Surely we all agree that we mostly lack complete control over our own mental state, right? I mean, you would have to be 'Spock' to say you completely control your emotions. How can such complete control in the game NOT lead to less verisimilitude by any common reading of that term?
I said we aren’t trying to replicate real life.
You say this, but your example has mechanics attached, and every example I've seen posited that didn't has been called "meaningless" or "color." @Campbell has, I think, suggested that a table's expectations/norms might serve as adequate constraint; do you concur?
Well, Let’s start by assuming it does and analyzing why. Because I’m here to tell you that I and many others have no verisimilitude issues with directing the emotions of our characters.
Sure, if they are put to some test. If not they are 'mere color'. When you insist that the player must exclusively control his character's entire mental state, then you exclude all of that from being anything BUT color. It is identical to the RP in Monopoly. Real RP, but not part of the game in any reasonable sense.
I keep hearing the term test. What do you mean by it?
Well, it has to be some sort of part of the 'process', so in some sense I guess there is a 'mechanical' element. It isn't always defined in very specific mechanical terms. For example in PACE your character has two adjectives which describe them, so a character might be "Bold: 4, Funny: 3" (that is the whole character sheet, mechanically). How you interpret these and invoke them in the game, and how they lead to other fictional state are governed by rules/process. This character could perhaps become 'smitten' with an NPC. That would restrict their ability to play on their boldness and funniness in some situations (or maybe enhance it). I guess that is all 'mechanics', but since there is a huge amount of interpretation in terms of what the 'smitten' condition means (and the actual condition itself is just made up, it has no specific rules) I would call that more "genre logic" driven. I don't really think the distinction is too important here.
Well, the 'Lusting After the Queen' example for instance. The character's resolve to not act on the feeling would be tested if he came back to court. He's now going to be directly tempted. The GM would follow his principles, which probably includes bringing these choices to play. So, surely, Launcelot will run smack dab into Guenevere at some fairly fraught point. The player might have a choice to just give in, lets see what story that entails, or maybe he has to make an Honor check or something, a test of honor. If he passes, then he leaps back on his horse and rides off again, or goes to the king and confesses his dilemma, or something. If he fails, then his honor is stained, the Fellowship of the Round Table is broken in spirit, etc. I mean, this is a very 'cut and dried' genre, so its pretty easy to spell out what happens in these different cases. Most games will not be so clear cut. Even in this example Launcelot could then lie to the King, try to usurp the throne, etc. How this 'alternative story' would play out would be the meat of the game.
