Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Tony Vargas]

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

And as viewed internally by the real-world creators and enactors of that fiction.

But as viewed from the POV of a character within that fiction? No.

Well, of course not, their POV is dictated to them by those creating the fiction. The villain or foil or extra will not behave as if they knew those were their roles, but they will behave in accord with them, none the less, because both their actions and their imagined perception & beliefs are imposed upon them by their creators.

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

Why, when no one will experience the game from that PoV?

The players will know who is a PC, who an NPC, and often have a good idea of what sort by how the DM presents them. The DM of course, knows these things with greater certainty.
The characters in question are all-unknowing of their own role & nature, as they have no independent knowledge of, perception of nor control over their own being. They will know, perceive, believe what they are imagined to.

 

[Maxperson]

So, at this point, I see that the @Maxperson, @FrogReaver, @Satyrn nexus is doing the following:

Me in direct response to you: "D&D has nothing to do with this. Here are at least a half dozen other RPGs that I've played that are the same way.

You and [MENTION=61721]Hawke[/MENTION]yfan: "So it's all D&D with you.''

C'mon guys, really?

 

[Maxperson]

Do you think that human beings are under their own conscious control at all times? Were you under the impression that attraction to people is somehow governed by conscious will? There is plenty of power in the simplest of human interactions. If you really want to try to argue that, with someone who knows psychology, you probably lose.

Of course not, but I'm the only one qualified to make that determination for my PC on a case-by-case basis.. The DM doesn't have the inside track to my PC the way that I do.

 

[Maxperson]

Should or should it not be is another question. Why not? Haven’t we all known people who don’t always act in their best interests because there’s a person who can always get under their skin, or because they’re a sucker for a pretty face, or any other number of things?

Sure, but if my PC is a sucker for a pretty face, then I've set that up in advance and let the DM and players know about it. That sort of character flaw is up to me to decide on, not the DM. And that goes for all of the other RPGs that I've played.

Sure, these things can be roleplayed without mechanical rules in place to promote them, but having such rules doesn’t deny roleplaying. It promotes it.

Without mechanics: I have dozens(at least) of ways that I can choose to roleplay the situation.

With mechanics: I have one way that I can choose to roleplay the situation.

Mechanics like that stifle roleplay by highly limiting the multitude of roleplaying options down to a single one.

Right. It pretty much always goes back to D&D and only D&D with you. It tends to make these discussions that are about RPGs in general a bit challenging.

Only not, as I spelled out multiple other games that I've played where my character was my own.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a genuine question. What is being “overridden”? Let’s assume some kind of mechanics are at play and it’s not a case of a GM dictating results, but let’s also assume it has nothing to do with magic in the fiction.

As the player, I know how the PC will react to the wink. I think about the situation, the immediate history between the winker and my PC. I consider other factors like lack of sleep or other possible mitigating factors. And then I come up with how my PC will react, and that is in fact how he will react. If I think there are multiple valid ways that he could react, I will sometimes make a personal roll.

If the DM just flat out decides that my PCs heart is warmed by the wink, he has overridden the PCs proper reaction, unless of course I have also determined that to be the proper reaction and would have roleplayed that anyway. The DM isn't in a position to know what the proper reaction for my PC is, so more often than not he will get it wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's my first post in this thread and immediately you post this ugly comment without even trying to engage in conversation with me.

I was even directly answering the OP original question with my post: "What do others think about who does, or should, get to establish the truth of descriptions of PC actions, and how?" Well, not directly, but my answer is clearly there: the way 5e is written with its basic play loop is my preference for who gets to establish such and how it's done.

Slow down. It's not an insult. It's a statement that no progress can be made while basic assumptions are so far apart.

And, yes, I love 5e's play loop. I'm a champion of it, when discussion how 5e plays. But, if you assume that's how a game should be play, it will prevent discussion of other ways to play games so long as you don't look up from it. You can prefer it, that's awesome! Go for it. But, if that's what you see when you discuss how authorities are assigned, then you'll not be able to discuss how those authorities can be assigned differently. I'm not sure why this is so hostility inducing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Me in direct response to you: "D&D has nothing to do with this. Here are at least a half dozen other RPGs that I've played that are the same way.

You and [MENTION=61721]Hawke[/MENTION]yfan: "So it's all D&D with you.''

C'mon guys, really?

Yup. You're locked into a mindset that's best represented by D&D, even if you've played other games that support that same mindset (or, given some of the games on the list you presented, you've played those games and brought with you the D&D mindset and so didn't see a difference).

I mean, you're defending taking authority away from the player so long as the mechanic used has the word "magic" associated with it. That's pretty locked in -- you can't even see that "magic" isn't doing any work there. I get it, you've played the game so long and had that be part of it that you've built up a set of rationalizations to excuse it from examination. It's just "magic," so of course it can take authority away from the player. And, because it's "magic," it's different from any other thing that takes authority away from a player, even if the mechanics and result are similar. A maiden cannot soften your PC's heart without "magic", even if the mechanics are you failing a check and being limited in how you can roleplay your character because of that. To you, you've already excused "magic," so there's no need to examine it anymore. But the maiden, well, that gets full scrutiny -- and disparate results.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's a level of GM control over PCs that I suspect would cause mutiny at most typical tables.

It also gets the whole idea of cause-and-effect backwards: you've got the effect retroactively forcing the cause(s) (which, by the way, isnt how things work!) rather than the cause(s) leading to an end effect.

I think it might get your table in mutiny, but most? Doubtful.

As for cause and effect, well, don't look to closely at D&D, then. You might notice that you determine the effect of an attack roll and then go back and determine the cause for the description. Or, most any check, really. Other games move the check even further in front of the resolution so as to be able to resolve an intent and then determine the action, but D&D does a decent bit of this as well, just a bit later in the chain. Sure, to be able to attack with a sword, you have to already be within melee range and have a sword, so some 'causes' are established, but what happens with the attack is resolved by the roll and then backfilled with narration. Other games might just take the intent to attack and roll and let that determine if you closed, or even had the sword in hand, or ended up with the same results as the D&D resolution. I mean, to use the old saying, we've already agreed on a transaction, we're just haggling over the price.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Of course not, but I'm the only one qualified to make that determination for my PC on a case-by-case basis.. The DM doesn't have the inside track to my PC the way that I do.

OTOH, you may not fully apreciate what the NPC represents.
When there are conflicting visions of, or other sources of uncertainty about, the fiction, complete/functional games provide mechanics to resolve them.
D&D mostly does so for magic, and given it's history & place in the hobby, that prejudice has become pervasive.
But, it's not absolute, and some games do try to deliver more functionality.
For instance, storyteller notoriously introduced a dramatic system (resolution mechanic) for seduction.
Hero Systems has a mind control power that needn't be supernatural in nature. FATE certainly goes there.
Etc...

 

[Tony Vargas]

The function of players in RPGing is often described as deciding what their PCs do. ...

I'm sure I've caused enough trouble already, but this reminded me of something.
A while back there was a discussion of just how badly D&D did the S&S sub-genre, and it set me to thinking about other ways of handling magic...
...one idea that drifted by was the possibility of a game, the central focus of which was retaining control of the PC, with the 'price' of magic being increased danger of loss of that control: imperiling the soul, transforming into a monster, giving into obsession, etc...