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

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

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"

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

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

Refer to the omnipotence point. No one has total control. The GM is the closest thing to an omnipotent being in the game, certainly not a PC. Even GMs have to follow the system rules to some degree or they're not playing GURPS.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

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.

I am not in the camp that favors GMs fudging rolls. I am in the camp where the system should be set up to work well. That's the responsibility of the GM and the system, primarily.

What you're talking about is fudging the system, making up the rules as you go along. That is fine if that's the expectation but GURPS strikes me as a system that is much more on the side of mechanical clarity. The advantage of that is that players can be more strategic.

[weby]

Originally Posted by artichoke

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.

I think you are trying to misunderstand on purpose.

But lets try it again from other side:
Playing a roleplaying game is an activity where you gather together to tell a story. That story has main characters and side characters. In a normal RPG the PCs are the main characters in the story just like there are the main characters in a movie/tv-series. This is because having NPCs do all the cool stuff while you watch gets boring quickly.

Any things that main characters of movies of the genre you are playing are not subjected but the PCs are subjected to should be introduced with care and preferably so that the PCs know of it before the campaign.

So if you are in a horror movie/RPG then yes even main characters get mind controlled by thing men were not meant to know, die, are horribly mutilated, go insane and so on.

But for a fantasy movie or a modern action movie that is not normal. Yes there are cases where some evil mastermind makes a mind control machine or an evil mage mind controls some main character, but in such cases that action is not incidental it is the main plot point of that episode/part of the movie.

The same with main characters influencing other main characters, normally any such influence is either very minor in nature or a central plot point in the movie.

Ps. Many of the things you list are actually commonly possible in fantasy RPGs/movies. Flying: get a flying carpet or learn the fly spell. Marrying a princess: That is a common reward for saving the kingdom seemingly. Turn to stone: cast Body of Stone.

[RedMattis]

Even a highly charismatic individual will have a hard time convincing someone of a strong opposite opinion most of the time.

Captain America convincing a single strongly nazi individual over a cup of tea that some other people are alright and that their polices are too extreme would probably be tricky, but C.America is charismatic and skilled, so it might work. Convincing him that some of his leaders are evil bastards would be more difficult though. Convincing him to abandon a philosophy which he agrees with and/or has had drilled into him for a long time is extremely difficult; it's the kind of thing which may takes weeks of talks or a very special experience (own mother sent to Auschwitz f.ex.).

Special factors may make an otherwise near-impossible thing much more possible, proof of corrupted superiors, knowledge of the particular nazi's personality and friends, etc. A lot of stuff like this may let C.America convince the guy to abandon his post and give them all his information.

Now, on the other hand, try doing any of that against a group of soldiers at gunpoint.

Some things simply fail automatically. Your ST 10 character will never manage to lift an entire jeep, no matter how well he rolls at lifting; with a car jack he can though. Your scientist won't be able to decipher the zombie virus in his kitchen during the lunch break; with good lab equipment and more time he might though.

For the same reason Players don't need to feel the need to feel persuaded when a charismatic nazi tries to convince them that shooting handicapped people is a cool thing to do; especially not if this contradicts the character's personality.

Rather than try to force players to do things I would ask them: "This character (other Player Character?) is very seductive, and you noted your character was a bit lecherous. What are your thoughts on this". If they decide to go along I'll probably hand them a Character Point for good roleplaying (same if they motivate well why they still wouldn't though!).

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

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.

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

It is a common fallacy to believe that one type of control is different than another. It's all the same. If someone shoots you in the eye with a gun there is no difference between that and then using some other power they have. As long as the game gives them that power then it works. Otherwise, the game should give them the power they're supposed to have instead.

Arbitrary aesthetic distaste for charisma effects is arbitrary aesthetic taste. It is nothing more. Games should not provide those powers if they are unwanted and/or GMs shouldn't allow them if they are unwanted. Otherwise, people need to respect the consequences, just like that bullet to the eye.

Originally Posted by ravenfish

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

It's a red herring in response to the point that the things PCs can do is vastly outnumbered by the things they can't.

Originally Posted by ravenfish

"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.

My points are what I wrote.

Originally Posted by ravenfish

[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?]

Character and story unfold but in a cooperative manner. I wrote about that in a post or two above this one. Players should not become temporary GMs when their PCs might do something they don't want them to do. That's not how the game is supposed to work.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by weby

I think you are trying to misunderstand on purpose.

Since you think an insult is the best way to begin a post I will give you some new information. When I read posts that begin with insults I stop there and move along to other posts.

If you would like me to respond to the rest of your post then you should consider following the forum rules.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by artichoke

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.

There is a semantic difference that is going to be problematic.

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.

Now, in practice, in the first place, it's not really relevant whether PvP takes place or not. The GM doing things that affect a character's choices is just as limiting as another player doing it.

In the second place, if a PC with favorable reaction modifiers, or high Influence skills, can get an NPC to do whatever they want, that's destructive to many forms of storytelling ("I Fast-Talk the prison guard into opening the cell doors and looking away while we walk past" takes away certain kinds of drama, for example) and also doesn't produce a reasonable model of reality, because in reality there are limits to what you can talk people into doing. And the same is true for PCs talking other PCs into doing things, or for NPCs doing so. In terms of the experience of everyday life, meeting a highly persuasive person does not turn you into a programmable robot. And you have to remember that one of the great meta-rules of GURPS is reality testing: If following the rules as written produces results that are not plausible in terms of how the real world (or a fictional world) is known to work, then the GM is not merely allowed but enjoined to set those results aside.

The GM can deal with this by telling the player, "No, the guard isn't going to open the cell door" or "No, the person you're flirting with glares at you in contempt/walks away/throws their drink in your face" if there's reason for the approach to fail. And in principle, one could allow PCs to make the same decisions about their characters. But in the third place, this may be too much of a Get Out Of Jail Free card, as you say.

So the rules you're commented on are offered as an *option* for addressing this issue. If, in your judgment as the player, your character would not do when the NPC or the other PC is trying to get them to do, you get to say so; but you pay a price, in your character lacking confidence in whatever actions they take based on their refusal.

This is designed to let the GM (or another player) constrain the PC's choices, without simply taking them out of the player's hands and saying, in effect, "Your character will now do whatever my character dictates." There are other rules for that sort of thing: Mind Control, fright checks, self-control rolls, and so on. But social interaction is more interesting if you don't model it as mind control.

[weby]

Originally Posted by artichoke

Since you think an insult is the best way to begin a post I will give you some new information. When I read posts that begin with insults I stop there and move along to other posts.

If you would like me to respond to the rest of your post then you should consider following the forum rules.

Well, when someone replies with a list of examples that have nothing to do with player choice to a thing about player choice. Specially listing things that players can in quite many games work towards or do directly as things they cannot do it it feels like a trollish response.

In short your reply had nothing to do with the question of players freedom of choice.

But if I understood your reply wrong and you tried to say something about freedom of choice to try or you merely misunderstood my thing, then I apologize.

Trying to do many things in a game without the ability is stupid, but there should be nothing stopping the player from trying, though in some cases the response might be instantly fatal like saying that I want to fly and leaping from a 10 story building roof.

Thus a character saying "I want to fly" should not be met with "you cannot" but instead with "ok, how are you going to accomplish that", thus they may in a modern game say "I want to go buy a helicopter" or whatever. But in any case that retains the player as player and not as viewer.

Mind control magic and such renders the player from a participant to a viewer. While movies might be fun to watch, the cool thing about RPGs is the ability to be one of the main characters, being a viewer is not as fun.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Now, in practice, in the first place, it's not really relevant whether PvP takes place or not. The GM doing things that affect a character's choices is just as limiting as another player doing it.

PvP means player versus player. There is a vast difference between GM–player/GM–PC actions and PC–PC/Player–Player. There is the fundamental assumption of the cooperative group of players bringing their PCs to the GM. Yes, PvP is possible but many gaming groups don't allow it.

The GM (and the system) is the game world. The PCs are additions to that world, initially. Since the GM must sign off on those PCs in every detail, the PCs become fully part of the game world. They are therefore subject to GM fiat. They are not subject to player fiat. The players relinquish full control of the PCs when they are added to the game world. That's why they are PCs not the players themselves. The players are playing a role by influencing the PCs through suggestions to the GM (who has fiat over every single thing outside of organized play settings). That means they are accepting the limitations of the character in the game world.

PvP is about — to what degree can players influence each other's PCs by using their PCs. There is a very important distinction between that and the more typical roleplaying described in the prior paragraph. Many campaigns have no PvP, or very little. It is considered intolerable if one PC tries to get another to do something by using one of their powers, actively. There is a bit of fudge factor, typically, in most campaigns. Most will, for instance, allow a beautiful player to use their looks (without a skill roll or something) to mildly influence a player, or their "race", or some other factor that is seen as too mundane to be a PvP problem. It is about minor inconvenience at most, not something like a duel to the death (one of the extreme examples of full PvP).

That intolerance toward PvP is a very different matter than intolerance toward NPCs having more obvious control over the PCs.

Originally Posted by whswhs

In the second place, if a PC with favorable reaction modifiers, or high Influence skills, can get an NPC to do whatever they want, that's destructive to many forms of storytelling

If a mechanic is too destructive then it wasn't written correctly. That's a problem with the specific mechanical implementation.

Many forms of storytelling aren't very compatible with a GURPS-style campaign. Many of them are static prefabricated things, like novels. I wouldn't worry about any form of storytelling beyond the one GURPS is designed to facilitate.

Originally Posted by whswhs

In terms of the experience of everyday life, meeting a highly persuasive person does not turn you into a programmable robot.

This is the same false assertion that I've posted about twice.

Total control is not required for mind control to be a valid form of control. It's not just hyperbole to talk about automatons, as if that's the only way mind control can work, it's just not accurate.

No other type of control is subjected to this kind of extreme hyperbole so often.

Originally Posted by whswhs

And you have to remember that one of the great meta-rules of GURPS is reality testing: If following the rules as written produces results that are not plausible in terms of how the real world (or a fictional world) is known to work, then the GM is not merely allowed but enjoined to set those results aside.

In reality, people are controlled by the environmental stimuli that their brains process. Only the stimuli that are not noticed at all by the brain have no effect.

Behavior is determined by three things, all of which influence each other: DNA, environment, prior behavior.

Originally Posted by whswhs

This is designed to let the GM (or another player) constrain the PC's choices, without simply taking them out of the player's hands

That is contradictory. Constraining agency means taking agency out of someone's hands. Just rewording agency doesn't change it.

Originally Posted by whswhs

But social interaction is more interesting if you don't model it as mind control.

Social interaction is a process of manipulation. Manipulation is mind control. Cause and effect happens just as much in social interaction as in anything else. The word interesting is the word used when people have nothing to say about something. "Do you like this painting?" "It's interesting." So, I can't really do much to respond to that word.

[weby]

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.

In many ways the agency you talk about is the main difference between PCs and NPCs. PC results should come from their choices(and obviously resulting skill rolls and similar), but NPC results should come at least mostly from the results of things beyond their control. Obviously a key NPC will occasionally grab the spotlight and make their own destiny, but a GM should be careful to not do it too often in order to keep the focus of the game on the PCs.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by weby

Well, when someone replies with a list of examples that have nothing to do with player choice to a thing about player choice. Specially listing things that players can in quite many games work towards or do directly as things they cannot do it it feels like a trollish response.

Since you have chosen to follow the first insult with a second one I will not be reading your posts from now on.