Sort of stolen the idea for this thread from an ENWorld one

Basically when if ever do you think a GM should have control of a characters actions?

If we take the default* is that the GM controls the environment the players are in (including NPCs and the like) and the Players control their characters actions and how they react to that environment. I've seen a few threads here on players getting more control of the environment so I thought it was about time for one in the other direction.

Obviously on ENWorld the subject pretty much limited D&D (with a dash of D20 variants), so the default split seems most popular (unless magic compells the PCs to act a certain way). What about situations where the character is tortured, sees unspeakable horrors, suffers insanity, etc? Should the GM take control at those points? What about seduction, bribery and other lesser effects that tempt a person to act differently from normal?

Personally I think the GM should be able to take control of a players character on some occasions, but their needs to be a game mechanic so that the player has some choice as to when those occasions are, so that it doesn't just become railroading and that when the character succumbs it is at least partly at the player's choice.

D&D doesn't really have that mechanic, what games have such a mechanic and if you were to port one into D&D how would you do it?

People have suggested using the saving throw mechanic in D&D, but personally I think if someone has the strength of character to be a hero and resist torture then they should have it equally at 1st level as they do at 20th, so I'm not happy using a saving throw.

I've recently ordered Dread which seems almost setup for the GM to take control of the characters actions regularly.

GM: You see a badly decayed corpse, you feel the urge to vomit and run away screaming, make a pull to resist the urge.

The player can then make a pull from the tower and risk departing the game or summit to indignity of appearing like a coward, by electing not to pull.

Horror type games seem to require this sort of mechanic (like CoCs insanity rules), otherwise there is a temptation for the horrors of the setting to just be ignored by the players.

I've rabbled enough for now, what are your views?

Except under exceedingly unusual circumstances (involving, say,  supernatural possession or remote-control implants), I'll never violate the player autonomy: I may describe sudden impulses and emotions which come over a PC, but it's always up to the player to decide exactly how the character reacts to them.

I'm curious if folks that are okay with game design that allows players to have control in what would normally be considered the GMs area of concern feel about GMs having control/influence of what would normally be the player's character.

I'm curious as to why the fuck you'd really need either.

I can understand "players affect the environment" better than a "GM decides for character" approach... but that's only because the former could potentially save prep time and make the GM's work easier. In this case, you're giving up control, but you also get something back for it. The latter? What does that do for the characters? Nothing, really.

Quote from: GrimGentExcept under exceedingly unusual circumstances (involving, say,  supernatural possession or remote-control implants), I'll never violate the player autonomy: I may describe sudden impulses and emotions which come over a PC, but it's always up to the player to decide exactly how the character reacts to them.

I'm not necessarily saying violate player autonomy via GM fiat, I'm asking for system that allow GMs to influence character actions, other than just description.

For example if your character was being tortured, I could describe the intense pain, but you as a player are not going to feel that, and can happily ignore it and just say you won't talk. If you actually found yourself in that situation it might be a little harder to keep your mouth shut. How do you present the temptation to crack in such a way that it isn't just simple to brush off.

Similarly if you character is slightly drunk at a bar, and some NPC attempts to seduce them, they player can happily just ignore them because they aren't going to be experiencing the loss of inhibition from the alcohol or the lust, the character on the other hand would more likely have trouble.

Quote from: BagpussI'm not necessarily saying violate player autonomy via GM fiat, I'm asking for system that allow GMs to influence character actions, other than just description.

Some sort of a point-based sanction system for either rewarding or penalizing appropriate actions could very well work. In the former, the player might gain something (Drama Points or what-have-you) in return for choosing to go along with the scene. In the latter, he might have the choice of spending a little something extra (Willpower Points or what-have-you) in order to resist.

Quote from: beejazzWhat does that do for the characters? Nothing, really.

That's part of the point. I want a way to present things that are tempting to do for the character but OOC you know are likely to be to the detriment of that character.

Why is a player likely to act to the detriment their own character? They aren't, but in life people often do things to their detriment and do things they later regret. To borrow from St. Paul "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.".

The player being detached from the sensation of pain or hormones running wild that the character would be feeling in those situations is able to act logically and detached and not tell the to the torturer what he wants to know, or fall for the femme fatal.

I'm looking for a mechanic that would have the player feel the temptation to do the wrong thing, like the character would. So while the player still has choice that choice is more greatly influenced than the GM saying "you know it really hurts" or "she is really attractive".

I don't like the idea of a random roll, as deciding how you act by dice removes the choice from the player as much as GM fiat would. The best solution I've come up with so far is an XP or action point reward if you give into the temptation. Hence the player is presented with the same sort of temptation that the character has, so while they give up some control there is a reward in return. Yet part of me doesn't like the XP reward idea because you can resist with equally good roleplaying depending on your character.

Dread's pull mechanic is interesting as it gives the choice to resist to the player in return for a greater risk if the screw up, but they can still chose not to resist, but it doesn't suit being transfered to other types of game easily.

One way to do this is not to require actions, but to give penalties if the characters don't go along.  I have some social combat rules for Cinematic Unisystem on my site here that detail the idea.

The basic idea is that when one character wants to make another do something through force of personality they roll opposed rolls.  If the influencer wins, then every success level applies a penalty if the target doesn't go along with what they want.  For instance let's say that you fling insults to get an opponent to charge you, and beat him with four successes.  Now (in case he's a PC) the target can still do whatever he wants.  But if that means doing something other than charge you, he could have up to -4 on his roll.  These are one time penalties, and if they aren't used they don't last the scene.  It works in a similar manner with seduction, interrogation, and so on - the rolls provide a bonus or penalty rather than proscribing behaviour.

On the whole, I think that gm control (or any die mechanic governing behahvior) should be limited to a few specific things dictated by genre.

For example the CoC sanity rules have a fair amount of control over when and how a character loses it.

Quote from: beejazzI'm curious as to why the fuck you'd really need either.

I can understand "players affect the environment" better than a "GM decides for character" approach... but that's only because the former could potentially save prep time and make the GM's work easier. In this case, you're giving up control, but you also get something back for it. The latter? What does that do for the characters? Nothing, really.

Well, obviously you don't need either.  Just like you don't need dice in your RPG, for example.  But some people like them.  

So, there are players who like the Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies insanity systems, I know.  What I find broken is coming up with mechanics so that PCs are played "right" or somesuch.  A pet peeve of mine is the idea that the GM is going to play the characters "better" than the players, which seems to be a principle behind a number of mechanics.

QuoteFor example if your character was being tortured, I could describe the intense pain, but you as a player are not going to feel that, and can happily ignore it and just say you won't talk. If you actually found yourself in that situation it might be a little harder to keep your mouth shut. How do you present the temptation to crack in such a way that it isn't just simple to brush off.

Because everyone knows RPGs are supposed to be painful!

But that aside WILL SAVE. Or a similar non-scaling mechanic (though I can hardly see why that makes any great difference.)

QuoteWhy is a player likely to act to the detriment their own character? They aren't, but in life people often do things to their detriment and do things they later regret. To borrow from St. Paul "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.".

Au contraire! The separation of a player from the consequences of his actions makes him more prone to do things to the detriment of his character... just to see what happens. And if he doesn't, it's 'cause he isn't particularly curious what would happen.

QuoteI don't like the idea of a random roll, as deciding how you act by dice removes the choice from the player as much as GM fiat would. The best solution I've come up with so far is an XP or action point reward if you give into the temptation. Hence the player is presented with the same sort of temptation that the character has, so while they give up some control there is a reward in return. Yet part of me doesn't like the XP reward idea because you can resist with equally good roleplaying depending on your character.

XP rewards for failure? You are a fucking GENIUS.

I prefer the pass/fail approach if any at all, and progressive penalties over deciding a course of action. Or rewarding failure.

Quote from: beejazzXP rewards for failure? You are a fucking GENIUS.

Actually, point rewards for playing up character flaws and faults aren't that uncommon in RPGs these days: World of Darkness, Nobilis and 7th Sea all feature mechanics like that. For example, if a PC in Nob had the Handicap "Lecherous", the player still would never be obligated to give in to any attempted seduction, but doing so would earn him a miracle point.

Quote from: GrimGentActually, point rewards for playing up character flaws and faults aren't that uncommon in RPGs these days: World of Darkness, Nobilis and 7th Sea all feature mechanics like that. For example, if a PC in Nob had the Handicap "Lecherous", the player still would never be obligated to give in to any attempted seduction, but doing so would earn him a miracle point.

Huh? IME, a character who wants to play lecherous will do so by playing lecherous and for the sake of playing lecherous. Because nothing bad will happen to the player as a consequence. And if you want someone to crack during torture, you've got four characters... KILL ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHERS. And if no one talks? KILL ANOTHER. The idea that a PC has nothing to lose in a torture is fallacy. You don't put a difficult decision into the rules mechanic, you put it into the gameplay. It isn't "You give away the location of the rebel base." And it sure as hell isn't "I'll give you a cookie if you tell me the location of the rebel base." It's "Ah, so brave! And ever the martyr! But you can be broken... BRING IN THE GIRL!"

Quote from: beejazzIME, a character who wants to play lecherous will do so by playing lecherous and for the sake of playing lecherous. Because nothing bad will happen to the player as a consequence.

But something bad might happen to the character, if he really should be doing something more important but instead succumbs to the temptation of lechery. Those are the times which yield the points: whenever the Handicap leads into trouble so that the character comes face to face with his weakness.

Quote from: beejazzXP rewards for failure? You are a fucking GENIUS.

Surely you've learned from a mistake before now?

But I can't claim credit for such GENIUS after all I wasn't the first to think of it, there are already a number of other RPG systems that reward failure. Even D&D already rewards failure for setting off traps.