Quote from: Azraele;1032684If I take your meaning, the appeal is more "Mechanics as RP inspiration" than "Mechanics as substitute for agency".
...
I still fail to grasp the appeal to a player character though. If they're telling you what you do, rather than what you can do, that feels like an intrusion on the premise of roleplaying...

Yes, though different traits can work in somewhat different ways, and I also see some value in adding mechanics that do limit what you can do, which is a different quality of them, and I could see choosing to only use certain types as a matter of taste/choice.

For example, I think it can be fun/interesting too to have various mechanics where a PC has to react (or not react) in a certain way or range of ways.

(I imagine we've all had the players who insist that their character is utterly fearless and in control of themselves for the purpose of doing whatever they as a player want the PC to do. I've even had players say "I do not fall unconscious! I remain standing and take another swing at the monster!" when the combat mechanics said they were unconscious from major damage... and in some cases I've then allowed an extra Willpower roll to see if they manage to do that.)

At some point there's a line between the PC and the player in their experience of the situation, their goals, and their ability to do (or maybe to choose to do) things. Players/GMs/systems can choose to define where those lines are in a variety of ways, and I see that as a matter of taste with a sliding scale and multiple sliders for different things, such as:

* how free are players to choose when/whether to violate the OOC player agreements of play style? (e.g. player-vs-player restrictions)
* how free are players to alter or deviate from their PC's established personality/goals/friendships/etc?
* how free are players to choose when/whether their PC follows their specified beliefs & moral codes or not?
* how free are players to choose when/whether their PC behaves according to listed personality traits & weaknesses or not?
* how free are players to choose when/whether their PC is brave enough to face something?
* how free are players to choose when/whether they're terrified by supernatural horrors or not?
* how much are players allowed to use OOC player knowledge to inform their PC's choices?
* can players suggest or dictate that their PC does actions in an extra-colorful cool way without listed skills supporting that, and is there an added risk/difficulty or is it rewarded or is it fluff that does nothing?
* can players suggest or dictate specific results of their PCs' actions?
* can players suggest or dictate that their character has extra unlisted ability to prevail or survive something? (e.g. the "do you consent to have your PC die" systems...)
* can players suggest or dictate things about the game world outside their character?

It seems to me those are all independent sliders which different players may or may not have strong feelings about.

Another perspective is that sometimes they can be catered to independently for some players. e.g. In GURPS, if a player hates being limited by traits, I'll tend to guide them to not take such traits as mechanically-limiting ones, and perhaps even have them take traits that give them extra freedoms. Another player in the same game might be fine with taking such traits, or might have a playstyle where I want them to behave or not behave in a certain way so I find it makes sense to give their PC certain mechanically-limiting traits to represent those.  And for players who aren't hostile to point-buy trade-offs, they may appreciate the point-value trade-offs that go along with those options. And GURPS offers so many options that it's not like anyone needs to take any behavior-limiting traits (and/or you can give PCs points for their player's innate characteristics, if you know them - e.g. Andy the player just is paranoid and almost always plays his characters that way, so he may as well get the trait and doesn't need a mechanic adding to it).

Quote from: Opaopajr;1032601I personally love these mechanics that induce succumbing to temptation, loss of control, in my PCs. I don't find many GMs handle them with any sort of tact, or even bother with modeling succumbing or disorientation, however. Often (diagnosed from my inner armchair therapist) it is an issue of participants (from GM to players) having deep seated control issues. I can't fix that, and I am not being paid to do therapy at the table.

But as for how to make such loss of control palatable? I find a good sugar to make the medicine go down to be an offer between two bad choices once we've established a PC has crossed a mechanical threshold. At least there's a choice, a form of resistance and struggle, instead of what should be outright "storytime" narration.

So for example, I cannot stand when GMs use Charm Person like Domination (mindless automaton), with the added implication that the PC is the responsible agent for all that happens. My personal example is my Paladin is Charmed by a Vampire, treated like a mindless automaton (already a misuse of how Charm Person works), made to do gross violations of his church and clergy against his will with no save, and (somehow) falls as a Paladin as if it was his choice. It was basically a lone failed roll, drawn out exposition -- which wastes gaming time -- and devoid of pathos beyond "Fuck your character, hur, hur, hur! " It's lazy GM-ing and a waste of a good horror moment.

What you can do with a Vampire charming a Paladin is befriending them into choices between small, ever building, violations -- or friendship disappointment from that seductive stranger -- that snowball into a larger consequence. Now that, that works with Charm Person as written, works with players picking their poison, and a grand horrific reveal. It doesn't do stupid-evil reveals "Mwa ha ha! I reveal I'm a vampire, now I'll make your paladin commit sacrilege and fall!" And it doesn't take 10 minutes of game time where players make no choices beyond watching bad storytelling against one player's PC, which is essentially listening to a GM's inner-14 y.o. sadism fapping.

There is good form and bad form on how to manage these things: If you as a GM find yourself in such a long, uninterrupted exposition, about your puppeteering someone's PC, you are wasting game time. If you as a GM find your PCs succumbing to a mechanic that is not actual direct possession and domination, but more like fears, urges, compulsions, and temptations -- play them as such, including whatever is left of a PC's feeble thing called will. That means let players make real choices between similar options, even if, no, especially if!, they are between several bad ones.

There's nothing wrong with players losing control of their character. But it's often a matter of degree, not binary, not between full autonomy and mindless automata. And there is no "story pathos" in watching a GM 'play with action figures by themselves'.

How exactly would you present a player with bad choices? Wouldn't the player know they are charmed rather than just talking to a friend? Your post sounds intriguing but I don't understand what you're getting at.

Evidently a few lack basic reading comprehension.

Skepticultist don't derail another thread's conversation like you did here. One of the few ways to get banned here is persistent threadjacking.

Those of you who continued to respond to Skepticultist after my clear directive not too. I suggest you read this to brush up on your reading comphrension.

Thread now closed. Move on to other topics please.