In the  Exalted rpg NPCs (gm controlled characters) can use the social interaction rules to add  or remove "Intimacies" to a PC without the players consent. Its more or less like adding Psychological Limitation in Hero System, altering the PCs personality to some extent. For example, a temptress might give a PC feeling of lust or desire towards her or a warlord invoke loyalty or zeal for their cause or erode feelings and beliefs like the PC's love for their spouse or devotion to defending their small village from the warlords invading army. They can be removed (there's a system for it) but they can be long term and removing them has to be somewhat justified by role playing. Other newer systems have similar social mechanics.

Would you be willing to play under a system like that and what are your general feeling about it?

D20m Gamma World by White Wolf had a system there too for modifying personality. PCs and NPCs might have access to it. That could be as simple as shifting emotion, ideology or allegiance. Or as devastating as total personality overwrites.

It depends on the setting and players really. Some love stuff like that. Helms of Alignment Change and cursed weapons that shifted alignment or personality were some early examples in D&D. Others despise having their characters personality or aspects superseded like that. And others are ok with it as long as it was their own actions that brought it about. And so on.

Personally I am neutral on it. As long as theres some way of combating personality shifting or resisting. Then sure. There were ample methods to resist or counterattack tricks like that in d20mGW for example. Though Id oft rather RP such things and decide for myself if the character was swayed. Rather than having it turn into roll-playing as it were.

Not remotely.  Hell, as a GM, I only very rarely have NPCs using mind control magics on PCs.

A bit on the side here and there is fine, especially if it is something like a Helmet of Opposite Alignment.  And for a horror game like Call of Cthulu it is fine for sanity, madness, or whatever to be a big part of the game.

But in general, I game for action-adventure, not for psychological drama.

I don't have any principled objection to the idea per se. Omega cites some examples in D&D where such things happen as a consequence of magic. As far as I'm concerned, all magical alterations to a player character are perfectly kosher. And I can think of plenty of other examples when such a thing is appropriate. Where I draw the line where this sort of thing would become off-putting is if it's just a form of "social mechanics" that ape the mechanics of combat or magic. It's just not going to scratch the "social interaction" itch for me. If you ape combat, I see "social mechanics" as just more combat with different flavor text. Same thing if you ape magic. If you're going to do social, then do social. I clicked into this thread thinking it was going to be stories of when through role-play and unfolding story NPCs had a big impact on PCs that the PCs personality changed. There is no substitute for the organic approach.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905330 There is no substitute for the organic approach.

Absolutely!

I am not really taken with social mechanics - I think social interaction is best roleplayed. I'm never quite sure what social mechanics are there for. Usually someone will say that it levels the playing field for players who are not socially confident, but learning to roleplay social interactions often helps those players who are shy and tongue-tied to come out of their shell and become more confident in social situations in real life. Not the rpgs should be used for therapy, but it can be a happy side effect of playing.

At the table I've never seen a social conflict/exchange handled better by social mechanics than by simply roleplaying the scene.

I've seen many PCs, including my own, changed by NPC actions and PC/NPC relationships, and this all seemed totally natural in the game. Just chucking a few dice around and then being told that your PC now responds favourably to an NPC, or is swayed by an argument opposite to the strongly held view of the PC, just seems lame and unconvincing to me. It takes me out of the game.

And magical mind control used against PCs should be used rarely and be of brief duration - otherwise players get very pissed off in my experience.

I am fine with it, if used sparingly.

Mind control is fine as it is temporary and normally means the controlled PC ends up hating the controller.

Changing personality by adding or removing personality traits removes some player agency but can be fine. CoC has various insanities that are gained by PCs and everyone is fine with that, even though it changes the PC's personality. However, I think it should be done as part of a major event, not just a side-effect of something minor.

I have a general disdain for systems that take player choice out of the equation, even very popular takes on this like Pendragon. But I think there are some reasonable ways to approach it.

In generic D&D style games with skill systems, I sell these sorts of things as perceptions on the character's part, and leave the final choice up to the player. e.g., "you find his argument enticing", "your experience with torture leaves you uneasy around dwarves", etc.

I also like the Fate approach where some condition may affect your mentality, but the player has the option to spend a Fate point to power through it (I had something very similar to this with my determination system in an old homebrew/house rules before Fate was ever a thing.)

If it is a magical effect I have no issue with it. But if it is a mundane social skill, I wouldn't really go for it.

I am playing under a system like that.

I prefer games that led me suit things like these to the situation rather than having a distinct system for it. In a recent Dungeon World game I let the cleric doubt his faith and be influenced by a (evil) religious fanatic after his divine spells failed - I did this to play on the character's doubts. If the system urged me to record points that determined player actions I would have to look up how many points, failed rolls or whatever that same effect needed to happen, and that's, in my eyes, a constrain on the free-form aspect of roleplaying. Being able to determine these sorts of things organically, as some have put it, makes a tabletop RPG stand out from the rigidity of for example computer RPGs where rigid rules determine every outcome.

Of course I'm coming from a rules-light approach. I feel that a system for every eventuality will oftentimes constrain my options, as player and GM, rather than broaden them.

I'm torn about it. I can see it leading to some interesting situations and rp but I can see the downsides like players feeling like their characters are being rewritten for them or controlled. With the right group I can see it working well but some others not at all. It would take a good group with an amount of trust between the players. I think, if I were to use such a system, I'd allow some degree of PC autonomy from the full rules like the ability to cordon off certain aspects of the character's personality and beliefs OOC somewhat like the Red Rule but more broadly applicable. There'd have to be a high degree of trust and some understanding that just because you can do something that doesn't mean you should, IMO. But with the right group it could work. Odd it might seem I'm not opposed to my PCs being convinced, persuaded, etc, about things even things that aren't in their best interest via mechanics. People get talked into some foolish things all the time but I find I'm more reluctant about long term changes occurring that way.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905330There is no substitute for the organic approach.

Sometimes though something really can re-write the characters outlook. Like the aforementioned helm or developing some mental quirk. Hell, even chargen can have things that can totally re-write a PCs personality.

Trick is these things tend to be something the player themselves got the character into or knew was out there. You put on the helm, you poked into things man-was-not-meant-to-know, etc. Not much different from an NPC casting Charm Person or Suggestion on your character. It may be part of the risk of adventuring. And many of these twists can be undone somehow as well.

In one session I ran one of the PCs was replaced by a shapeshifting spy. She ran with that darn good! Same player in a Star Frontiers session I was a player in rather than a DM at some point was turned by a Sathar and for the rest of the game was sabotaging projects and other mayhem. And we never knew untill the big finale!

After session recountings like that seem fairly common too. They are also rare things in the campaign. Usually. So players are more likely to opt in for the challenge or other reasons.

So heres my own question for others.

When a personality changing event happened and you, or a player in your group, opted in to play along. What prompted you to play out the shift?

As a side note / contrast point, some games treat total loss of PC determinism as equivalent to character death, i.e., "hand the GM your character sheet" when you go insane, lose all your humanity, etc.

I am not fond of that specific social mechanic, but I just don't get why it's okay for a GM to use NPCs to hack a player character to ribbons with swords, but lord help you if an NPC tries to change your mind. You can go on being the immovable, unalterable rock that won't change their mind for anything, but death, maiming, and polymorphs are okay.