Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[aramis erak]

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.



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.

But you don't control the actions completely - only the attempts. Whomever sets difficulties and calls for rolls controls the outcome in most games.

The nearly universal pattern is...
Player states action attempt
GM either calls for a roll, states something in response, or indicates continuance (silently or not)
The player steps out of character mode into game mode, makes the roll
The GM takes the result of the roll and narrates the outcome of the action.
Repeat.

Exceptions are notable for being such:
Burning Wheel, both sides have to agree to the stakes, or the player has to abandon the action.
Brute squad has the order different (state attempt; roll dice; GM indicates success or failure; player narrates result. Repeat)
Mouse Guard also plays with player autonomy heavily... reducing it a lot.

 

[aramis erak]

When the DM declares your character does X, how exactly at that moment are you taking on the role of that character in the fiction? It seems to me the DM is the one taking on the role of your character in the fiction at that moment...

In some cases yes, but in many, no... they're just resolving the inherent uncertainty of player narration in a strong-GM game.

I don't need to get into your character to determine if you missed your attack. I just need to describe (preferably plausibly) how it failed to inflict harm. (Potentially including narrating it skipping off and not doing any harm, but still connecting.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Reading over the comments here, and two things come to mind.

First, in the real world, it’s often true that we lose control of ourselves. We get angry at others, we act foolishly due to lust or love. We get influenced by others and act irrationally based on that influence. You see this kind of stuff all the time. People act without thinking things through. People make bad decisions all the time. We don’t actually have total control of ourselves.

Why shouldn’t a game have mechanics that can simulate this in some way?

Second, we all seem to agree that the game world is a shared fiction. Based on that, I’m not sure I understand folks balking at sharing some level of control over their character with the GM or others. Especially when it seems they’re fine with some examples of such.

 

[Maxperson]

First, but somewhat tangentially, when the maiden winks at you and melts your heart, there is an ingame reason why your heart is melted - namely, the maiden's wink!

An in game reason that allows the DM to control my PC? Hardly. Absent some sort of mind control, I get to decide if the maiden's wink melts my heart.

It implies, for instance, that a fantasy game in which players spend about half the time playing their PCs as charmed is less "invasive" than a modern-day game in which players, for a few minutes each session, find the GM adding descriptions to what their players do, triggered by failed checks and with the purpose of reflecting things going wrong. But what is there about the logic of RPGing that explains this classification? Nothing that I can see. The activity is neutral vis-a-vis the fiction it engages with.

If the half-the-session charmed game is OK and fun, and a fine example of RPGing, then it doesn't make any sense for it suddenly to become an example of not-RPGing because we relabel all the fiction (so the charms become eg cute winks and charming voices). That would be a change in aesthetic, but not a fundamental change in the activity.

A different reason for something happening completely alters the event. It's the difference between being shot in the head as a hostage to show the police that the hostage takers are serious, and being shot and killed while saving the rest of the hostages. The activity is being shot and killed. The reason behind it alters everything, though.

 

[Maxperson]

But you don't control the actions completely - only the attempts. Whomever sets difficulties and calls for rolls controls the outcome in most games.

The nearly universal pattern is...
Player states action attempt
GM either calls for a roll, states something in response, or indicates continuance (silently or not)
The player steps out of character mode into game mode, makes the roll
The GM takes the result of the roll and narrates the outcome of the action.
Repeat.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

Reading over the comments here, and two things come to mind.

First, in the real world, it’s often true that we lose control of ourselves. We get angry at others, we act foolishly due to lust or love. We get influenced by others and act irrationally based on that influence. You see this kind of stuff all the time. People act without thinking things through. People make bad decisions all the time. We don’t actually have total control of ourselves.

Why shouldn’t a game have mechanics that can simulate this in some way?

Because it's unnecessary. I am fully capable of deciding if my PC gets angry at something he wouldn't normally get angry at or if uncontrolled lust strikes him. I don't need a DM to force that on me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Reading over the comments here, and two things come to mind.

First, in the real world, it’s often true that we lose control of ourselves. We get angry at others, we act foolishly due to lust or love. We get influenced by others and act irrationally based on that influence. You see this kind of stuff all the time. People act without thinking things through. People make bad decisions all the time. We don’t actually have total control of ourselves.

Why shouldn’t a game have mechanics that can simulate this in some way?

Because roleplaying already allows for that
Because adding in such mechanics takes away moments where a player could be roleplaying
Because roleplaying games are inherently about having a character you can call your own - that you take on the role of in the shared fiction. Mechanics that usurp control of the character you call your own via whatever simulationist justification you want to come up with always ends up resulting in a character that's different than how you previously imagined.

When a character you are attempting to take on the role of in the shared fiction repeatedly changes from how you are imagining him that impacts your ability to take on that role (to roleplay him). I mean how could it not?

But more importantly if you enjoy those style of mechanics you should have them. It's just you should also be aware of what they are actually doing to the game you are playing.

Second, we all seem to agree that the game world is a shared fiction. Based on that, I’m not sure I understand folks balking at sharing some level of control over their character with the GM or others. Especially when it seems they’re fine with some examples of such.

In fiction control vs out of fiction control. I keep telling you all the difference. You all keep ignoring it.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Yep. In fiction means of controlling a PC are inherently different than out-of fiction means of controlling one.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm disappointed. I was hoping there would be some sort of interesting or profound twist.

There is a point behind it all. But right now I'm basking in not having the whole thread bash me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it's unnecessary. I am fully capable of deciding if my PC gets angry at something he wouldn't normally get angry at or if uncontrolled lust strikes him. I don't need a DM to force that on me.

Do you view an attack from an opponent that does damage to your PC as something the “DM forces on you”? Or the aforementioned Charm spell....you fail the save, is the DM forcing the charm effect on you?

If there are mechanics in place, then it’s not a case of the DM forcing anything. This is my point.