FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
@FrogReaver - I pretty much agree with @Ovinomancer's most recent post about what roleplaying is (post 139 on my count).
If I'm told to play an angry person, I can do that. If I'm told to play a person who is pulling the trigger to assassinate the duke, I can do that. If I'm told to play a person whose heart has just been melted by a wink, well I can do that to.
Sure. Anyone can. The Question I'm raising isn't about after you are told to do something by an out of fiction source = can you then roleplay it. The question I'm raising is whether an out of fiction source telling you to do something removes your ability to roleplay for that moment.
That's why I've been careful to categorize games that use such mechanics as primarily roleplaying games while still having some non-roleplaying mechanics. That distinction seems to get lost by the anti-one-true-wayers - not because I'm proposing a one-true-wayism but because they mistakenly believe I am doing so.
Being told "The magician has ensorcelled you - play that" is no different from being told "The maiden's wink has softened your heart - play that." In some ways the latter is actually easier, I think, because it's closer to a genuine human experience! (Unless you've spent a lot of time in the company of Svengali!)
My point is that it is different. In one case the magician - has an in-fiction method of making your PC obey his commands. A maiden's wink (unless it's a wink with supernatural powers) doesn't have an in-fiction method of making a PC do anything. That's the difference and the disconnect between the supernatural example and the mundane one.
I also want to go back to the Apocalypse World example that I posted and that Ovinomancer mentioned. The player establilshes that her PC is looking for an escape route. She makes her check and fails. So the GM narrates that she is looking at her barred window, thinking about how maybe she might be able to escape through it, as her enemies attack her with a grenade.
The player described an attempted action and the DM described the result (in a comic relief sort of way). The basic process is fine but it's the details that matter in this example. In this example - it's the DM that is roleplaying the character as she stares at the bars thinking maybe she could escape through it.
Now you may enjoy such a style where the DM assumes control over PC's on failed checks and can insert some comic relief or whatever into the mood they desire, and such mechanics are compatible with roleplaying games - BUT the mechanic itself is a anti-roleplaying mechanic because it takes away from the player the opportunity to roleplay his character.
The GM isn't contradicting the player's account of her PC's action. The GM is adding further true descriptions of it, which obviously are adverse to the PC. (It's a failure, after all.)
Yes. The moment that additional description is about the PC doing something additional than what the player said then it's the DM assuming roleplaying responsibilities for that PC for that moment. That those responsibilities are quickly and seamlessly transferred back to the player after the fact doesn't have any impact on what's going on that the moment the DM assumes roleplaying control over a PC.
There's nothing there that contraverts the idea that the player is playing his/her PC.
yes there is. See above.