Quote from: FingerRod on March 05, 2023, 10:15:54 AM
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.

This part deserves highlighting. For me, mind control presented from the character's point of view is so much more interesting and engaging than just asking a player to "act charmed" or whatever.

Depends on the game or situation.

If a player is the target of a spell or effect that causes them to temporarily lose control, they know right up front (and usually it's the result of a botched saving throw). This is usually followed up by the rest of the party dogpiling the poor bad guy who did the dirty deed.

(In defense, my players have had to fend off enough charms and compulsions that they can tell when someone's been hijacked -- and they react accordingly.)

Quote from: FingerRod on March 05, 2023, 10:15:54 AM
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.

If the same character were to contract lycanthrope in the next adventure leading to memory gaps and coming to fear he is actually the monster in the night on a killing spree that the party is hunting, it seems like that would come off as being done to death. Has nothing to do with the charm. Has everything to do with how you choose to play it out.

I could just say mage charms big dumb barbarian, the pupils of big dumb barbarians eyes turn into spirals. Now the party is not only short their strongest fighter, the mage has acquired a strong defender, and the party faces the additional hurdle of not wanting to kill their friend even as they must fight him. It presents an interesting enough challenge. It's easy to understand. And for the game balance geeks, the challenge level of this encounter scales naturally as the stronger the party gets, the more powerful their loss, and the more powerful their opponent's gain. Woe betide the party who's SOP is buffing the barbarian before battling the big bad.

There's no reason I can't go to that well just as often as any of the other standby's such as fireball. And this presents a pattern interrupt (buffing barbarian = bad), which I always find valuable to keep the rest of the game from becoming too repetitive (the party will always have to question whether or not buffing will be turned around against them and have to think things through rather than execute standard operating procedure like automatons).

And it doesn't ever have to be more complicated than that.

That's called a "Manchurian Agent" IIRC. The only problem with that, as you say, is that's a well-known cliché.

    │
-____-
  ¯¯¯

I like stress rules, which usually involve a risk of PC's losing it in a spectacular and entertaining fashion if they keep pushing beyond their limitations. Man's gotta know his limitations.

I like replacing a PC with a doppelganger and then working with that player to deceive the party (never do this more than once with the same group of players). Doesn't count as PvP because it's kind of not the player doing it. Kind of.

Etc.

There are limited situations where people find a loss of PC agency can add a bit of spice to the game. But it has to be rare, it has to have meaning, and it has to be fun.

I'm not going to say I explicitly forbid player conflict, but it's... discouraged at my tables. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's one of those things I keep an eye on, and if it becomes a problem, I'm probably going to step in in an OOC capacity. Rule 0 at my table isn't "the GM is always right", it's "We're all here to have a good time. Don't be an asshole."

But like I said, not a hard and fast rule. In one of the more high-fantasy games I can recall, there were to players that were in a sort of polite southern feud to with each other. Both were evil characters, not of the "I eat babies" variety but more the self-serving lawful evil sort. Over the course of a year long campaign they managed to maim and kill each other... more than once.

Social rolls, though? Nah. No PVP social rolls.