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

[artichoke]

I am just getting into GURPs and this jumped out at me today. It seems to have some issues. I am coming from outside of the framework of being knowledgeable about GURPs but that can be positive, not just negative, in terms of perspective. That said, I am not, at all, a fluent expert in the rules and expectations — so it's possible that I'm missing something. (The bit I wrote about the expectations regarding PvP is the most likely issue with my revision — I assume.)

1) Is PvP acceptable in the campaign and, if so, to what degree? Active mind control influences from one PC to another are PvP. Passive influences are more debatable.

2) Is PvP-lite handled differently than PC vs. NPC contests of will and such.

3) Do players really get a time machine to go back and defy mind control things like Influence, just because the outcome doesn't suit their fancy? If so, that seems to be a massive nerfing of one type of control (mind) versus others (physical, like violence). Not only is it a time machine (Player hears X is happening and player says "No, that did not happen, this did instead"), it breaks Rule 0, by having the player, not the GM, determine the environment. A PC is part of the environment, acting within it. Players shouldn't be able to superimpose themselves. They need to play the character, not themselves. If the PC is weak to mind control in a circumstance then they need to just deal with it, not protest — and certainly not revise the game world on the fly as if they're the GM.

I had an issue with a player who refused to abide by a different system's basic mechanics about willpower. Not only did this make it impossible to use this basic mechanism to further the plot (the horror!), it broke Rule 0 horribly. When a GM sits down to design for an upcoming session he/she should not have to psychically anticipate basic core rules being thrown out because players won't tolerate them. The players should simply abide by the GM's decisions and speak to them later if they have an issue with something. I don't agree, at all, that PCs have the supernatural ability, indomitable will, as a basic characteristic, for all builds, by default. In reality, no one is indomitable, whether it's their will or something more clearly physical. I totally disagree with his claim that it should be obvious that players expect this ability in their characters and that if they don't get it they will quit the game.

It makes no sense to be content with disadvantages, quirks, the constant threat of unpleasant things happening (like PC death), and simultaneously expect to be coddled when it comes to the illusion of choice, in terms of mind. Choice really is an illusion when the GM is the one really making them. Players simply are along for the ride. That's what happens in a Rule 0 game, in reality. Players create interesting characters and help the story proceed by suggesting what will happen. They don't get to decide, though. It's only cooperative to a point. The GM is the world. The players are merely players, to paraphrase Shakespeare. I fail to see how a player who is content with, for instance, taking two -15 disadvantages can have a big problem with losing out in a contest of wills sometimes. What do they expect — a flawless omnipotent being that has no reason to do anything? The disadvantage system alone is all about ceding control to the GM to make the story more interesting. That's why they're negative points. Because they're supposed to not be fun and nice for the PC. They are, however, supposed to be interesting for those at the table. How is being influenced to take an action the player doesn't like any different? It isn't. What matters is that the action make sense in the context, the context being the nature of the PC and the nature of the circumstances. Period. And, since players don't always get to know everything, what makes sense to the GM may not make sense to the players, at least at that moment in time.

It seems to me that control is control. I don't agree at all with the claim that things like Influence aren't mind control. Of course they are. Just because something isn't total control doesn't mean it's not control. It may not be supernatural mind control or total mind control but it is certainly mind control to influence someone, even unintentionally.

When someone paints a wall yellow with a strong green cast, a color associated with illness (which is why adults tend to not like it and kids tend to like it — because adults don't), then seeing the wall may be enough to make a person feel less pleasant. This is a framing effect. Research has found very interesting things about framing, like how just reading words associated with old age made even young healthy people walk more slowly from the room they read the words in to their car. All of the stimuli in our environments control us. The only way they don't is if our brains don't perceive them at all. A lot of what our senses perceive gets filtered so it isn't consciously processed, too.

Just for fun I formatted my current ideas to match the original, although, of course, there is the bloat that comes with me writing. I do tend to try to be thorough, which also means lots of words.

If a campaign is wrecked because a character has to do something the player doesn't like then it wasn't much of a campaign in the first place. Where's the challenge in never having to face unpleasantness — to never feel not in total control? No risk, no reward.

https://s15.postimg.cc/5izepo0ln/original.png
https://s15.postimg.cc/ltzim4akb/edit.png

I hope you all don't mind me formatting things this way. I just thought it would be fun. If it's a problem I'll just type the text out.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by artichoke

I am just getting into GURPs and this jumped out at me today. It seems to have some issues. I am coming from outside of the framework of being knowledgeable about GURPs but that can be positive, not just negative, in terms of perspective. That said, I am not, at all, a fluent expert in the rules and expectations — so it's possible that I'm missing something. (The bit I wrote about the expectations regarding PvP is the most likely issue with my revision — I assume.)

1) Is PvP acceptable in the campaign and, if so, to what degree? Active mind control influences from one PC to another are PvP. Passive influences are more debatable.

2) Is PvP-lite handled differently than PC vs. NPC contests of will and such.

3) Do players really get a time machine to go back and defy mind control
things like Influence, just because the outcome doesn't suit their fancy?

There is absolutely nothing in that box that suggests that players can change past decisions. And no. Influence isn't mind control. Seriously it isn't. Captain America can walk into a room full of Nazis. He's Very Handsome, and he's a blue-eyed blond perfect "Aryan" and he has Charisma 4. And Voice. In short an overwhelming set of positive reaction modifiers versus an average will of 9...he still can't order them to put down their weapons and have them comply. They will never do that. It doesn't matter how well his player rolls. Just like the PCs, the GM is free to say, "these characters are Always Hostile to Captain America"

The fact is if you can't do that the game falls apart the moment someone designs a reaction roll monster, something that is perfectly possible AND reasonable if you are, say, playing a World War II superheroes game or even a D&D Paladin. But they become intolerable Mary Sue characters if they just walk through every encounter winning the moment they open their mouths. So the Nazis still try to fight Captain America and the evil necromancer still commands his undead minions to rip apart the paladin and that's the way it should be. But at least for the first second they will be totally ineffective in their efforts to do anything because they're looking at more than a -10 modifier on their roll to do anything except what the Charisma Monster tells them to do and out of combat they're even worse off.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by artichoke

1) Is PvP acceptable in the campaign and, if so, to what degree? Active mind control influences from one PC to another are PvP. Passive influences are more debatable.

2) Is PvP-lite handled differently than PC vs. NPC contests of will and such.

3) Do players really get a time machine to go back and defy mind control things like Influence, just because the outcome doesn't suit their fancy?

1) If the use of reaction roll modifiers, or of Influence skills, produces exactly as much compliance as the use of Mind Control or comparable magical spells, then that use will be *experienced* as player versus player. It doesn't matter whether you call it "active" or "passive." If player A can say to player B, "my character wants your character to do X," and the rules give player B no choice but to do X, that has the same effect as Mind Control.

2) I don't know what you mean by "PvP-lite," so I can't answer this.

3) The defiance takes place at the time when the Influence skill is used. There's no "going back in time" about it. You have to use Influence skills to get someone to do something. So you say, "I want PC A to do so and so, and I use skill P to persuade them." Then you roll against P, and they roll against Will, and they lose. But they haven't yet done anything in response to your roll. If the player then says, "But my character just wouldn't do so and so," there's no time reversal involved for the characters. You've made your roll, and they've made theirs, and now you and they and the GM are discussing how that roll takes effect—but that takes place in player time, not in game time. Certainly if PC A goes along, and later faces bad consequences, the player doesn't get to go back and say, "Make A not have unlocked the cell/bought the used car/slept with the beautiful person who flirted with them in the bar." At that point the ship has sailed.

*****

You mention the idea that we are controlled by environmental stimuli. That may or may not be true in the real world. But most RPGs are about agency: Both the agency of the players (they can choose what to have their characters do) and the agency of the characters (what they do makes a difference to the game world). Even if it's a myth, it seems to be a necessary myth for the way RPGs are commonly played.

[weby]

You should be careful any time you take away the choice of actions from a player. The basic "simulation" of RPGs is not "environmental/social", it is "acts and consequences". When you take away their action possibility you are breaking the implied "simulation" and mostly stops the fun for that player.

Of course the threat of such can be interesting scary things, and very occasional such has to happen for the threat to be "real", but should be very limited.

This is also the big problem of all kinds of mind control spells and similar that monsters have, overused they definitely make a game not fun. But having the big bad boss have such, and be known to have such will definitely make the encounter more scary as long as it is reserved for such.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by artichoke

Choice really is an illusion when the GM is the one really making them. Players simply are along for the ride. That's what happens in a Rule 0 game, in reality.

We have radically different definitions for "Rule 0". And about gaming in general.

The disadvantage system alone is all about ceding control to the GM to make the story more interesting.

Not quite. It's about influencing actions the Character takes.

Say with Berserk, the Character isn't require to only All Out Attack, there are a few other options. They also aren't told who they have to attack if given equal choices (yes, the disad weighs those choices and eliminates a large number of other choices, but it's still the PC making the choices).

Because they're supposed to not be fun and nice for the PC.

We have different definitions of fun. Every disad I've ever put on a character has been fun to play (as far as I can remember).

I don't agree at all with the claim that things like Influence aren't mind control.

This conversation isn't going to go the way you want it to.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by weby

You should be careful any time you take away the choice of actions from a player.

There are innumerable ways choice is restricted, at all times.

Want to fly? Sorry, you can't. Want to marry the princess? Sorry, you can't. Want to turn blue? Sorry, you can't. Want to turn into a stone? Sorry, you can't.

How long should this list be? 300 pages? Because the examples go on and on.

What PCs actually can do is a vastly shorter list.

PCs never get to do whatever they like. That would make them omnipotent gods.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

This conversation isn't going to go the way you want it to.

How is a comment like that productive? Read the rules of the forum about rudeness. It's not about how I want the conversation to go. It's about following the rules you agreed to.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by artichoke

Want to fly? Sorry, you can't. Want to marry the princess? Sorry, you can't. Want to turn blue? Sorry, you can't. Want to turn into a stone? Sorry, you can't.

Be fair, in most games, the PC is perfectly free to try to do any of these things, and then deal with the consequences, such as plummeting to the ground/being driven out of the kingdom/not being blue (unless paint is used, or they think to beat themselves up until bruised, or whatever)/not being a stone (unless they know a Gorgon, or are a troll). Similarly, I quite like the suggested mechanic of PCs who fail to resist influence rolls being free to behave as they wish but taking severe penalties to success rolls if their actions don't align with the influence. [I might even be convinced to extend this to NPCs- "No, Captain Charismatic, the Nazi Guards don't immediately surrender because you asked them to, but their heart really isn't in their efforts to kill you, and they take -X to their attempts to do so."]

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It doesn't matter whether you call it "active" or "passive."

That seems true in a paradigm that lacks agency/intent/choice.

Originally Posted by whswhs

2) I don't know what you mean by "PvP-lite," so I can't answer this.

PvP-lite = Using Influence to get a PC to do something that PC doesn't want to do but which is an inconvenience, like "Give me one of those cookies" and "Let me play the video game now". It's against the PC's preference but not something that is going to harm the PC significantly.

PvP = Using Influence to get a PC to do something that will harm the PC — like "Stab yourself" or "Divorce your wife and tell her she should go out with me" or "Shoplift from that store".

There is an important difference between inconvenience and serious harm. Some campaigns are fine with PvP-lite but not the full thing. Some don't allow any of this.

Originally Posted by whswhs

You have to use Influence skills to get someone to do something. So you say, "I want PC A to do so and so, and I use skill P to persuade them." Then you roll against P, and they roll against Will, and they lose.

Okay. So, we are at the point where there has been a resolution. One player lost. That means the PC doesn't have the agency he/she had prior.

Originally Posted by whswhs

But they haven't yet done anything in response to your roll. If the player then says, "But my character just wouldn't do so and so," there's no time reversal involved for the characters.

That depends. The objecting player's character already lost the roll, which means they have done something in response to the roll: They lost agency in response to the roll.

Originally Posted by whswhs

You've made your roll, and they've made theirs, and now you and they and the GM are discussing how that roll takes effect—but that takes place in player time, not in game time.

It's one thing for the GM to override one player's attempt at getting another player (or NPC) to do something but it's quite another for players to simply state, in black and white, that their PC won't do something. That's not up to them to decide. They only get to suggest that that's not what they had in mind when they created the character. If they hadn't specified that thing, though, in advance, then they don't get to time machine back to the point in time when they could have made that preference clear. All they can do is request and hope the GM will agree. Otherwise, they need to accept the fact that they left wiggle room. The other possibility is that, indeed, it's clear (based on the existing table knowledge of the player and anything the GM might know secretly) that the PC is unlikely enough to behave that way and the GM would say so. Inventing special ad hoc on-the-fly will bonuses just to coddle players is questionable.

The key is to be true to the character, as previously described, in the game world. It's up to the GM to decide how well the new information (the objection) fits the existing character and its situation. All a player can do is suggest/request intervention, not demand it. Character and story evolution happen, of course, but it is cooperative. So, if you're going to allow one PC to do something to another, you have to be cooperative about it — not put up one-sided veto power walls.

Originally Posted by whswhs

You mention the idea that we are controlled by environmental stimuli. That may or may not be true in the real world.

It is true.

Originally Posted by whswhs

But most RPGs are about agency: Both the agency of the players (they can choose what to have their characters do) and the agency of the characters (what they do makes a difference to the game world). Even if it's a myth, it seems to be a necessary myth for the way RPGs are commonly played.

We're about agency in real life, too. This is a false distinction.

Whether it's a game or real life, the only way a character has full agency is via omnipotence. Anything less means they don't have agency in all things at all times.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

Be fair, in most games, the PC is perfectly free to try to do any of these things, and then deal with the consequences

That's a red herring. A PC can try to sprout wings and fly and nothing will happen. You're evading the point, which is very clear.

The only way to have full agency is to be omnipotent. That can't be argued away. It's an inescapable fact.

So, what this issue boils down to is to what degree a PC has agency in a particular circumstance.

I am being fair because I am arguing from the point of view of fact.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by artichoke

That's a red herring. A PC can try to sprout wings and fly and nothing will happen. You're evading the point, which is very clear.

Aye, and he can try to resist the will of Captain Charismatic, and trip over his feet due to the -X penalty on all actions resisting him. I think there is a real distinction between "free to try, and take the consequences of certain failure" and "not free to try", but you may feel differently.

Originally Posted by artichoke

The only way to have full agency is to be omnipotent. That can't be argued away. It's an inescapable fact.

So, what this issue boils down to is to what degree a PC has agency in a particular circumstance.

I am being fair because I am arguing from the point of view of fact.

So, your argument boils down to "because absolute, complete X is impossible, one should never object to a reduction in X, and differences in degree of X don't matter"? Presumably, you aren't arguing that, but, if you aren't, I confess I fail to see the thrust of your argument.


[Is a market for an RPG Determinism: The Clockwork, where, because the behavior of the universe follows inexorably from its starting state, players do not make any choices after character creation, but merely determine what would happen were the character exposed to the given set of circumstances?]