I'm not sure what monster abilities you've got in mind. In Prince Valiant, for instance, Incite Lust is more likely to be found on a maiden than a monster!The wink doesn't pose a problem for me as a PC action, although generally there would also be a mechanic involved there but there doesn't have to be. As an NPC action with a dictated result it's ... wacky. Even if you could find a system that supported it I'd still be against it. Obviously the extent of the forced action plays a big role too. If the forced action just consists of telling the player they get swollen love nodes, which is more an invitation to action than forced action anyway, I'm fine with it. But as soon as the DM says something like "she beckons you with a finger and follow her out the door" then I'm firmly against, and will reiterate my earlier contention that this doesn't happen in RPGs generally so is probably a silly example. I don't really feel the need to explain how monster abilities with mechanics are a different class of example.
Because the NPC maiden melting a PC's heart with a wink is [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s example he'll have to tell you exactly what he had in mind. I've been thinking about the example as a placeholder for stuff in the same general neighbourhood in RPG systems I'm familiar with. For instance, just to pick one fairly well-known system, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic doesn't have any problem with a NPC placing a Come Hither complication or a Melted Heart complication on a PC. And when the PC takes action that is at odds with that complication, the complication die figures in the opposed pool. That particular mechanical dynamic isn't wildly different from player-vs-player Seduce/Manipulate in AW, which can result in doing other than the requested thing requiring a successful check to "act under fire".
Prince Valiant says this about the Incite Lust special effect (p 46):
The current Storyteller will have to make a ruling as to how the lustful character behaves. If the lustful character is an Adventurer, the controlling player decides how lust affects his character. A Storyteller may veto the controlling player’s wishes only if the intended behavior is unrealistic.
If this Special Effect is used to permit one character to dominate another, common sense and logic should be used. The character will not jump off a cliff for the object of his lust, nor will he necessarily wish to marry her. This can be a cruel Special Effect to use, especially if the object of lust is unattainable.
If this Special Effect is used to permit one character to dominate another, common sense and logic should be used. The character will not jump off a cliff for the object of his lust, nor will he necessarily wish to marry her. This can be a cruel Special Effect to use, especially if the object of lust is unattainable.
That's no more "intrusive" than a classic D&D charm effect.
Yes. I don't think that any of what you say here is unfamiliar or controversial. And it's not particular to winking and melting hearts. I hit you - No you don't, because I dodge is in structural terms exactly the same thing. Or the player saying I climb the cliff while the GM says I don't think so - they're known for being impossible to scale!.In a novel, it's up to one person to determine if Galadriel connects with Gimli and how they do so. In an RPG, it's up to at least 2 people - the person playing Galadriel and the person playing Gimli. They don't have to agree on exactly what should happen and how. And so we need to have some kind of rules and/or etiquette to determine how to proceed when these situations arise.
I don't quite know what you mean by "direct test".For most RPGs, I'd advocate that the player controls the PC's reactions while the GM controls the NPCs' reactions barring some direct test
Here's the full text of the Seduce/Manipulate move in Apocalypse World (p 87), although with some paragraph breaks interpolated:
When you try to seduce or manipulate someone, tell them what you want and roll+hot.
For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now.
For PCs: on a 10+, both. On a 7–9, choose 1:
• if they do it, they mark experience
• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire
What they do then is up to them.
For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now.
For PCs: on a 10+, both. On a 7–9, choose 1:
• if they do it, they mark experience
• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire
What they do then is up to them.
This is player vs player, not GM vs player, but I would assume that your principle is meant to generalise to that case too. The roll here is all on one side: with a successful check, I can bring it about that your PC is under a mechanical penalty ("acting under fire") if they don't do what I tell them I want them to do.
Does that satisfy your direct test requirement?
Last edited: