Social Engineering's "Influencing PCs" box, pg. 32

[whswhs]

Well, in the first place, your environmental determinism is a philosophical viewpoint that grew out of Humean empiricism by way of logical positivism; it is not the only possible philosophical viewpoint. In the second place, the behaviorist program of psychological research it inspired has not been the only such program, or the dominant one, since I was in college. The cognitivist approach has its own limitations, but it's clearly an alternative. And in any case, even if environmental determinism and behaviorism were true, there would be no compulsion on game writers to base games on them, or on GMs and players to play those games. You can stipulate, if you like, that volition is an illusion, but it still might make for more enjoyable games. After all, we can play games that feature magic, or gods, or superpowers, or superscience, or psi; I don't see why we shouldn't play games that also feature some form of "free will" if we like that particular superpower.

(I'm not going to try to debate determinism vs. indeterminism, or compatibilitism vs. incompatibilism, or any of those philosophical issues, because this isn't a suitable forum. Let's just say that I'm aware of philosophical viewpoints that disagree with yours.)

In the second place, your argument about going back in time and changing the past is a misrepresentation of the situation. Say that I write up a character, in a future society that has no social stigma on preferred partner sex, and a male character (PC or NPC) tries to persuade her to sexual activity, and I say, "It doesn't matter how well he rolled; he's the wrong sex for her." That isn't going back in time and rewriting the character sheet. The character sheet never said "This character is heterosexual" or "This character is bisexual." It didn't say anything about the subject. In the society in question, sexual preference is a zero point feature, and doesn't have to be written down, any more than I have to write down that the character has gray eyes or rarely eats highly spiced food. So when I base her reactions on my conceiving her to be exclusively homosexual, that's not changing something that was already established. It may be making explicit something that I had privately decided about the character, or deciding it when it becomes relevant.

You seem to want everything to be determined by explicit rules and by things that are explicitly stated on character sheets. I've never played that way, or run games that way. I've always considered myself free, as GM or player, to improvise things that I didn't decide in advance, and I allow my players that same freedom. And GURPS is a game system that's highly compatible with that style of play.

If you don't like that style of play, you don't have to play that way, or adopt an *optional* rule that was intended to facilitate it.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by whswhs

You can stipulate, if you like, that volition is an illusion, but it still might make for more enjoyable games.

This is a red herring. In no post did I suggest that GURPS, or any other game, be played without the illusion of agency.

Originally Posted by whswhs

After all, we can play games that feature magic, or gods, or superpowers, or superscience, or psi; I don't see why we shouldn't play games that also feature some form of "free will" if we like that particular superpower.

This is contradictory in terms of a prior point you made. You, though, as I recall, said that we should subject game bits to reality tests — the more the game bit adheres to actual reality the better. That's the opposite of using the supernatural to support anything.

However, since I never suggested tossing out the concept of agency in the first place the contradiction here is secondary.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Let's just say that I'm aware of philosophical viewpoints that disagree with yours.

A philosophical debate is a red herring in terms of some very simple points I made, like full agency is only possible with omnipotence.

I am very interested to see any rebuttal to that.

Originally Posted by whswhs

In the second place, your argument about going back in time and changing the past is a misrepresentation of the situation. Say that I write up a character, in a future society that has no social stigma on preferred partner sex, and a male character (PC or NPC) tries to persuade her to sexual activity, and I say, "It doesn't matter how well he rolled; he's the wrong sex for her." That isn't going back in time and rewriting the character sheet. The character sheet never said "This character is heterosexual" or "This character is bisexual." It didn't say anything about the subject. In the society in question, sexual preference is a zero point feature, and doesn't have to be written down, any more than I have to write down that the character has gray eyes or rarely eats highly spiced food. So when I base her reactions on my conceiving her to be exclusively homosexual, that's not changing something that was already established. It may be making explicit something that I had privately decided about the character, or deciding it when it becomes relevant.

This is contradictory. First, you establish that the PC's sexual orientation is very important. Then, you say it doesn't matter in the game world.

If a characteristic is important to the PC then it should be written down. Otherwise, the unfolding story can unfold the character in ways the player doesn't have full control over.

Originally Posted by whswhs

It may be making explicit something that I had privately decided about the character, or deciding it when it becomes relevant.

The time machine. Also, a case of a player taking over the GM role inappropriately.

Players can suggest things in this circumstance but they don't get to dictate. The time for dictation is when the character sheet is being made and, to a lesser extent, outside the session.

The worst time for adding important features like sexual orientation is on the fly, after a roll was rolled on the subject. Features like sexual orientation are core self concept features. If a player didn't bother to specify then that player is making it clear that it's not important (to the player).

Originally Posted by whswhs

You seem to want everything to be determined by explicit rules and by things that are explicitly stated on character sheets. I've never played that way, or run games that way. I've always considered myself free, as GM or player, to improvise things that I didn't decide in advance, and I allow my players that same freedom. And GURPS is a game system that's highly compatible with that style of play.

GURPS is more crunch than ad-libbing. Look at all of the published supplements. Look at all the precise rules. There are many systems out there that are designed around extensive ad-libbing.

And, ad-libbing by the GM is one thing but players taking over the GM role is another.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by artichoke

A philosophical debate is a red herring in terms of some very simple points I made, like full agency is only possible with omnipotence.

I am very interested to see any rebuttal to that.

That is a philosophical point, and it's one I've already answered, though you seem to be choosing to ignore my answer. Here it is again:

If I write fiction, obviously my characters don't have full agency, as you define it. I totally control everything they do, and I can make them do anything, or prevent them from doing it. In relation to the fictional world, I'm omnipotent, and the characters aren't.

But that makes the distinction between "agency" and "lack of agency" meaningless in statements about characters in the fictional world. Agency is a property of the author, and only of the author.

But there is also a meaningful distinction within a story between characters who have agency, and characters who lack it, at least as a matter of degree. You yourself are accepting that distinction when you say that fictional characters don't have agency in all things at all times; if they did not have agency in some things at some times, that would be a trivial and uninteresting truth. And since, in writing fiction, we don't normally introduce the omnipotent being who controls all the events that happen in the story as a character, the concept of "full agency" has no application within the fictional world.

"Agency" for human characters usually means that the things the characters do are the result of their choices. Lack of agency applies if their actions are not the results of their choices: If they're controlled by fate, or their social role, or their psychological compulsions, or something else of that sort, and have no room to change that. Agency is characteristic of romantic fiction; lack of agency is characteristic of naturalistic fiction. And most rpgs are romantic, with exceptions such as Paranoia where the players are invited to view their characters ironically.

To add to this, it's a classic philosophical move to define X in such a way that nothing in the real, observable world can fit the definition; and then to say that X does not exist; and then to draw conclusions from X not existing. For example, many philosophers have defined "knowledge" as meaning that it is not conceivable that a claim to knowledge could ever be shown to be wrong; and, since we can always imagine grounds for doubt (Descartes' evil genius and so on), to draw skeptical conclusions. But the point of concepts is to be applied to things that exist in the real world. Your concept of agency cannot apply to anything in the real world, and therefore can be set aside. A valid concept of agency cannot require omnipotence, just as a valid concept of knowledge cannot require omniscience or infallibility.

You may think that your claim that "full agency" requires omnipotence is a very simple point that cannot be discussed philosophically. I think it's a philosophical position, and one that makes any discussion that follows from it meaningless.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That is a philosophical point

that doesn't require any kind of overwhelming complex debate or discussion.

As for ignoring your rebuttal, your static/prefabricated fiction analogy is just an analogy and doesn't rebut what I wrote. I didn't ignore that part of your post. I didn't find it relevant.

Originally Posted by whswhs

You yourself are accepting that distinction when you say that fictional characters don't have agency in all things at all times

No one has agency in all things at all times, ever — except a monotheistic deity.

Originally Posted by whswhs

if they did not have agency in some things at some times, that would be a trivial and uninteresting truth.

It may be trivial and uninteresting to some but it's a glaring problem for many, in the context of tabletop RPGs. Too many don't realize the scope of the consequences of this "trivial and uninteresting truth".

Originally Posted by whswhs

And since, in writing fiction, we don't normally introduce the omnipotent being who controls all the events that happen in the story as a character, the concept of "full agency" has no application within the fictional world.

Omnipotent deities are all over fiction. Your fiction analogy isn't working as a rebuttal. Let's stick to tabletop RPG, especially GURPs, instead of using analogies.

Originally Posted by whswhs

"Agency" for human characters usually means that the things the characters do are the result of their choices. Lack of agency applies if their actions are not the results of their choices: If they're controlled by fate, or their social role, or their psychological compulsions, or something else of that sort, and have no room to change that. Agency is characteristic of romantic fiction; lack of agency is characteristic of naturalistic fiction. And most rpgs are romantic, with exceptions such as Paranoia where the players are invited to view their characters ironically.[/I]

RPGs are a mixture of personal agency and lack of it.

Originally Posted by whswhs

To add to this, it's a classic philosophical move to define X in such a way that nothing in the real, observable world can fit the definition; and then to say that X does not exist; and then to draw conclusions from X not existing. For example, many philosophers have defined "knowledge" as meaning that it is not conceivable that a claim to knowledge could ever be shown to be wrong; and, since we can always imagine grounds for doubt (Descartes' evil genius and so on), to draw skeptical conclusions. But the point of concepts is to be applied to things that exist in the real world. Your concept of agency cannot apply to anything in the real world, and therefore can be set aside. A valid concept of agency cannot require omnipotence, just as a valid concept of knowledge cannot require omniscience or infallibility.

So, you're using the reality test claim here. Yet, in a different thing you wrote, you used supernatural elements' existence in GURPS to justify not following reality. Which is it?

As for "Your concept of agency cannot apply to anything in the real world", I have no idea what you mean. Nowhere did I create a personal concept of agency. I didn't define it. I am talking about agency in the standard manner, not inventing something out of thin air.

It's a simple fact that total agency is omnipotence. With anything less there is limitation. From limitation comes struggle. From struggle comes something to do. There is no game in omnipotent PCs.

Originally Posted by whswhs

You may think that your claim that "full agency" requires omnipotence is a very simple point that cannot be discussed philosophically.

There is a difference between discussing something "philosophically" and not posting an adequate rebuttal.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think it's a philosophical position, and one that makes any discussion that follows from it meaningless.

That's a useless stance. Everything is a philosophical position. You're now tossing all of reality out to evade the basic truth I keep posting about control.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by artichoke

Your example is based on the false assumption that mind control = total mind control. That's something I already addressed.

I'm sure you think you did.

It's just not factual to claim that mind control only exists when there is total compliance. All control is a matter of degrees.

Once someone has no choice but to do do exactly what I tell them to the best of their ability, that's close enough for me.

What you're talking about is fudging the system,

No. I'm not. That is the system. A specific game mechanic effect for what happens when someone persuades the hell out of you and you say "No" anyway.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I'm sure you think you did.

That's not a rebuttal. Mine was.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Once someone has no choice but to do do exactly what I tell them to the best of their ability, that's close enough for me.

You mean, following the GM's rulings, like always?

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No. I'm not. That is the system. A specific game mechanic effect for what happens when someone persuades the hell out of you and you say "No" anyway.

Systems can have flaws, hence this topic.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by artichoke

Omnipotent deities are all over fiction. Your fiction analogy isn't working as a rebuttal. Let's stick to tabletop RPG, especially GURPs, instead of using analogies.

Tabletop RPGs are a form of fiction.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by artichoke

Can he resist the will of Charismatic Machine Gun that shot a bullet into his eye?

Just for the record, machine guns have no Will (Trait) of even "will" in plain English as they have the ultimate lack of agency and point in thatever direction the person grasping them wants and firing only when their triggers are pulled.

No, it doesn't make sense to give amchine gun the Trait of Charisma eiher. If you did it would only be usable by the person using it.

Also, a machine gun bullet to the eye is nothing to do with imposing "will". It's a Piercing Attack to be resisted with DR rather than "agency".

So perhaps you will be slightly more careful with your frequents claims of "red herrings" agsint other persons.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by artichoke

That's not a rebuttal. Mine was.

Saying you "addressed the issue" is not a rebuttal.

You mean, following the GM's rulings, like always?

No. I don't. A GM who tells me what my decisions are is a GM who will be short a player. GMs only get to tell me the consequences of my decisions, not what my decisions will be.

Systems can have flaws, hence this topic.

Systems may or may not have flaws. But using the mechanics in the rules for the adjudication of a given situation in no way constitutes fudging on the part of anyone.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by artichoke

If a characteristic is important to the PC then it should be written down. Otherwise, the unfolding story can unfold the character in ways the player doesn't have full control over.

While this is certainly one possible way to play the game, I've never played an RPG where this was part of RAW. Typically, players are expected to write down their stats, equipment, and powers. Sometimes a quick personality paragraph, backstory, or an optional sketch. But many, many details are developed in play, sometimes even core features like sexual orientation. This is part of what makes the game fun for the players, to invent and explore and discover new features of their characters.

As a GM, I certainly expect my players to be actively developing their characters in play. If something becomes important in a scene (like sexual orientation), I wouldn't presume to tell the player what choice to make to fit my idea of how the narrative was supposed to go. I would ask them and then have the scene adapt to their response. Indeed, how great it is when the responses are surprising because they transform the story into something that is unexpected and new for everyone.

And, ad-libbing by the GM is one thing but players taking over the GM role is another.

I don't have the time or patience to wade into a longwinded debate about free will, but it has always seemed to me fairly clearcut. The GM manages the NPCs and the world. The players manage their characters. The GM can interfere with player agency by introducing plot challenges and complications. But the GM oversteps her bounds when she tells a player what their character is thinking or how they must respond to a situation. That's for the player to decide. Occasional dramatic mind-control powers are the exception, and they are especially feared because they break from the norm.

The GM does, in many games, get to judge the quality of role-playing which can be rewarded with character points in GURPS. If a player is clearly making decisions that don't fit with their backstory just to avoid plot complications, they might earn fewer character points. At any table I've played at in the past few decades, they would also have a private conversation with the GM after the game. Eventually, if their play-style remains contrary to the expectations of the group, they may be asked to game elsewhere.