on my part - I'm doing it because I'm trying to achieve a particular result (they have fun, they get into the game, they explore certain things in-game, whatever), and by taking into account who my players are and how they play, I can adjust the game to make the reaction I want a bit more likely.

Maybe the way I'd put this question to be clearer to me would be to ask about the different ends, and whether those ends are IC or OOC: manipulating the players to have fun does seem to be different than manipulating the players to have their characters decide to act a certain way in-game. There's also a question of how specific the ends should be: wanting the characters to have to consider the ethics of the setting's practices of magic and make a decision either way about it is different than wanting the characters to decide that the setting's practices of magic are evil.

I think the way I'd go with things like that is, the more you're actually trying to take away control rather than influence direction, the more clumsy it's going to be and the greater the chance that the players will consider it as an unwanted imposition.

Segev
2016-03-17, 10:55 AM
I think you're over-conflating "manipulation" with "persuasion," NichG. It's manipulation if you're trying to sway them to do something they probably wouldn't want to do otherwise. Especially if you're trying to be sneaky about it, though that's not inherently required.

You've already got your players at the table. They want certain things, and have bought in to certain concepts and expectations just by joining your game. Providing them hooks to involve their character in things they want to be doing (i.e. "playing the game") is not "manipulation" so much as it is "invitation."

Lawleepawpz
2016-03-17, 11:58 AM
So fun idea I'm just throwing out, as it's in the general ballpark of this topic:

NPC who gives the PC's quests. Gradually gets more and more drastic, using the PC's as his henchmen until he's basically a BBEG with PC Lieutenants. They will likely have no idea, since the NPC should be targeting a known evil-bad-guy. Freedom fighter gradually becoming evil fighting the warlord type. Then a Paladin walks over and declares that he must kill the PC's for their evil deeds.

I just think it'd be worth spending all that time and effort to gradually change the players alignments unknowingly (because let's face it, if they are breaking into places, killing people after interrogating them, torture, etc. They are Evil) and then drop a big reveal "You guys have been the villains all along!"

Obviously requires either a sandbox game or a gritty-realistic tone beforehand, since the "Let's be heroes!" obviously won't fit here.

Lorsa
2016-03-17, 12:28 PM
So fun idea I'm just throwing out, as it's in the general ballpark of this topic:

NPC who gives the PC's quests. Gradually gets more and more drastic, using the PC's as his henchmen until he's basically a BBEG with PC Lieutenants. They will likely have no idea, since the NPC should be targeting a known evil-bad-guy. Freedom fighter gradually becoming evil fighting the warlord type. Then a Paladin walks over and declares that he must kill the PC's for their evil deeds.

I just think it'd be worth spending all that time and effort to gradually change the players alignments unknowingly (because let's face it, if they are breaking into places, killing people after interrogating them, torture, etc. They are Evil) and then drop a big reveal "You guys have been the villains all along!"

Obviously requires either a sandbox game or a gritty-realistic tone beforehand, since the "Let's be heroes!" obviously won't fit here.

That is certainly possible, but you have to take into account the fact that the players might question their actions and realize they're being manipulated by the NPC all along.

Segev
2016-03-17, 12:31 PM
So fun idea I'm just throwing out, as it's in the general ballpark of this topic:

NPC who gives the PC's quests. Gradually gets more and more drastic, using the PC's as his henchmen until he's basically a BBEG with PC Lieutenants. They will likely have no idea, since the NPC should be targeting a known evil-bad-guy. Freedom fighter gradually becoming evil fighting the warlord type. Then a Paladin walks over and declares that he must kill the PC's for their evil deeds.

I just think it'd be worth spending all that time and effort to gradually change the players alignments unknowingly (because let's face it, if they are breaking into places, killing people after interrogating them, torture, etc. They are Evil) and then drop a big reveal "You guys have been the villains all along!"

Obviously requires either a sandbox game or a gritty-realistic tone beforehand, since the "Let's be heroes!" obviously won't fit here.


That is certainly possible, but you have to take into account the fact that the players might question their actions and realize they're being manipulated by the NPC all along.

As Lorsa indicates, you need to consider the possibility that the PCs, being Good people, actually do question what they're being asked to do. Possibly as early as the first time it would be something to slide their alignments southward. What do you do then? I recommend against trying to trick them into taking the evil action, or worse, railroading them into it. That will rob your paladin's reveal of anything other than irritation on the part of the players as they throw their books at you.

Lawleepawpz
2016-03-17, 12:46 PM
As Lorsa indicates, you need to consider the possibility that the PCs, being Good people, actually do question what they're being asked to do. Possibly as early as the first time it would be something to slide their alignments southward. What do you do then? I recommend against trying to trick them into taking the evil action, or worse, railroading them into it. That will rob your paladin's reveal of anything other than irritation on the part of the players as they throw their books at you.
There isn't any part where I mention anything about forcing them? I even said earlier the key to doing things like these are to make sure they can say "No" at any point. If they question it, good! They deserve having "Good" on their character sheet.

If they say "I am Good" but torture, murder, and steal (even if it's supposedly the bad-guy's minions) then they are not Good. That is, at BEST, a deeper-end of Neutral.

The entire point of the idea is to get them to willingly go along with it, and try to be subtle enough that they won't notice (or, if they do, to try to make it seem reasonable)
Great BBEG's in a lot of media don't think they are Bad Evil Guys.

I'd totally trick them into taking the evil actions. The NPC has to start out reasonable and slowly get worse, bringing them with him. If they second guess him, sure he'll try to bully them into it, but I'd make sure that I, as a DM, have no opinion on which path they should take and have plans for anything they do, even if I don't. My pants all come equipped with rocket boosters near the seat area.

And by "bully" I mean he will attempt to talk them into it, threaten them, etc. I do not, in any way, condone bullying a player. Please do not think I do.


I, personally, find that NPC's coercing players into things allows many stories to involve an exploration of morality in a world that isn't ours, and can help everybody at the table with roleplaying. They can also turn horrible, or end the game because of a variety of reasons.
I love delving into the ideas of Law and Good in D&D with parties of those alignments, and highlight Paladins a lot for adventures (Sadly I'm the only person in my group who, out of 10 games, would play 10 Paladins)

kyoryu
2016-03-17, 12:49 PM
In a sense, the player should already be 'compelled' to rescue the Princess, whether through IC reasoning or OOC game agreement, where the latter can help protect from players going outside genre even if IC reasoning somehow fails.

Right. Either you should agree "we're playing monster hunters, and thus we hunt monsters" and it's not an issue, or the problem should be compelling enough to at least *some* of the characters that they don't want to ignore it.

Segev
2016-03-17, 03:03 PM
There isn't any part where I mention anything about forcing them? I even said earlier the key to doing things like these are to make sure they can say "No" at any point. If they question it, good! They deserve having "Good" on their character sheet.

If they say "I am Good" but torture, murder, and steal (even if it's supposedly the bad-guy's minions) then they are not Good. That is, at BEST, a deeper-end of Neutral.

The entire point of the idea is to get them to willingly go along with it, and try to be subtle enough that they won't notice (or, if they do, to try to make it seem reasonable)
Great BBEG's in a lot of media don't think they are Bad Evil Guys.Oh, sure. Just putting the warning out there, because I know a lot of people think that such a plot is how things MUST go, so obviously, they need to force the PCs into the "heel realization," even if the players were fighting it every step of the way. Glad you would not force it.


I'd totally trick them into taking the evil actions. The NPC has to start out reasonable and slowly get worse, bringing them with him. If they second guess him, sure he'll try to bully them into it, but I'd make sure that I, as a DM, have no opinion on which path they should take and have plans for anything they do, even if I don't. My pants all come equipped with rocket boosters near the seat area.

And by "bully" I mean he will attempt to talk them into it, threaten them, etc. I do not, in any way, condone bullying a player. Please do not think I do.


I, personally, find that NPC's coercing players into things allows many stories to involve an exploration of morality in a world that isn't ours, and can help everybody at the table with roleplaying. They can also turn horrible, or end the game because of a variety of reasons.
I love delving into the ideas of Law and Good in D&D with parties of those alignments, and highlight Paladins a lot for adventures (Sadly I'm the only person in my group who, out of 10 games, would play 10 Paladins)
The NPC tricking them - provided they have IC means of realizing he's tricking them - is okay. The NPC strong-arming, bullying, or brow-beating them is fine, as long as the players don't get the impression the DM is telling them "just go along with it or there's no game."

The kind of "tricking" to which I was referring and against which I was warning is where the DM hides the evilness of it from the players. Those kobolds were actually innocents, but the DM made the players think they were horrific monsters by making sure the PCs could not find out they were innocent. The PCs striking the town believe the town is a hotbed of horror, but it's really a hamlet of normal folks the PCs just slaughtered. Sounds like you wouldn't do that, but it is something that needs to be called out, because there are people who think that's "clever."

Heel realizations only work if the players can look at what they've done and agree that they really have screwed up. If they feel like the DM pulled a fast one, they just want to flip the table.

wumpus
2016-03-17, 04:01 PM
I'm wondering how much of this belongs in the "railroading" thread. Some thoughts:

Directly taking over a PC: Bad. Don't do it. Even after a natural 1 on a will save it is a bad idea (if your player sells his [character's] soul, go nuts. It's not like that is a good idea in a fantasy game. Try not to penalize the replacement character too much).
Meddling with a player: There is a longstanding tradition of "are you sure you want to do that?" (to the point I think it was in the disclaimer in 5e). Try to keep it to game damaging things like sudden death of the character.
Pure railroading: generally considered bad. Exceptions require all the players to buy a ticket for the ride.
Schrödinger's Railroad: With a good-sized party I will assume that it will rub some players the wrong way. Personally, I have no compulsion to changing the parts of the game the players have no way of knowing about (of course, if they know that city A is better, has the Macguffin, or the BEEG, then going that way will at least get them those advantages). Just understand that not everybody agrees, and as the number of players increase the bigger a problem it becomes.

NichG
2016-03-17, 06:16 PM
I think you're over-conflating "manipulation" with "persuasion," NichG. It's manipulation if you're trying to sway them to do something they probably wouldn't want to do otherwise. Especially if you're trying to be sneaky about it, though that's not inherently required.

You've already got your players at the table. They want certain things, and have bought in to certain concepts and expectations just by joining your game. Providing them hooks to involve their character in things they want to be doing (i.e. "playing the game") is not "manipulation" so much as it is "invitation."

I guess what I'm saying is, a lot of this has more to do with DM skill than something intrinsically different about the two. An unskilled DM's attempts at getting something to happen will seem forced, stilted, and overbearing - therefore, easy to call manipulation. A skilled DM's attempts at getting something to happen will be more about setting up the lead-up so that by the time it comes time, the thing the DM wants to happen is exactly what the players would tell you that they want to do.

For example, if I know that one of my players really likes the 'epic power up' moment and advancing their own power outside of the normal guidelines, and I want the PCs to end up being responsible for something bad happening, it doesn't take much to put two and two together and put some kind of opportunity to gain power at the cost of the bad thing happening into the game. If you want to call that persuasion instead of manipulation, okay.

The problem would be if the player didn't take the bait but I tried to force it or convince them OOC that 'hey, you would totally take that power'. I wouldn't even call that manipulation, I'd call it overt take-over.

Darth Ultron
2016-03-17, 06:40 PM
Having a premise, before anybody says otherwise, isn't "railroading," either.

Railroads are things which happen in game when the DM no-sells player choices in order to keep them from disrupting pre-defined plot items.

That is a very vague definition of railroading, and it only apply to the jerk tyrant DM.


I guess what I'm saying is, a lot of this has more to do with DM skill than something intrinsically different about the two. An unskilled DM's attempts at getting something to happen will seem forced, stilted, and overbearing - therefore, easy to call manipulation. A skilled DM's attempts at getting something to happen will be more about setting up the lead-up so that by the time it comes time, the thing the DM wants to happen is exactly what the players would tell you that they want to do.

This might be the best definition right here. It's only bad manipulation if it's clumsy, forced, stilted, and overbearing. The skilled DM can spin anything into anything, and the players will never know.

Segev
2016-03-17, 06:58 PM
That is a very vague definition of railroading,Nothing vague about it. If you're no-selling player choices and actions because they disrupt your plans for how the game "should" go, you're railroading.


and it only apply to the jerk tyrant DM.Inexperienced or inept ones who mean well but can't imagine how to run a game without adhering to a pre-set plot might also fall into the trap.



This might be the best definition right here. It's only bad manipulation if it's clumsy, forced, stilted, and overbearing. The skilled DM can spin anything into anything, and the players will never know.Eh, I think we might be splitting hairs over the definition of "manipulation," honestly.