Have you ever taken a fall?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

I am however glad to hear that your players hold you in high esteem.

 

Now I didn't say that!

[RDU Neil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

I think this hits the nail on the head, a level playing field - I am rather liberal with Mind Control, quite the opposite of the "three page contract" approach TheRealLemming (but I know the real "lemming", and you sir are not him! ) cites. But it's a two-way street and the villains get the same benefit.

 

Generally, re wording versus intent, I think it comes down very much to the character. A dull-witted character might say and express something in such a limited way it will indeed work against his intent; a smarter character should get more of a benefit of intent and an assumption his control was stated better to coordinate with that intent. Obviously IMHO. I have drawn the line this way in the past.

 

Absolutely. I want the powers that are chosen by players to be effective. I wouldn't go out of my way to bone an energy blaster, I'm not going to do it to a mind controller. There are good story ways to work with mind control... an like Odd Hat says later, if certain powers would really mess up your game, just don't allow them. Allowing them then screwing them is just asking for aggravation, IMO.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Mental Powers can be such a pit though, a pit just as deep as the VPP pit.

 

I had one very-ex player get into an argument with me because he ordered a villain to shoot himself. I said he was violently opposed to doing that. His contention was that if there was a giant slug eating his lower body he might shoot at the thing, so he would be inclined to shoot himself. Argument ensues on MC vs MI etc.

 

Finally I had enough. DD flies in from off-map, fires his killer 20d6 Penetrating, AP x 20 RKA, kills the character and I tell him he can now leave and he shouldn't plan on coming back. This wasn't the first run-in with this player, but it was most definately the last.

 

One of the hardest thing to GM in hero is these subjective tests "How likely is Plane Jane to shut off her flight?"

 

True... but this is also a test of "compatibility" in play styles. I'd respond to "Shoot yourself," if the roll was successful, to "He shoot himself in the hand!" If the player shrugged and said, "I'll have to be more specific next time... hey, I've got a winner! If the player whines and tries to argue, and take an adversarial relationship with me... buh-bye! I just don't condone adversarial gaming at all. GM makes the call... but the GM needs to be fair and above board and willing to admit mistakes. If you think the GM is wrong... don't challenge them... ASK? Be polite? Why did you make that ruling? What was the reasoning? If there isn't any, or the I missed something in the heat of the moment, hey... you bet I'll change my mind, but otherwise, the player needs to accept my ruling, and then expect me to be consistent in the future.

 

I have a great player playing a 600 point mentalist, and we almost never argue. The one time we did, was over the use of Mental Illusions, and I was just shocked at how powerful an effect they could be. Once I reviewed the power, he got most of what he asked for.

 

Players that actually get to succeed with their characters, rather than having every decision they made challenged interpreted in the least favorable light, actually turn out to be more cooperative, more willing to have their character fail once in a while, more willing to "role play" rather than munchkin.

 

I fall in the camp that says, "Err in favor of the players." Most GMs come up in an adversarial relationship, where you err in favor of boning the players. I don't like that, and I don't think it is productive. All the interpretive bits around mental powers are a good indication of having players that will, in response, err in favor of TRUSTING THE GM in return! Or if the don't... likely you will be parting ways.

[laxrulz777]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

I don't think you need to require a 3 page contract... the above example is perfect...

 

"Attack your teammates"

the player attacks them but the character doesn't have to like it and this was a perfect example of role playing the way a smart character might resist (or do something half-hearted) I would have similarly allowed this character to attack with is weakest attacks (although not with partial strength). I even would have allowed him to use an NND attack on a character he knew to be resistant (at least until the mentalist realized what was happening and changed the command). I'd also like to point out that the mentalist's command reinforced the notion that they were teammates and so was internally inconsistent to some degree...

 

The smart and careful mentalist would have made the command something like, "Those people are your mortal enemies" or "Go punch Dr. Photon" or "You love and must protect me from anyone"

 

Any of those commands would have been "better" and none of them are 3 pages long...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Please tell me that none of you seriously think I require a 3 page contract for a mentalist to get someone's name out of them.

 

Please?

 

I'm just saying that I don't think that 'well I paid points for that mind control' is any excuse for sloppy gaming. You paper over the cracks in your player's tactics and they never learn. I mean if they decide to do a move through on a villain standing against an armoured wall do you tell them or let them make the mistake and learn from it?

 

Tough love.

 

Examples,please:

 

The smart and careful mentalist would have made the command something like' date=' "Those people are your mortal enemies" or "Go punch Dr. Photon" or "You love and must protect me from anyone" [/quote']

 

"Those people are your mortal enemies": perilously close to MI, and if you suddenly face half a dozen mortal enemies all roughly as powerful as you, you are more liklely to run away than attack them if you have any sense. Try "Those people are your mortal enemies disguised as your friends. You must knock them all unconscious to foil their dastardly plan. Quick, now. Oh and I'm a friend disguised as a mortal enemy, two can play at that game, eh? Let's get them, chum!"...and on for another 3 pages.

 

"Go punch Dr. Photon": might work for one punch, then the conditions are fulfilled and the MC is over. Also nothing about how hard here...Try "Go punch Dr.Photon's lights out"

 

"You love and must protect me from anyone": So including yourself, right? We all need protecting from ourselves. You'd probably be safest if I locked you in the bank vault then no one could get you or take you away from me and I could pet you and stroke you all day long. I love you soooooooooooooooooo much...Try "You are my loyal bodyguard and must prevent anyone from attacking me by any means necessary"

 

I'm not going to claim to be a great authority on definitive MC commands, and you can probably pick holes in mine. Knock yourselves out, plenty of room in purgatory.

 

And much as you may loathe the approach and those who use it (me):

 

Absolutely. I want the powers that are chosen by players to be effective. I wouldn't go out of my way to bone an energy blaster' date=' I'm not going to do it to a mind controller.[/quote']

 

...you all do it, despite your lofty ideals...

 

I'd respond to "Shoot yourself' date='" if the roll was successful, to "He shoot himself in the hand!"[/quote']

 

You see, I'd just insert the significant comma and have Gun Guy shoot the mind controller. Ah the power of grammar!

 

Even now I can feel someone taking that one too seriously too...

[Rapier]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Well, I like to err on the side of intent. You paid the points for MC, after all.

 

I could see giving some wiggle room if the mentalist just barely made the roll, depending on the SFX, etc.

 

If the MC is checmical based, most definately could you give him a baby punch.

If the MC was telepathic or through some kind of mental link...not a chance. You will bow before the will of the mentalist.

 

Its still awfully shadey. But keep arguing, you are helping me to firm up my position.

[OddHat]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Please tell me that none of you seriously think I require a 3 page contract for a mentalist to get someone's name out of them.

 

Please?

 

I'm just saying that I don't think that 'well I paid points for that mind control' is any excuse for sloppy gaming. You paper over the cracks in your player's tactics and they never learn. I mean if they decide to do a move through on a villain standing against an armoured wall do you tell them or let them make the mistake and learn from it?

 

 

You see, I'd just insert the significant comma and have Gun Guy shoot the mind controller. Ah the power of grammar!

 

Even now I can feel someone taking that one too seriously too...

 

I thought it was a quip. Still, you are talking about intentionally misinterpretting the player's intent to give an edge to the npcs, have a laugh at the player's expense, or both. It seems kind of pointless; if you don't like MC, why let the players have it at all?

 

"We all like a good laugh" is probably as good an answer as any.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

I thought it was a quip. Still, you are talking about intentionally misinterpretting the player's intent to give an edge to the npcs, have a laugh at the player's expense, or both. It seems kind of pointless; if you don't like MC, why let the players have it at all?

 

"We all like a good laugh" is probably as good an answer as any.

 

I love MC I just think it is hard to run fairly and consistently because you are making judgement calls all the time. What level MC do you need? How is the command interpretted?

 

I also think that it is one of those powers that can utterly devastating to a game in a way that an EB rarely is. If you set a precedent of being too generous to your players it is really going to glare when you have to fluff things to stop them short circuiting the whole scenario, and I like to think I am consistent and fair - players are encouraged to try and circumvent villain commands by quick thinking and role playing.

 

If a thick brick is MC'd, he won't think his way out of the box, but if an INT 30 gadgetess is MC'd you can be sure she'll be thinking of ways around what she's made to do. Think of the player/GM as the subconscious of the controlled character: they don't like being controlled and are looking for a way out. They can't actually disobey, but if they can legitimately interpret a command in a way favourable to them they will. It is only misinterpretting from the point of view of the controller. Victims have rights too.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

I find MC judgements hard to make. As far as I'm concerned, I'm violently opposed to being mind controlled.

 

Keith "Frreeeeedoom!!!" Curtis

[zornwil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Ah' date=' but I was Lemming, before the original Hero boards went down/the cybergames thing and the discussion boards were hosted elsewhere for some time: by the time I found my way back, another lemming had appeared, and I, well...it is a sad story, let us leave it at that. [/quote']

On a more serious note, I wonder whose nick goes back further in general? I know he's had his a long time. You guys should PM. No, wait, you guys should ... fight TO THE DEATH!!!!!

[zornwil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Mental Powers can be such a pit though, a pit just as deep as the VPP pit.

 

I had one very-ex player get into an argument with me because he ordered a villain to shoot himself. I said he was violently opposed to doing that. His contention was that if there was a giant slug eating his lower body he might shoot at the thing, so he would be inclined to shoot himself. Argument ensues on MC vs MI etc.

 

Finally I had enough. DD flies in from off-map, fires his killer 20d6 Penetrating, AP x 20 RKA, kills the character and I tell him he can now leave and he shouldn't plan on coming back. This wasn't the first run-in with this player, but it was most definately the last.

 

One of the hardest thing to GM in hero is these subjective tests "How likely is Plane Jane to shut off her flight?"

Yeah, I think your comment implies (states?) that a lot of the issue is maturity among players and GM. If it's there, great, if not there, I dunno, in my experience there are a number of things to worry about besides MC. Then again, maybe there's more to it as I know lemming (just lemming) has a prejudice against mentalist constructs, though he's working through that by playing one in my game.

[zornwil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Please tell me that none of you seriously think I require a 3 page contract for a mentalist to get someone's name out of them.

 

Please?

(snip)

 

For the record, I didn't take you seriously, just used the term. I'm not saying I've seen 0 interpretation issues, just not at all as you and others have cited. Obviously, mileage varies.

[zornwil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

I love MC I just think it is hard to run fairly and consistently because you are making judgement calls all the time. What level MC do you need? (snip)

 

Brief addition - one thing I do (which may or may not help) is I simply have the player make the call of what his MC command is, and roll the dice. I then apply the level to which he made the dice roll -of course if his command was too much to take at all, it gets discarded if it doesn't make the required level, but most commands can be applied to the degree they achieve effect. FWIW, I haven't had problems, and this gets around people guessing at levels and being frustrated that they had 0 effect despite getting to +20 or such.

[OddHat]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

On a more serious note' date=' I wonder whose nick goes back further in general? I know he's had his a long time. You guys should PM. No, wait, you guys should ... fight TO THE DEATH!!!!![/quote']

 

Cue Trek music.

[zornwil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Cue Trek music.

Good one.

 

Reminds me of doing the fight theme a capella when the cats fight!

[RDU Neil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

Brief addition - one thing I do (which may or may not help) is I simply have the player make the call of what his MC command is' date=' and roll the dice. I then apply the level to which he made the dice roll -of course if his command was too much to take at all, it gets discarded if it doesn't make the required level, but most commands can be applied to the degree they achieve effect. FWIW, I haven't had problems, and this gets around people guessing at levels and being frustrated that they had 0 effect despite getting to +20 or such.[/quote']

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you ask the player with MC to declare "I'm going for +20 level, in order to do X... and here is the command." Then roll the dice. Right?

 

Doesn't everyone do this? That's how I've always played out mental powers. Establish the mechanical effect first, then role play out through commands, etc., how it happens in the game.

 

Are you honestly suggesting that some folks have the player give the command... and then the GM says, "roll it!" and then afterwards, the GM says, "Good roll, but not enough, because I was ruling that your command was +20 and you only achieved +10. Sorry."

 

Yikes! That's just asking for players to be pissed off. I'd never do it that way. In fact, if a player says, "I'm going for +30" I'll even warn them, if they'd have a reason to know, "That will be very hard to do. This guy has a steel will!" or whatever. Then they can choose to go ahead and try, or not. Most often, players will go ahead with this (my players, at least) and don't have as much of a problem if they fail, because they understood up front that it was a risk.

 

To TRL's point, if someone says they are going to do a move-through on a villain standing in front of an armored wall, I WILL say, "Hey... you do realize he's standing in front of an armored wall, right?" Because, in my experience, the players I have would stop and say, "Hmmm... would this character I'm playing notice? Would they still do it, even if they did notice? Would they change their mind and just blast him?" And then they ROLE PLAY! Depending on the character, they may just go ahead and plow on in, claiming "Do you really think the Thick Brick would even notice that?" or "You are right, Capt. Smarty-Pants would adjust his trajectory and try to do a move by to the side, even though I know I'll take minuses" or whatever.

 

If a player actually would try to change his mind or "game" the situation out of character, it wouldn't just be me the GM giving him a hard time... most of the other players would turn and say, "Dude, you SAID you were going to do a move through. Take your lumps!" The group reinforces the social contract that "role playing for drama and story" are more important than strict rules interpretation or "winning."

 

Taking a fall... doing stupid things when the player knows better, but the character doesn't... these, IMO, are hallmarks of "role playing" over "rule playing." On the others side, erring on the side of players who take risks, who try dramatic actions, who demonstrate a willingness to role play and story tell... well that is my (the GM's) part of the relationship. Those are the players I want. It is my preferred style of game. Others, like those who enjoy the mechanics of the game more than the story aspects... hey, have fun... I'm just not into that style.

 

90% of the time, the mechanics and story/role playing work well together... but that 10% of the time when mechanics interfere with dramatic story/role playing... well, the mechanics will lose if I'm the GM. Players know this and choose to play in the game, or not.

 

(This is not to say that I allow players to get away with anything they want. Drama is sometimes heightened by using mechanics to enforce certain effects which DON'T go the players way. It is about give and take. Players need to understand balance and level playing field, to help the GM trust them, but also expect the GM to earn their trust. It's a very nebulous, complex field of interpersonal relationships that make a game work... not rules. Certain interpretation of rules support certain kinds/styles of play. Understanding how your interpretation (as GM or player) affects the social contract is critical.)

 

So back to the original point, I think mental powers and the use of them is a very hazy area, but is great for determining "Are we compatible as gamers!" To my mind, the fact that I would ask for "What effect are you aiming for? +30?" up front, implies a certain type of relationship between GM and players, and saying, "Oh... you failed, because I made a arbitrary APPEARING decision on the level of effect needed and didn't let you know ahead of time" as a very different relationship. I prefer the former over the latter. YMMV.

[zornwil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

If I understand you correctly' date=' you are saying that you ask the player with MC to declare "I'm going for +20 level, in order to do X... and here is the command." Then roll the dice. Right?[/quote']

 

No. I'll elaborate below. I quoted your whole message because I liked how you explored it and rather than give a flat answer I want to be clear on what/why/how I do it.

 

Doesn't everyone do this? That's how I've always played out mental powers. Establish the mechanical effect first, then role play out through commands, etc., how it happens in the game.

 

Yes, nearly everyone probably does it this way, and I agree it is the correct/orthodox method.

 

Are you honestly suggesting that some folks have the player give the command... and then the GM says, "roll it!" and then afterwards, the GM says, "Good roll, but not enough, because I was ruling that your command was +20 and you only achieved +10. Sorry."

 

KIND OF what I do! But it's not as bad as you say. First, I don't think most people can possibly know what a little-known opponent (as that's often the target) would think about a command like (for a simple, crude example) "Attack your teammate!" Don't get me wrong, usually a person would be opposed or violently opposed, but among some psycho villains I might find the target is noncommittal on the notion. So I don't even want to give that information, I think it inadvertantly gives clues.

 

And I don't do quite a you say - what I do is this, let's use the same example:

 

Player: "I command him to attack his teammate!" Rolls dice.

 

GM: Noting Player made it by +20 even though NORMALLY +30 would be required, at least one would expect. However, this villain doesn't much care for his teammate. So the GM says "You made it, and the funny thing is you have a feeling you didn't quite get him that deeply, but he just responded as well anyway."

 

Alternately for the GM:

 

GM: Noting Player only hit with +20 but +30 was required. "The villain freezes. He eyes his teammate suspiciously and moves behind him, taking a half move, before he launches a passive, low-END attack at you."

 

The point with the latter example and what I clearly screwed up in saying earlier is that I give partial effect according to how close you come. I don't believe you have to hit the level all-or-nothing. I dislike that. The command should have an effect proportional to the +x amount, you shouldn't have 0 effect because you didn't hit the level but still got, as in this example, +20.

 

Yikes! That's just asking for players to be pissed off.

 

I've never had a problem except I think on an occassion have had to say later, "You were pressing against a psych lim, I know you had a good roll but this villain really had a problem so the level was +10 deeper than you would have thought."

 

I'd never do it that way. In fact, if a player says, "I'm going for +30" I'll even warn them, if they'd have a reason to know, "That will be very hard to do. This guy has a steel will!" or whatever. Then they can choose to go ahead and try, or not. Most often, players will go ahead with this (my players, at least) and don't have as much of a problem if they fail, because they understood up front that it was a risk.

 

50-50 here. I would not tell a mentalist that a target he doesn't know has a steel will UNLESS the mentalist had attempted something earlier, and usually I heavily imply rather than state if the target is resistant. But if the mentalist doesn't know the target at all, I don't think it's realistic to say. However, when his attack fails or succeeds, I usually say (and the times I don't, frankly it's because I just forget) something to heavily imply whether he hit by a little or a lot, if the roll was just barely or by a lot, or whether he missed by a little or a lot, similarly.

 

To TRL's point, if someone says they are going to do a move-through on a villain standing in front of an armored wall, I WILL say, "Hey... you do realize he's standing in front of an armored wall, right?" Because, in my experience, the players I have would stop and say, "Hmmm... would this character I'm playing notice? Would they still do it, even if they did notice? Would they change their mind and just blast him?" And then they ROLE PLAY! Depending on the character, they may just go ahead and plow on in, claiming "Do you really think the Thick Brick would even notice that?" or "You are right, Capt. Smarty-Pants would adjust his trajectory and try to do a move by to the side, even though I know I'll take minuses" or whatever.

 

I agree with this, depending a little though. If the PC is of a decent INT and especially if he has any experience in combat, I definitely will. But if he is a low INT or combat-non-savvy (without a decent INT), I won't, though usually in that case I'll say "Make a roll," and then point it out if he makes the INT roll.

 

If a player actually would try to change his mind or "game" the situation out of character, it wouldn't just be me the GM giving him a hard time... most of the other players would turn and say, "Dude, you SAID you were going to do a move through. Take your lumps!" The group reinforces the social contract that "role playing for drama and story" are more important than strict rules interpretation or "winning."

 

Every once in a great while someone will try to wiggle out and we have the same thing, the players will reinforce that they had declared their action clearly and with reasonable understanding.

 

Taking a fall... doing stupid things when the player knows better, but the character doesn't... these, IMO, are hallmarks of "role playing" over "rule playing." On the others side, erring on the side of players who take risks, who try dramatic actions, who demonstrate a willingness to role play and story tell... well that is my (the GM's) part of the relationship. Those are the players I want. It is my preferred style of game. Others, like those who enjoy the mechanics of the game more than the story aspects... hey, have fun... I'm just not into that style.

 

I agree with this, I love interesting or dramatic attempts, and I normally cut slack for them. I felt bad because I ignored this "rule" a bit in a combat a while back and have been probably more attentive lately, even.

 

90% of the time, the mechanics and story/role playing work well together... but that 10% of the time when mechanics interfere with dramatic story/role playing... well, the mechanics will lose if I'm the GM. Players know this and choose to play in the game, or not.

 

(This is not to say that I allow players to get away with anything they want. Drama is sometimes heightened by using mechanics to enforce certain effects which DON'T go the players way. It is about give and take. Players need to understand balance and level playing field, to help the GM trust them, but also expect the GM to earn their trust. It's a very nebulous, complex field of interpersonal relationships that make a game work... not rules. Certain interpretation of rules support certain kinds/styles of play. Understanding how your interpretation (as GM or player) affects the social contract is critical.)

 

So back to the original point, I think mental powers and the use of them is a very hazy area, but is great for determining "Are we compatible as gamers!" To my mind, the fact that I would ask for "What effect are you aiming for? +30?" up front, implies a certain type of relationship between GM and players, and saying, "Oh... you failed, because I made a arbitrary APPEARING decision on the level of effect needed and didn't let you know ahead of time" as a very different relationship. I prefer the former over the latter. YMMV.

 

I will ask or say something such as "Your character thinks this is at the +30 level, you know that, right?" if it's not clear the player knows he's taking such a risk.

[Rapier]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

My main concern would be passing off to much out-of-game-knowledge to the player. As a loose analogy:

 

Player: I rolled 18 BODY and 34 STUN.

GM: Ok, taking away the villains 25 rDEF....

 

or

 

GM: Roll to hit Dr D's 8 DCV.

 

This is the kind of thing I would be worried about. The player would obviously know how well they rolled, but they would still have no real definitive idea how difficult it was.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

On a more serious note' date=' I wonder whose nick goes back further in general? I know he's had his a long time. You guys should PM. No, wait, you guys should ... fight TO THE DEATH!!!!![/quote']

 

Yeah...both our deaths - we could jump off something really high and see who goes splat in the prettiest pattern.

 

Anyone want to judge?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

I find MC judgements hard to make. As far as I'm concerned, I'm violently opposed to being mind controlled.

 

Keith "Frreeeeedoom!!!" Curtis

 

I made you say that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

My main concern would be passing off to much out-of-game-knowledge to the player. As a loose analogy:

 

Player: I rolled 18 BODY and 34 STUN.

GM: Ok, taking away the villains 25 rDEF....

 

or

 

GM: Roll to hit Dr D's 8 DCV.

 

This is the kind of thing I would be worried about. The player would obviously know how well they rolled, but they would still have no real definitive idea how difficult it was.

 

An excellent point.

 

Of course your could have your villains wear badges like 'I'm EGO 8; why not dominate me?'

 

...or is that just too much of an insight into my dark side?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

The game system :TFOS. The campaign: Mistukuri High School, porobably the longest-running TFOS camapign in hoistory 9a year and a half). My character Hiro Suzuke was a guy who had split Cool: maximum normally, but minimum when the Love of His Life, Eriko-san, was around.

 

Natrually, it topok him months to finally get up the nerve to confess to Eriko-san. When he finally did, in a very stressful situation 9the auqarium they wree in was under attack) I didn;t even roll against anything. I just fainted dead away from the 'emotional BONK".

 

Everyone agreed I roleplayed the situation very well. By the end of the campaign they were engaged, but I never did buy up my Cool around her.

 

Think the "Tofu Effect" 9referring to the Ranma character who became a complete yutz around the love-of-his-life. I built my character around that concept, with a liberal mixutre of other Takahashi traits.

[Rapier]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

An excellent point.

 

Of course your could have your villains wear badges like 'I'm EGO 8; why not dominate me?'

 

...or is that just too much of an insight into my dark side?

I think I used to have a TShirt that said that.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

There are times I've taken the fall. We've also called "how the monster works".

 

GM: "He starts to slowly walk through your force wall, what do you do?"

Me: "What the??? I get hit."

 

GM: "The pacifist gets so angry with you, that he goes to punch you, what you're DCV?"

Me: "What the??? I wasn't expecting that. Normally, it's an 8, but I was completely out of combat."

[RDU Neil]

Re: Have you ever taken a fall?

 

There are times I've taken the fall. We've also called "how the monster works".

 

GM: "He starts to slowly walk through your force wall, what do you do?"

Me: "What the??? I get hit."

 

GM: "The pacifist gets so angry with you, that he goes to punch you, what you're DCV?"

Me: "What the??? I wasn't expecting that. Normally, it's an 8, but I was completely out of combat."

 

 

Hah! Good stuff. Rep to you! I've had players do that as well. Something surprises them, or a truly creepy or weird or scary situation starts to play out, and they will burn actions freaking out or make (consciously on the player's part) bad decisions to reflect the surprise or emotional state of the character. We love this stuff... but again, as players, we've learned to trust each other and enjoy the story... not to use it to bone the other guy. (Unless screwing 'em over is good for the story... then all bets are off! But that is actually rare, though it does happen.)