Mind Control is No Fun

[NecessaryWeevil]

So it looks like I'm spending the entirety of the adventure's only significant combat mind controlled against the party.

I'm thinking that, whereas mind control takes the player out of the game / robs them of agency, and despite the fact that magical compulsions are part of the source material (Lord of the Rings for example, also Jason and the Golden Fleece), maybe mind control effects targeting players shouldn't be a thing in D&D.

What do you think? Do you agree, or is that ever-present risk part of the fun?

[MaxWilson]

So it looks like I'm spending the entirety of the adventure's only significant combat mind controlled against the party.

I'm thinking that, whereas mind control takes the player out of the game / robs them of agency, and despite the fact that magical compulsions are part of the source material (Lord of the Rings for example, also Jason and the Golden Fleece), maybe mind control effects targeting players shouldn't be a thing in D&D.

What do you think? Do you agree, or is that ever-present risk part of the fun?

I think it depends upon your mindset: how competitive you are, how much psychological separation you have between your desires as a player and the PC's desires, and how sensitive you are to the psychological pain of hurting other players' feelings. I can certainly imagine players for whom the excuse to PvP is a fun challenge.

I've had players have fun doing a similar thing: roleplaying the monsters for me when a PC is offscreen or downed.

I think there are certain styles of D&D game for which it would be un-fun and am interested to hear more about the style of game you apparently prefer, and how it differs from the style your DM apparently runs.

[Segev]

The trouble with this argument is that one can argue that anything which deprives players of the ability to keep fighting on their preferred side is unfun, and thus should be eliminated. Paralysis. Petrification. Unconsciousness. Death.

It would take a massive rethinking of combat paradigms to enable PCs to continue to participate meaningfully on their player's preferred side no matter what happened and yet still make the combat an interesting minigame with meaningful consequences.

[Daphne]

I don't think they need to go away entirely, but I do think there's a difference between a PC using a mind-controlling spell and and an NPC doing the same.

The DM controls multiple characters while each player usually has a single PC that they invested a lot of time into, it's not fun for the player to lose control of its PC. I consider this even worse when it comes to classes like the Fighter, that usually only shine during combat.

[Deathtongue]

So it looks like I'm spending the entirety of the adventure's only significant combat mind controlled against the party.

I'm thinking that, whereas mind control takes the player out of the game / robs them of agency, and despite the fact that magical compulsions are part of the source material (Lord of the Rings for example, also Jason and the Golden Fleece), maybe mind control effects targeting players shouldn't be a thing in D&D.

What do you think? Do you agree, or is that ever-present risk part of the fun?It sounds more like you're objecting to not being able to do anything than the mind control itself. I'd be pretty peeved as well if I had to spend an entire session not doing anything because my character was dead and the party couldn't do anything until next week to resurrect me. That said, I wouldn't want death to be taken out of the game. Nor would I want a particular PC's death to be something a low-level party in the middle of nowhere can just easily ignore.

Were I the DM, in such situations where someone is out of the action for more than a couple of hours I'd make some alternative arrangements for the player so they can still participate. Such as a GMPC you can control for the time being. Hell, I'd even just let you play my monsters during a combat encounter if you were cool with it.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I think it depends upon your mindset: how competitive you are, how much psychological separation you have between your desires as a player and the PC's desires, and how sensitive you are to the psychological pain of hurting other players' feelings. I can certainly imagine players for whom the excuse to PvP is a fun challenge.

I've had players have fun doing a similar thing: roleplaying the monsters for me when a PC is offscreen or downed.

I think there are certain styles of D&D game for which it would be un-fun and am interested to hear more about the style of game you apparently prefer, and how it differs from the style your DM apparently runs.

Good points. I think I'm competitive in the sense that I enjoy the tactical challenge of combat. But I'm okay with my PCs dying if they put on a good show first. Not really a fan of PVP. I guess what really stings is that we've spent four sessions investigating and RPing and it's hard-limited to six sessions. So this is likely the only significant combat we'll see, and I built this character to be a defender. Both RP-wise and mechanically I was looking forward to playing that out.

[NecessaryWeevil]

It sounds more like you're objecting to not being able to do anything than the mind control itself. I'd be pretty peeved as well if I had to spend an entire session not doing anything because my character was dead and the party couldn't do anything until next week to resurrect me. That said, I wouldn't want death to be taken out of the game. Nor would I want a particular PC's death to be something a low-level party in the middle of nowhere can just easily ignore.

Were I the DM, in such situations where someone is out of the action for more than a couple of hours I'd make some alternative arrangements for the player so they can still participate. Such as a GMPC you can control for the time being. Hell, I'd even just let you play my monsters during a combat encounter if you were cool with it.

Well, yes and no. My character is receiving orders, so I'm not necessarily totally out of the game. Just not making any decisions.

[NecessaryWeevil]

The trouble with this argument is that one can argue that anything which deprives players of the ability to keep fighting on their preferred side is unfun, and thus should be eliminated. Paralysis. Petrification. Unconsciousness. Death.

It would take a massive rethinking of combat paradigms to enable PCs to continue to participate meaningfully on their player's preferred side no matter what happened and yet still make the combat an interesting minigame with meaningful consequences.

To some extent, yes, but which hurts more? "My character died fighting for what he believes in" or "My character became a mindless thrall and murdered everything he cared for"?

[Segev]

Well, yes and no. My character is receiving orders, so I'm not necessarily totally out of the game. Just not making any decisions.

Are you more "charmed into being on the enemy side" or "dominated into being a meat-puppet?" If the former, you can get your tactical fantasy and enjoyment out of playing your character's defender schtick for the bad guys instead of the other PCs. If the latter, you can talk to your DM about how much autonomy you really should have in terms of what you can do.

The key in either case is not to metagame it to sabotage the side you're mind-controlled into being on, unless the form of control expressly allows that.

[stoutstien]

I think most of the effects that would be considered mine control in 5th edition are limited enough in duration or parameters to mostly be a non-issue.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Are you more "charmed into being on the enemy side" or "dominated into being a meat-puppet?" If the former, you can get your tactical fantasy and enjoyment out of playing your character's defender schtick for the bad guys instead of the other PCs. If the latter, you can talk to your DM about how much autonomy you really should have in terms of what you can do.

The key in either case is not to metagame it to sabotage the side you're mind-controlled into being on, unless the form of control expressly allows that.

Yeah, that is a temptation, isn't it? Maybe I can ask the DM for some more autonomy. Good suggestion.

[Segev]

Yeah, that is a temptation, isn't it? Maybe I can ask the DM for some more autonomy. Good suggestion.

Good luck.

It really does matter what the precise form of mind control is, too. That dictates a lot about how you RP it, and what you should be playing your motives as.

[MaxWilson]

To some extent, yes, but which hurts more? "My character died fighting for what he believes in" or "My character became a mindless thrall and murdered everything he cared for"?

Depends how much you like roleplaying angst. : )

"I dedicated my life to protecting my friends and then one day a god cursed me into murdering them all" is a tragic backstory not dissimilar to events in the life of Heracles. If you're willing to let this event affect your PC emotionally it could be good roleplaying material.

Having a tragic backstory imposed on your PC against your will could certainly be irksome though. Hopefully everybody survived, so you have the option of just shaking it off like it never happened.


Yeah, that is a temptation, isn't it? Maybe I can ask the DM for some more autonomy. Good suggestion.

The worst thing a DM can do is force a player to sit around being bored when alternatives are available. As a DM I would always lean on the side of "more autonomy" for this reason. Even if from the story standpoint there's an evil wizard literally meat-puppetting the PC (via e.g. Magic Jar), I would almost always negotiate the specifics of what the evil wizard is doing with the player--in the case of Magic Jar I might even just straight-up hand them (most of) the evil wizard's stats and say "you're now playing this guy inside your normal body, and here are your evil goals".

Nobody wants to watch the DM roll dice against themself, so engaging the players as much as possible is a good goal even when it sometimes winds up with evil wizards using less-than-perfectly-optimal evil tactics.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I hate effects that impact my characters behavior outside of my control, but I also understand that I'm not necessarily supposed to enjoy them and in just about every case I had a chance to overcome them before it came to the point I disliked.

As much as I personally dislike them, I think my enjoyment would be hurt more if such things were taken out of D&D. If these effects still exist, but simply can't target players, that brings in to question on lot of issues with realism. If we take the effects out altogether then some memorable and unique monsters would disappear, story avenues of espionage and betrayal would lose some of the "magic" involved in making them tense and unique.

This is a pretty polarizing topic though, I've seen threads in the past that have gone rapidly downhill in such discussions and sessions in my own table have ended up volatile because of compulsions effects making a player feel like things were "unfair".

Communication between those involved is the most important thing and if you suspect that it may be a problem even pre-empting the situation with a bit of discussion about what players expect from such things seems warranted. I've often considered adding my expectations for Charm/Domination effects into any future session 0 handouts I make because I had such an awful experience running vampires (a player and I felt very differently on how effective a Vampires Charm should be) that it's had me wary of these things since.

[jas61292]

To some extent, yes, but which hurts more? "My character died fighting for what he believes in" or "My character became a mindless thrall and murdered everything he cared for"?

I think it depends. Both on the player, and the circumstances. There was actually a campaign I played in where I experienced both of those. My first character was a Paladin who did have strong beliefs, and he fought exactly as I wanted him to, and died fighting for what he believed in. My second character was a Barbarian that, quite literally became mindless (damn intellect devourers) and ended up helping murder everything he cared for.

And I'll tell you what, for me the latter was a heck of a lot more enjoyable. On the one hand, yeah, my paladin played the way I wanted them to, and died fighting for what he believed in. But he also died a rather boring death that was more a result of terrible dice luck than anything. Its not like just because he fought for his ideals that meant he went out in a blaze of glory. He didn't. He bled out on the side of a road because some bandits crit too much.

On the other hand, the death of my barbarian (and the rest of the party) was great. It is a moment we still talk about to this day, because it was actually fun and entertaining. Sure, I didn't get to do what the character I made would have done, but the DM let me play out the character, giving me orders but not dictating my actions directly. And so I just ran with it, had fun, helped some mindflayers trick the party into walking into a trap, and then got to chop our annoying prick of a warlock in half (the character was the annoying prick, btw, not the player. The player is cool, and loved how this all went down).

Ultimately, I think it just depends a lot on circumstances. I know there are probably a lot of people who put so much work into their character that having to play them differently than they envisioned hurts. I also know there are probably a lot of situations where being mind controlled is not that fun, because it ends up meaning you play a less interesting version of your character, and it doesn't even end up mattering. But there are also situations where being mind controlled can be very interesting, and there are people who are happy to just go with the flow on these kind of things so long as it keeps them entertained. And I'm not saying any one situation is better than another. D&D is a broad game for people that enjoy many different play-styles. So while I don't think mind control is something good for every table, I think it is a good mechanic for the game to have, and do not think the game would be any better without it.

[MaxWilson]

On the other hand, the death of my barbarian (and the rest of the party) was great. It is a moment we still talk about to this day, because it was actually fun and entertaining. Sure, I didn't get to do what the character I made would have done, but the DM let me play out the character, giving me orders but not dictating my actions directly. And so I just ran with it, had fun, helped some mindflayers trick the party into walking into a trap, and then got to chop our annoying prick of a warlock in half (the character was the annoying prick, btw, not the player. The player is cool, and loved how this all went down).

That sounds awesome. : ) Great story!

[patchyman]

So it looks like I'm spending the entirety of the adventure's only significant combat mind controlled against the party.

What do you think? Do you agree, or is that ever-present risk part of the fun?

How does your DM run mind control? When I include it in my games, the player continues to control their character, with the caveat that I will take over if the player doesn’t do their best.

I have never had to take over: on the contrary, most players are positively gleeful at the possibility to take on the other characters.

You can suggest this approach to your DM.

[HappyDaze]

So it looks like I'm spending the entirety of the adventure's only significant combat mind controlled against the party.

I'm thinking that, whereas mind control takes the player out of the game / robs them of agency, and despite the fact that magical compulsions are part of the source material (Lord of the Rings for example, also Jason and the Golden Fleece), maybe mind control effects targeting players shouldn't be a thing in D&D.

What do you think? Do you agree, or is that ever-present risk part of the fun?

I disagree. PCs are and should be viable targets for all manner of terrible things. They are special enough that they can often succeed despite such challenges; there is no need to make it even easier for them. What's next? Immunity to all negative conditions (including unconsciousness & death)? No thanks.

[Chaos Jackal]

Effects robbing characters of their agency are extremely annoying, but they're still part of the game. However, in recognition of their nature, they are quite limited in scope. Especially mind control.

If it's a rare occurence, it's just part of the game. Someone will get stunned eventually. Or paralyzed. Or charmed. They might even die. It's not a common thing, but it is a thing. And given the limitations it's often bad luck to fall victim to such a thing, and extremely bad luck to have it last (seriously, you need terrible luck or abysmal saves, in which case you deserve it, if you have a Hold Person or, worse, a Dominate effect, last more than a couple rounds).

Where it gets truly obnoxious is when it happens very often, or when effects are taken out of context. That typically means charm effects being used as domination; while the Dominate spells give a ton of saves and have a number of restrictions, most charm effects last long and have little counterplay.

The DM in one of my games, who is very lacking in rule knowledge and tends to houserule things on the spot whenever he's told that an effect he's using doesn't work like that and doesn't suit his narrative, once did something of the kind with a vampire. Their charm was used as full mind control (and it's a very hard effect to get rid of), houseruled on the spot when I informed him that this isn't how things work. So our fighter ended up spending the entire session attacking us. Needless to say, he wasn't very happy about having an immovable brainwashing effect stacked on him.

You can't remove effects like these from the game. It would be unfair if only the PCs had access to them and would limit options and damage fantasy greatly if nobody had them at all. We live with them. But precisely because of their tricky nature they're not something to be abused.

[Pex]

Effects robbing characters of their agency are extremely annoying, but they're still part of the game. However, in recognition of their nature, they are quite limited in scope. Especially mind control.

If it's a rare occurence, it's just part of the game. Someone will get stunned eventually. Or paralyzed. Or charmed. They might even die. It's not a common thing, but it is a thing. And given the limitations it's often bad luck to fall victim to such a thing, and extremely bad luck to have it last (seriously, you need terrible luck or abysmal saves, in which case you deserve it, if you have a Hold Person or, worse, a Dominate effect, last more than a couple rounds).

Where it gets truly obnoxious is when it happens very often, or when effects are taken out of context. That typically means charm effects being used as domination; while the Dominate spells give a ton of saves and have a number of restrictions, most charm effects last long and have little counterplay.

The DM in one of my games, who is very lacking in rule knowledge and tends to houserule things on the spot whenever he's told that an effect he's using doesn't work like that and doesn't suit his narrative, once did something of the kind with a vampire. Their charm was used as full mind control (and it's a very hard effect to get rid of), houseruled on the spot when I informed him that this isn't how things work. So our fighter ended up spending the entire session attacking us. Needless to say, he wasn't very happy about having an immovable brainwashing effect stacked on him.

You can't remove effects like these from the game. It would be unfair if only the PCs had access to them and would limit options and damage fantasy greatly if nobody had them at all. We live with them. But precisely because of their tricky nature they're not something to be abused.

Suppose I play a character with 12 Wisdom of a class not proficient in Wisdom saves. Why do I deserve to suffer Hold Person? Why must I always take Resilient Wisdom feat or forever be blamed for whatever fear or charm effect my character suffers? What if I have an 8? Maybe it's 8 IN and I'm forever trapped in a Phantasmal Force. Maybe it's 8 ST and I'm forever trapped in Entangle or Web.

No player "deserves" to suffer because he happens to have a low score somewhere. It can happen. It's part of the game. You deal with it. You never "deserve" it.

[Snails]

By my playing group's tradition, it is a point of pride for possessed or dominated PCs to be played to the hilt by the player.

While I recognize that there are Screw Youse that take the player out of the game and that is not the most fun, I am not thinking mind control as a negative. YMMV! :smallbiggrin:

[HappyDaze]

No player "deserves" to suffer because he happens to have a low score somewhere. It can happen. It's part of the game. You deal with it. You never "deserve" it.

No player "deserves" to overcome a challenge either. It can happen. It's part of the game. You never "deserve" it.

[JoeJ]

My own view is that the 5e went way to far in eliminating long-term mind control. One of my all time favorite modules is Against the Cult of the Reptile God, which completely fails to work if the villain's charm only lasts an hour. There needs to be some kind of mind control/mind influence that lasts for weeks or months, at least on commoners. It's fine, however, if there's a quick counter for PCs, as long as the counter is not something that can be readily scaled up to quickly free all the slaves.

[Segev]

My own view is that the 5e went way to far in eliminating long-term mind control. One of my all time favorite modules is Against the Cult of the Reptile God, which completely fails to work if the villain's charm only lasts an hour. There needs to be some kind of mind control/mind influence that lasts for weeks or months, at least on commoners. It's fine, however, if there's a quick counter for PCs, as long as the counter is not something that can be readily scaled up to quickly free all the slaves.

The geas spell might work.

[LudicSavant]

maybe mind control effects targeting players shouldn't be a thing in D&D.

What if it was more like the mind-influencing effects of the GW1 Mesmer? It was more "do this or else" instead of "do this." So the player got to choose between a rock and a hard place instead of just having their action dictated.

[JoeJ]

The geas spell might work.

It might, if there's a way for a villain in a low level adventure to cast a 5th level spell multiple times per day. (Preferably a way that doesn't involve a magic item ending up in the hands of the low level PCs).

[LudicSavant]

maybe mind control effects targeting players shouldn't be a thing in D&D.

I think that the way mind control is implemented isn't great, but that it could be implemented in a way that presents interesting choices for the player (think like the "do this or else" mind control design of the Guild Wars 1 Mesmer which had you constantly weighing whether it was better to obey or disobey and face the consequences), or in a way that basically makes it feel more earned (e.g. you don't save or die, multiple things have to go wrong for you to die. Mind control could be designed the same way).

[Segev]

It might, if there's a way for a villain in a low level adventure to cast a 5th level spell multiple times per day. (Preferably a way that doesn't involve a magic item ending up in the hands of the low level PCs).

Unique monster ability, in 5e. There are a lot of 'em.

[Chaos Jackal]

Suppose I play a character with 12 Wisdom of a class not proficient in Wisdom saves. Why do I deserve to suffer Hold Person? Why must I always take Resilient Wisdom feat or forever be blamed for whatever fear or charm effect my character suffers? What if I have an 8? Maybe it's 8 IN and I'm forever trapped in a Phantasmal Force. Maybe it's 8 ST and I'm forever trapped in Entangle or Web.

No player "deserves" to suffer because he happens to have a low score somewhere. It can happen. It's part of the game. You deal with it. You never "deserve" it.

Nobody "deserves" to suffer. We're playing a game. Figure of speech. I believe this kind of purposeful exaggeration is rather common and obvious.

To answer the Str or Int save comparisons though, fact is, Wisdom saves of all kinds, spells and effects alike, exist, are common, their effects aren't necessarily mind control but can have various levels of debilitation, and are more often than not thrown by DMs at beefy frontliners.

The game presents a challenge. You're not expected to rise up to every challenge. But if you're facing a common challenge that might have severe repercussions, then not preparing it for it isn't the challenge's fault. You don't "deserve" to get hacked up in two turns, but fact of the matter is, if you're in the front lines regularly and pack 14 AC, it's gonna happen. Wisdom saves might not be as common as physical attacks, but they aren't rare, and are also way more dangerous.

A character who dumped Str and didn't pick Resilient: Strength will find themselves in a bind once in a while. A character who dumped Int can be absolutely screwed a couple times throughout a game.

But a character who dumps AC and takes frontline duty will get dropped. Repeatedly. A character who completely forgoes Wisdom will end up in sticky situations. Often. Solely because that's how the game is built.

[DarknessEternal]

So it looks like I'm spending the entirety of the adventure's only significant combat


This is the source of your problem, not mind control.

D&D IS NOT DESIGNED FOR ONE COMBAT!

[NecessaryWeevil]

I think that the way mind control is implemented isn't great, but that it could be implemented in a way that presents interesting choices for the player (think like the "do this or else" mind control design of the Guild Wars 1 Mesmer which had you constantly weighing whether it was better to obey or disobey and face the consequences), or in a way that basically makes it feel more earned (e.g. you don't save or die, multiple things have to go wrong for you to die. Mind control could be designed the same way).

Hmmm! That could be very cool, and also offers neat RP options.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is the source of your problem, not mind control.

D&D IS NOT DESIGNED FOR ONE COMBAT!

Reads to me more like the player will be spending a critical encounter under mind control, not that they're only having one encounter for the adventure. My suspicion is that the BBEG has cast some domination spell or NPC unique charm effect on them.

[greenstone]

On one side, this is a game. It's only fun when the people at the table can play the game.

On the other side, victory isn't worth it without risk.

Each table has to decide where they fall on the continuum between the two.

I sympathise with you. Having your character mind-controlled is bad for a player, just like them paralysed or unconscious or stunned by an intellect devourer (my current least favourite thing in the game).

[Jerrykhor]

Yes, I found this out the hard way. Back when i was a new DM, I ran a beefed up Aboleth that manage to mind control the Barbarian. Their mind control was permanent until the Aboleth dies. The target can repeat the save if they take damage, but i remember that he failed them all even when his allies wailed on him, and the party was all Barbarians.

It was a frustrating experience for the player, no doubt. A mechanic being unfun is one thing, but a player only have 1 thing to play with - his PC. Take away that, he might as well not be at the table.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, I found this out the hard way. Back when i was a new DM, I ran a beefed up Aboleth that manage to mind control the Barbarian. Their mind control was permanent until the Aboleth dies. The target can repeat the save if they take damage, but i remember that he failed them all even when his allies wailed on him, and the party was all Barbarians.

It was a frustrating experience for the player, no doubt. A mechanic being unfun is one thing, but a player only have 1 thing to play with - his PC. Take away that, he might as well not be at the table.

Reminds me of the time I ran a one shot with my brother as one of the players.

Relevant backstory: My brother only agreed because it was going to be a quick one shot, he preferred 4E heavily to 5E and since our group plays primarily 5E he doesn't tend to join us. He blazed through character creation accepting a 4d6 cold damage handaxe with expanded crit range and +3 plate armor as good enough magic items.

PC's were epic level with insane magic items, but he picked a fighter with low wisdom and no ranged attacks. When they made it to the arena with an Ancient Red Dragon his wisdom score left him with no way to succeed on the fear effect. He spent the entire encounter in a corner while the other two players dealt with the dragon. He didn't continue to play through the entire encounter and I don't blame him.

[False God]

The way I do it, the player still runs they're character, they've just now switched teams.

[tKUUNK]

In situations of mind control (not a simple charm)

you can try doing something like this:

at the beginning of each turn, the dominated character rolls a d6.

1 or 2 = you are dominated. tough luck!
3 or 4 = you can control your move (but not your action)
5 or 6 = you can control your action (but not your movement)

This represents the constant struggle to regain self-control.

to each their own. I'm glad to see a lot of people enjoy RPing this sort of thing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So it looks like I'm spending the entirety of the adventure's only significant combat mind controlled against the party.

I'm thinking that, whereas mind control takes the player out of the game / robs them of agency, and despite the fact that magical compulsions are part of the source material (Lord of the Rings for example, also Jason and the Golden Fleece), maybe mind control effects targeting players shouldn't be a thing in D&D.

What do you think? Do you agree, or is that ever-present risk part of the fun?


Mind control is amazing!

The sheer potential for roleplaying and misconstruing the DM's commands are a lot of fun! One of my friends really likes to one up me when they DM. One of the first times went like...

DM: The mental command tells you to attack the Bard.

My Barbarian: I use my action to grab the bard. "Yo, Bard, you're ugly".

DM: +eye twitch+ that's not what I meant...

Me: Be more specific next time.

Next Round

DM: The mental command is to physically assault the bard.

My Barbarian: I shake the bard violently. I then let go.

DM: I hate you so much.


Edit:

DM: Use the attack action on the bard

My Barbarian: gets within 5' of the bard and throws my sword at the bard... Disadvantage and if it does hit, it deals 1 + Str damage.

DM: Yup, still hate you.

[NecessaryWeevil]

In case anyone cares, my party managed to meet the conditions to allow me another save and I made it (phew!)

[MaxWilson]

In case anyone cares, my party managed to meet the conditions to allow me another save and I made it (phew!)

Good to know. : )

[JoeJ]

Mind control is amazing!

The sheer potential for roleplaying and misconstruing the DM's commands are a lot of fun! One of my friends really likes to one up me when they DM. One of the first times went like...

DM: The mental command tells you to attack the Bard.

My Barbarian: I use my action to grab the bard. "Yo, Bard, you're ugly".

DM: +eye twitch+ that's not what I meant...

Me: Be more specific next time.

Next Round

DM: The mental command is to physically assault the bard.

My Barbarian: I shake the bard violently. I then let go.

DM: I hate you so much.


Edit:

DM: Use the attack action on the bard

My Barbarian: gets within 5' of the bard and throws my sword at the bard... Disadvantage and if it does hit, it deals 1 + Str damage.

DM: Yup, still hate you.


BBEG: Very funny. Now quit screwing around and kill the bard.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

BBEG: Very funny. Now quit screwing around and kill the bard.

Barbarian: I haven't tried to screw the bard, yet, but at least I don't have to try and kill him that way...

Attempts to bludgeon the bard to death with a pillow.

And yes, my barbarian did keep a pillow on them at all times because he liked to sleep in comfort. Once I took magic initiate for presdigitation to clean said pillow.

Edit: Also once I picked up an ally (when told to kill them) and used them as an improvised weapon against an enemy. The ally took damage, the BBEG took damage, and the DM laughed her butt off at my Totemist.

[JoeJ]

Barbarian: I haven't tried to screw the bard, yet, but at least I don't have to try and kill him that way...

Attempts to bludgeon the bard to death with a pillow.

And yes, my barbarian did keep a pillow on them at all times because he liked to sleep in comfort. Once I took magic initiate for presdigitation to clean said pillow.

Edit: Also once I picked up an ally (when told to kill them) and used them as an improvised weapon against an enemy. The ally took damage, the BBEG took damage, and the DM laughed her butt off at my Totemist.

In what way does beating somebody with a pillow count as killing them? (Also, most forms of mind control make the BBEG no longer your enemy, so attacking them is right out.)

If the group is playing for laughs and the "mind control" isn't very powerful, which sounds like the situation you're describing, that's great. But if somebody is just trying to be a jerk and not play the same game everybody else is, the DM would be justified in turning their PC into an NPC.

[Waazraath]

So it looks like I'm spending the entirety of the adventure's only significant combat mind controlled against the party.

I'm thinking that, whereas mind control takes the player out of the game / robs them of agency, and despite the fact that magical compulsions are part of the source material (Lord of the Rings for example, also Jason and the Golden Fleece), maybe mind control effects targeting players shouldn't be a thing in D&D.

What do you think? Do you agree, or is that ever-present risk part of the fun?

Agree. It can provide very bad gaming experiences, especially when a DM is not up to the task. Having a character mind controlled and ran by the DM sucks. It's like being dead / unconscious during combat and not being able to do anything, but worse, cause it can take a lot longer, and the character does stuff you might not agree with (the agency part). Being mind controlled and running your character yourself, you might get to do stuff and roll dice, but still you don't have any agency. It can suck, unless DM and player are on the same page about this (and preferably, have time to discuss how to run such a situation out of game). Being semi-mind controlled (like charmed) is even worse, in my experience, cause it can lead to endless discussions between player and DM on what a character would or would not do (and in the end, the player loses cause the DM is the DM). Seen some pretty terrible (un-fun) gaming (for the players) in the latter case.

I've also seen it being done decently (character getting mind controlled at the end of a session without anybody knowing it, DM preparing before the next session with the player when he would betray the party, extra excitement in final battle, that kind of stuff), but even then, other players might not like it.

tl;dr - I agree, I'd advice against it, and be very, very careful using it as a DM.

[Glorthindel]

How does your DM run mind control? When I include it in my games, the player continues to control their character, with the caveat that I will take over if the player doesn’t do their best.

I have never had to take over: on the contrary, most players are positively gleeful at the possibility to take on the other characters.

You can suggest this approach to your DM.

Agreed - how I run mind control is I give the player a very loose set of objectives, and allow the player to fulfill them however he likes, as long as he keeps to the spirit of it (so no "technically" following the instruction but doing so in a way that defies the spirit, like hitting only one player with an aoe spell that co-incidentally hits all the enemies). This way he is still getting to play, just temporarily on the other side.

In the early days, I pretended that anything the player did was just following explicit instructions (mostly by passing dummy notes that just read stuff like "take a few seconds reading this, then write anything down, and pass it back"), so there was no recriminations from the other players for their actions under the control - say the Mind Controlled player targetted a specific PC, I pretended that I told him to do that, so the other PC didn't get upset that the player went after him. Of course, my players have been playing under me for 20 years now, so they are all wise to this ruse, as nearly all have them have been under control at some point or other.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In what way does beating somebody with a pillow count as killing them? (Also, most forms of mind control make the BBEG no longer your enemy, so attacking them is right out.)

If the group is playing for laughs and the "mind control" isn't very powerful, which sounds like the situation you're describing, that's great. But if somebody is just trying to be a jerk and not play the same game everybody else is, the DM would be justified in turning their PC into an NPC.

If you told my barbarian to kill the bard, enough hits with a pillow will do that.

Side note, I've seen broken faces after pillow fights.

Just because you wasn't specific and wasted your BBEG's turn isn't mine, my barbarian's, or the party's fault.

Git gud.


Edit

I run mind control with the assumption the character would always be trying to fight it, a failed save makes them do it, yes, but if a character can figure a way out of the spirit of it... GREAT! Makes for a better story! NPCs aren't perfect so them messing up their instructions is a great way to balance mind control and keep the players engaged.

Also stops other players from being mad about their characters being attacked or taken out by another PC.

If you just want to beat a player at D&D or have an auto win situation... I don't know too many players that will find that sort of game fun.

[JoeJ]

If you told my barbarian to kill the bard, enough hits with a pillow will do that.

In that case, I'm sure you won't mind if the DM won't let you use any weapon except a pillow against your next ten real enemies.


I run mind control with the assumption the character would always be trying to fight it, a failed save makes them do it, yes, but if a character can figure a way out of the spirit of it... GREAT! Makes for a better story!

Are you okay with the DM doing the same thing when a PC casts a mind control spell?

[Chaos Jackal]

You can stretch your DM's patience all you want. Fact is, something like Dominate Person explicitly states that you're doing your best to obey the order given. If your barbarian's best in attacking is pillow-fighting, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind having your weapon turned into a pillow for the rest of the game. After all, hitting that dragon enough times with that pillow will kill it. It might take longer than your life expectancy, but that's just a minor detail.

You can try and twist out of many charms and ambiguous orders that come with them. It can be funny, or it can be the start of a loophole war with the DM that will inevitably come to bite you in the rear. Initiate at your own risk.

You cannot twist out of Dominate Person. If you do, then either your DM is unaware of the fact and you're blatantly cheating, or your DM is aware of the fact but is either nice enough to allow it or patient enough to expect you'll drop the shenanigans before he pulls out the hammer. In any case, you aren't being smart, you're just being a pain.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In that case, I'm sure you won't mind if the DM won't let you use any weapon except a pillow against your next ten real enemies.



Are you okay with the DM doing the same thing when a PC casts a mind control spell?

Don't tempt me, wouldn't be the first time my barbarian had a weird weapon, or that I played a leader/controller barbarian who didn't focus on damage

Yup! I've been that DM.

It bring more excitement and fun to the game and brings an element of tactics that people get lazy about.

Unless you are the type that prefers "move and hit" fights, I guess, but boring stuff like that is meant for mooks and not someone that is going to dominate someone else (mentally).

Forcing a player to kill their allies is all good and all, but engaging the player to find a way out of it? Priceless.

[Segev]

Don't tempt me, wouldn't be the first time my barbarian had a weird weapon, or that I played a leader/controller barbarian who didn't focus on damage

Yup! I've been that DM.

It bring more excitement and fun to the game and brings an element of tactics that people get lazy about.

Unless you are the type that prefers "move and hit" fights, I guess, but boring stuff like that is meant for mooks and not someone that is going to dominate someone else (mentally).

Forcing a player to kill their allies is all good and all, but engaging the player to find a way out of it? Priceless.

"This power doesn't actually do what it says it does in the book" is "bringing tactics to a game" that is otherwise "move and hit?" :smallconfused:

[Sigreid]

When I run mind control I just inform the player what their new priorities and goals are and let them handle the details. Think Loki taking over Hawkeye in the Avengers movie.

[Segev]

When I run mind control I just inform the player what their new priorities and goals are and let them handle the details. Think Loki taking over Hawkeye in the Avengers movie.

Which works fine with a player who'll play that in good faith. :smallsmile:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

"This power doesn't actually do what it says it does in the book" is "bringing tactics to a game" that is otherwise "move and hit?" :smallconfused:

Having players disengage from the game or get mad at each other is boring.

[Segev]

Having players disengage from the game or get mad at each other is boring.

So, then, you never kill, paralyze, or otherwise incapacitate PCs, right?

[Waazraath]

So, then, you never kill, paralyze, or otherwise incapacitate PCs, right?

Of course there's always risk. But being taken out of the game for a long period of time sucks. It's not for naught that almost all 'save or suck' spells got a saving throw each round this edition...

In addition to this; for a mind control scenario to work well, you not only need a player to be in good faith, but also a DM, and the rest of the group that doens't react badly if one of their own is turned against them.

So yeah, it can work, but it can go wrong in a lot of different ways as well.

[Segev]

Of course there's always risk. But being taken out of the game for a long period of time sucks. It's not for naught that almost all 'save or suck' spells got a saving throw each round this edition...

In addition to this; for a mind control scenario to work well, you not only need a player to be in good faith, but also a DM, and the rest of the group that doens't react badly if one of their own is turned against them.

So yeah, it can work, but it can go wrong in a lot of different ways as well.

And most mind-control effects also have ongoing saves or at least saves when you take damage. Which, interestingly, incentivizes your allies attacking you back, albeit with less-damaging attacks.

Besides, this is really a straw man argument, since I didn't say you should sieze control of the character and not let the player play. I said you shouldn't allow the player to "creatively interpret" mind control to the point that it's useless. If you ran it that way on NPCs, your players would either complain or they'd just not use mind control "because it never works." That's a sure sign you're not using it right.

If a player won't play in good faith, then you have to take a firmer hand. But if they will, giving them their new directives and letting them play it out is fine and dandy!

[Willie the Duck]

The trouble with this argument is that one can argue that anything which deprives players of the ability to keep fighting on their preferred side is unfun, and thus should be eliminated. Paralysis. Petrification. Unconsciousness. Death.



Effects robbing characters of their agency are extremely annoying, but they're still part of the game. However, in recognition of their nature, they are quite limited in scope. Especially mind control.

If it's a rare occurence, it's just part of the game. Someone will get stunned eventually. Or paralyzed. Or charmed. They might even die. It's not a common thing, but it is a thing.

While I think removing all these effects would leave a whole lot of things-that-the-fiction-that-inspires-the-game-use off the table*, it is noteworthy that the actual implementation of these effects in a given game can vary quite a bit. Compared to previous editions of D&D, 5e does a fairly solid job of limiting the effects of these things. Most things give you a check every round, or end once you are hurt. Paralysis (perhaps unrealistically) does not mean that monsters can insta-gib you, but instead just get advantage on attacks, melee-only autocrits, and you not attacking back. Charmed people realize they've been charmed after the effects wear off. Overall I find the direction that the game has shifted to be relatively in line with not wanting players to have living characters they can't control for extended periods. Not that that changes anything if you can't act during the one important moment of the evening.
*also, removing paralysis, unconsciousness, etc. tends to make challenging combats only have one real threat--death

[MaxWilson]

"This power doesn't actually do what it says it does in the book" is "bringing tactics to a game" that is otherwise "move and hit?" :smallconfused:

Guys, this is just an argument about game tone. As long as everyone is okay with a slightly comic tone aimed at entertaining other players more than sticking to the strict rule text, it will be okay. It's only a problem if there's a tone change unexpectedly, e.g. if everything was strict up until a PC got possessed and then he started wacky interpretations to avoid killing the bard. But if it's been slightly wacky all along, for everyone, then that's just what the game is about for them.

[Demonslayer666]

Death and mind control are part of the game. Imagine you’re on a sports team and there is a 100% probability your team will win every single game. The other team will forfeit if necessary to ensure you win. How sweet are those victories? Failure makes you appreciate the successes more.

Plus, when my character has been taken out, I enjoy playing NPCs or even just watching my friends play. D&D is that great.

This made me think of professional football, and the quarterback or linebacker getting dominated by the other team. That would be hilarious.

[elyktsorb]

As a Barbarian/Monk who spent his last session being hypnotized into being on the enemies team, I can tell you I have no problem with it. Maybe it's because I knew that my party would have to try and get me out of it, since I'm their tank/damage, also not to mention the round after being converted, I dropped our wizard by throwing my Lightning Yklwa at him. The entire time I was thinking of how awful it would be if he died from me killing him, but ultimately I played to how the character would have handled it, and that's fun for me.

[JoeJ]

Don't tempt me, wouldn't be the first time my barbarian had a weird weapon, or that I played a leader/controller barbarian who didn't focus on damage

Yup! I've been that DM.

It bring more excitement and fun to the game and brings an element of tactics that people get lazy about.

Unless you are the type that prefers "move and hit" fights, I guess, but boring stuff like that is meant for mooks and not someone that is going to dominate someone else (mentally).

Forcing a player to kill their allies is all good and all, but engaging the player to find a way out of it? Priceless.

in that case, unless you're playing a slapstick campaign (and it's perfectly fine if you are), you'd be better off just removing those spells/abilities from the game. The PCs won't want to cast a spell that doesn't do what it's supposed to, and any non-stupid monsters wouldn't waste their action on that either.

[Sigreid]

Which works fine with a player who'll play that in good faith. :smallsmile:

Yeah, my players delight in it.

[opaopajr]

There are better ways to do it to be sure. :smallsmile:

The big issue is people (both GMs and Players)are quick to read many charm and mind effects as total domination -- mindless automata enslaved to another will, no resistance, no deviation from code.

That is usually not what the wording of such effects are, though it is understandable why people would jump to such powerful conclusions. :smallwink: The better choice is read the effect tightly, allowing for judment to exist between the "coding," to not read things in a legalism statutory or software programming sense. (Because in even those frameworks so much context and choices has to exist between, leading to headaches in both the legal and software engineering fields... because life is never that neat and tidy. :smallwink:)

As a GM suggestion, I found giving A Choice Between Evils a good way to walk through the process of such effects while still letting the Player play, make meaningful choices. Basically it is a form of prodding the player's creativity by giving the PC two to three contextually valid Bad Choices, (always with room for their own creativity, naturally with GM veto). It reminds the player that "no, bad effect is still bad, but you as a player still matter."

It is a challenge though because some players just turn off complete from that sort of experience. But then you have players turn off from any sort of penalty or challenge, too (some can't take character death, others cannot leaving town without being topped off with HP & Slots, etc.). There will always be a spectrum of ills (otherwise it would not be much of a game), and there will always be a spectrum of dissatisfaction (because we are a collection of individuals).

So at some point you as a GM have to draw your own line for your setting since you are hosting, doing the majority heavy lifting for the table's game. Basically it comes down to negotiating what you all want to play. And there are some absolute vetoes in play: a GM is not a CPU server to run whatever players want, and Players can vote with their feet. :smallsmile: However there are many techniques to incorporate character flaws and suffering as a dynamic force for play than a time-out. Read several other RPGs as many have tried their response to this issue. :smalltongue:

[LordCdrMilitant]

As a note, I think that mind control powers are outright evil, probably the most outright evil aligned spell group in the book that somehow passes muster while sometimes Animate Dead can get banned magical oppression of will]. Spells where the player doesn't get direct control or get to issue commands, and just makes them have no IFF or receive some other debilitating status effect are fine, but magical mind control is super ick. Also, somehow, Dominate Person is a lower level than Dominate Monster?

I also believe that anything the party can do can be done back to them.

[Sigreid]

As a note, I think that mind control powers are outright evil, probably the most outright evil aligned spell group in the book that somehow passes muster while sometimes Animate Dead can get banned magical oppression of will]. Spells where the player doesn't get direct control or get to issue commands, and just makes them have no IFF or receive some other debilitating status effect are fine, but magical mind control is super ick. Also, somehow, Dominate Person is a lower level than Dominate Monster?

I also believe that anything the party can do can be done back to them.

We have had long debates on this forum with some of us arguing that enchantment and summoning are both slavery and at least as bad as animating dead. The only argument I've seen that makes sense for animate dead being worse is if something goes wrong and you lose control of them, you've just released a pack of bloodthirsty murderers on the world whereas the other spells will end.

[pming]

Hiya!

...it depends entirely on how mature the "mind controlled" PC's Player is and how much trust the DM can place in them.

For me, my group (alas, haven't played in about 8 months! :( ), I can just say "You failed? Ok...Bearkiller is Mind Controlled by the MonsterNPCThing. You're now fighting for the bad guys". And that's it. The player will play Bearkiller just as he normally does...but with the 'flip' that the monsters are the good guys and his former adventuring buddies are now the evil-stinky-bad-guys.

If something specific comes up, I'll either just tell him (my other players will hear, but disregard because they know the difference between Player and Character knowledge), or I' take him into another room for a quick 'briefing' on his immediate goals, or maybe slip him a piece of paper saying "Actually, focus on the Moon Druid; your New Best Friend absolutely HATES druids!".

Besides. It's fun! Roleplaying a quick opposite of your main PC can be quite entertaining for everyone...but, as I said...it all depends on maturity levels at the table, TBH. I mean...it's a GAME, right? If your DM lets anyone play any alignment...I honestly can't see anyone getting upset. The difference between a mind controlled barbarian and a CE barbarian is one of circumstance. ;)