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

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by artichoke

I don't think the way to resolve this is to focus on the perceived intent of players. That gets us into thought crime territory which is best avoided.

I don't think this is the sort of thing that's properly resolved by rules, and by anyone, player or GM, saying, "Well, the rules say you have to do it the way I say."

The authority I have as a GM, I have by consent, and I gain that consent by earning the trust of the players. And part of what gains that trust is consulting with the players about what makes sense in terms of their character concepts. They trust me to present the world, and to make up features of the world as we go along, in a way that preserves consistency; I trust them to do the same for their characters. And the world concept and the character concepts are more important than the rules.

An emphasis on rules, and on characters having only traits that are defined by the rules and explicitly written down, works with an emphasis on the "game" aspect of an RPG. But what I emphasize more is the "narrative" aspect. And that necessarily includes things that aren't defined by rules, or worked out in advance, but are improvised in a way compatible with what's written down.

Let me tell you a story. Many years ago, I interviewed Vernor Vinge for a newsletter I was editing. And while doing so, I asked him about how things worked in the setting of A Deepness in the Sky, his then most recent novel. And what he said was, "It's possible that X." It's possible! That is, he hadn't already decided (behind the scenes) that X was true, and he didn't think of X as something that he could just decree to be true; X was more like something he could discover, as a feature of an imagined world that had certain known features that he had defined. Of course, Vinge is a mathematician, and that's how mathematicians approach the imaginary worlds of mathematics. But that's also how I approach the imagined worlds of game settings.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by artichoke

The point I was making with that is that people subject mind control to a different arbitrary standard than they do violence and other forms of control.

Yes they do. People really do object more to being turned into a puppet than they object to having their character injured. That the game accommodates this is not a flaw in practical terms even if it conflicts with your philosophy about how the world actually works. Note under the rules that a powerful persuasion roll can leave a character more crippled than having a limb blown off even if you technically refuse. For example if you want person B's chips and he says "no" even after losing his will context by -10, you can simply take his chips away. It's a contest of dexterity and he's rolling at -10.

A gun doesn't care about the preferences and thoughts of the person it shoots.

A gun doesn't care about anything. But when it comes to talking people into doing things, their pre-existing opinion about the things you are trying to talk them into is extremely important to whether it is possible to get them to budge. Case in point...this discussion. Are you having a lot of luck convincing people of your point of view or does seem like you are beating your head against a stone wall?

This Nazi vs. charismatic hero example that keeps being talked about, for instance, is being used from the point of view where the people subject to mind control have the kind of agency they would have without it.

No, it's being used from the point of view where having a great smile, a wonderful speaking voice, high social status and oodles of charm, isn't actually the same thing as being able to actually reach into someone's mind with a supernatural or ultra-technological power and at least temporarily rewire them or simply remove their control over their body.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Yes they do. People really do object more to being turned into a puppet than they object to having their character injured.

They are free to create arbitrary distinctions based on artistic taste if they like. They are not free to claim that artistic viewpoints are universal.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

when it comes to talking people into doing things, their pre-existing opinion about the things you are trying to talk them into is extremely important to whether it is possible to get them to budge.

That's hyperbolic (bolded). What is extremely important and what is less important depends on the specific thing and the context. The context is affected by the power level of the mind control.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Case in point...this discussion. Are you having a lot of luck convincing people of your point of view or does seem like you are beating your head against a stone wall?

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Consensus-seeking is important to a politician, not someone who is merely interested in game mechanics improvements.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No, it's being used from the point of view where having a great smile, a wonderful speaking voice, high social status and oodles of charm, isn't actually the same thing as being able to actually reach into someone's mind with a supernatural or ultra-technological power and at least temporarily rewire them or simply remove their control over their body.

Again with the hyperbole. This is not, and has never been, about total control.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by whswhs

the world concept and the character concepts are more important than the rules.

The PCs presented are rules themselves. If the player is more important than the PC then why have the PC in the first place? Drop the player into the game world instead.

Instead of role-playing it's something else.

Originally Posted by whswhs

An emphasis on rules, and on characters having only traits that are defined by the rules and explicitly written down, works with an emphasis on the "game" aspect of an RPG. But what I emphasize more is the "narrative" aspect. And that necessarily includes things that aren't defined by rules, or worked out in advance, but are improvised in a way compatible with what's written down.

You're free to play any system that way but GURPS makes a strong effort to do the opposite. The perks and quirks system is perhaps just the most striking example of that. The advantage and disadvantages system, the attributes, the talents, and the skills are also striking — particularly given their meticulous numerical quantifications. Which is more striking is debatable, since the advantages and disadvantages, despite being less minor in importance, factor in more strongly.

In a system that is rules-lite, advantages and disadvantages, for instance, wouldn't have precise numerical point values. They would have a few vague tiers at most — maybe just two (weak and strong).

Originally Posted by whswhs

Let me tell you a story. Many years ago, I interviewed Vernor Vinge for a newsletter I was editing. And while doing so, I asked him about how things worked in the setting of A Deepness in the Sky, his then most recent novel. And what he said was, "It's possible that X." It's possible! That is, he hadn't already decided (behind the scenes) that X was true, and he didn't think of X as something that he could just decree to be true; X was more like something he could discover, as a feature of an imagined world that had certain known features that he had defined. Of course, Vinge is a mathematician, and that's how mathematicians approach the imaginary worlds of mathematics. But that's also how I approach the imagined worlds of game settings.

None of that is incompatible with my suggestion that people treat player influence as suggestion, instead of giving them GM fiat loopholes.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by artichoke

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Incorrect. I'm not saying you are wrong because you have a minority viewpoint. I'm saying you are wrong because because you are not succeeding at convincing anyone to change their mind and nobody is succeeding at changing your mind. This stands as an example of how it can simply be impossible to make a dent in someones choices when they already have made up their mind.

Again with the hyperbole. This is not, and has never been, about total control.

What is it about?

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Incorrect. I'm not saying you are wrong because you have a minority viewpoint. I'm saying you are wrong because because you are not succeeding at convincing anyone to change their mind and nobody is succeeding at changing your mind.

That's ad populum; it's a fallacy.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

This stands as an example of how it can simply be impossible to make a dent in someones choices when they already have made up their mind.

People do learn even if they try not to.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by artichoke

GURPS has the mechanics for even quite minor things like a cat allergy, via the perks and quirks.

So... you expect the PC to have a million Perks and million Quirks to cover every single aspect of their behavior? In advance?

Things that are much more central to a character's self-concept, like sexual orientation, are another matter.

So... an aversion to cats needs to be documented via Quirks and Perks, but sexual orientation doesn't?

Minor things like allergies could be brought up later but something like that should definitely be known, at least to the GM, prior.

So which is it? Prior or later?

Or do you mean "it's okay to make up this detail later (after chargen) but they have to inform the GM before the detail ever comes into play"?

Tables need to be careful about giving players power by allowing them to keep secrets that not even the GM is privy to.

That isn't true at all.

I don't think the way to resolve this is to focus on the perceived intent of players. That gets us into thought crime territory which is best avoided.

Except you've been accusing the Players of doing this the entire time. "Time machine", "only bring up after a roll has been made I don't like". You've been ascribing negative motivations to the Players from your first OP> I think the whole "no thought policing" ship has sailed.

Originally Posted by artichoke

They are free to create arbitrary distinctions based on artistic taste if they like. They are not free to claim that artistic viewpoints are universal.

Of course they are. They might be wrong, but the claim can be made.

The context is affected by the power level of the mind control.

I think you're continuing to conflate 'mind control' with 'social influence'. You can claim that sufficient social influence equates mind control, but that doesn't make it true, let alone universal.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Consensus-seeking is important to a politician, not someone who is merely interested in game mechanics improvements.

Actually what Dave is pointing out is something I pointed out earlier: Everyone in this thread is Reaction Rolling their butts off, but you keep saying "No, I don't like it that way, it should work this way instead".

Your rather proving that it doesn't matter how well reasoned the argument, a person can simply be dead set against it.

Again with the hyperbole. This is not, and has never been, about total control.

If you as GM (with the 'Rule 0 Fiat') can tell a Player how their character reacts, decisions they make, or actions they take based on a social influence test... it is total control. It has been elevated to the state of mind control.

Originally Posted by artichoke

You're free to play any system that way but GURPS makes a strong effort to do the opposite.

Only in it's application to combat rules. It's really narratively fuzzy everywhere else.

Why else would the sidebox on pg 359 of Basic exist? Why else would the entire Reaction Table be a list of generalities instead of specifics?

The perks and quirks system is perhaps just the most striking example of that.

The Perk system represents Advantages with such a niche/minimal effect as make them almost free and Quirks are just 5 freeby points that represent 'ways in which your Character might behave or small almost inconsequential physical, mental, or social defects'.

None of that is incompatible with my suggestion that people treat player influence as suggestion, instead of giving them GM fiat loopholes.

I think what Bill is trying to point out is that when something is created by some people, not everything is defined in advance, and that even when called into question some aspect may still be unresolved in the mind of the creator as that aspect hasn't needed to be decided upon yet or that said decision may be heavily weighed upon by the situation in which it is by called into resolution.

Thus: It is unreasonable to demand that every possible decision a Character may need to make be considered during chargen or even before the possible situation arises.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

So... you expect the PC to have a million Perks and million Quirks to cover every single aspect of their behavior? In advance?

That is not what I have suggested. That is very hyperbolic.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

So... an aversion to cats needs to be documented via Quirks and Perks, but sexual orientation doesn't?

Sexual orientation can be a quirk or a perk in a special type of campaign. Typically, it should be a basic character attribute, like the PC's sex.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

So which is it? Prior or later?

I said that the more important/core an attribute is the more it should be known, by the GM at the very minimum.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Or do you mean "it's okay to make up this detail later (after chargen) but they have to inform the GM before the detail ever comes into play"?

That is better practice, for things the player feels strongly enough about to expect GM-style fiat over than waiting until their PC is in a situation involving it that has an outcome the player doesn't care for.

The more strongly the player feels about the PC having a quality the more important it is to clear it with the GM prior to play. This is not a controversial opinion.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Quirks are just 5 freeby points that represent 'ways in which your Character might behave or small almost inconsequential physical, mental, or social defects'.

Quirks are not inconsequential. They are intended to be negative attributes. Perks are also not inconsequential. They are intended to be positive attributes.

Something that is inconsequential doesn't matter enough for the player to need/want/demand GM-style fiat for in the first place.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by artichoke

That's ad populum; it's a fallacy.

No. It's not the lack of popularity of your point of view that refutes you. It's the impossibility of changing your mind as well as the impossibility of you changing anyone else's mind.

People do learn even if they try not to.

No. They don't. They learn when they are willing to learn.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It's the impossibility of changing your mind as well as the impossibility of you changing anyone else's mind.

That's the magical thinking fallacy. Ad populum is also implied, given the context.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No. They don't. They learn when they are willing to learn.

This is also the magical thinking fallacy. The only way a brain doesn't learn from stimuli is if they are never encountered by it.