Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 7743268" data-attributes="member: 3400">I'm generally of Lanefan's mind here and I normally don't have a problem with game mechanics taking away agency, even via mundane methods... but only for a little while. I have no problem with the otherwise controversial Pathfinder feat Antagonize - which allows a character to force another to launch an attack at them via a skill check. But then it's a very short duration - just enough time for the target to get a turn and be compelled to attack the antagonizing character (be it a PC or NPC). The effect is pretty much limited to just that one attack and that's an important distinction when overriding or compelling a player's control over his PC. The general trend in D&D/PF and superhero games is to generally limit the effects of mind control-type abilities - either to short durations or to non-self destructive behaviors. Using a social skill or other mechanic to engage in PvP to determine the outcome of an argument or compel a PC to agree to rescue the nobleman's daughter is a bit more of an open-ended time frame. If one crewmember wins the argument (via some kind of mechanical resolution) over the others on what mission to pursue next in Traveller, that has a duration of weeks in all likelihood (considering each FTL jump is 1 week). The same may be true of persuading the PCs to rescue someone's daughter - a fairly long duration may follow. This is directly contrary to the trend you see in powers, magical and super, that can be expected to override someone's will in extraordinary ways (in contrast to the ordinary ways of making a good pitch and offering a lot of money as a bribe). And that's why certain kinds of agency affecting examples that have been used here, I find very problematic.</blockquote>

Verification