Players choose what their PCs do . . .

aramis erak · Jul 8, 2019

Maxperson said:
So what. Word games like this don't alter my point. Absent some sort of magic, mental control, truth serum or whatever, I still have total authority over my PCs decisions and feelings.

It's not wordgames.

If someone else can say, "no, you don't" on any aspect of your action, they YOU are not in control. If the GM can call for a roll to succeed, you have had control taken away. If the GM can fiat say, "you failed," again, you've lost control over the character's actions.

You're expressing a fundamental disbelief in one of the most important elements that makes RPGing different from other forms of improv... you don't have control over the character you play at all levels. You have only as much control as the system and GM allows you to have.

Part of the implicit social contract of play is that you have to cede control over some aspects of the character over to either dice or the GM (or both) in order to play.

Lanefan · Jul 8, 2019

Nagol said:
1e has a bunch. Loyalty of henchman has a variety of mechanical triggers a PC can manipulate. Morale of opponents is often manipulated in games of 1e I run. Reactions of NPCs can occasionally be twiddled with through circumstance and previous knowledge of the character and motivations of the NPC.

All true, but those are PCs influencing NPCs. We're looking for examples of the less-common reverse, where NPCs can influence PCs without magic.

Lanefan · Jul 8, 2019

aramis erak said:
It's not wordgames.

If someone else can say, "no, you don't" on any aspect of your action, they YOU are not in control. If the GM can call for a roll to succeed, you have had control taken away.

Actually, no you haven't. You always had - and still have - control over the action declaration, and when to make it, and how; but any action declaration is merely an attempt to do or change something in the fiction and is thus not invalidated by either success or failure thereof. But you don't have - and never had - control over what the the outcome might be*, thus the GM calling for a roll doesn't change your level of control.

If the GM can fiat say, "you failed," again, you've lost control over the character's actions.

This, on the other hand, does change the level of control in that the attempt has been rendered invalid at source: you've lost control of your ability to make a valid attempt to do (or affect) something in the fiction.

* - though you might have some control over things that might influence the outcome or change the odds - anything from plot bennies to bonus dice to magic items to whatever.

Nagol · Jul 8, 2019

Lanefan said:
All true, but those are PCs influencing NPCs. We're looking for examples of the less-common reverse, where NPCs can influence PCs without magic.

Assuming psionics are considered relabelled magic then I got nothing pre 4e. Early 4e had at least one martial manoeuvre that moved a PC without forced movement, but got somewhat patched up to allow player refusal. D&D has always allowed the player complete control over emotional and intellectual motivations and reactions.

Specific adventures, written as inconsistently as they were, might have a few examples of NPCs with persuasiveness so good it acts as if it were magic. Typical attempts to manipulate PCs in D&D rely on circumstance and situation, like telling the players that the widows and orphans will die in 1d6+1 rounds and thus they'll lose their mission bonus unless they are rescued first. It hasn't mechanically represented personality or motivation in game in a way to test it and specifically exempts PCs from those tests NPCs face -- like morale, intimidation, et al.

daredevilxp9 · Jul 8, 2019

totally agree

Maxperson · Jul 8, 2019

aramis erak said:
If someone else can say, "no, you don't" on any aspect of your action, they YOU are not in control. If the GM can call for a roll to succeed, you have had control taken away. If the GM can fiat say, "you failed," again, you've lost control over the character's actions.

I haven't lost control of the character's action in that circumstance. I simply do not control the result. My character still takes the action I desire, and the DM states the action failed. I've never argued that I should have control over the result of the action.

You're expressing a fundamental disbelief in one of the most important elements that makes RPGing different from other forms of improv... you don't have control over the character you play at all levels. You have only as much control as the system and GM allows you to have.

Part of the implicit social contract of play is that you have to cede control over some aspects of the character over to either dice or the GM (or both) in order to play.

No, that's not what I'm expressing. You're just confusing the result of the action with the action itself. They are two different things. The DM cannot tell me that my character doesn't try and take a running jump over the Grand Canyon. He can just tell me that I failed without allowing a roll, since it's an impossible feat to accomplish. In many, if not most RPGs, the player has full control over his PC's actions. I won't play the ones that don't allow full control for reasons that are not D&D, despite the failed attempts of some here to paint it that way.

Maxperson · Jul 8, 2019

Lanefan said:
This, on the other hand, does change the level of control in that the attempt has been rendered invalid at source: you've lost control of your ability to make a valid attempt to do (or affect) something in the fiction.

I disagree. Remember, [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION] is assuming a valid social contract, "Part of the implicit social contract of play is that you have to cede control over some aspects of the character over to either dice or the GM (or both) in order to play." That means that the DM isn't going to be using that fiat to cause an attempt that has a chance to succeed to auto fail, as that would violate the social contract. Telling the PC his character fails at an attempted task with no chance of success is not rendering the attempt invalid. It's simply the proper response to the attempted action.

FrogReaver · Jul 8, 2019

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

i think there is a pre-step I’ve been missing that changes everything

in d&d I cannot role play the character that can never lose at combat as such a character isn’t supported by the rules of the game. The pre- step is that I as a player don’t conceive of a character that the rules wouldn’t support

so in the case of the maiden winking melting my heart I can imagine a game that possesses such a mechanic so that I know not to conceive of a character possessing a trait that would be against said mechanic.

Maybe that hat is the real crux of the issue.

FrogReaver · Jul 8, 2019

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

i think there is a pre-step I’ve been missing that changes everything

in d&d I cannot role play the character that can never lose at combat as such a character isn’t supported by the rules of the game. The pre- step is that I as a player don’t conceive of a character that the rules wouldn’t support

so in the case of the maiden winking melting my heart I can imagine a game that possesses such a mechanic so that I know not to conceive of a character possessing a trait that would be against said mechanic.

Maybe that hat is the real crux of the issue.

FrogReaver · Jul 8, 2019

FrogReaver said:
@pemerton

i think there is a pre-step I’ve been missing that changes everything

in d&d I cannot role play the character that can never lose at combat as such a character isn’t supported by the rules of the game. The pre- step is that I as a player don’t conceive of a character that the rules wouldn’t support

so in the case of the maiden winking melting my heart I can imagine a game that possesses such a mechanic so that I know not to conceive of a character possessing a trait that would be against said mechanic.

Maybe that hat is the real crux of the issue.