Mind Control is No Fun

[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?"

[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.

[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?"

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?"

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.