Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[hawkeyefan]

Thanks for the reply. I'm just looking to understand what these mind control effects are, because I'm not sure what is being referred to. It's presented as a common issue with storygame play and I've never seen it.

Your question made me think of a game I played not too long ago; Spire: The City Must Fall. I ran a campaign for a little over a year. It includes elements along the lines of what people are talking about. The game has Fallout, which consists of consequences the character takes on after they've accumulated too much Stress. The more Stress, the worse the Fallout can be, from Minor, to Moderate, and finally Severe (usually Severe Fallout results in the end for the character).

Here's an example that came up in our game:

WEIRD: [Mind] You do something unsettling that bothers normal people – obsessive behaviour, singing to yourself, fulfilling a strange compulsion at inappropriate times. At the earliest opportunity, the GM can declare that your weirdness puts a useful NPC off you (and probably your allies, too). Once this happens, remove this fallout.

PERMANENTLY WEIRD: [Mind] As WEIRD, but: it lasts until you get proper treatment, and the GM can trigger it whenever they like. You can suppress the effects of this fallout for a scene by marking D3 stress against Mind.

One is a temporary Minor Fallout, the second is an ongoing Moderate Fallout. I include the first because the second, which came up in our game, references it. Both of these can happen when a character takes too much Mind Stress (there are five types, so Fallout varies by Stress type).

What I like about this is that for the Minor version, the GM simply evokes it when he wants, and it foils an interaction with an NPC, and then it's gone. Seems like a suitable consequence. For the Moderate version, it lingers, and the GM can evoke it whenever he wants, making things difficult for the character continually. However, the player can suppress it at a cost. They can take 3 Mind Stress to shut it down. Also, they can seek proper treatment to resolve the Ongoing Fallout.

It works really well. The mechanics work to help portray the idea that this person has been damaged mentally. It has actual teeth in play and isn't just left for the player to "act crazy" through their portrayal of their character. It gives the GM something to incorporate into ongoing play, but it also gives the player the option to mitigate it.

Taking this Fallout, the character took a total turn from what we had seen previously, and the player really leaned into it. The mechanics helped reveal the character, not reinforce the player's conception of the character.

I don't think there are many examples of the "permanent mind control" that's being cited as a concern. It's a bit of a boogeyman. But there are mechanics that do work along those lines, and when implemented well, they can really enhance play and deliver a very different experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

While I see your point (and to some extent agree), my own issue with social mechanics is that they too often become an excuse to not roleplay things out at the table in character; and that excuse use can come from either or both the GM and the player(s). As in:

Player: "I try to bluff the guard that I have an invitation, so she'll let me in."
GM: "OK, make your Bluff* roll."
Dice are rolled, Bluff* succeeds, PC gains entry to the ball.

* - or Intimidate, Deception, Persuade, whatever mechanic best applies in that situation/system.

Not a word of in-character conversation between the PC and the guard. Both the player and the GM have (maybe even unintentionally) used the existence of that social mechanic as an excuse for not roleplaying the conversation out. Take away the mechanic and now there's no excuse not to roleplay it through.

In broader terms, social mechanics are an abstraction of something that IMO doesn't often - if ever - need abstraction. We can't swing swords at each other at the table, nor can we search for secret doors or climb castle walls or cast spells, so obviously those things need to be abstracted somehow. But we can sure the hell talk to each other using the words of our characters (including NPCs), so why does this need to be abstracted?

Honestly, I'm likely to approach it that way even in the absence of an existing skill. My first approach to that would be to say something very like "I try to bluff the guard that I have an invitation".

I do this quite often. I don't expect every interaction to be treated with the same focus and zoom. I don't think that knowing the specific words my character said matter so much as what I'm trying (to bluff the guy) and how (convince him I have an invitation).

Now, if another group of players wants that level of focus on every interaction, that's fine. But I don't find the approach you've described as being a negative in any way.

 

[Lanefan]

I was thinking soft conditions. So currently in D&D we have:
Charmed - which covers lust, friendlier disposition, amicable, protective
Fear and Frightened - includes retreating from the threat
Mad Conditions
Inspired through Inspiration which is earned via a Long Rest

There's also Dominated (Charmed dialled to eleven) and Possessed.

There is no mechanic for a character being distraught, having regret, crisis of faith, feeling anxious, frustrated or angry (unless you're including Rage)

In 1e D&D there's an Illusionist spell called (I think) Emotion, in which the caster can choose one of four emotions that all within the AoE will feel for the duration if a save is failed. The possible emotions are Rage, Hopelessness, Fear, and Hate; and mechanical consequences are tied to each one.

So things like this aren't quite unheard-of in D&D-land, just really obscure.

One can argue there is a Honour system within the DMG, but it is half-baked, like many of the options included.
We have clerics and paladins with no true Faith stat. We have no real Loyalty system. There are no checks and balances if you don't want to use an oppressive GM-forced alignment system.

One could in turn argue that all this does is a) change the source of the oppression from the GM to the game rules and b) hard-codify the severity and effects of said oppression. Player side, it ends up looking pretty much the same.

And note I'm not arguing against said oppression in these cases; I see it as the expected and accepted drawback balancing out all the benefits that faith gives those classes.

So for instance can a cleric suffer a crisis of faith? What is the effect of that mechanically?
Can a character who betrayed his party under the effect of a Vampire's charm feel guilt afterwards?
How long does it take for you to recover having lost a fellow companion? There is no mechanical weight given to any of these scenarios and more, which should be pretty common, I feel, in a game of D&D.

For the first, yes and yes: the mechanical consequences of a crisis of faith could easily manifest as loss of (some, or all) spells or other class abilities until such crisis has been sorted.

The other two questions are entirely in the purview of the player, acting in character, and IMO there's no place to hard-code these things as every player (and even every character played by the same player) is going to react to these things differently and should have the freedom to do so.

 

[kenada]

There is a world of social mechanics in TTRPGs that exist beyond skill checks in D&D.

For an example of social mechanics in play, see the commentary post from my last session.

 

[Imaro]

While I see your point (and to some extent agree), my own issue with social mechanics is that they too often become an excuse to not roleplay things out at the table in character; and that excuse use can come from either or both the GM and the player(s). As in:

Player: "I try to bluff the guard that I have an invitation, so she'll let me in."
GM: "OK, make your Bluff* roll."
Dice are rolled, Bluff* succeeds, PC gains entry to the ball.

* - or Intimidate, Deception, Persuade, whatever mechanic best applies in that situation/system.

Not a word of in-character conversation between the PC and the guard. Both the player and the GM have (maybe even unintentionally) used the existence of that social mechanic as an excuse for not roleplaying the conversation out. Take away the mechanic and now there's no excuse not to roleplay it through.

In broader terms, social mechanics are an abstraction of something that IMO doesn't often - if ever - need abstraction. We can't swing swords at each other at the table, nor can we search for secret doors or climb castle walls or cast spells, so obviously those things need to be abstracted somehow. But we can sure the hell talk to each other using the words of our characters (including NPCs), so why does this need to be abstracted?

Yeah this is where I usually differ from both of the major sides in this argument as I prefer the 5e approach and it gets me accused of everything from claiming 5e can do everything to arguing in bad faith but I like what I like.

IMO, I would rather have the framework, skeleton, etc of the mechanics to perform something like a buff check, or the ideals, flaws, bonds, etc. of 5e, even though the mechanical effect may be less than a game where one stance or the other is taken firmly... mainly because when I GM I can choose (based upon my group of players or even an individual player) how heavily I lean into them.

For example if I have a D&D player with tastes similar to yours then I'm going to use the roleplaying out of the bluff as the main determiner for whether it succeeds or not with the die roll only coming into play as a determiner if you've said something nebulous or that this NPC would be hostile against. On the other hand if I have a player whose shy, may not particularly enjoy that aspect of the game, or may not possess the oratory skills to express themselves as their character would, I see no problem with that player giving me a goal and how their character approaches it with success based on the die roll and the system in the DMG.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, I'm likely to approach it that way even in the absence of an existing skill. My first approach to that would be to say something very like "I try to bluff the guard that I have an invitation".

And my response would be a somewhat-frustrated "Is that what Jerelei* is actually saying to the guard?"
Highly likely your answer would be "No", though admittedly there's some comedy potential should you answer "Yes".
To which my follow-up on a "No" is "Then what would she be saying?"

* - your hypothetical character here

I do this quite often. I don't expect every interaction to be treated with the same focus and zoom. I don't think that knowing the specific words my character said matter so much as what I'm trying (to bluff the guy) and how (convince him I have an invitation).

To cut down table chatter, I've now and then tried enacting and enforcing a meta-rule "Unless announcing the results of a die roll or asking about a rule, if you say it at the table, your character says it in the game". The point usually gets through after a couple of situations where characters - while in theory trying to be stealthy - blow it by for some reason talking loudly about pizza toppings or some foreign cabal called the Vancouver Canucks.

As a player, I like this rule; it forces both focus and roleplay. As a DM, it sometimes has its drawbacks as a DM has to flip hats between narrator, referee, and NPC-player; meaning the rule can't as easily apply.

 

[Aldarc]

Saying a little more on this point:

While I see your point (and to some extent agree), my own issue with social mechanics is that they too often become an excuse to not roleplay things out at the table in character; and that excuse use can come from either or both the GM and the player(s).

IME, players in games like D&D tend to insulate/shield their characters (and character concept) from any emotional/psychological affect, leading to flat characters. Social mechanics like the ones I have discussed can sometimes lead players to interesting outcomes and paths for their PC that the player would not have explored roleplaying on their own.

In broader terms, social mechanics are an abstraction of something that IMO doesn't often - if ever - need abstraction. We can't swing swords at each other at the table, nor can we search for secret doors or climb castle walls or cast spells, so obviously those things need to be abstracted somehow. But we can sure the hell talk to each other using the words of our characters (including NPCs), so why does this need to be abstracted?

I understand your preferences. You have enuciated them before. However, I still vehemently disagree to the extent that I feel that you are trying to impose OneTrueWay on others who may not share your roleplaying preferences. I understand that this is a roleplaying game where we are roleplaying our characters. IMHO, it shouldn't be a requirement to be a charismatic person in real life to play a charismatic character in a tabletop fantasy game. It shouldn't be a requirement for the player to read the GM's mind to say the magic words to convince the guard. And also because gasp some people want this part of the game to be abstracted and/or not played according to your particular roleplaying preferences and level of zoom.

IMHO, you also highly take it for granted that "we can sure the hell talk to each other using the words of our characters," because I have played with a number of people, including my partner, who would feel (1) stressed by having to talk everything out, and/or (2) have less fun at the table playing the game. There are many reasons for why that is or might be the case that I won't go into here. However, I sincerely hope that you can sympathize with these people and respond respectfully in a way that honors these people and their own roleplaying preferences rather than invalidating them in favor of your own.

All that said, this is not advocating in favor of "just playing a board game rather than a roleplaying game," which is just reformulating "rollplaying not roleplaying" and implying it as BadWrongRP. It's advocating for acknowleding the spectrum that exists between, above, and below these two options and how there is not one solution that fits all people and their own desires when playing social encounters in tabletop roleplaying games. There are a plethora of ways to handle roleplaying social encounters beyond the commonly staked poles.

 

[soviet]

Your question made me think of a game I played not too long ago; Spire: The City Must Fall. I ran a campaign for a little over a year. It includes elements along the lines of what people are talking about. The game has Fallout, which consists of consequences the character takes on after they've accumulated too much Stress. The more Stress, the worse the Fallout can be, from Minor, to Moderate, and finally Severe (usually Severe Fallout results in the end for the character).

Here's an example that came up in our game:

WEIRD: [Mind] You do something unsettling that bothers normal people – obsessive behaviour, singing to yourself, fulfilling a strange compulsion at inappropriate times. At the earliest opportunity, the GM can declare that your weirdness puts a useful NPC off you (and probably your allies, too). Once this happens, remove this fallout.

PERMANENTLY WEIRD: [Mind] As WEIRD, but: it lasts until you get proper treatment, and the GM can trigger it whenever they like. You can suppress the effects of this fallout for a scene by marking D3 stress against Mind.

One is a temporary Minor Fallout, the second is an ongoing Moderate Fallout. I include the first because the second, which came up in our game, references it. Both of these can happen when a character takes too much Mind Stress (there are five types, so Fallout varies by Stress type).

What I like about this is that for the Minor version, the GM simply evokes it when he wants, and it foils an interaction with an NPC, and then it's gone. Seems like a suitable consequence. For the Moderate version, it lingers, and the GM can evoke it whenever he wants, making things difficult for the character continually. However, the player can suppress it at a cost. They can take 3 Mind Stress to shut it down. Also, they can seek proper treatment to resolve the Ongoing Fallout.

It works really well. The mechanics work to help portray the idea that this person has been damaged mentally. It has actual teeth in play and isn't just left for the player to "act crazy" through their portrayal of their character. It gives the GM something to incorporate into ongoing play, but it also gives the player the option to mitigate it.

Taking this Fallout, the character took a total turn from what we had seen previously, and the player really leaned into it. The mechanics helped reveal the character, not reinforce the player's conception of the character.

I don't think there are many examples of the "permanent mind control" that's being cited as a concern. It's a bit of a boogeyman. But there are mechanics that do work along those lines, and when implemented well, they can really enhance play and deliver a very different experience.

Thanks for taking the time to write out the example. That mechanic sounds pretty cool, as you say it gives teeth to the depiction of the character's mindset without becoming some sort of mind control. Which is as it should be IMO.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And my response would be a somewhat-frustrated "Is that what Jerelei* is actually saying to the guard?"
Highly likely your answer would be "No", though admittedly there's some comedy potential should you answer "Yes".
To which my follow-up on a "No" is "Then what would she be saying?"

* - your hypothetical character here

But really, what more needs to be said?

"Ah my good yeoman, please allow me entry to yon soiree post haste. I assure you I am on the guest list."

That doesn't really do anything more. It adds the thinnest veneer of color, but otherwise works just the same.

Now, if there's more to this interaction that what it seems, I don't think it's bad to expand on things. To ask questions or to prompt the player in some way.

But otherwise, I have a couple of issues with it. First, it seems to be more about me convincing the DM to let the attempt work, rather than Jerelei convincing the guard. Second, stats (whether in the form of attributes or skills or what have you) tell us about a character; my skill in Bluffing will inform how I proceed here. If I don't have such a stat, then I have no idea how good my character is at Bluffing people.

In the absence of that... it's hard to see it as a game. I'm not making an informed decision to try Bluff (versus other approaches), I have no sense of my odds at all, and there's no random element like a die roll to help determine the outcome. It's just the DM making me speak in character, and then deciding if what I've said is "good enough" in whatever sense he feels "good" to be.

Now, some folks really enjoy character portrayal. And that's cool. My play isn't entirely without it, I just don't tend to focus on it so much, and save it for more meaningful scenes. Likely, in this example, whatever's going on in the ball.

To cut down table chatter, I've now and then tried enacting and enforcing a meta-rule "Unless announcing the results of a die roll or asking about a rule, if you say it at the table, your character says it in the game". The point usually gets through after a couple of situations where characters - while in theory trying to be stealthy - blow it by for some reason talking loudly about pizza toppings or some foreign cabal called the Vancouver Canucks.

As a player, I like this rule; it forces both focus and roleplay. As a DM, it sometimes has its drawbacks as a DM has to flip hats between narrator, referee, and NPC-player; meaning the rule can't as easily apply.

I find that roleplaying... for me... is more about the decisions I make for the character than about the dialogue I choose to use for them.

 

[soviet]

Saying a little more on this point:

IME, players in games like D&D tend to insulate/shield their characters (and character concept) from any emotional/psychological affect, leading to flat characters. Social mechanics like the ones I have discussed can sometimes lead players to interesting outcomes and paths for their PC that the player would not have explored roleplaying on their own.


I understand your preferences. You have enuciated them before. However, I still vehemently disagree to the extent that I feel that you are trying to impose OneTrueWay on others who may not share your roleplaying preferences. I understand that this is a roleplaying game where we are roleplaying our characters. IMHO, it shouldn't be a requirement to be a charismatic person in real life to play a charismatic character in a tabletop fantasy game. It shouldn't be a requirement for the player to read the GM's mind to say the magic words to convince the guard. And also because gasp some people want this part of the game to be abstracted and/or not played according to your particular roleplaying preferences and level of zoom.

IMHO, you also highly take it for granted that "we can sure the hell talk to each other using the words of our characters," because I have played with a number of people, including my partner, who would feel (1) stressed by having to talk everything out, and/or (2) have less fun at the table playing the game. There are many reasons for why that is or might be the case that I won't go into here. However, I sincerely hope that you can sympathize with these people and respond respectfully in a way that honors these people and their own roleplaying preferences rather than invalidating them in favor of your own.

All that said, this is not advocating in favor of "just playing a board game rather than a roleplaying game," whcih is just a blanket accusation of BadWrongFun "rollplaying not roleplaying." It's advocating for acknowleding the spectrum that exists between, above, and below these two options and how there is not one solution that fits all people and their own desires when playing social encounters in tabletop roleplaying games. There are a plethora of ways to handle roleplaying social encounters beyond the commonly staked poles.

Agreed. I'm closer to Lanefan in that I do like to play out the conversation at the table, but where I differ is that I then like to resolve the outcome with a dice roll. The purpose of playing out the conversation itself is mainly because I find it fun and to give the situation more dramatic weight. The words said at the table impact the dice roll by determining the stakes and probably giving a bonus for a satisfying approach, but resolution itself is still through the system.