I feel that this post fits together fairly well with my reply, not too far upthread, to @hawkeyefan about "Han Solo"-type character change.Speaking personally the desire to feel what my character feels is not due to a desire for realism, but because feeling like I am there in the moment is what makes roleplaying games fun for me. That meaningful sense of being present, feeling the tension, grasping against difficulties is fun for me. Not having to choose between what I know is good for team success and playing my character with integrity feels really good.
<snip>
I guess I would ask those who eschew mechanical tools what sort of techniques do you use to keep players focused in the moment? How do you create a social environment where players feel free to play against group interests when it's in character? How do you handle emotional stakes in a way that feels right?
<snip>
Once again I'm only speaking for my personal preferences for games that are fundamentally about finding out who these characters are.
There are a whole host of things in a game that contribute to that feeling of "being there in the moment". They are not all mechanical. In some contexts none of them need be mechanical; but mechanics can play a role.
And mechanics can play other roles too.
In the Prince Valiant game that I GM, the use of PC-affecting social mechanics is primarily a device for maintaining "theme" and creating situations that the players have to deal with: eg, as per posts upthread, when I used the Incite Lust ability to compel the PC Sir Morgath to become infatuated with Lady Lorette of Lothian, I wasn't really trying to help the player have a "deep" inner experience. I was deliberately making life harder for his PC, and to that extent harder for him as a player. He could see exactly what was going on. He played along with it, and the result was a mixture of moment-to-moment in-character play, plus a few distinct moments of "hilarity ensues".
Pages 43-44 of the rulebook explain the general logic and workings of "special effects" in Prince Valiant:
Special Effects are ways in which a Storyteller . . . can decisively affect the action of the game without any coin throws [= dice rolls]. Special Effects give the Storyteller control over the course of events, even in the face of very powerful Adventurers.
When possible, the Storyteller should use coin throws to impose his will on the Adventurers. For example, it is more realistic and entertaining to assign a high Difficulty Factor to a task, and let the Adventurers all try and fail, than to simply say “it’s impossible to do that.” But leaving your story vulnerable to a lucky coin throw can be risky. . . . a Special Effect gives the Storyteller an event that occurs without fail. This can help him control the story without being too dictatorial. . . .
Special Effects are normally linked to specific characters in the story (see the Episodes for examples). Usually no more than three characters with Special Effects, or one character with three Special Effects, should be used, so as to let the players retain some control.
The players should not know what Special Effects your characters have, but they should be logical ones for the characters. . . . The Storyteller must create a reasonable explanation for the way in which the Effect takes place, in terms of the current situation.
When possible, the Storyteller should use coin throws to impose his will on the Adventurers. For example, it is more realistic and entertaining to assign a high Difficulty Factor to a task, and let the Adventurers all try and fail, than to simply say “it’s impossible to do that.” But leaving your story vulnerable to a lucky coin throw can be risky. . . . a Special Effect gives the Storyteller an event that occurs without fail. This can help him control the story without being too dictatorial. . . .
Special Effects are normally linked to specific characters in the story (see the Episodes for examples). Usually no more than three characters with Special Effects, or one character with three Special Effects, should be used, so as to let the players retain some control.
The players should not know what Special Effects your characters have, but they should be logical ones for the characters. . . . The Storyteller must create a reasonable explanation for the way in which the Effect takes place, in terms of the current situation.
And Incite Lust is described on p 46:
This Special Effect makes one character’s primary thoughts turn to lust for another character of the opposite sex. The user of the Special Effect may select any two characters, even Adventurers, as the lustful party and as the object of desire. The emotion is permanent.
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.
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.
The reference to lust rather than (say) desire or infatuation is best seen, I think, as an artefact of the genre (Arthurian romance); likewise the hetero-normativity. These to one side, what we see here is (i) a recognition that this can be a big deal and hence needs to be handled with care ("a cruel Special Effect"), (ii) a discussion of the limits of desire ("common sense and logic"), and (iii) a recognition of PC/NPC asymmetry ("the controlling player decides how lust affects his [sic] character").
This contrasts, I think, with Burning Wheel which is aiming less at "hilarity ensues" and more at being there in the moment and feeling the weight of the situation as one's character. Upthread I've posted (inter alia) an account of my PC's prayer to restore vigour to his mother. The immediate trigger for this, in play, was that the GM was about to start a Duel of Wits in which Xanthippe (Thurgon's mother) was going to implore Thurgon (my PC) not to leave her alone again. The prayer had weight in itself, because (mechanically) is was slightly more likely to fail than to succeed and (in the fiction) having it go unheard in such a moment of crisis would have been devastating for Thurgon (and there are mechanical ways, too, to follow through on that). But it also had weight because of what would happen if it failed - I (as Thurgon) would be drawn into an argument about my past and future behaviour (I was not going to walk out on my mother, when this was the first time I'd seen here in five years!) and there was no guarantee I would win it! (Thurgon is not terrible at social actions but not great at them either. And Aramina probably would have helped Thurgon, but only by saying cruel things to Xanthippe, which would have been hard too!)
The goal here is different from the Prince Valiant one of the GM exercising limited control to create challenging/amusing situations. The pressure that the GM is piling on, through the interplay of framing - using particularly salient fictional elements - and mechanics (actual and threatened) is not making me laugh or groan like Sir Morgath's player did. It is making me sweat, and my heart speed up a bit.
Reading your (@Campbell's) post brought my mind back to that moment.