Feedback on mind control, secrecy and player agency

[schm0]

Bherno, Zorhec, Auden, Kingsley and Torloch please leave and stop reading now.

I am running Isle of Dread which has a statuette that will turn the players into a "secret servant of the kopru" as soon as they see the object and fail a Wisdom save. For those that do not know, the kopru are an evil race of aquatic squid-like creatures that vaguely resemble mind-flayers. They are currently slumbering underneath a temple that the players wandered into.

I am running this online using Roll20 and Discord, and was hoping to use those tools to keep this secret.


I will be prompting all the players to roll in secret via discord DM. This way they do not know that everyone is rolling, and I'll be sending them the /gmroll to type into roll20.
Those that make the save will get an ominous message saying they feel a wave of disgust wash over their body which quickly subsides.
Those that fail will get instructions on how to roleplay being a "secret servant of the kopru." Essentially the players are charmed by the kopru and work towards waking them up. The players who are charmed in this way will magically know about each other, and do everything in their power to protect the statuette and wake the kopru without revealing their plans to their companions
This charm can be broken by destroying the statuette or casting bless on it.


The idea is to have a couple sessions where the good guys are secretly working for the bad guys but the good guys don't know.

So a few obvious issues:


Players are getting this sprung on them by surprise. I am thinking about:

Taking an immediate break during the session at this point so they can think about how to deal with this change
Creating an invisible discord channel and inviting the ones who failed the save into it so they can ask questions, etc.

PvP (essentially forbidden in the game from session 0) is a real possibility if one of the non-charmed players tries to destroy the statuette or try to fight/destroy any kopru. This is a rare exception in my games, but essentially the players are playing NPCs if they get mind-controlled.

I'm worried about forcing the players to act a certain way, let alone attack each other. I have two questions:

Do you think the duration of this effect (essentially indefinite) is too much?

If so, should I alter the adventure as written to make this less heavy handed?

Any advice and thoughts on this matter are greatly appreciated! :)

[PhantomSoul]

(It would be great if some time long before the actual session you could see how your players feel about it, or at the very least mention it's a possibility if you think some would need that. Asking about whether PvP is ok in that context is fine would be great; I play mainly at no-PvP tables and mind control has consistently been a point where people usually have a great time switching gears and fighting dirty against each other, but you might have a feel for whether that's a case your players would be fine with.)

Maybe you could foreshadow it in-game by giving hints about past "traitors" or people who started acting weird (or creating a cult if that fits the setting) -- no need to mention the object, but get it into the player's minds that maybe something is up by finding journals of past travellers.

Having some way for people whose character failed the save to communicate (especially if their characters should know about each other). If no one knows anything it could lead to paranoia... which isn't for all tables/players!

Having some goal to subtly "convert" the uncharmed PCs could be a good way to get everyone on the same page or at least make the charmed PCs not see killing the uncharmed PCs as an optimal solution. (It could also help justify secrecy!)

Failing the save and losing a bit of agency can feel really negative... maybe you give the PC some sort of minor boon or ability after they've failed. It could also be a subtle hint to other PCs that the character has changed somehow (which might be connected to them perhaps acting unexpectedly and linking to warlockful cults, if applicable) since they'll have a new ability seemingly out of nowhere. Depending on the boon, maybe the benefit stays. (I would want to give the boon when they become charmed, instead of [only] having a boon afterwards. It helps it feel positive right away, and also helps the player and PC have a reason why they might even believe converting other PCs is in their best interest, if you want that option. Plus it avoids incentivising acting to end the effect while under the effect, which could happen if the player knows they get a boon when they stop being charmed.)

Having the effect end "early" might be a problem if they're aware of each other. If the charmed characters don't know who else is charmed, though, they could have a (harder?) reroll at the end of a long rest quite easily. I'd have everyone "re"roll in secret even if they weren't affected most likely -- and I'd probably give no reroll if they touched the statuette since their previous long rest. (Bonus points if you incentivise them touching the statuette or commune with the kopru or do whatever else would help them stay charmed, to make it feel narratively logical that people stayed charmed for so long in the past, if applicable. It could even be treated like a disease or a cause of exhaustion in select groups and reaching exhaustion 6 would end the charm instead of causing death, but you might avoid that if anyone has experience with addiction to avoid that possible connection -- or use it if it works for the table and if they would clue in that they would be more susceptible in future. [That's an aspect I'd probably include, especially after having reduced it to not be indefinite.])

As for giving the players a little time to think through how it affects their character and/or to coordinate with other charmed PC-players, that sounds good. It might be a bit obvious that something's up if everyone makes a roll (in secret) and then there's a suspicious break, so maybe foreshadow the break (running low on tea, needing to go pee, whatever) and potentially give a little bit of time when something (unrelated!) happens before the break (ideally something players could misinterpret as being connected to the hidden rolls).

I think the main rule of thumb applies, of course -- do what you think will seem fun to the players, and consider having a backup plan in case they (stop enjoying / don't enjoy) it. Maybe in some of the journals there was a story of blessing the person in Istishia's name in some waterfall to cure them, maybe even having the journal entry not realising this is what helped.

[Tanarii]

Your biggest problem is going to be when the kopru servants win and TPK.

I've been the one subjected to mind control like this, ordered to betray the party, and successfully did so. Campaign over. The DM was never did clearly justify to folks afterwards what they had expected to happen.

So, like, my advice would be if they're supposed to have fun but pull their punches so as not to TPK the party, tell them that.

[GeoffWatson]

What's your plan if they all fail the save?

[Galithar]

What's your plan if they all fail the save?

Tha campaign ends!!

[Glorthindel]

Your biggest problem is going to be when the kopru servants win and TPK.

I've been the one subjected to mind control like this, ordered to betray the party, and successfully did so. Campaign over. The DM was never did clearly justify to folks afterwards what they had expected to happen.

So, like, my advice would be if they're supposed to have fun but pull their punches so as not to TPK the party, tell them that.

Seconded this - it is important to have a failsafe in place, so that in the event the dominated members win, the campaign can continue, preferably with minimal losses.

As an example, I was once running a Ravenloft adventure that was a 'Jack the Ripper' style investigation with Dopplegangers. A fundamental part of the adventure was for the Dopplegangers to infiltrate the party. Every time a 'real' character was left alone with a Doppleganger (of which several NPC's were already Dopplegangers), the character would be kidnapped off-screen and be replaced with another Doppleganger (however, there was a set number of Dopplegangers, so if the Doppleganger 'playing' the watch commander was now pretending to be a player, the Watch Commander would be absent unless another Doppleganger could fill in on short notice). I would take the player aside, tell him what happened, then run him through a breif segment where his character, alive and well, would awaken in his prison, so he knew that regardless of what occurred at the table from this point, the character wasn't dead. Then I gave him orders to turn me more Dopplegangers. The players had a riot of a time, which culminated in a memorable in-character arguement between two 'characters replaced by Dopplegangers' who were argueing over who would accompany another character on a quick shopping trip (both wanting to be the one to turn him) - the 'human' player was very confused.

The reason it worked was there was no lasting damage; characters could happily kill each other without creating any bad feelings or resentments, it was just some good clean backstabbing fun that meant nothing in the end.

[Willie the Duck]

One thing to remember is that the charmed characters do not lose their original inclinations and loyalties -- they just have a loyalty added. They want to accomplish the goals of the kopru, but they still are friends with any other PCs to whom they previously were friends, and they still have basic inclinations about not harming those who put them in positions of trust, etc. if they previously had those. The magic might force (I don't remember how the charming worked in IoD. Charm in general has changed in this edition) the players to choose the Kopru in the end if two loyalties are truly incompatible, but up to that point they might bend over backwards to not have to overly harm their allies.

That said, in a small group, an even smaller but sizable group of infiltrators can be surprisingly effective. Just having them spring a double-cross right after a battle where the damage happened to land mostly on the unaffected could sel the deal. Consider some options where team kopru 'wins' but the campaign doesn't end. Perhaps the PCs are kept on as servants (the charmed) and prisoners (the others), with the servants continuing to make ongoing checks to see if their charming finally breaks (but by then there are new recruits, and the kopru are awake and gaining in power...).

[Segev]

This comes down to whether your players would enjoy the Among Us style PvP or not. You have banned it, so I would venture to say "not." If they would, your plan is solid.

If they wouldn't, I would instead have the traitors be unaware of their own treachery. Essentially make NPC versions of them that act when they think only those who are likewise compromised will notice, using their bodies. This is them acting subconsciously.

Check to see if the non-charmed notice, and inform them secretly of it if so. Also, after at least one has noticed, tell one or me of the charmed PCs' players that they saw a non-charmed person do it. They didn't, but this is simulating the lies their subconscious is telling them.

This lets them all play as good guys and have the mystery without having to play PvP. The enemy within remains NPCs. If a fight where the controlled PCs must break cover occurs, fully treat them like two characters in the same body, with their own initiatives and action sets (and Concentration, if necessary), but shared resources such as ki, hp, spell slots, etc.

[Corran]

Indefinite duration sounds like a bit too much. I'd make it so the charm ends if the statuette is destroyed, if that's not already how it's written. And to answer your second question, sure, you should feel free to rewrite parts of the adventure if you think that something does not fit your table. So if you think that the statuette situation will create unecessary drama, go ahead and remove it for example. But if you do keep it for your players to find, you need to consider a few more things.

For example, what happens if everyone fails their save? Or if no one fails their save. I guess that if no one fails their save it's simpler, but still, you need to figure out what happens in both of these two extremes. And if you cannot or you dont want to deal with these two extremes but at the same time you do want to keep the statuette in play, then you have to figure out another way regarding the whole charming deal (for example it can only affect one person at a time, like its wielder, or the one who first touched it, and so on).

Dice rolls are random and it does not really matter who is rolling them. Yes, it's not nice to roll for others (feels like taking away player agency) and it's worse if they dont even know about it, but some exceptions are worth making sometimes. The whole statuette situation can be intriguing and interesting, but as soon as you have everyone make a random roll, everyone is going to know that something is up (and it does not take a genius to guess that it has something to do with this new mysterious statuette). So roll some dice beforehand and in secret (so for example if you set up the statuette to charm the first person who touches it every X hours, and Bherno happened to be that person, you only need to look at your notes and see what Bherno rolled for their wisdom save on that particular day).

Offer grounds for justification for a pc to want to keep this statuette safe and in their possession. Award it some minor magical property that at least has the promise of power in due time. It makes sense for a pc in the eyes of the players to want to hold on to a cool (personalized) magical trinket, but it will make some eyebrows rise if a pc wants to keep the statuette close just because it's precious. The easiest thing is to make it something generic, so it could be something that awards one or two rerolls every day/week. I'd have 4 different versions of it, each one suited to a different pc, and I would pick the one depending on who was the pc chamed by it (so hat it makes sense for that pc to keep it), if anyone.

Keep the charmed condition hush hush till the session ends, and in between sessions talk with the player(s) whose character was charmed. Help him figure out how their pc should act, set any limits you might want to (eg no killing other pc's), when you are confortable with it give the ok, and after that let things play out.

[schm0]

For everyone responding to this thread, one important note is that all of the players who are charmed will know about each other both IC and OOC. There seemed to be a little bit of confusion about that, so yeah... I'll basically be pulling those players aside and letting them know whats up in a discord channel, with the remaining characters taking a break.


Failing the save and losing a bit of agency can feel really negative...

I agree, but spells like Dominate Person and Geas exist in the game. The players should have the bare minimum of expectation that a bad guy eventually will use one of these effects against them. The players will still be playing their characters, but with new objectives.



Your biggest problem is going to be when the kopru servants win and TPK.

The players will be given OOC instructions from the statuette. Also, they'll be told to covet the statuette almost obsessively, and they will lie to their fellow players if necessary. So I will also be calling for deception rolls in the open, so the other players should have enough clues that something is up before then.


What's your plan if they all fail the save?

Fudge the DC, I'm not going to end the campaign due to bad luck. This is supposed to be a fun side mechanic, and also communicates that they are up against a formidible foe. They have basically been fighting humanoids and beasts up until now.


One thing to remember is that the charmed characters do not lose their original inclinations and loyalties -- they just have a loyalty added. They want to accomplish the goals of the kopru, but they still are friends with any other PCs to whom they previously were friends, and they still have basic inclinations about not harming those who put them in positions of trust, etc. if they previously had those. The magic might force (I don't remember how the charming worked in IoD. Charm in general has changed in this edition) the players to choose the Kopru in the end if two loyalties are truly incompatible, but up to that point they might bend over backwards to not have to overly harm their allies.

This is pretty much how I want them to play it. They are still themselves, they just have a new objective and they don't know why. The kopru in the adventure have a specific ability that does force them into combat, though... I think you may be right about the statuette in holding it back a bit. Maybe going up until the point of "Don't touch the statue, I don't want to hurt you!" and then just remaining very distressed if their friends don't comply.


Consider some options where team kopru 'wins' but the campaign doesn't end. Perhaps the PCs are kept on as servants (the charmed) and prisoners (the others), with the servants continuing to make ongoing checks to see if their charming finally breaks (but by then there are new recruits, and the kopru are awake and gaining in power...).

This... this is good stuff. I'll get working on this right away.


This comes down to whether your players would enjoy the Among Us style PvP or not. You have banned it, so I would venture to say "not." If they would, your plan is solid.

If they wouldn't, I would instead have the traitors be unaware of their own treachery. Essentially make NPC versions of them that act when they think only those who are likewise compromised will notice, using their bodies. This is them acting subconsciously.

This is how I am playing it. Technically they are playing NPC versions of themselves until the mind control is broken. It's not PC vs PC, it's NPC versions of those PC's vs PC. :)

[Keravath]

For everyone responding to this thread, one important note is that all of the players who are charmed will know about each other both IC and OOC. There seemed to be a little bit of confusion about that, so yeah... I'll basically be pulling those players aside and letting them know whats up in a discord channel, with the remaining characters taking a break.

I agree, but spells like Dominate Person and Geas exist in the game. The players should have the bare minimum of expectation that a bad guy eventually will use one of these effects against them. The players will still be playing their characters, but with new objectives.

The players will be given OOC instructions from the statuette. Also, they'll be told to covet the statuette almost obsessively, and they will lie to their fellow players if necessary. So I will also be calling for deception rolls in the open, so the other players should have enough clues that something is up before then.

Fudge the DC, I'm not going to end the campaign due to bad luck. This is supposed to be a fun side mechanic, and also communicates that they are up against a formidible foe. They have basically been fighting humanoids and beasts up until now.

This is pretty much how I want them to play it. They are still themselves, they just have a new objective and they don't know why. The kopru in the adventure have a specific ability that does force them into combat, though... I think you may be right about the statuette in holding it back a bit. Maybe going up until the point of "Don't touch the statue, I don't want to hurt you!" and then just remaining very distressed if their friends don't comply.

This... this is good stuff. I'll get working on this right away.

This is how I am playing it. Technically they are playing NPC versions of themselves until the mind control is broken. It's not PC vs PC, it's NPC versions of those PC's vs PC. :)

I think the biggest problem with this is coming up with the parameters for the effect. If the characters are too much themselves they won't hurt their companions and will likely fail their task. On the other hand, if succeeding at the task is given top priority then they will take any action to ensure success. I would think that the kupra would like the characters to succeed at all costs so the question becomes what holds them back and what parameters you want to give to the players.

The second question is whether it will be fun to play such a scripted encounter as the bad guys if you give them the instructions that either ensure failure or prevent a TPK. If the bad guys have full leeway to do what they want then they will use "divide and conquer" to individually capture or kill every other party member. Even just 2 fails out of 5 will likely be sufficient since the bad guys know about their shared goals and each other while the rest will not know what is going on.

Anyway, very challenging scenario to balance.

[schm0]

I think the biggest problem with this is coming up with the parameters for the effect. If the characters are too much themselves they won't hurt their companions and will likely fail their task. On the other hand, if succeeding at the task is given top priority then they will take any action to ensure success. I would think that the kupra would like the characters to succeed at all costs so the question becomes what holds them back and what parameters you want to give to the players.

The second question is whether it will be fun to play such a scripted encounter as the bad guys if you give them the instructions that either ensure failure or prevent a TPK. If the bad guys have full leeway to do what they want then they will use "divide and conquer" to individually capture or kill every other party member. Even just 2 fails out of 5 will likely be sufficient since the bad guys know about their shared goals and each other while the rest will not know what is going on.

Anyway, very challenging scenario to balance.

The parameters are simple: protect the statuette, encourage the party to delve deeper inside the temple, and awaken the kopru. They aren't going to get any orders from the statue to just kill each other. After reading some of the comments here, I think I'm going to have them stop just shy of hurting each other. They may contest each other for the statue, argue or even grow angry, but I'll stop short of the violence. Besides, the kopru have the innate ability to do this, so I'll let them handle that. :)

As for a potential TPK, I do have an NPC who might be able to show up and fight on behalf of the players, just in case.

[PhantomSoul]

I agree, but spells like Dominate Person and Geas exist in the game. The players should have the bare minimum of expectation that a bad guy eventually will use one of these effects against them. The players will still be playing their characters, but with new objectives.


Dominate Person lasts a maximum of one minute, and Geas is much more minor (it inherently gives a choice and is likely to last a maximum of 30 days). Both have "escape" clauses, whether it's breaking spellcaster concentration, taking damage, removing curse, greater restoration, or even just dispelling.

It think mind control is 100% part of the game, but if you're concerned enough to post about it in the forum and all the more if it could feel like a railroad or a plot contrivance, it's worth thinking about how the players will feel about it. It's also happening at a point where they potentially aren't feeling any imminent threat (which is a perk, depending on your mindset) and that they explicitly don't know about as a group. So while it's conceptually not completely different, posting in the forum suggests you find it different enough to be worth mentioning -- and given how wildly different it can feel compared to the spells you list, I think you're right to think on it. (Long-term) mind control can be tons of fun, but sometimes it's easier when you can find some way for the character/player to get into the mindset or feel like it's in their best interest to go along (and potentially explicitly not to murder everyone), and even a tiny thematic boon (whether temporary or permanent) or a carefully phrased objective can get you there.

[Segev]

Dominate Person lasts a maximum of one minute, and Geas is much more minor (it inherently gives a choice and is likely to last a maximum of 30 days). Both have "escape" clauses, whether it's breaking spellcaster concentration, taking damage, removing curse, greater restoration, or even just dispelling.

Not going to rehash the argument so much as point out that there is disagreement here: one way of reading geas is that the line saying the spell is "forcing [the target] to carry out some service or refrain from some action or course of activity as [the caster] decide[s]" is not just hollow fluff whose sole mechanical impact is described later. That is, one can read that as operative: the creature is forced to carry out the service or refrain from the action/course of activity. It isn't able to voluntarily refrain. "While the creature is charmed by you, it takes 5d10 psychic damage each time it acts in a manner directly counter to your instructions, but no more than once each day," would then be what happens if something forces them to act counter to your instructions, rather than the only punishment for willfully choosing to (since willfully choosing to would be impossible).

I'm not going to say the contrary reading - where there's no actual compulsion and the spell only inflicts an annoying but not impossible to overcome penalty to your daily hit point recovery - is incorrect. I'm not really arguing one way or the other. I am merely pointing out that the spell can be read to actually have a powerful compulsory effect that is backed up by damage that complicates plans such as "lock the victim up so he can't carry out his orders."

[PhantomSoul]

Not going to rehash the argument so much as point out that there is disagreement here: one way of reading geas is that the line saying the spell is "forcing [the target] to carry out some service or refrain from some action or course of activity as [the caster] decide[s]" is not just hollow fluff whose sole mechanical impact is described later. That is, one can read that as operative: the creature is forced to carry out the service or refrain from the action/course of activity. It isn't able to voluntarily refrain. "While the creature is charmed by you, it takes 5d10 psychic damage each time it acts in a manner directly counter to your instructions, but no more than once each day," would then be what happens if something forces them to act counter to your instructions, rather than the only punishment for willfully choosing to (since willfully choosing to would be impossible).

I'm not going to say the contrary reading - where there's no actual compulsion and the spell only inflicts an annoying but not impossible to overcome penalty to your daily hit point recovery - is incorrect. I'm not really arguing one way or the other. I am merely pointing out that the spell can be read to actually have a powerful compulsory effect that is backed up by damage that complicates plans such as "lock the victim up so he can't carry out his orders."

I should've reread the spell -- it's more explicit than I'd remembered! (It's only ever been a plot point in our games, and never affecting players).

[Segev]

I should've reread the spell -- it's more explicit than I'd remembered! (It's only ever been a plot point in our games, and never affecting players).

Both 3e and 5e are written...similarly...and have had the same arguments. Thus some tables treat geas as nearly worthless unless all you care about is killing peasants who defy you, while others treat it as more or less what it narratively is: a compulsion. I lean towards the latter, obviously, as shown by my biased wording here, but I can see the argument from the RAW for the former.

I only brought it up because it's useful to know all the possible rulings when discussing a topic.

In this case, a geas interpreted as a compulsion would actually work as the mechanical implementation of this effect, though the OP wants the ones who fail the save to be more "mentally on board" with it than geas requires. (Unless you interpret the Charmed condition to do more than it says it does in order to bring it more in line with what the name of the condition implies.)