In Call of Cthulhu we will of course employ the Sanity rules governing mental breakdowns in the PCs. In other cases I have ruled that PCs are vulnerable to Con rolls made by NPCs. And, in combats, I use the Phoenix Command knockout rules to determine when the PCs give up and either run from a fight or curl up in a ball.

One dimension I have learned to avoid, however, is PC-on-PC Con rolls or other forms of mechanical persuasion. I find it hurts the game to allow one player de facto control over another player's character, regardless of why. This doesn't mean one PC can't deck another PC and thereby incapacitate him as per the usual combat rules, but that no PC can become a mind-slave to any player except their own.

What sorts of curtailments on PC agency do you allow in your play?

The only time I'd ever require players to use social mechanics on each other's PCs -- assuming the game in question has such mechanics -- would be if I thought it was the only way to resolve an actual conflict between the players, and the players themselves were being too obstreperous to work it out themselves. And even that would only be a stopgap option, since if two players were really being regularly disruptive that way, probably one or both would ultimately have to leave the group.

I do think there should be a way for NPCs to socially influence PCs, however, since I think it's a key principle of any game that anything the PCs can do to an NPC the NPCs should be able to do back. But I do make it a point that whenever I'm designing a set of game rules, if I include such mechanics, I always add a way for the players to benefit from "losing" (i.e. willingly cooperating with and playing out the results of) an influence roll, usually in the form of bonus experience points or Drama Points or some such reward.

I don't allow non-magical mind control of PCs. Or NPCs, really. My 5e players will often roll eg Persuasion & Insight among themselves as a guide to how to roleplay their PCs. This stuff is either voluntary, consensual, or at least negotiated. I rarely use Bluff/Deception rolls on PCs, but may do where the player knows more than the PC about the deceptive NPC and it's a practical way to determine whether the PC is fooled IC, when the player already knows OOC that it's a lie.  Conversely I don't tell a player "Roll Insight" when an NPC is lying to them, unless the player says something like "Does he look shifty?". I once had a captured dwarf slaver offer to join the PCs, none of them showed any suspicion, or asked for Insight checks, I was a bit miffed when he betrayed them & they were outraged - at me, for not having told them to roll Insight vs his Bluff skill. I dislike the idea you can autopilot your PC like that. This was a 4e D&D game. I've not seen this behaviour elsewhere that I can recall.

I agree that I never have social skills control PC actions. But then, I'm moving away from having social skills act like Mind Control in general. Social skill is often assumed to be a lying con man -- but a neglected aspect of social skill is the genuine leader or diplomat who speaks the truth, and can convince people of that.

Quote from: S'mon on March 05, 2023, 01:35:04 AM
Conversely I don't tell a player "Roll Insight" when an NPC is lying to them, unless the player says something like "Does he look shifty?". I once had a captured dwarf slaver offer to join the PCs, none of them showed any suspicion, or asked for Insight checks, I was a bit miffed when he betrayed them & they were outraged - at me, for not having told them to roll Insight vs his Bluff skill. I dislike the idea you can autopilot your PC like that. This was a 4e D&D game. I've not seen this behaviour elsewhere that I can recall.

I tend to always give players a Insight roll (or the equivalent) to evaluate what they think of an NPC in general.

For me, this falls into the issue of handling routine actions. In general, I assume that the characters will perform routine things competently according to their character skill -- so I assume they'll carefully look at their surroundings, set up their camp thoughtfully, watch new NPCs carefully, etc. I feel that doing otherwise encourages players to go into more exhaustively calling things out that can slow down the game -- like "I look at the floor. Do I notice anything? I look at the ceiling. Do I notice anything? I watch the new NPC carefully. Do I notice anything?"

There is an opposing argument that making the players declare these things specifically forces them to pay more attention and call out the right checks. But it can really slow things down.

None, except that if one is consistently an ass, then he's out.  I don't like social skills, period-such things should be handled by the player, not the character.  Nowadays I don't use charm spells at all. I've specifically excluded the from my recent projects.  And I never tell a player "you can't do that."  Doing foolish, wacky things will get your character killed, and aggravating the other players (or me) will get you removed, but while you're in the game, you can try to do anything you want.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 04, 2023, 11:46:01 PM
In Call of Cthulhu we will of course employ the Sanity rules governing mental breakdowns in the PCs. In other cases I have ruled that PCs are vulnerable to Con rolls made by NPCs. And, in combats, I use the Phoenix Command knockout rules to determine when the PCs give up and either run from a fight or curl up in a ball.

One dimension I have learned to avoid, however, is PC-on-PC Con rolls or other forms of mechanical persuasion. I find it hurts the game to allow one player de facto control over another player's character, regardless of why. This doesn't mean one PC can't deck another PC and thereby incapacitate him as per the usual combat rules, but that no PC can become a mind-slave to any player except their own.

What sorts of curtailments on PC agency do you allow in your play?

I haven't really run into the issue myself, but my thought on the matter is to apply a "morale" penalty or bonus to the PCs actions as if they are following or going against the persuasion. That way they retain agency, but are still affected by the ability.

Trying to control another player's character is usually a dick move, but it depends on how antagonistic the game is. I can see a character in Dark Sun using Charm Person to get some more water out of the group when everyone is low on water...

Quote from: jhkim on March 05, 2023, 01:53:25 AM
I tend to always give players a Insight roll (or the equivalent) to evaluate what they think of an NPC in general.

IMC they already knew he was an evil dwarf slaver criminal who was shipping kidnapped women to the Yuan-Ti (in barrels!) for a forced breeding programme. When he said "Sure I'll join you in attacking my gang's hideout - just give me my crossbow!" I think the players had all the info they needed to make a considered judgement. If they were in any doubt about his trustworthiness they could have asked for Insight checks.

I know IRL that people do NOT always have their Insight - or any skill - running. That would be utterly exhausting. I like how in the 5e adventuring rules you do NOT get your Passive Perception running if you are map-making or performing some other task during travel, other than keeping a lookout. IRL I remember what a revelation it was to me dealing with police on the Safer Neighbourhoods Panel as opposed to on the street. On the street they have their Passive Insight running, and are always suspicious. On the panel they were completely different, even though still acting in a professional capacity.

In my own designs, I tend to make charm spells work as boosters to natural persuasion.  The way the boost works is different depending on the spell.  Some make the caster have a better personality or charisma.  Some make the targets more inclined to give the caster the benefit of the doubt.  Since skills are still fallible even with a boost, it's not the killer that it would be in, say, a skewed character ops perspective version of D&D 3.5 with the godlike persuasion rolls read literally.

In fact, that's how I do a lot of spell/skill interactions, whenever I can.  If I'm going to have skills, then I don't want magic invalidating them at the drop of a hat.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 05, 2023, 04:03:17 AM
None, except that if one is consistently an ass, then he's out.  I don't like social skills, period-such things should be handled by the player, not the character.  Nowadays I don't use charm spells at all. I've specifically excluded the from my recent projects.  And I never tell a player "you can't do that."  Doing foolish, wacky things will get your character killed, and aggravating the other players (or me) will get you removed, but while you're in the game, you can try to do anything you want.

This is my approach as well. I cannot remember the last time a charm spell was used in one of my games. I do provide enough context so if a player is trying something that brings more than a moderate amount of risk, it is telegraphed. After that, it is on them and the dice.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 04, 2023, 11:46:01 PM
In Call of Cthulhu we will of course employ the Sanity rules governing mental breakdowns in the PCs. In other cases I have ruled that PCs are vulnerable to Con rolls made by NPCs. And, in combats, I use the Phoenix Command knockout rules to determine when the PCs give up and either run from a fight or curl up in a ball.

One dimension I have learned to avoid, however, is PC-on-PC Con rolls or other forms of mechanical persuasion. I find it hurts the game to allow one player de facto control over another player's character, regardless of why. This doesn't mean one PC can't deck another PC and thereby incapacitate him as per the usual combat rules, but that no PC can become a mind-slave to any player except their own.

What sorts of curtailments on PC agency do you allow in your play?

I regard "player agency" as a false issue in the world of RPGs. It seems as if at its core it comes from some assumed GM-as-God tyranny over the players. And while there may be some bad GM's out there and some control freak GMs out there, I think a far more common issue is that players within the group can often want different things and disagree on courses of action. And sometimes a group can have a particularly domineering player. Or it might not even be the player so much as how they play their character. Sometimes delicate situations arise in play, and someone playing a "brash" character might ruin any attempt at negotiation or stealth or any number of other approaches for the rest of the party. That becomes a problem when other players feel they don't have any real choice in the game. It's a problem a GM should address. And regardless of the tact used, at the bottom line is said domineering player needs to cool it. That player needs to stop doing some of the things he or she wants to do all the time. In order for the whole group to experience the game they signed up for.


Okay. I know that's not really what you're talking about here. But that's the foundation of where I'm coming from.

So take mind-control magic as an example. If we're going to begin with what I regard as a goofy perspective of player agency being some sacred thing, then yeah, I guess taking control of another's PC can be seen as problematic. But from my perspective, it's more about giving the game players expect. If mind-control powers are part of the game, then they're part of the game. It's the game the players signed up for. It would be a sin to not let it work.

That said, I don't care for "social mechanics as mind control" at all. I have a fairly detailed post under Venger's thread on the Game Design forum on exactly how I approach social mechanics, how I can get them to work and be useful in the game without having it descend into de facto mind control. If for no other reason than to contrast it with mind control magic as being two different things, I think it's really important that social mechanics do not work as mind control for the sake of fun of the game.


It might be worth mentioning that in the Dangerous Journeys RPG, characters have three main traits: Mental, Physical, and Spiritual. And these also work as "hit point" like totals. Where if you take more physical damage than you have physical trait, the character dies. Well, characters in that game can also "die" Mentally and Spiritually as well. And I believe it's in the case of a spiritual death, the character actually falls under a zombie-like control of the one who spiritually slew the character.


It's hard to see clear why that should be off limits but KOing a character and dragging them along to whatever place you want them to be is not. In fact, the most railroady GM I've ever had, if we started to stray from the pre-determined path, would send things to attack us that we couldn't possibly beat, then when they inevitably dropped us down to -15 hit points or whatever, he would say, "Oh no, you're not dead, just unconscious," and then our lifeless bodies would just be dragged off to wherever he wanted us to be. So make no mistake, simple fight-and-die combat is a violation of player agency, if you believe in such things.

As a general rule I try not to wrestle control of a PC from players, and dislike when other GMs do it (the guy who introduced me to TTRPGs is notorious for it, often forcing PCs down a predetermine path to fit their "story"). But when it comes to social skills and mind control powers, my general take is that both of them have equal effect on PCs as they do NPCs. I will give you leeway to play your character mostly how you want, with the understanding that if you get "hit" by a social skill (even by an NPC) you're supposed to RP your character like they're deferential to that socially skilled character as appropriate for the skill or ability being used. I also tend to regard social skills as essentially a weak type of easily broken mind control (any extreme commands can be ignored. Reasonable ones? Not so much...), cuz IMO they kinda are, and I've known people IRL who are good at basically forcing their way on others and getting them (myself included) to go along with what they want.

That being said, I rarely have NPCs socially or mind control PCs, but on the rare event that it does happen, that's how I tend to handle it. I try to be flexible, but if you're persuaded, intimidated, infatuated or whatever by the NPC, you're supposed to act like it, at least to some extend. You get to choose how you act within certain parameters, but get extra "willpower" or whatever checks if they push you too hard, depending on how the situation goes.

While I can understand some people's misgivings about social skills overwriting actual RP and might share them to a lesser extend, my opinion about social skills is that if they have zero impact (or close to it) in actual play that they simply should NOT exist (period) and that the GM should always be upfront about it, rather than let players take them only for them to have no effect in actual play. And get rid of Charisma or equivalent stats while you're at it. If these abilities have no real measurable effect on actual play (no "ifs" or guesstimates, but actual concrete effects), then they have no place in the game and the GM should be upfront about preferring everything to be 100% RPed so we can make Charisma (or equivalent) stats a dump stat (with ZERO judgement if you're not gonna allow them to have any impact) and avoid social skills like the plague.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 05, 2023, 09:30:06 AM
So take mind-control magic as an example. If we're going to begin with what I regard as a goofy perspective of player agency being some sacred thing, then yeah, I guess taking control of another's PC can be seen as problematic. But from my perspective, it's more about giving the game players expect. If mind-control powers are part of the game, then they're part of the game. It's the game the players signed up for. It would be a sin to not let it work.

Charming PCs can be done well, but I think it should be done in extreme moderation.

I had a PC unknowingly fall victim to a charm spell. His character would have large memory gaps (think Boomer from BSG). The player and character maintained agency in that they both had the same amount of information. BTW, I tend to agree with those who believe, in general, agency and railroad debates are a waste of time. Anyway...

There was an assassin killing members of a somewhat small wizard's conclave. It was not the main thing going on for the players, but it hung around in the background. The PC started to fear that he was committing the crimes. Fast forward, the group learned another wizard had charmed him, and he was moonlighting as the wizard's bodyguard. It created a lot of concern and tension for the group for several sessions, and then a great amount of relief when the truth was discovered.

So that was done well, but that is not something you can go back to often. This was years and years ago. And like I said originally, I cannot remember the last time since. Outside something innovative, charming PCs can be boring and hard to pull off.

Quote from: S'mon on March 05, 2023, 05:24:46 AM

Quote from: jhkim on March 05, 2023, 01:53:25 AM
I tend to always give players a Insight roll (or the equivalent) to evaluate what they think of an NPC in general.

IMC they already knew he was an evil dwarf slaver criminal who was shipping kidnapped women to the Yuan-Ti (in barrels!) for a forced breeding programme. When he said "Sure I'll join you in attacking my gang's hideout - just give me my crossbow!" I think the players had all the info they needed to make a considered judgement. If they were in any doubt about his trustworthiness they could have asked for Insight checks.

I know IRL that people do NOT always have their Insight - or any skill - running. That would be utterly exhausting. I like how in the 5e adventuring rules you do NOT get your Passive Perception running if you are map-making or performing some other task during travel, other than keeping a lookout. IRL I remember what a revelation it was to me dealing with police on the Safer Neighbourhoods Panel as opposed to on the street. On the street they have their Passive Insight running, and are always suspicious. On the panel they were completely different, even though still acting in a professional capacity.

Fair enough. I agree that it's appropriate to matching real life. My issue with it in-game is the play style that it encourages.

Very few, really. I prefer players to have open options so they're more entertaining to watch. Obviously lines and veils or campaign tasteful content guidelines are a different matter.

I will usually nerf things more than I flat ban them. Consider trying to talk an NPC into commit suicide; I give the PC a die damage rating for their charisma and usually another die rating for the effectiveness of each argument. Then I make the player come up with new arguments and persuasion tactics repeatedly until they literally damage the NPC's psyche to zero HP. At which point the NPC becomes depressed or broken and may attempt suicide, depending on if the player made an argument which could reasonably have that effect. "Your job is pointless," won't do, but having a deep conversation where the PC pretends to have a great insight where the NPCs significant other is cheating? That might.

Depending on the mechanics of the game and how much HP bloat the system has, that could take an hour or so of game time, and I'm not going to let it happen in less than 10 minutes or so. And obviously this doesn't apply to PCs because rolling for damage against another PC is banned unless you clear this instance of PvP in metagame first.

Not many...

Fear, terror and sanity mechanics. Or some such magical manipulation by a supernatural creature but they get a save-type roll.