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

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by artichoke

How is a comment like that productive?

I had hoped it might cause you to pause and reassess your "my way is right, everything else is wrong" stance. It didn't.

It's not about how I want the conversation to go.

Really? Considering that this entire conversation is about agency of the Players versus the imperatives of the GM... one might have drawn a parallel.

Originally Posted by artichoke

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

And once the Character is no longer allowed so say "No", it has achieved the level of mind-control.

What you're talking about is fudging the system, making up the rules as you go along.

In what manner is using the rules on pg 32 of Social Engineering or pg 359 of Basic "making the rules up as you go along"?

The very rules you called into play in this discussion? (Yes, I get that you don't like them and thus you have called them to account)

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.

Except for all the thousands of places it isn't. Seriously, it is very often 'fuzzy'. Explicitly fuzzy so the GM can tailor the game to the world they want to run.

Originally Posted by artichoke

If a characteristic is important to the PC then it should be written down.

If wasn't important until it came up, I wouldn't expect it to be decided upon in advance.

Otherwise, the unfolding story can unfold the character in ways the player doesn't have full control over.

It can also unfold in ways the GM has no control over.

So? If this was the example of "Player Time Machine" then you've a weird concept of 'time machine' and agency.

The time machine.

Ah, so it is what you meant by 'time machine'. Yes, definitely a weird idea. Since it isn't changing anything written on the sheet, how can it be "changing the past"?

Simply put, it isn't. It's just changing what you, the GM, have mistakenly determined about a Character without the Player's input.

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

Not even a little bit.

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.

That may be true at your table, in which case you need to make this clear during chargen.

At my table? For characters I play? This isn't how it works. I frequently leave 'important' things like that undecided until I've played the character a bit. Felt them out, kicked the tires, run it up over the curb a few times. Saw how the personality played out.

Then I usually concrete some of those 'this spot left blank' things. Sometimes those things never get filled in because it's never important in the game. Sometimes they get filled in and still never come up... because it was never important in the game*.


* This. This facet of "something never comes up" more so than almost anything else has fueled the way I make characters and run games. So many things I never bother to decide on because they are simply never important to the story and thus never come up.

The worst time for adding important features like sexual orientation is on the fly, after a roll was rolled on the subject.

This... this is perhaps what I would call 'true'. After a roll is made, is a bit 'late', but so what? If the character were declared as one preference or another at chargen, it wouldn't really change that moment in game. Unless you were deliberately thinking you were throwing the object of the Character's desire at them, in which case, behooves you to ask in advance eh?

Likewise, I wouldn't care if I were to make a roll and the Player were to say "Uh, he can be super James Bond suave all day long, but my character identifies as an attack helicopter*... so if he isn't at least a Bell Cobra, the old propellers just aren't going to get spinning". I'd just nod, file that newly realized bit of Character info away and roll with it.


* I'm not just memeing here. I'm currently making a character that interacts with the world only via telepresence drones... so there may be times they identify as an attack helicopter. Oh, I hope so at any rate!

Features like sexual orientation are core self concept features.

They can be. They don't have to be. Certainly not in a game where sexual orientation will never come up.

If a player didn't bother to specify then that player is making it clear that it's not important (to the player).

It's not important at that time, or it's not yet decided at that time.

GURPS is more crunch than ad-libbing.

Eh... don't let the weapons tables fool you. Or that half the rules revolve around combat. There's a lot of ad libbing in the book. Especially in the social conflict rules section.

Look at all of the published supplements.

Sure, like Social Engineering. (written by William H Stoddard. WHS. aka whswhs in case you hadn't yet noticed ;) )

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

It's about equal in my opinion. Granted my Players are Old Skool... so they aren't down with that. Which is why we play GURPS and not FATE (or Amber, or FFG's Star Wars, or any other system that cedes some level narrative control* to the Players).



* See also 'Impulse Buys', Destiny, Serendipity, Luck, etc for GURPS...



Now... I suppose I'll finally have a go at your questions (I didn't have as much time last time I popped in here):

Originally Posted by artichoke

1) Is PvP acceptable in the campaign and, if so, to what degree?

I don't know? is it? It's your campaign not mine. I prefer zero 'PVP' (I don't want my Players fighting amongst themselves), but when it's 'PvP' to talk Thrack the Barbarian down from a berserk rage, then I feel it's perfectly fine. When it's Lucky Felicia trying to swindle the other PCs out of their shares of the loot because she has Greedy on her character sheet (and actual social skills and they don't)... then less so.

But I also don't stand in the way if PvP flares up.

Active mind control influences from one PC to another are PvP. Passive influences are more debatable.

This is funny considering how you directly conflate 'social control' with 'mental control' in your 'edits' below. Despite that that, they are equal in my opinion.

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

Not in my games. But then ... I like pg 32 of Social Engineering. I liked it back when it was just pg 359 of Basic.

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?

I'd really like some more dets concerning what you're talking about here. If it's literally "didn't decide some aspect of the Character in advance of the moment it comes up and the decision the Player has come to upsets the careful plans of the GM"... then ... this is not 'time machining'. It's deciding at that moment. If it was something else you meant, elucidate please.

If so, that seems to be a massive nerfing of one type of control (mind) versus others (physical, like violence).

There are three avenues of control: Physical, Mental, and Social.

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

I really should have read these yesterday (or even before I got to the end of this post)...

Look. All I can advise is this: Make your thoughts on this absolutely clear in advance to your Players.

[hal]

Having read all of the responses up to post 31, I couldn't help but think "Why aren't the following issues being discussed?"

1) All reaction rolls in use with the game, are purely at the discretion of the GM where or when the GM determines that he has't decided in advance, what the NPC's will do. In other words, if the GM determines that one character (NPC) hates all individuals of a given religion - it doesn't matter one whit how much the player character with up to +8 in reaction bonuses tries - they will not be able to persuade the NPC to do something the GM has determined will be the case. This on page 560 of GURPS BASIC SET: CAMPAIGNS:

"When the PCs meet an NPC whose reaction to them is not predetermined,
the GM can opt to make a “reaction roll” on 3d. The higher the roll, the better the reaction"

2) The box on page 32 already points this out in its preamble. It also states that if the GM is willing to leave the process up to the reaction roll table, that the GM can penalize the reaction roll by any given amount the GM sees fit. Thus, the GM can assess a -5 penalty to the attempt on page 560 reaction table (or any of the other reaction tables subsequently introduced after the publication of the first books).

This is what the rules have to say further on...

"Remember that reaction rolls are meant to flesh out a situation, NOT to
control it! In general, the GM should reserve them for incidental encounters,
unplanned situations, etc. He should decide in advance how he intends to play the NPCs in vital encounters . . . but he can still pretend to roll, so that the players won’t know for sure what is going on!"

So, let's say for the sake of argument, that the GM has the following situation where we have Captain America confronting the Nazi Guards and trying to influence them to do something by means of talking to them reasonably in their own language...

The player who is playing Captain America at the gaming table asks "Can I fast Talk them into letting me pass without raising an alarm?" The GM has to make a decision on the spot regarding this request right? So he starts to think. "What would the rules writers do?" or "What is reasonable in light of the rules as written?". So, he thinks to himself "If they get caught doing this, they face death by firing squad at best, or being shot on the spot for fraternizing with the enemy. So, the GM decides that is worth at best, a -5 penalty. He also might think "Alone, ONE of them might agree to put his own life at risk thinking that the odds of the authorities coming back to him and killing him for dereliction of duty is rather slim - but not five of them all together at the same time, who knows which one of them might rat them all out just to get a promotion!" So the GM assesses a further -2 penalty for that fact. Now we're up a -7 penalty. The GM also knows, that none of the NPC's would be willing to blatently aid the enemy, so the GM determines ahead of the die roll, that no result better than a 12 will be acted upon, so the GM sets the ceiling at reaction rolls of 11 or under.

At this point in time, the player with a +8 roll overall due to his attributes skills etc, might roll an 18. 18-7+8 becomes a modified 19 roll. On the flip side, the GM determined ahead of time, no roll of 12+ is possible, so the GM drops it down to an 11. At that precise moment, he goes with...

"Well, we could let you go past us, but, sadly, only a fool would think we'd do such a thing. Drop your weapons."

What the player doesn't, and shouldn't know, is that as a collective, if he tries to make a dash for it, they will all to the man, refuse to fire directly at him, or try to wound him instead of killing him by aiming for his legs or what have you.

Now, this brings us in a round-about manner to the initial issue - how does all of this affect the actions of a player character?

Would it be reasonable to assume, that any of the tools at the GM's disposal with regards to NPC behavior, should also be a the player's disposal with regards to his own character and such? Can the Player Character go with "My predetermined reaction in any situation regarding a homosexual man trying to seduce me is one of immediate ICK, and punch him out for trying, as that is an insult to my character's masculinity!" Hmmm, that's on par with a GM predetermining in advance (ie before a die roll is made), what the reaction of any given important NPC shall be. IF this is no less valid for the GM to do with an NPC, whom he controls the actions of, how can it be any less valid for a player who controls the actions of his Player Character? The Box on page 32 is designed to offer the GM (and players) more options - not supplant necessarily, any of the options already available in the original rules.

As noted, the GM has total control over the actions of his NPC's, and generally, utilizes the reaction table for unplanned encounters, or those in which he is willing to let be influenced by the tables.

Now, if a player is willing to be influenced by the table to some degree, then the player can agree to it, and essentially roll the dice, not because the GM forced him to do so, but because he was willing to abide by the results. Like the GM, he might stipulate that a certain reaction is out of the question, and limit the range of results. Or, he might even accept the penalty that for every point his roll is less than that of the other player's, his character's skills or die rolls are modified to symbolize just how shaky his resolve is or how shaken he feels about what just happened.

So, does the box suggest that this rule is to always be implemented? No. Does it suggest alternatives not in the original rules? Yes. Can a "reaction monster" type character get their way in everything? Clearly not.

Things that can unduely influence anyone's decision making are:

Will I get killed for this?
Will I suffer public humiliation for this?
Will I lose something I value because of this?
Do I have full control over my decision making?
Are there other mitigating factors involved, not just this one thing?
Will I lose my job?
Will I suffer a loss of self-respect?

Any and all of these factors can help mitigate or even REVERSE the seeming likelihood of success on the part of the "influencer".

So - here's my final point, and you can take this for what it is worth...

No two GM's will always give the same answer to the same situation in any game session (hell, some GM's are inconsistent from game to game!). That being said, the only way to perfect your craft as a GM (and it is a Craft by the way), is to experiment with, or make decisions that in hindsight, might prove to be the correct one, or in hindsight, prove to be less than stellar in its implementation. Over time, you will discover what works for you and your group. Here in the forums, when you ask for the collective mind to respond to a given question, you are polling those who do answer - to see what seems reasonable, or to fill in the gaps in your knowledge or thinking, so that you can continue on with the enjoyment of the game.

I could say more, but I'll bring it to an end here. When you get a chance, scour the internet for a game called PENDRAGON. There should be earlier editions worth getting your hands on, or you can buy the latest and read those rules. In it, there are "traits' that are imposed upon the character that reflect the mindset or decision making that the character might undergo. They are listed as:

Chaste/Lustful
Energetic/Lazy
Forgiving/Vengeful
Generous/Selfish
Honest/Deceitful
Modest/Proud
Just/Arbitrary
Merciful/Cruel
Pious/Worldly
Prudent/Reckless
Temperate/Indulgent
Trusting/Suspicious
Valorous/Cowardly
]
And that's just for the traits, that doesn't go into passions! The point I'm making here, is that if you roll against a trait, and the roll is less than or equal to the first trait's value, you have to act in a fashion that is true to the trait. If you FAIL the first Trait roll, then you roll against the opposing trait value. If you succeed with that roll, you have to act in support of the successful trait. ONLY if you fail both the first trait and the opposing trait rolls, do you get to do as you, the player would want to do.

This does not grant the players of the characters as much latitude or freedom of action as GURPS might permit, so as a style of play, it is definitely different than that of GURPS. If you want to play GURPS with a style not unlike that of PENDRAGON, try it out and see if it works for you and your group. If it doesn't work out - you can keep that in the back of your mind, and not do it that way for subsequent games. I've lost track of how many campaigns I've run since 1980. I've lost track of how many game systems I've bothered to buy and read and ultimately, GM for. It has been a long long road for me and my players, some of whom I've known since 1980, and the "youngest" to role playing overall, started gaming with us in 1986. I hope that with your gaming crew, that 30 years from now, you can all sit back and say in astonishment "The game we're talking fondly about, was run 30 years ago! Where did all the time go?!!!" I know we have, and I'm glad we did.

[sjard]

<MODERATOR>
A reminder to keep things civil.
A civil thread does not include accusations of willful misinterpretation, accusations of and/or actually arguing in bad faith, telling people to read the rules, etc.

If you feel that someone has posted something directly insulting, or otherwise in violation of the rules, please report the post and let the moderation team handle it from there. DO NOT respond directly to them and continue the argument.

Thank you.
</MODERATOR>

[Bengt]

In addition to what hal pointed out (GM decides when the Reaction Table is used in the first place), I think it's relevant that what GURPS influence skills do is replace said Reaction roll with a chance to get the Good (or Very Good for Sex Appeal) results on the table. So if there wasn't a Reaction roll scheduled your influence roll will have no effect.

Also, the results doesn't give the influencer very much control over influenced party, Good is "helpful within reasonable, everyday limits.", Very Good is "quite helpful and friendly.". You'd still have to play out the scene and it's up to the GM to decide if your requests fall within the limits set and exactly what help you get if it is.

[Blue Ghost]

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.

*lots of snippage*

There's no rules or system oriented theme or groundwork that makes PVP in this game any different than any other game, say Traveller (my favorite RPG). That's more of a GM/Referee thing in terms of how he wants to administer the gaming session.

Other than "Autoduel" (Car Wars), I've not seen anything specific about PVP in the GURPS to set it aside from any other game system. If PVP is your thing, then go for it. You're fellow players might frown upon it depending on the context, but thems the brakes >:)

*insert theremin music here as I try to control the minds of whoever reads this post >:) *

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

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.

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.

A gun doesn't care about the preferences and thoughts of the person it shoots. A player whose character is being shot doesn't get to say "No, that's not what happens. My character would never allow herself to be shot." That's why I put Charismatic in front of machine gun — to point out that just calling a power charisma-related doesn't mean the player or GM should nerf it by default.

Nerfing one kind of control by overthinking it is a questionable thing to do.

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.

They don't. That's the whole point of the mind control. It reduces the control those subjected to it have. So, how much good sense it makes for them to act a certain way in a certain situation isn't just determined by normal situations. It's determined by the degree to which they are weak to the mind control.

Yes, the context matters but does not necessarily trump the mind control. Context matters for any kind of control. If someone is being shot then a panther could jump in front of the path and take the bullet in a bone, saving the life of the PC. Someone could slip when they're trying to pull a trigger. Etc. It's a common mistake to treat mind control very differently, giving people all kinds of excuses to be immune to it, or for it to be nerfed more than it should be.

People don't always have lots of time to think things over. That's why fast talk works on a lot of people a lot of the time. That's why marketing departments exist. They sell people emotion instead of rationality. Marketing is big business because it's so effective.

Originally Posted by hal

Now, if a player is willing to be influenced by the table to some degree, then the player can agree to it, and essentially roll the dice, not because the GM forced him to do so, but because he was willing to abide by the results. Like the GM, he might stipulate that a certain reaction is out of the question, and limit the range of results.

The problem with this solution is that, by giving players the option to replace the GM in this circumstance, there should be a stalemate.

Player A says: "Your character needs to give me some chips"
Player B says: "No, my character won't give you chips"

That stalemate is normally broken by player B having lost the roll.

Why should player B automatically win because he/she is given GM fiat?

It's not a matter of fairness. It's a nerfing of one kind of power over another. The only way it's fair is to announce that all kinds of PvP control give the player being subjected to something unwanted that kind of fiat.

That means the rule is this: "When a PC acts upon another PC in a way that is unwanted by the PC being acted upon, that PC has temporary GM fiat over the results. However, the GM's fiat can override that."

Since some believe that the "The GM manages the NPCs and the world; the players manage their characters", the rule needs to modified to remove the final clause, giving the Player-as-temporary-GM total fiat.:

"When a PC acts upon another PC in a way that is unwanted by the PC being acted upon, that PC has temporary GM fiat over the results."

This rule, of course, turns all PvP into a matter of requests because players being acted upon get to decide what happens. It means PvP-lite, not moderate PvP (which would include the possibility that PCs have to do things they don't like if they lose agency, in the context of the system mechanics), and certainly not full PvP (which includes the possibility of significant PC to PC harm).

Originally Posted by Dalin

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.

There is a difference between something a player feels strongly enough about to make known and something the player doesn't.

It's having one's cake and eating it, too, to claim that something is very important to the PC and not important enough to have made known. Sexual orientation, for instance, is a terrible example to try to use to justify the "I have a secret important preference for my PC that I will only bring up after a roll has been made I don't like" mechanic. It's a critical core feature of any person.

The more critical/core a feature is the more important it is for players to make those things known, at least to the GM — the less excusable it is to jump in and say "No, this is how it's going to go instead".

Originally Posted by Dalin

The GM manages the NPCs and the world. The players manage their characters.

The problem with this is the player vs. player stalemate. That's why we have a GM with fiat and shouldn't give it to players.

If a player lost a roll, too, then why should they get to win in a stalemate (the stalemate being players being given GM fiat for PvP situations, a thing that will give all the players that power)?

Originally Posted by Blue Ghost

There's no rules or system oriented theme or groundwork that makes PVP in this game any different than any other game

Granting players being acted upon GM fiat is a difference from many systems.

If GURPs has no other rules regarding PvP that's a difference, too.

[whswhs]

Setting aside the philosophical questions, here are my views of the practicalities:

* I make a distinction between player vs. player and character vs. character. I don't want the players in my campaigns to treat each other as antagonists. On the other hand, I've run more than one campaign where the characters had conflicting motives, and where the players enjoyed working out the drama of those conflicts. For example, in my campaign First Contact, the primary player characters were representatives of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, and the Vatican negotiating with aliens in the 1930s; obviously they didn't all have the same agenda! But there was no hostility between the players. And this kind of intercharacter conflict certainly can give rise to use of social skills.

* There is never an occasion when a player is required to make a reaction roll for their character; the player gets to decide how their character reacts, subject of course to disadvantages with self-control rolls and to penalties for poor roleplaying. (A player is perfectly free to make a reaction roll if they want to, of course.) Therefore, reaction roll modifiers as such don't apply to player character reactions, though the player may take them as advisory.

* Influence rolls, on the other hand, can be made toward player characters as well as toward NPCs. The GM can make them, or another player can make them. The mechanics is the same either way.

* What an Influence roll represents is using various sorts of social signals to gain another character's cooperation. Winning the roll equates to a Good reaction (except with Sex Appeal), which is defined as "helpful within reasonable, everyday limits." That already invites the use of judgment. It's clear that a successful Influence roll doesn't make the other person your slave, or let you dictate their actions without limit.

* In any case, if I told a player, "the NPC's Fast-Talk prevailed over your Will; your character has to do whatever they say," I would be making the game less enjoyable for the player, as in effect they would no longer be playing their character, but would be passively observing as I did so. And I would be making it less enjoyable for me, and for the other players, as we wouldn't get to say how the PC responded to certain requests or questions or where their limits were. And it wouldn't fit most people's sense of narrative, in which ordinary social interaction, whether using good manners or reasoned negotiation or flimflam, is a two-way process.

* Conversely, if players simply had carte blanche to disregard any Influence roll whatever, there would be no point in players making Influence rolls toward other players' characters. And that would mean that players with limited social skills, when playing characters with superior social skills, wouldn't get the full benefit of those skills, and those characters would not appear socially gifted in interaction with other PCs.

* This can often be dealt with by simply trusting the players to play their characters as going along with successful Influence rolls in general, but with limits when what they're being asked to do goes against the character concept. My experience has been that most of my players don't abuse this sort of trust. But the "penalty to the next action that goes against what the PC was asked to do" provides a backup, and also can be used as a guideline for a player trying to figure out how to represent their character's reactions to Savoir-Faire or Sex Appeal or whatever.

* All of this fits into a style of gaming that's not massively dictated by rules, but has room for negotiation. And that's the style of gaming I favor. Remember, "There are nine-and-sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,/And every single one of them is right."

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I make a distinction between player vs. player and character vs. character. I don't want the players in my campaigns to treat each other as antagonists. On the other hand, I've run more than one campaign where the characters had conflicting motives, and where the players enjoyed working out the drama of those conflicts. For example, in my campaign First Contact, the primary player characters were representatives of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, and the Vatican negotiating with aliens in the 1930s; obviously they didn't all have the same agenda! But there was no hostility between the players. And this kind of intercharacter conflict certainly can give rise to use of social skills.

PCs and players should be seen as separate. Players can get along very well without their PCs always being in accord.

Player vs. player is really a misnomer for the discussion of PC vs. PC. It shouldn't be seen as player vs. player. That's a problem with the PvP acronym. It is unclear. PCvPC should be clearly different than PvP. PvP implies that there is a strategic game involved in one player defeating another. That makes sense for a tactics game where PvP is a clear focus. Tactics games typically put RP on the back burner, in favor of fighting.

What players want and what their PCs do is separate. The PC is contained within the game world, which is why people play roles instead of themselves. Yes, players get to add to the game world but merely by suggestion, not fiat.

Originally Posted by whswhs

There is never an occasion when a player is required to make a reaction roll for their character

GM fiat means there can be. A GM can ask for it.

Originally Posted by whswhs

the player gets to decide how their character reacts, subject of course to disadvantages with self-control rolls and to penalties for poor roleplaying. (A player is perfectly free to make a reaction roll if they want to, of course.) Therefore, reaction roll modifiers as such don't apply to player character reactions, though the player may take them as advisory.

A player is supposed to play the PC. The PC shouldn't get deux ex machina whenever the player isn't happy with the results.

We don't expect that PCs can pray to a deity and get what they want every time, so why this?

Why does cause and effect not count in this circumstance? If something happens then there are repercussions.

If we say something hasn't yet happened and is merely being suggested then that's different. But, I see all player actions as suggestions because of Rule 0 GM fiat (and, to a lesser degree, the existence of the system mechanics that the table agrees upon when deciding to play that system).

Originally Posted by whswhs

Influence rolls, on the other hand, can be made toward player characters as well as toward NPCs. The GM can make them, or another player can make them. The mechanics is the same either way.

PCvsPC mechanics being the same as NPCvsPC/PCvsNPC mechanics opens the door to full PCvsPC. If a campaign isn't going to have that then why put in this loophole for one type of control?

Originally Posted by whswhs

What an Influence roll represents is using various sorts of social signals to gain another character's cooperation. Winning the roll equates to a Good reaction (except with Sex Appeal), which is defined as "helpful within reasonable, everyday limits." That already invites the use of judgment. It's clear that a successful Influence roll doesn't make the other person your slave, or let you dictate their actions without limit.

Then there is no need to give a PC GM fiat in the first place. The GM will determine what is reasonable.

Originally Posted by whswhs

In any case, if I told a player, "the NPC's Fast-Talk prevailed over your Will; your character has to do whatever they say," I would be making the game less enjoyable for the player, as in effect they would no longer be playing their character, but would be passively observing as I did so.

What is enjoyable for players depends on the player.

PCs have to do things all the time that their players don't like, like getting shot in the eye.

"Whatever they say" only applies to a specific level of influence — the level that would say that level of control is involved.

Originally Posted by whswhs

as we wouldn't get to say how the PC responded to certain requests or questions or where their limits were.

Suggestions are fine. GM fiat being given to players is what I am questioning.

Originally Posted by whswhs

And it wouldn't fit most people's sense of narrative, in which ordinary social interaction, whether using good manners or reasoned negotiation or flimflam, is a two-way process.

Control isn't two-way. It's one-way. One person has more control than the other. Otherwise, there is a stalemate and the mechanics, or the GM, needs to break it.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Conversely, if players simply had carte blanche to disregard any Influence roll whatever, there would be no point in players making Influence rolls toward other players' characters.

Yes.

Originally Posted by whswhs

And that would mean that players with limited social skills, when playing characters with superior social skills, wouldn't get the full benefit of those skills, and those characters would not appear socially gifted in interaction with other PCs.

Yes.

Originally Posted by whswhs

This can often be dealt with by simply trusting the players to play their characters

Why would one player get more trust than another?

Players at the table know what they know about the PCs. It's up to the creator of the PCs and the GM to determine the scope of the individual PCs, both in what they are and in what is made known. Unless the player has a secret with the GM then I fail to see why a player gets automatic fiat in these situations, instead of simply the power of suggestion.

But, if all forms of PCvsPC control are dealt with the same way then it's not really an issue. It's merely a decision that the table makes when setting up the campaign. "Will we have PvP-lite? Will we allow the rolls to determine the outcome? Will we, instead, give certain players temporary fiat?"

What I am objecting to, primarily, is the idea that less-than-complete mind control has to be total mind control in order to be correctly seen as being mind control. The box makes that claim and it's not correct. It is mind control. The other main issue I have is with the notion that PCs should be able to have secret important attributes without that having been shared with the GM prior. If a player thinks something is that important then, at the minimum, it should have been shared with the GM — ideally at character creation, or, less ideally, outside of the session.

Here is an example. If a PC has an allergy to cats then that should be dealt with via the allergy quirk. That way, another PC can't use Influence (or some other kind of mind control) to get that PC to watch her cat at her house while she goes shopping. At least, it would be more difficult. Giving the players this information upfront makes it much easier for players to avoid making requests that don't make sense. It makes it easier for the GM to craft the world in a way that is compelling. That's why those very minor things were added. That's why we have advantages, disadvantages, skills, talents, and so on. It's all a lot of detail to give players (all of them at the table) and the GM PCs to work with.

GURPS has the mechanics for even quite minor things like a cat allergy, via the perks and quirks. Things that are much more central to a character's self-concept, like sexual orientation, are another matter. Minor things like allergies could be brought up later but something like that should definitely be known, at least to the GM, prior.

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

Originally Posted by whswhs

as going along with successful Influence rolls in general, but with limits when what they're being asked to do goes against the character concept. My experience has been that most of my players don't abuse this sort of trust.

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.

Originally Posted by whswhs

All of this fits into a style of gaming that's not massively dictated by rules, but has room for negotiation. And that's the style of gaming I favor. Remember, "There are nine-and-sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,/And every single one of them is right."

I spoke to players contributing to the evolution of the story/world via requests. Requests mean negotiation. The difference is that a GM is a GM and a player is a player. A PC is a PC. Those are three separate things.

[Extrarius]

Originally Posted by artichoke

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

As far as I can tell, even a single entirely unique omnipotent being does not have full agency (by your definition) due to the paradox of immovable wall vs unstoppable force.

Also, I don't see how anybody could build a character other than a newborn based on what seems to be your point of view, since you seem to require every detail that may ever become relevant to be fixed and written down before the game starts. I expect playing like that would require a binder full of 0-point features for every character.

[artichoke]

Originally Posted by Extrarius

As far as I can tell, even a single entirely unique omnipotent being does not have full agency (by your definition) due to the paradox of immovable wall vs unstoppable force.

Omnipotence means both total agency and total stasis. Yes, it's paradoxical.

It's not my definition, though. It's the definition.