Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7605301" data-attributes="member: 4937">I agree.The smelly chamberlain example is just the latest example of attempt to assert that the boundaries of the PC extend to encompass all that the PC can observe or think on.  One wonders if the person making these claims believes their own person extends to encompass all that they can observe or think on?   I really have a hard time taking these arguments seriously, as I think they are less serious arguments than attempts to justify a process of play that includes a gentlemen's agreement over what different participants can introduce to the fiction in an effort to improve the game - something I think that is neither justified by these red herrings nor which needs to be justified.  It's not badwrongfun to cooperate together.  Go ahead, especially if you have nigh unto perfect knowledge of what everyone else at the table enjoys.  Under such conditions, well why not?But, as far as the example goes, consider the following:The GM introduces a Chamberlain wearing costly perfumes.The PC is, by virtue of their fiat control of their character free to assert all of the following:1) They find the costly perfumes attractive and would like to inquire where they could purchase themselves.2) They want to pretend that they find the costly perfumes attractive and inquire where they could purchase some themselves.3) They find the odor offensive, but wish to pretend that they do not to avoid offending the Chamberlain.4) They find the odor offensive, and wish to mock the Chamberlain regarding his perfumes, either to deliberately enrage the Chamberlain or make a fool of him in front of the court (or both).5) They don't find the odor offensive, but wish to mock the Chamberlain regarding his perfumes anyway.Likewise, if the GM introduces a Chamberlain which he describes as having strong body odor, by virtue of the player's fiat control over the PC, they may propose all of the following.1) They find the body order attractive and would like to compliment the Chamberlain on his manly odor.2) They want to pretend that they find the body odor attractive and compliment the Chamberlain on his manly odor.3) They find the odor offensive, but wish to pretend that they do not to avoid offending the Chamberlain.4) They find the odor offensive, and wish to mock the Chamberlain regarding his body odor, either to deliberately enrage the Chamberlain or make a fool of him in front of the court (or both).5) They don't find the odor offensive, but wish to mock the Chamberlain regarding his body odor anyway.Further, the GM could introduce a Chamberlain with no noticeable odor whatsoever, and yet by virtue of the player's fiat control over the PC, the player could still propose:1) They find the Chamberlain's smell attractive, as a false to facts of the fiction assertion regarding the odor of the Chamberlain.  2) They don't find the Chamberlain's smell attractive, as a false to facts of the fiction assertion regarding the odor of the Chamberlain.3) In combination of neither or either of the above, that they wish to insult the Chamberlain regarding his smell, in hopes of enraging the Chamberlain or making him seem foolish in the eyes of the court.None of these assertions need to be justified.  The player is declaring things about his character's beliefs, feelings, and actions.  He may or may not have good justification for those beliefs, feelings, and actions, but he doesn't have to justify them.   He's just playing his character.However, as soon as the player tries to declare something that is not about his PC's beliefs, feelings, or actions, but rather about the beliefs, feelings, or actions of NPCs or the existence of novel things in the fiction, then he's not playing his character.   I can't believe I'm saying that, because I would have thought it was obvious and axiomatic, but here we are.Now, depending on the player character's social skills, courses of action regarding the Chamberlain's odor such as attempting to make a fool of him in front of the court might have a chance of success.  The odds of success will very much depend on the perceptions of the NPCs.  If it is the case that the Chamberlain's odor is not much commented on in the court, the player's proposed course of action would be much more difficult than if the GM decides that Chamberlain's odor is already perceived by the court as being obnoxious and everyone is just afraid to say anything about it.   The clever player may in fact have perceived by some means that this is true, while a creative player may be banking on it being true or something the GM finds plausible.  What is not the case is that the PC can propose that since his player finds Chamberlain's odor offensive, that the NPCs of the court find it offensive - and this is especially the case if the GM does not establish that such an odor exists and in fact notes that the odor is not particularly notable nor would it normally be found offensive at all.   It's beyond the bounds of playing your PC to make declarations about what exists in the environment or how NPCs think and behave.  Real people can't cause smells to come into being that other people experience just by imagining them.   Neither can a PC acting in the fiction cause a smell to come into existence by imagining it.  Perhaps a heroically good orator could convince a court by the power of suggestion that the Chamberlain smells despite their being no significant odor present, but in this case he's by the power of his descriptive rhetoric introducing into the fiction a belief that the Chamberlain smells and doing that through a process of play.   Or a wizard PC might actually magically create an odor to attack to the Chamberlain to embarrass him provided he had some character ability that allowed the player to assert such a narrative device.   But all of that is playing your character.   Claiming that your character thinks the Chamberlain smells, and therefore perforce the Chamberlain does smell is not playing your character because implicitly it is NPCs doing the smelling.   You can no more control what the NPCs think by fiat than the GM can control what your PC thinks by fiat.On that note, the GM cannot do the following:a) Assert that since the Chamberlain has body odor, you find him offensive.  Even if the body odor is so bad that it causes an automatic physical reaction, you ought not say that the PC finds that offensive, only that it causes him to vomit unless he passes a fortitude save (or whatever).  If he passes the fortitude save, he's free to explain that he likes the smell of body odor, so this was no big deal.  Heck, the player may hypothetically be playing a talking dog that finds the smell of dirty socks the best thing in the world.   But even if he is, the player gets to decide that - not you.  (Heck, if the player wants to establish in the fiction that he finds body odor attractive, as a GM I'd probably decide to hence forth mechanically support that just because it's amusing.)b) Assert that since the Chamberlain is wearing expensive perfumes, you find the perfumes attractive.   Even if the perfumes are magical, so that they cause an automatic physical reaction impairing judgment as if the PC had just downed a pair of Long Island Iced Teas on an empty stomach, that's still a matter of process of play to establish if the PC is so impaired that it overrides the players normal control over the character, and has nothing to do with the perfumes attractiveness.Agreed.  I've had a lot of problem players over 30 years of play, but this hypothetical where the player insists that they believe some false to facts thing and therefore everyone else ought to as well has never come up.  I'm pretty sure I've had players insist on false to facts play, but only because they were gonzo players that wanted to play someone who was delusional or weird, usually out of misguided attempts to attract the spotlight to their PC.   Sometimes it was even believably in character for them to be delusional and weird.  They still didn't insist that the NPC's and other PC's present had to believe the same thing.   How we've had the thread derailed over endlessly pointing out that no, ascribing traits to other characters or things in the setting in contrast to the established fictional positioning or introducing things which were novel to the fictional positioning did not constitute playing your PC.   It might even be something that was allowed, but if it allowed, it still wasn't playing your PC but rather shared narrative control that arose from something other than the right to play your PC.</blockquote>

Verification