Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[FrogReaver]

@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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Since you keep bringing magic up let's take a moment and go more in depth on that topic. Let's take a dominate person like effect - that is a share fiction wherein the PC must obey the commands of an NPC.

It's very easy to roleplay a PC that is under seem mind altering affect that makes him obey the commands of another in fiction character. That is roleplaying! in fact, that may be the easiest roleplaying any one has ever done...

Contrast this with an out of fiction DM stating what your character must do. Having your PC do whatever the DM says isn't roleplay. Having your PC do what some other NPC says that has dominated him is roleplay.

Notice the difference?

Let me give you another version of this:

Since you keep bringing Bob Says up let's take a moment and go more in depth on that topic. Let's take a Bob Tells You To like effect - that is a share fiction wherein the PC must obey the commands of Bob.

It's very easy to roleplay a PC that is under seeming Bob Says affect that makes him obey the commands of Bob. That is roleplaying! in fact, that may be the easiest roleplaying any one has ever done...

Contrast this with Not Bob stating what your character must do. Having your PC do whatever Not Bob says isn't roleplay. Having your PC do what Bob says that has used Bob Says to him is roleplay.

Notice the difference?

No, I don't. You're reifying magic when it's just another mechanic through which the GM, in this case, is acting. There is no 'other character' in the fiction -- they don't do anything in the fiction without a player directing them, so trying to say that because the GM is telling you what to do but using a fictional cover for the mechanic isn't functionally any different from the GM telling you what to do. If the maiden softens your heart, this is the same thing. You're confusing a magic for something special and unique -- it's just another mechanic.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the DM hands me a slip of paper that says: "As a result of your capture last night at the Wizard's manse you are now under mind control. Your personality will not change, but your primary goal is to lure the rest of the party to a meeting at the docks tonight at 11th bell. Your character will explain everything away with a tale of near capture and last minute escape and wlll not mention his capture or the mind control under any kind of duress."

So, mind control, ok. There are lots of campaigns where I would definitely still RP this, even D&D campaigns. But somehow because the DM was giving the instructions without the gossamer thin difference of NPC voice I'm somehow not roleplaying? I don't follow. The DM said it, I'm doing it, it's roleplaying. Maybe that doesn't satisfy your definition of "whatever the DM says"? IDK ...

Stop misconstruing my position. I never said it had to be in NPC voice.

The difference is an in-fiction source for the control vs an out-of-fiction source for the control. Whether you've roleplayed it out or not, the DM provided you an in-fiction source for the control and thus you can 100% wholly and completely roleplay that scenario.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let me give you another version of this:

It all depends on if Bob is an in-fiction character and not-Bob is an out of fiction character. I see you dropped that distinction from your other version...

No, I don't. You're reifying magic when it's just another mechanic through which the GM, in this case, is acting. There is no 'other character' in the fiction -- they don't do anything in the fiction without a player directing them, so trying to say that because the GM is telling you what to do but using a fictional cover for the mechanic isn't functionally any different from the GM telling you what to do. If the maiden softens your heart, this is the same thing. You're confusing a magic for something special and unique -- it's just another mechanic.

I'm reifying in-fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

@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.

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!)

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 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.)

There's nothing there that contraverts the idea that the player is playing his/her PC.

It might be easier to play the DM forcing you to respond a certain way due to a wink, but for many of us it is far more distasteful than being ensorcelled. I get that some rule systems are designed to allow the DM to control a PC in that manner, but due to how distasteful such acts are to me, those are systems that I would not want to play.

 

[Bobble]

The function of players in RPGing is often described as deciding what their PCs do. But this can be quite ambiguous.

ambiguous: doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness.

NO it is NOT ambiguous at all. That is how it is mostly done in RPGs. The player decides describes what his character is doing or trying to do. THEN the GM takes over and describes the results.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It might be easier to play the DM forcing you to respond a certain way due to a wink, but for many of us it is far more distasteful than being ensorcelled. I get that some rule systems are designed to allow the DM to control a PC in that manner, but due to how distasteful such acts are to me, those are systems that I would not want to play.

I can understand that. I feel the same way in D&D ganes, but that's becayse the only authority I have in D&D is to make thin declarations -- the DM has authority over everything. So, when the DM intrudes into my very limited authority in game, it's a massive imposition. In other games, though, I have a lot more authority as a player. Many aspects if the game are my call, from foundational themes to scene elements to even the results -- I get to tell the GM what happens. In that case, having the GM direct my character sometimes is much less of an imposition, especially since I can impose back.

If you look at this issue only from the point of view of D&D, then you're missing the forest for the tree. Especially since you actually give up far more authority in D&D since everything happens at the permission of the GM. D&D strongly relies on principled play by the GM to protect the limited authority of the players and this principled play is not explicit and often assumed by veterens of play to be understood. At least, their understanding of it us assumed, which is the primary cause of many disagreements on this board.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can understand that. I feel the same way in D&D ganes, but that's becayse the only authority I have in D&D is to make thin declarations -- the DM has authority over everything. So, when the DM intrudes into my very limited authority in game, it's a massive imposition. In other games, though, I have a lot more authority as a player. Many aspects if the game are my call, from foundational themes to scene elements to even the results -- I get to tell the GM what happens. In that case, having the GM direct my character sometimes is much less of an imposition, especially since I can impose back.

Choosing a foundational theme or scene elements or even results of your actions - all of those things are not-roleplaying - per your own definition roleplaying is about taking on a role in a shared fiction - none of those things involve taking on a role in a shared fiction.

(Well, I suppose you could be roleplaying a DM but that's not really what we are talking about here...)

 

[Maxperson]

I can understand that. I feel the same way in D&D ganes, but that's becayse the only authority I have in D&D is to make thin declarations -- the DM has authority over everything. So, when the DM intrudes into my very limited authority in game, it's a massive imposition. In other games, though, I have a lot more authority as a player. Many aspects if the game are my call, from foundational themes to scene elements to even the results -- I get to tell the GM what happens. In that case, having the GM direct my character sometimes is much less of an imposition, especially since I can impose back.

For me it's not about how much authority I have, though. I could have more authority over other aspects of the game and I would feel the same way. For me it's about the PC being mine. I'm the only one, barring some sort of mechanical means like charm, who gets to control what he feels and does.

If you look at this issue only from the point of view of D&D, then you're missing the forest for the tree. Especially since you actually give up far more authority in D&D since everything happens at the permission of the GM. D&D strongly relies on principled play by the GM to protect the limited authority of the players and this principled play is not explicit and often assumed by veterens of play to be understood. At least, their understanding of it us assumed, which is the primary cause of many disagreements on this board.

I understand that. While I haven't played as many different games you or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has, I have played other RPGs and experienced differences. I'm not saying the games that allow others to assert control over PCs are bad. They just aren't for me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

@<em><strong><u><a href="https://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6795602" target="_blank">FrogReaver</a></u></strong></em> - I pretty much agree with @<em><strong><u><a href="https://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=16814" target="_blank">Ovinomancer</a></u></strong></em>'s most recent post about what roleplaying is (post 139 on my count).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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!)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The GM isn't <em>contradicting </em>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.)<br>
<br>
There's nothing there that contraverts the idea that the player is playing his/her PC.

<br><br>Great post.<br><br>What I find particularly noteworthy is that I can both deeply resent the notion that a GM can dictate how I should roleplay my character <em>and</em> acknowledge that the result is still roleplaying.<br>
<br>