Character Autonomy/Control

[Thorn Darkblade]

So, this came up in a heated discussion in a tabletop game I ran fairly recently.

When do you not retain control of your character?

The example was the following:


Two of my players are at a tournament, facing against each other. There's magical enchantments on the tourney grounds to prevent character death (losers simply go unconscious), so, it's basically just to warm the characters up, teach my players the game's combat system, and for everyone to meet each other before the major plot drama starts to unfold.
As was supposed to happen, one player wins, the other is knocked out cold. As a show of respect, the winning player picks up the unconscious body of the loser and brought her over to where the field medics were, instead of leaving her out in the ring for them to come to.

The losing player absolutely loses her mind over this. The claim was 'no other player can force another player's character to do anything, including moving them, without the other player's consent.'
As the GM of the game, I told her she was incorrect, her character was unconscious, and since she cannot resist in any fashion until healed or she comes to in about an hour, the winning player was able in fact able to do such. This devolved into a heated argument over characters being intellectual property, and that I and the other player were violating this by that action, compared it to godmoding in forum RPs, and the like.


So, I'd like some opinions: Was I right in my call? Are there cases when you do not retain control of your character? Or can nothing happen to your character against their will, no matter the circumstances?

 

[call me rae]

Well first I'll say this - it's a sticky situation. People have different sensitivities and as such there is no one right answer that is going to fit every situation unless it is just behavior your yourself feel is totally unacceptable. For instance - I personally hate it when people put "surprise" plot twists where they totally alter the plot of my roleplay without warning. You do that and I'm kicking you out - No questions and no excuses.


Now for the most part though I'm pretty easy going and I'll take each situation as it comes up.


So it sounds like your Player ( we'll call them Player A ) felt very strongly about how their character should be used. In a situation where it wasn't really going to negatively effect the roleplay I would personally just have been ...


I'm sorry Player A , I allowed Player B to move your character to get them out of the way of the action so the next group could enter the tournament. If you would rather move your character yourself I will keep that in mind for next time. However as reversing the action will break the flow how about we continue on with our story? ( or if it doesn't break the flow honestly just let Player A move their own character out of the way. If it's that important of an issue to them it's better to keep the peace than argue semantics. )


Now as to my own personal thoughts on the matter 


idc. To me your only controlling my character if you are A. physically having them move from place to place or act/respond in a way that is not true to their character or only benefits your character. Ex. if Player B had their character win the tournament by doing some kind of unrealistic move and killing Player A than that would have been bad.


But if you need to say my character follows yours into a room or you carry my unconscious character somewhere to keep the story flowing than I'm not really going to mind. As that's just keeping the story flow progressing without it stagnating into onelines back and forth.


But that's me, and I know that other people might be more sensitive. So it's best to just judge the situation as it stands and to decide what is more important - keeping the peace or making an example of this players behavior.

 

[Thorn Darkblade]

For the record, this was a dice-based system, so, player A went unconscious completely within the mechanics of the game, player B not having won unfairly by any means. The mechanics also state that at the wound level she was at, her character was basically unconscious unless they spend a resource (willpower) to act for a single turn, and even then it's basically just whispers and crawling around, and if no willpower is spent, they're completely out cold and helpless for at least an hour, depending on the wound type (wounds came in two flavors, bashing- which is more superficial and heals faster, and lethal, which is, well, lethal. She was out from bashing, so not out very long)


From my viewpoint, by those rules, once you've gone unconscious from that kind of damage, and if you're either out of the strength of will to keep going, or, as in this case, you opt not to spend any will, until you come to, you're helpless. It just sorta rubbed me wrong, because while this was player vs player, she said it didn't matter if it was player or GM. In games with a GM running everything, it's always been my opinion that what the GM says is law. Now, an unfair GM can exploit this, and I've seen it exploited (and opted to not play in games with heavy handed GMs), but, the loss of character control can also be used as a valuable tool for driving a plot. Kidnappers poison you or whack you on the back of the head, you come to a few hours later in a strange room, hands tied, but they forgot to check your boot knife. Stuff like that can drive good stories home.

 

[call me rae]

Well yeah if it effects the flow of the story than your job is to apologize if I you have offended the person but tell them - I'm sorry but this needed to happen to keep the story going. 

 

[Saccharine Cyanide]

Hmm, I'm not too well-versed in Dice-based RPGs, but in general, I think the best thing to do is to assume that everyone wants complete autonomy over their character at all times, even unconscious, until the player specifically says otherwise.  That way, you can't possibly step on anyone's toes


Maybe you should have a small OOC session to figure out exactly what everyone's personal boundaries are?  And get it down in writing so nobody can go back on it.  : P

 

[ApfelSeine]

I think it can be tricky, since technically they can't control their character when their character is unconscious, even if they want to. If it was preestablished that characters who lost would go unconscious and be moved off the field, then the fact that this particular player was unaware (or perhaps intentionally ignorant) of this established rule is a red flag. Best case scenario, then simply overlooked or forgot about the rules of combat. Worst case scenario they think that they should be allowed to have an exception to the rules. In the latter instance, they're going to be like that if their character dies too, so if that's a possibility in your roleplay, they may not be the best fit. I know that I personally don't like roleplays where my characters can die (mainly because what am I supposed to do after they die? Become a ghost? Just leave? If I'm going to have to leave early I may as well not join... but that's a topic for another time).


Here's the difference between autonomy in dice and non-dice:


In dice roleplays, everything is fair because it's random. You sacrifice some character autonomy because everyone else is also doing so. In return, you can choose which character wins a fight in an impartial way. The GM can demand that players who lose be rendered vulnerable to actions by other players. That's the price paid for the impartial system of combat. Being moved off the battlefield isn't out of character, which is the main issue that comes with god modding. It's simply a fact of life that if you lose, you go unconscious or die. Or perhaps you are simply disarmed depending on the type of battle. What the outcome will be is generally already established. Regardless, what happens happens because the dice has decreed it to be so. A person who wants complete control over their character is not going to be happy with a dice roleplay, because dice roleplays demand that one be a good sport about losing and go along with whatever happens to their character as a result of their defeat.


In non-dice roleplays, things are made to be fair by the players reaching a consensus. Things like god modding are seen as especially terrible because in order for battles to be fair, each player should only be able to control their own character. There isn't a system in place to determine whether a move should work or not, so the player being attacked needs to have the integrity to not dodge every hit. In return, the other player shouldn't be using "undogeable moves" or insist that an attack landed without the other player's consent. It's a delicate balance, but it allows the outcome of battle to be tailored to the characters if done correctly. In order for the outcome to stay true to the characters however, each person should only be able to determine what happens to their own character. After all, they are the person who would best be able to determine whether their character would be able to react in time to dodge an attack.


With that said, autonomy is a necessary sacrifice in dice rps. You don't always have to sacrifice a lot of it in every dice roleplay, but there is always some sacrifice of it. After all, with a dice system, you don't get to say whether or not an attack landed or whether or not you won a battle. That's just how it is. In a non-dice roleplay, you do get a say over that. In non-dice roleplays, autonomy is crucial  to maintaining balance and making certain that everyone can be satisfied. There are pros and cons to both, but I do think that full autonomy cannot be demanded in a dice roleplay.


In reference to particular situation of someone  being upset over their character being moved without their permission, the roleplay is likely not a good match for them. For one thing, this act of "god modding" was benign and didn't impact the character in any way, so to get this upset about it is only a taste of what is to come if something is ever done to their character that they really don't want to be done. Secondly, it indicates that they are likely to kick up a big fuss if their character is killed off because they feel that only they should get to decide what happens to their character. They're not going to be very happy if things don't work out in their favor. Finally, getting this upset over it shows a fundamental lack of knowledge on how the combat system works and what losing a battle implies. Not understanding the system which you have laid out for them is a problem, as it's an integral part of how your roleplay will function. There are going to be times where the character will be vulnerable after a battle. The loser of a battle doesn't get a say in what happens, and if the player can't accept that then it's likely not a good roleplay for them.

 

[Grey]

You made the right call. The moment they tried to cite intellectual property in this context it should've been clear they were overreacting and probably just unused to the format. Apologize, maybe, but certainly establish for future reference that this kind of thing can and probably will happen.


I mean, I run a lot of horror; taking player agency away at crucial moments is kind of core to the genre, although I'm equally happy to have them act in ignorance and use that to scare 'em. 

 

[JayTee]

The other player was stupid and flew off the handle inappropriately. I wouldn't apologize, as the rules are the rules and you are the one enforcing them, but I would try to make sure she understands the context in which she's playing in. Dice games don't give you the same level of control over your character as freeform, and most people don't often realize what that means.

 

[commanderproton]

Kinda sounds like the losing player was just getting pissy over said loss.  If they blow up like that right off the bat, I wouldn't try too hard to keep them around.

 

[zanarkand]

It isn't technically godmodding because their character was unconcious. AKA can't move or do much of anything. Godmodding to me would be literally taking control of what the other character says/does in the context that their character had actually done something that wasn't typed up by the player themselves. Not moved to a safe place when their unconcious, it makes no sense that they'd be upset over being carried to the medic.

 

[Greenbriar]

It comes down to the roleplay and understood rules for same, but I firmly believe that In Character Actions have In Character Consequences - take one and you're accepting the other. 


If duelist A knocks duelist B unconscious in a fight they've both been playing out, then B has implicitly accepted that in taking part of a risky activity (that is, fighting), they may lose. Once they're unconscious they are an inanimate (if valuable) object, and can be moved just as you would move a chair. 


It's common courtesy not to be a jerk about it, but unless there's in-character sentinels nearby who could/would stop them, A could technically slit B's unconscious throat before anything or anyone could stop them.


Of course, A then accepts the consequences of blatant murder in plain view of the audience, and may be executed. Just because they're NPCs doesn't mean they don't have agency.

 

[Donder172]

While we do control our characters, I would self don't mind if someone would move my char away from for example a batlleground. It does make it more realistic if a char gets a other char away from danger. I think you should have letted his char be moved and if he still complained to remove him from the rp.


If a char is KO, there is the consequence he would be moved (at least he wasn't robbed what could have happened if the other char wanted to try)

 

[YanaAi]

I find it amusing that the player acted that way simply because her unconscious character was moved to be treated. Would she rather have had her splayed out on the field during the next battle? To be honest, I don't see anything indicative of godmoding or even a violation of rules in this scenario. A sore loser perhaps, but that's my opinion.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

Yeah I gotta agree with the others, that player must be out of their mind. First of all... intellectual property? That's like saying anything someone else created can't be moved by another person. Like I can't pick up a Star Wars dvd because it's someone else's intellectual property.


 What's that about.


Second of all, the dice are the dice and if the dice say you lost and your character is now unconscious, you have to deal with that. RPing is about reacting right? If your character is knocked out then someone conscious could do anything they want to them. They could sit on them and take a shit if they wanted to. Being carried for medical treatment is a far cry from the character being needlessly abused, so anyone who gets pissy about that is off their rocker. 


I think in situations like this, where a character is prevented from movement or something, then yeah man, other characters can do what they want to them. Like if a character is petrified or whatever. In dice games it's a lot more clear cut and there's no room to whine. In non-dice games, simply talk to each other about what's gonna happen before it happens. Ask for permission amd stuff. 


Anyway, you're good dude. Tell that player to get over themselves or leave the RP if they're gonna keep being a brat. 

 

[Asperix0]

The other player was quite possibly mentally challenged, the dice said her character was unconscious, and therefore she is unable to do anything in that state.

 

[Thorn Darkblade]

So, forgot to update, but, yeah, she rage quit/got kicked out by me, unsure which, cause they kinda happened simultaneously, after another blowup similar to this, and told our group to go eat a bag of male genitalia.


I think we're actually better off down a player.

 

[JayTee]

She got kicked out by you as far as I'm concerned. People who rage quit can come back after they calm down, but not if they're kicked out.


Glad things got resolved, even though it was in such a dramatic fashion. Hopefully your games run smoother now.