Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7630955" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'm not sure what <em>monster abilities</em> you've got in mind. In Prince Valiant, for instance, Incite Lust is more likely to be found on a maiden than a monster!</p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>Prince Valiant says this about the Incite Lust special effect (p 46):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p><p></p><p>That's no more "intrusive" than a classic D&D charm effect.</p><p></p><p>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. <em>I hit you</em> - <em>No you don't, because I dodge</em> is in structural terms exactly the same thing. Or the player saying <em>I climb the cliff</em> while the GM says <em>I don't think so - they're known for being impossible to scale!</em>.</p><p></p><p>I don't quite know what you mean by "direct test".</p><p></p><p>Here's the full text of the Seduce/Manipulate move in Apocalypse World (p 87), although with some paragraph breaks interpolated:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">When you<strong> try to seduce or manipulate someone</strong>, tell them what you want and roll+hot.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">For PCs: on a 10+, both. On a 7–9, choose 1:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• <em>if they do it, they mark experience</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• <em>if they refuse, it’s acting under fire</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">What they do then is up to them.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Does that satisfy your <em>direct test</em> requirement?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7630955, member: 42582"] I'm not sure what [I]monster abilities[/I] you've got in mind. In Prince Valiant, for instance, Incite Lust is more likely to be found on a maiden than a monster! 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): [indent]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.[/indent] 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]I hit you[/I] - [I]No you don't, because I dodge[/I] is in structural terms exactly the same thing. Or the player saying [I]I climb the cliff[/I] while the GM says [I]I don't think so - they're known for being impossible to scale![/I]. I don't quite know what you mean by "direct test". Here's the full text of the Seduce/Manipulate move in Apocalypse World (p 87), although with some paragraph breaks interpolated: [indent]When you[B] try to seduce or manipulate someone[/B], 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: • [I]if they do it, they mark experience[/I] • [I]if they refuse, it’s acting under fire[/I] What they do then is up to them.[/indent] 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 [I]direct test[/I] requirement? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top