Players choose what their PCs do . . .

hawkeyefan · Jul 7, 2019

Maxperson said:
Of course he can challenge it. That's what, "She winks at you." is. A challenge to that flaw. Now it's up to me to roleplay how my PC engages that challenge via his flaw.

Neither. It's up to the player how to respond when it's introduced, though.

That's what I meant by it's up to the player if it matters.

Maxperson said:
I agree that they could have gone much further with this. However, as it currently stands, it has as much meaning as you give it. We often bring them up ourselves whenever we see moments that apply. If I'm playing a short tempered barbarian, I'm going to roleplay the short temper on a regular basis. We generally forget inspiration anyway, so these things are just roleplayed without any other reward than having fun roleplaying them. As a DM, though, I do give extra RP for that sort of thing, and even more when the appropriate moment is detrimental to the PC/Party, as it's harder to play up those flaws at those moments.

I think Inspiration is forgotten by many groups, based on comments here. As you say, that whole aspect of the game has as much meaning as a group gives it.

I just don't think that it's a bad thing in any way if a game actually makes rules about this stuff so that it inherently has meaning.

Maxperson said:
Sure.

Example 1: the wink does nothing.
Example 2: the wink warms my PC's heart.
Example 3: my PC thinks she's really into him and begins pursuing her affection in earnest.
Example 4: my PC think she's just being flirty and flirts back.
Example 5: My PC enjoys the wink as flattery, but it doesn't warm his heart. Perhaps he flatters her back.

And so on.

I meant an example of how such mechanics force only one outcome. The list you provided doesn't seem any different than what I'd expect to see in a game that included mechanics of the kind we're talking about.

hawkeyefan · Jul 7, 2019

Maxperson said:
If my character is a sucker for a pretty face, I would ignore the wink and declare another action only if there were a valid reason for it. Perhaps I found out during the course of play that 6 of her last 7 husbands died mysteriously and the 7th was never found. If the DM doesn't have an idea on why I am not being influenced, then it's not out of line to question it that way. At that point I'd let him know the reason why it's not having the effect it would ordinarily have.

So would a valid reason never be "my character was able to overcome his urge to give in to the maiden"? I mean, that seems a more likely and potentially valid reason than the crazy example you've provided.

If it's possible for the character to not give in, but it's entirely up to the player if they can do so, it seems a bit flawed.

pemerton · Jul 7, 2019

Lanefan said:
Simply being told that the maiden melts your PC's heart with a wink - without reference to any game mechanics - takes player agency and chucks it out the window.

Why are you assuming that there is no game system? I've posted many such examples in this thread: Prince Valian special effects; Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic emotional stress and complications; the example from AW; etc.

And in some systems, maybe the GM can narrate it by fiat if it follows naturally from what has gone before, just as in (say) Moldvay Basic the GM can narrate that the PC falls down a bit without calling for a roll if that is what follows naturally from what has gone before.

There are so many variations possible that I'm not going to list them all. I'm assuming that a reader can bring to bear his/her familiarity with the way various RPGs provide vaious ways for participants to establish true descriptions of various character's actions.

Lanefan said:
The "and melts your heart" bit, as that's where the controversy sits. Not only does it make a pile of assumptions (starting with that the PC even noticed the wink in the first place), but it then forces the PC's reaction. No die roll, no chance to resist, no way to avoid the effect.

Maybe the player made a check and failed, and this is the narration of the failure by the GM.

Maybe the system is Dying Earth, and the player failed an appropriate resistance check for his/her PC.

That's the point of the OP, to invite reflection on the various sorts of descriptions of action that might be narrated, and the various ways in which this might be done.

pemerton · Jul 7, 2019

Lanefan said:
In the fiction as viewed externally by real-world viewers, yes; because it's been set up that way.

But as viewed from the POV of a character within that fiction? No. That character would have no way of knowing any of this - it would just carry on living its life. And it's that viewpoint that I use when looking at game/system/world design - does it end up producing something that is consistent within itself in the eyes of every sentient thing* within that setting. If yes, good. If no, there's a problem - I've done it wrong.

* - whether they ever enter play, or whether they are PCs or NPCs or whatever, is not relevant - it has to be consistent for all such that something happening *here* ('on camera', with a PC involved) can be safely and correctly assumed to turn out much the same as if that same thing had happpened *there* (somewhere five countries away where no PC has ever gone).

Minion rules are the absolute opposite of this.

With respect, this makes no sense.

From the POV of a character in the ficiton you can't tell the resolution mechanics (including minion mechanics) that resultedin a certain outcome. You just experience the fictional events - eg that Aragorn swung his sword and chopped off the orc's head.

Mechanical system - like minion rules, or rules that privilege PCs over NPCs (Apocalypse World has this at several points; in 4e skill challenges are by design focused around player action declarations for their PCs; etc) - are only visible in the real world.

But the real world is not something that is visible to the eyes of any sentient thing within the game setting.

Ovinomancer · Jul 7, 2019

Maxperson said:
If my character is a sucker for a pretty face, I would ignore the wink and declare another action only if there were a valid reason for it. Perhaps I found out during the course of play that 6 of her last 7 husbands died mysteriously and the 7th was never found. If the DM doesn't have an idea on why I am not being influenced, then it's not out of line to question it that way. At that point I'd let him know the reason why it's not having the effect it would ordinarily have.

So, not a flaw if it might hurt you.

Fenris-77 · Jul 7, 2019

I'll be honest, the maiden's wink example rubs my rhubarb the wrong way. There aren't many game systems I can think of that would force a character to do X because they have the hots for the winky maiden. They might get the option to pursue that narrative strand, but it's not going to be mandatory. That outcome is pretty far into left field for even most experienced players, and I can't think of a system that works like that. Even with a check involved PCs aren't losing their volition because of a wink, that's just silly except for maybe a really small subset of fringe games that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy. I don't think it's a useful example.

That said, lets take Fate for a minute. If a PC had sucker for a pretty face as an aspect, I would definitely have the occasional maiden wink at them and push a fate point into the middle of the table. That's not the same as what's being discussed above though. Can someone give me an actual example of a system where getting winked at is the equivalent of serious mind control hoodoo when it comes to player choice?

Tony Vargas · Jul 7, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
. There aren't many game systems I can think of that would force a character to do X because they have the hots for the winky maiden.

I don't recall anything in either the original or the inverted example about forcing an action - only /feeling/ something.

FrogReaver · Jul 7, 2019

At least no one can poke fun at me now because I'm the only person here taking my position. So how about we have an actual discussion.

Question: What is actually wrong with the maiden winking example?

Answer 1: IMO. It's an in-fiction act that produces a mandatory effect whereas for whatever source material you are basing your groups shared fiction upon - in that source material maidens winks don't force any character to do anything.

Rebuttal 2: What is the anticipated counter-argument? that the maiden's wink in the example isn't actually forcing the PC in question to do something, but rather that its a determination of what the PC's response would be and then locking the player into roleplaying for that reality.

Answer 2: I happen to think that's a solid argument. So what is actually wrong with the Maiden winking example? IMO. It attempts to determine what the PC's response would be instead of simply allowing the player to roleplay their response.

Rebuttal 3: So what is the expected counter-argument to this. That charm person effects exists and they also determine what the PC's response would be instead of simply allowing the player to roleplay their response.

Answer 3: My answer is that unlike the maidens wink - charm person isn't an effect that attempts to determine what my PC's response to an action would be. Instead it's an in-fiction example of an ability that can actually force my PC to behave a certain way and that such an ability is a common in most all source material we might draw upon for our shared-fictional world.

So then we can set up a simple test for any given example for whether it will be acceptable or unacceptable -

Test 1. Does the action force a response in any of the source material for our shared-fictional-world. If yes then it's acceptable (charm person effects fall here). Does the action simply call for a determination of how the PC acted/will act as opposed to being a mind control style effect? If yes then that's unacceptable because it truly is taking away a moment where you can roleplay your character.

Why is the last part so important - because what truly sets roleplaying games apart from other games is that in an RPG you the player are taking on the role of a character by making their decisions, declaring their actions, having the character behave as you envision etc. So then anything that infringes upon your ability make character decisions, declare character actions, have the character behave as you envision etc - any of that also is infringing upon your ability to take on the role of a character in an RPG.

FrogReaver · Jul 7, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
I don't recall anything in either the original or the inverted example about forcing an action - only /feeling/ something.

In case you missed it - the way we are using "action" - melting your heart does constitute an action.

Tony Vargas · Jul 7, 2019

FrogReaver said:
In case you missed it - the way we are using "action" - melting your heart does constitute an action.

I definitely missed that. I caught it as the result of an action, but not forcing an action, just evoking an emotion.

FrogReaver said:
Question: What is actually wrong with the maiden winking example?

It paints the PC as a human being rather than a game piece? It doesn't involve magic? It's icky mushy stuff? It's a generic example so doesn't reference a resolution system? It presumes the romantic orientation of the PC?

Answer 1: IMO. It's an in-fiction act that produces a mandatory effect

We don't know if it's mandatory (automatic) or if there's a resolution system like a save or incentive like a compel being used (or if its a result if an action already having been resolved).

whereas for whatever source material you are basing your groups shared fiction upon - in that source material maidens winks don't force any character to do anything.

In the source material, people fall in love at first sight, and generally have all sorts of over the top emotional reactions.

the maiden's wink in the example isn't actually forcing the PC in question to do something, but rather that its a determination of what the PC's response would be and then locking the player into roleplaying for that reality.

Which needn't change his subsequent actions, just put a different shade of dramatic meaning on them.

charm person it's an in-fiction example of an ability that can actually force my PC to behave a certain way and that such an ability is a common in most all source material we might draw upon for our shared-fictional world.

Manipulation isn't common?
Characters in fiction are never manipulated into experiencing emotions they might rather not experience, or might be inconvenienced by, without magical coercion?