aramis erak
Legend
True enough, but they are still operating within the rules of many RPGs, due to the ability to change the rules on a whim.This to me is a false premise, in that not all (or even all that many) challenges need only have two clear mutually-exclusive outcomes to still be defined as challenges. Outcomes often run on a scale, with highly-desireable at one end and highly-undesireable at the other and a whole lot of other options in between.
Which is fine provided it's done within the framework of the game mechanics. An NPC charms or dominates my character? Cool - I can run with that.
But if the GM declares my PC's actions or thoughts by fiat then at that point I think (at least 98% of the time) I've probably got a bad GM.
As long as you-the-player retain control over declaring the attempted action, this doesn't conflict with what I said...though again it probably points to a bad GM unless there is in the fiction some difficulty in walking e.g. on an icy slope.
And the player can decide what and how the character thinks, and what its emotions are, unless that control has been removed as above.
To me the latter two of those three are concatenated: the GM gains control only when the mechanics allow her to.
THe default for many games, "The GM can change the rules on a whim," (not quite word for word, but expressed cogently in AD&D, both editions) means that the GM can literally justify any imposition. The only firm rule in AD&D is that the GM can alter the rules as they see fit.
I much prefer Burning Wheel's Rule 0... "Don't be a dick." (word for word.) Which said, BW is explicit about the attempt portion; it also requires players to state the method and the intent... at least outside combat... and to agree before rolling on the outcome.