| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I earlier brought up that you can willingly fail a save if you want to. It's in the game already.Interesting idea, what I thought of first when reading this was Star Wars. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the force. He was not magically bound to obey against his will. I can see lots of RP potential with this.
For a standard Pathfinder game I would make it a player option. In other words they can elect whether the effect "seduces" them or works the standard way.
If on the other hand it was a Call of Cthulhu inspired game then it would make sense for this to be a GM decision.
I like that option as well. I have used it before.
I also like the idea of the dice sometimes deciding. It opens up RP opportunities I might not have considered otherwise.
so here's the thing, you can just RP your character, but i'd say it's probably a bit harder to RP a character who wants to change, but can't. literally making a will save so they can even perform the action or to keep themselves from performing an action.
like someone extremely afraid of spiders, RPing unable to fight the giant spiders even as the party is losing, is something hard to even enforce on yourself.
these kind of actions i think should also have a cumulative +1 bonus on the roll for every time you'd succeeded at it, up to your character level or some such, to drive home the fact you're facing your fears.
like the honorable swashbuckler sword saint, having to make a will save to not defend them, even if doing so would be extremely disadvantageous, like threatening the parties safety, that to me is interesting to RP. Especially since it makes it so the party members can;t blame you as the player, but only your character, allowing you to RP without regret as well.
idk, this is a complicated issue, but "just RP your character" isn't a good enough justification to rule out enforcing characterization.
Sure, but doesn't phrasing in-game elements in ways tied into your character's beliefs (either as a result of chosen moral codes, like a cavalier's order, or as specific player-made codes pertaining to a backstory and general motivations -- the character strengths...I believe what Bandw2 is getting at is that we could implement something like FATE's fudge-pool (I forget the technical name of the re-roll tokens), and allow players to gain a token when they wish to play along with the narrative, not gain a token when they wish not to, or spend a token when they wish to change the narrative. Which works perfectly well ported into Pathfinder; it's basically hero points but awarded based on RP instead of something arbitrary like leveling up.
That said, 'harder' bonuses like the dragon abilities, in exchange for more persistent drawbacks would also be fun, as would additional expenditure options for the points/tokens.
The thing is, you can just roleplay your character. Here's an example:
My NG Swashbuckler 3/Sword Saint Samurai (Order of the Dragon) 2 is the official leader of our party of government-endorsed "Elite Knights" and has the Overprotective drawback. In the middle of a mission, an enemy shows up essentially to taunt us. The enemy is clearly someone we will run into later on and are not ready to deal with right now, but she deals a huge chunk of damage to one of our party. I as a player know that we have no chance of doing anything, but what do I have my character do? I waste my 1/day Challenge on the enemy and attempt to Iaijutsu Strike her because I felt my character would want to protect his team. I didn't have to, the GM didn't make me or even prompt me to, and I could have used that Challenge on the boss of the dungeon, but by considering the Order of the Dragon and the Overprotective drawback (both of those being focused on aiding and cooperating with your allies) I decided that was something my character would feel was necessary.
It should probably be contextual in most cases and not make something up about the character. If there is a deep-seated reason behind it, then it should be an established one. The kind, devout cleric of Sarenrae with a love of entertaining the children taken in by her church failing a Will save against Hunger For Flesh and the GM saying "You've secretly always wanted to be a cannibal and hurt your friends on a visceral level in spite of all the teachings of your faith, so you turn to the nearest one and begin ripping him apart with your fingernails, blood splattering across your delighted grin." is not okay. However, it makes sense when the rogue who lost his family when he was young and who has been plagued by it ever since fails a Will save against Crushing Despair and the GM says "You're suddenly reminded of all the sorrow and guilt you've felt ever since that fire took your family from you. You can just manage to keep going, but it's difficult."
so here's the thing, you can just RP your character, but i'd say it's probably a bit harder to RP a character who wants to change, but can't. literally making a will save so they can even perform the action or to keep themselves from performing an action.
like someone extremely afraid of spiders, RPing unable to fight the giant spiders even as the party is losing, is something hard to even enforce on yourself.
these kind of actions i think should also have a cumulative +1 bonus on the roll for every time you'd succeeded at it, up to your character level or some such, to drive home the fact you're facing your fears.
like the honorable swashbuckler sword saint, having to make a will save to not defend them, even if doing so would be extremely disadvantageous, like threatening the parties safety, that to me is interesting to RP. Especially since it makes it so the party members can;t blame you as the player, but only your character, allowing you to RP without regret as well.
idk, this is a complicated issue, but "just RP your character" isn't a good enough justification to rule out enforcing characterization.
Specific penalties like that are something that should probably be worked out between the GM and the player on an individual basis based on the player's desire to have something solid in place, rather than applying a standard ruleset to it (essentially a homebrew drawback). In my example, the Overprotective drawback does have a specific mechanical penalty, but that penalty didn't technically apply in that situation. It was still part of my character, though, and I inferred what he should do partially from that.
Applying a roll to something the GM thinks would be particularly difficult for the character is also something that can be done well, though the GM should have a good grasp of the character first and shouldn't exercise it too often (it could be easily abused or turned tedious).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would depend on the specific topics, and exactly how it is handled.
so here's the thing, you can just RP your character, but i'd say it's probably a bit harder to RP a character who wants to change, but can't. literally making a will save so they can even perform the action or to keep themselves from performing an action.
like someone extremely afraid of spiders, RPing unable to fight the giant spiders even as the party is losing, is something hard to even enforce on yourself.
these kind of actions i think should also have a cumulative +1 bonus on the roll for every time you'd succeeded at it, up to your character level or some such, to drive home the fact you're facing your fears.
like the honorable swashbuckler sword saint, having to make a will save to not defend them, even if doing so would be extremely disadvantageous, like threatening the parties safety, that to me is interesting to RP. Especially since it makes it so the party members can;t blame you as the player, but only your character, allowing you to RP without regret as well.
idk, this is a complicated issue, but "just RP your character" isn't a good enough justification to rule out enforcing characterization.
Specific penalties like that are something that should probably be worked out between the GM and the player on an individual basis based on the player's desire to have something solid in place, rather than applying a standard ruleset to it (essentially a homebrew drawback). In my example, the Overprotective drawback does have a specific mechanical penalty, but that penalty didn't technically apply in that situation. It was still part of my character, though, and I inferred what he should do partially from that.
Applying a roll to something the GM thinks would be particularly difficult for the character is also something that can be done well, though the GM should have a good grasp of the character first and shouldn't exercise it too often (it could be easily abused or turned tedious).
so yeah, pretty much any part of the mechanical game should be clear to the players operating with in them. also, I've only ever suggested this as an optional drawback. not all character should be affected by this, else it may just become cliche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My motives are being questioned, so: I was thinking mostly about White Wolf games where characters often do roll dice on their urges and fears. Although, I suppose in that case everyone is usually playing a particular creature type that has a well known set of problems. The will save is too all-encompassing.
I think if I were to try to run something like this in Pathfinder I'd adopt a similar view - make sure the players were all playing flawed characters with a terrible weakness. Then, when a will save was failed, make the mechanical effect identical to whatever the spell did but ask them to work it into their weakness (somehow!)
I think one would also need to be very careful about which effects one used - it's hard to make the borderline psychopath fall asleep due to his inner craving for violence, for example.
All in all, I suspect you'd end up finding it wasn't worth it, since you could tell the story you want or hit the mood you're looking for better with a WoD game (or any game with a built in 'flawed character' mechanic).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it does. Because doing this means all sorts of possibilities (including, but not limited to): that the PC chooses how they fail their save, they choose how they interpret the orders, they choose how reasonable something is, and/or they choose NPCs' failures as well.
It is definitely not for most groups, because it certainly can remove the feeling of player agency. But it does not inherently remove player agency. Certainly doing this with the wrong group would be nothing but an exercise in frustration.
Even in the right group, you need a whole lot of House Rules to make this sort of thing work IMO. And there are better ways to do it even then. See my above discussion about games that allow manipulation of PCs via carrot/stick mechanics rather than forcing them to on a mechanical level.
Similarly it doesn't mean everyone is inherently an evil person - rather it represents a shift in the understanding of the nature of people. For people like me, the idea that everyone has darkness within them not only isn't an alien concept, it seems reasonable: it just matters whether or not your conscience is in charge, or your darker nature at that time.
I never said it did.
Further, the concept isn't necessarily a failure for a particular sin. It can be re-framed as a failure of will due to desire to give into <effect> rather than desire to give into <command> - a very important distinction.
It can be interpreted as a voluntary surrender to something that feels really good, submitting to something else and surrendering your own desires for those of something else. It's terrifying, but not necessarily inhuman or incomprehensible. It depends on how it's spun and on the player agency and buy-in from the beginning.
The issues with this is that the experience of being mind-controlled isn't hard to get, mind control isn't the only magic that requires a Will Save (Bestow Curse leaps to mind) which damages how much it makes sense, no other Saves work this way (which gets weird thematically), and that you don't gain bonuses to resist spells you'd object to more.
Frankly, look at it this way: Even the world's worst meth addict won't kill their kids for a hit if he already has a steady supply of meth for free...and yet Dominate Person can easily make you do precisely that even if you have someone in the party who can do it to you every time you ask.
This can create new and interesting worlds that haven't been explored prior or that have various rule subsystems kludged on after-the-fact - including addiction to magical compulsion or temptation and redemption, the addictive/seductive nature of magic, and so on.
The thing is you can do that without making failing to Save a failure of character. Just say that mind control feels good and use the existing addiction rules. This might result in a Save penalty vs. mind effecting stuff eventually, but it doesn't make failing a save always and inevitably a failure of character.
Again, and I reiterate: it's most definitely and extremely not a concept for all groups. Probably not even for most groups. That doesn't make those bad groups (nor does it make groups that like it bad). It can make for an interesting role-playing experience, if the group in question is interested in exploring that kind of a world (whatever kind that is).
There are certainly things to be wary of, and there are certainly people with whom this sort of thing should not be done with for all sorts of reasons. But that can be true of pretty much any RP game style. Tailor your game to your audience/table. That's very important no matter who you are or what you've got.
I still disagree. Making all Will Saves failures of character damages player agency for no real gain that can't be done better and likely easier with different less agency damaging mechanics.
|
|
1. it was the aforementioned staring contest.
For ten days?
2. i suppose, but do you keep it every single time? I definitely always wake up in different positions
Eh. Some people sleep in one position pretty much consistently. If you wanna say people can't do that you should tell them before they go to sleep, though. People mostly know how much they toss and turn in their sleep.
3. what reasons are just barely good enough or just barely not good enough.
Uh...failed saves are a good reason. Aside from that I'd probably let them decide that for themselves. Getting hit in the stomach might do so, but it's an entirely meaningless thing mechanically, why not let the player say whether it happens?
4. why do i gain control then?
Because that's how that works in real life? I mean, you can hold your breath until you pass out...and then you start breathing.
I game terms, holding your breath would be a free action, which you can thus no longer take once unconscious.
One thing I might consider for a future games is just asking people to consider their saving throws in the following sense.
When you succeed a will/fortitude/reflex save, what strength of who you are is most likely to have resulted in your success? When you fall a will/fortitude/reflex save which aspect of your identity is most likely to have caused your failure?
It's ultimately just a way to flavor descriptions (you failed to dodge the arrow trap because you're inattentive versus failing to dodge the arrow trap because you're clumsy, say) or motivate roleplaying scenarios (you succeeded on the will save because of your supreme self-confidence or you succeeded on the will save because the obstacle seemed minor compared to all you've already endured).
Eh. Very few character traits properly explain failing at a Save vs. Dominate Person or Bestow Curse. It's an interesting idea, but doesn't work well in the format.
so here's the thing, you can just RP your character, but i'd say it's probably a bit harder to RP a character who wants to change, but can't. literally making a will save so they can even perform the action or to keep themselves from performing an action.
like someone extremely afraid of spiders, RPing unable to fight the giant spiders even as the party is losing, is something hard to even enforce on yourself.
these kind of actions i think should also have a cumulative +1 bonus on the roll for every time you'd succeeded at it, up to your character level or some such, to drive home the fact you're facing your fears.
like the honorable swashbuckler sword saint, having to make a will save to not defend them, even if doing so would be extremely disadvantageous, like threatening the parties safety, that to me is interesting to RP. Especially since it makes it so the party members can;t blame you as the player, but only your character, allowing you to RP without regret as well.
idk, this is a complicated issue, but "just RP your character" isn't a good enough justification to rule out enforcing characterization.
Saves are an awful way to do this, though. There are vastly better methods (some of which can even be added to Pathfinder pretty easily), but rolling randomly? Not a good idea at all and does not lead to consistent characterization.
My motives are being questioned, so: I was thinking mostly about White Wolf games where characters often do roll dice on their urges and fears. Although, I suppose in that case everyone is usually playing a particular creature type that has a well known set of problems. The will save is too all-encompassing.
That's definitely one big problem there, yeah. There's an in-world reason why a vampire, say, has certain almost irresistible urges that are outside their control in-universe as well as by the game rules. Pathfinder characters have no such excuse.
The other big issue with this is that in OWoD you could always auto-succeed by spending Willpower. So if you cared enough you could always resist. And NWoD has way fewer of those situations, and can spend Willpower for large bonuses that almost ensure success when they do happen...again, if you care enough.
There's no equivalent of that in Pathfinder by default, and even Hero Points don't do a very good job of mimicking it.
I don't know how many staring contests you've been in, but strength of will only gets you so far. You should of just had them roll an opposed Fortitude save, and whoever got higher would have won. Easy as that.
you're a bit late to the party dead. I've already cleared up that people inconsistently cite reality or the rules on when you can cannot control PCs. personally, it's about giving player's reasonable narrative power.
for instance a normal person can't control if they're in love or not, but a PC "should" be able to.
beyond that,
now, if you think there's a objective reason that this makes the game worse, provide it, otherwise, stop s%$@ting all over this idea, especially since this is how some other games run it. If you have nothing positive to add, on how to successfully run this for the most fun, for someone who would be interested on having to succeed will saves to keep their character on the straight and narrow, then respectfully, don't comment in this discussion anymore.
So, at this point, i'll just point out my idea earlier. That people may be able to take a choice on what weaknesses they have, and possibly gain maybe an extra starting feat, or a trait or two.
if the OP wants me to, I can provide a fairly large list of weaknesses from my dragon book.
is basically where your sided ended. we're here for the benefit of the OP, give advice and discussion to help them succeed at this.
somethings that i've kinda gone over already
1. clear understood rules
2. specific failures of personlity rather than vague stuff
3. players should be rewarded for taking drawbacks
4. the saves should be around specific actions types (fear of X)(cannot harm innocent people) etc
5. not everyone should have these things, as they'll get cliche and uninteresting fast.
I don't know how many staring contests you've been in, but strength of will only gets you so far. You should of just had them roll an opposed Fortitude save, and whoever got higher would have won. Easy as that.
okay yeah, since people keep asking about this, I had them do will then fortitude saves. These weren't good enough for either of them though.
What specifically went down was, a player was paralyzed, and after they recovered because they were being watched over they decided to not become unparalyzed. because OoC I told them the duration, the watcher decided "he's probably faking it" and since he was a magic user and had a ring of sustenance, watched him 25/7 for 2 weeks or so, until basically the fake paralyzed guy went into negative hit points due to starvation(or maybe i just decided he starved, I don't remember the specifics).
This was on a magical flying ship and there was supposed to be some stuff for them to do.
basically magic man, was curing his fatigue from not sleeping and watched him for the entire trip. non-magic non-paralyzed man decided to not sleep and just get fatigued for like forever to maintain his paralyzed form.
so yeah "not being able to ever control a PCs actions" is maybe a bit to much of a point to drive home.
so yes, they played a staring contest until one of them starved. if they both had rings of sustenance i'm pretty sure the magic guy would have hauled non-magic guy off the boat when the arrived.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you're a bit late to the party dead. I've already cleared up that people inconsistently cite reality or the rules on when you can cannot control PCs. personally, it's about giving player's reasonable narrative power.
for instance a normal person can't control if they're in love or not, but a PC "should" be able to.
Players having narrative power over their own character is one of the key points there, yes.
And, for the record, I've successfully stopped myself from falling in love once, so that's definitely possible.
now, if you think there's a objective reason that this makes the game worse, provide it, otherwise, stop s%$@ting all over this idea, especially since this is how some other games run it.
Uh...I've listed a number of pretty objective examples of how doing this in any blanket fashion makes no sense (and most people care about game worlds making sense), makes the game less fun for many players (also bad), and that there are much better mechanics for doing this (and have cited examples).
If you have nothing positive to add, on how to successfully run this for the most fun, for someone who would be interested on having to succeed will saves to keep their character on the straight and narrow, then respectfully, don't comment in this discussion anymore.
So, at this point, i'll just point out my idea earlier. That people may be able to take a choice on what weaknesses they have, and possibly gain maybe an extra starting feat, or a trait or two.
if the OP wants me to, I can provide a fairly large list of weaknesses from my dragon book.
To reiterate: From my first post on (and including my most recent ones) I've said that if you want something like this there are many good ways to do it. Just not the one suggested.
For a concrete example of this (basically stolen from FATE, which I've been citing as an example since my first post) use Hero Points, and give players Flaws, and when they come up (something the GM should note when it happens), the player can spend a Hero Point to ignore them or gain a Hero Point by giving in to them.
is basically where your sided ended. we're here for the benefit of the OP, give advice and discussion to help them succeed at this.
Not actually a response to anything I said.
somethings that i've kinda gone over already
1. clear understood rules
2. specific failures of personlity rather than vague stuff
3. players should be rewarded for taking drawbacks
4. the saves should be around specific actions types (fear of X)(cannot harm innocent people) etc
5. not everyone should have these things, as they'll get cliche and uninteresting fast.
Having them based on random dice rolls rather than player choices based on mechanical incentives is still an extremely suboptimal way of doing this. It means that players will either succumb to temptation or not in en entirely random fashion rather than when it actually makes sense and is appropriate.
If the player basically has to succumb some time, but can decide when, you get a much more logical pattern of behavior.
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
>Go to great lengths to defend the party, consider them friends.
>Fail dominate person save. "Kill the party!">Fail out of character save
>Looks like I really wanted to kill them all along!
You can see how this doesn't really work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...I've listed a number of pretty objective examples of how doing this in any blanket fashion makes no sense (and most people care about game worlds making sense), makes the game less fun for many players (also bad), and that there are much better mechanics for doing this (and have cited examples).
this is the only part i cared to respond to.
well, that means it isn't objective doesn't it. I mean objectively, if it's based on view point, it's subjective.
hint hint, I like this system, as a player that did it. did fail will save to not grab idol, did set off trap, 10/10 would have crippling curiosity again.
For the record, this was being made last night when these posts were new.
I went to sleep and posted them this morning. I have not had time to keep up with conversation.
Sorry!
My contention is that the reading of the OP is that your character "chooses... the worse option" by choosing to succumb to the magic not the specific command. But I definitely recognize that's an uncommon reading of the OP.
Is that not the purpose that choosing to fail a save serves? Why is it up to the dice & the gm? I mean, "choosing to succumb to the magic" reads almost exactly as "choosing to fail the relevant save." Except in this case the dice & gm are trying to exert more control than is theirs to assert.
No, actually. Not making the save by voluntarily failing is fundamentally different altogether.
Consider it like this (): you know when you make a post in a contentious topic on which you feel strongly, you can make a post in two different methods. You can do so in an angry way, or attempt to do so in a reasoned one. There are multiple ways to get to the angry post.
- Method 1: You know better. You don't care. You make an angry post.
- Method 2: You try to avoid it. You have the best intentions. You start out sounding reasoned. It... devolves. After all, how dare someone have a differing opinion?
(There are probably more methods but 1 and 2 are sufficient.)
Number 1 is analogous of voluntarily failing a save - of hand-waiving it, and going down without a fight. You know better, but you don't care, you don't fight it, you just let the anger flow through you and control what you write against your better nature.
Number 2 is analogous to failing a save without trying. You know better, and you sought to avoid something, but a good self-righteous "I'm better." feels so good on the internet, it's hard to avoid telling someone else that they're stupid and should feel stupid. I mean, it's pretty self-evident that you are the correct one in a given conversation and anyone that disagrees with you must be either mentally or educationally deficient (but probably better to imply both, while also, hopefully, pointing out the absurdities of someone else's idea without engaging it on its own merits), so your post reflects that... but in an angry, unpleasant way, despite your initial intent.
In other words, either way: it's your own decision, your own moral failing, your own actions and base nature that's voluntarily giving into the <effect> (in this example's case <rage post>; in the other case, <magic effect>), because it feels so daggum good to do so.
Expanding on what Bloordrealm said, if this is applied to all will saves, characters have competing urges. If applied arbitrarily, the GM is controlling who the character is. The GM controls every NPC and monster in the world. They hardly need to dictate the personality of yet another (and if they do, make another NPC).
Although it makes sense that this would seem to be the case, this actually isn't true. A GM can always tell a player, "You've been charmed." and let the PC take it from there under this paradigm. It is entirely dependent on the table, the players, and what they find acceptable and fun. And tables gonna vary, you know?
Sounds like tomato tamahto to me. Choosing to succumb to a hostile spell cast by an enemy, even not knowing what it will make you do at best makes you a dimwit, and at worst is actively working against your supposed allies.
... eeeeehhhhhhh. Again, no, not necessarily. Being ignorant does not necessarily make you a dimwit.
You're conflating two things. "I don't know what it does, so it must be okay." with, "This feels so incredible that I don't want to stop, no matter the potential dangers."
The former is kind of stupid, but something that people still do.
The latter is something that many teenagers (and quite a few adults) do all the daggum time.
If it actually is, as the OP says, "succumbing to temptation", then that's something specific. You can't be tempted by nothing. If the spell is going to make you a murderous cannibal and you go "Boy howdy that sure does sound tempting" we're back to my original assertion: You're amoral.
Otherwise, what is the temptation? Succumbing to "the magic not the specific command" doesn't make any sense to me without fundamentally changing how magic works in the setting. Because magic is always a specific command, that's how spells work here.
Sure. I'm pretty sure that, in general, the OP's proposition wasn't made with the base setting not being changed (considering she asked what would be changed). Even I noted that magic would change - and it's my supposition! XD
Maybe the OP didn't think of specific and only thought in general terms, but this is the scope of the question they asked.
Sure. Hence the questions, I'd say. :)
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
>Go to great lengths to defend the party, consider them friends.
>Fail dominate person save. "Kill the party!"
>Fail out of character save
>Looks like I really wanted to kill them all along!You can see how this doesn't really work.
their dependence on him was a burden, it was great, it exploited this. even if he thought the burden was worth it, all you have to do is twist the logic around until it no longer is.
|
|
this is the only part i cared to respond to.
well, that means it isn't objective doesn't it. I mean objectively, if it's based on view point, it's subjective.
hint hint, I like this system, as a player that did it. did fail will save to not grab idol, did set off trap, 10/10 would have crippling curiosity again.
This sort of ignores the fact that my other two points are more objective than that one. Especially the latter.
My point has always (aside from noting that making it all Will Saves made no sense and was otherwise unpleasant) been that there are vastly better ways to do this kind of thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
>Go to great lengths to defend the party, consider them friends.
>Fail dominate person save. "Kill the party!"
>Fail out of character save
>Looks like I really wanted to kill them all along!You can see how this doesn't really work.
I was thinking of something more like when the witch in the novel: The Silver Chair tries to convince the children that there is no such thing as the sun.
"What is this sun that you all speak of? Do you mean anything by the word?"
"Yes, we jolly well do," said Scrubb.
"Can you tell me what it's like?" asked the Witch (thrum, thrum, thrum, went the strings).
"Please it your Grace," said the Prince, very coldly and politely. "You see that lamp. It is round and yellow and gives light to the whole room; and hangeth moreover from the roof. Now that thing which we call the sun is like the lamp, only far greater and brighter. It giveth light to the whole Overworld and hangeth in the sky."
"Hangeth from what, my lord?" asked the Witch; and then, while they were all still thinking how to answer her, she added, with another of her soft, silver laughs: "You see? When you try to think out clearly what this sun must be, you cannot tell me. You can only tell me it is like the lamp. Your sun is a dream; and there is nothing in that dream that was not copied from the lamp. The lamp is the real thing; the sun is but a tale, a children's story."
"Yes, I see now," said Jill in a heavy, hopeless tone. "It must be so." And while she said this, it seemed to her to be very good sense.
Slowly and gravely the Witch repeated, "There is no sun." And they all said nothing. She repeated, in a softer and deeper voice. "There is no sun."
After a pause, and after a struggle in their minds, all four of them said together. "You are right. There is no sun." It was such a relief to give in and say it.
"There never was a sun," said the Witch.
"No. There never was a sun," said the Prince.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
I don't think it does. Because doing this means all sorts of possibilities (including, but not limited to): that the PC chooses how they fail their save, they choose how they interpret the orders, they choose how reasonable something is, and/or they choose NPCs' failures as well.
It is definitely not for most groups, because it certainly can remove the feeling of player agency. But it does not inherently remove player agency. Certainly doing this with the wrong group would be nothing but an exercise in frustration.
Even in the right group, you need a whole lot of House Rules to make this sort of thing work IMO. And there are better ways to do it even then. See my above discussion about games that allow manipulation of PCs via carrot/stick mechanics rather than forcing them to on a mechanical level.
That's fair, but I do see it as a possible thing for some groups. Hence why I suggested not for everyone and probably not for most. :)
Similarly it doesn't mean everyone is inherently an evil person - rather it represents a shift in the understanding of the nature of people. For people like me, the idea that everyone has darkness within them not only isn't an alien concept, it seems reasonable: it just matters whether or not your conscience is in charge, or your darker nature at that time.
I never said it did.
No, but many others did. I was not responding to you with this part, but I can see how it seemed like I was. My apologies!
Further, the concept isn't necessarily a failure for a particular sin. It can be re-framed as a failure of will due to desire to give into <effect> rather than desire to give into <command> - a very important distinction.
It can be interpreted as a voluntary surrender to something that feels really good, submitting to something else and surrendering your own desires for those of something else. It's terrifying, but not necessarily inhuman or incomprehensible. It depends on how it's spun and on the player agency and buy-in from the beginning.
The issues with this is that the experience of being mind-controlled isn't hard to get, mind control isn't the only magic that requires a Will Save (Bestow Curse leaps to mind) which damages how much it makes sense, no other Saves work this way (which gets weird thematically), and that you don't gain bonuses to resist spells you'd object to more.
Frankly, look at it this way: Even the world's worst meth addict won't kill their kids for a hit if he already has a steady supply of meth for free...and yet Dominate Person can easily make you do precisely that even if you have someone in the party who can do it to you every time you ask.
Yes and no. Again, you're (very reasonably) stopping at a given point and not looking beyond it.
The idea is that the magic itself always feels good and is always tempting in the moment. It's an emotional battle, not a logical one, and it's a question of temptation of moral ability.
But as I noted in my post above, failing a will save - voluntarily succumbing to something - isn't the same as willfully choosing to fail the save in the first place. You were tempted, struggled, but succumbed. In that instance with that sort of a thing? Magic probably becomes horrifying and hard to understand to most people really, really fast.
Also, it really depends on what you mean by "the world's worst" - and that falls under reasonable or unreasonable commands. I'm sure that almost everyone that succumbs tells themselves, "Oh, but if it's unreasonable, I can stop any time I want..."
The thing is you can do that without making failing to Save a failure of character. Just say that mind control feels good and use the existing addiction rules. This might result in a Save penalty vs. mind effecting stuff eventually, but it doesn't make failing a save always and inevitably a failure of character.
EDIT:
This is also a really cool thing, but not what I was talking about. I'm not referring to addiction, I'm referring to temptation and seduction.
It's like someone using a bluff check to convince your character they're not really his enemy - if that check succeeds, how do you play your character?
"Screw you, I know the truth, I run him through?"
Or do you you accept that your character believes the other, and, so long as the other guy acts in a manner consistent with an ally, so does yours (barring alignments that encourage the stabbing your friends thing)?
What about when one PC steals from another? Or perhaps one PC stealthily puts money into another's pocket? Or one PC steals from another, a third PC takes from the thief and restores it to the first one while he's still asleep? How should guy number one respond?
Should the entire table just throw up their hands and play a different game, perhaps go to group therapy? Is it a toxic environment?
I think not. I think that table doesn't sound like the typical kinds of fun, but I think it has a ton of interesting RP potential, and it really depends on the group in question as to whether or not they like that and whether or not they'll have fun that way.
As I noted about this, however, such PvP play should definitely come with warnings and shouldn't be considered the default - many groups will not like it, and for good reason.
I still disagree. Making all Will Saves failures of character damages player agency for no real gain that can't be done better and likely easier with different less agency damaging mechanics.
Never argued differently (that other ideas could do something similarly better). But this one does have possibilities that were ignored in its very hasty early strong and hostile rejection, which was my only point.
With that, having caught up to the thread, it looks like we're going round robin. So, for now, I think I'll bow out. Most everything that could be said has been. I recognize in heated debates like these arguments rarely change minds, no matter how one attempts to reason with others - emotions run high and strong; it's how we roll. "That one argument" is likely never to materialize for anyone, but hopefully at least some merit to the idea has been seen by some.
Thanks for the nifty conversation and concept! I might recycle some vague element of this for something else, later, though it probably won't be exactly this.
(For the record, I've actually proposed a similar concept in the past as a method of explaining the, "You failed a Will save, and now must Atone." statement with the caveat at the time that I wasn't really sold on it then, either, but as a possible alternate reason as to why Atonement might be necessary. I've distanced myself from that view since - and wasn't terribly solid on it, even when it came up -, but I figured I should mention it here, now.)
EDIT:
The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
Okay, very quickly, because this was ninja'd and a point I'd come up with a response before prior, and forgotten to address: no one says that just because you had a moral failure, you don't regret that failure or desire to avoid it again in the future.
If I've made a bad post, I don't seek to go out and do it again. Rather, I try to learn from it. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It varies. But that moral failure happens during the moment. Regret happens afterwords.
The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
I don't recall saying the magic has to last forever (or the opening post claiming that either for that matter). My example shows how magical charms often work in popular fiction. Magic that is beguiling, subtle, charming, enchanting, seductive is more interesting than magic that simply overcomes your mental defences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't recall saying the magic has to last forever (or the opening post claiming that either for that matter). My example shows how magical charms often work in popular fiction. Magic that is beguiling, subtle, charming, enchanting, seductive is more interesting than magic that simply overcomes your mental defences.The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
Magic in popular fiction is usually portrayed as warping the mind of the victim. It doesn't tempt the victim into becoming a thrall. It outright alters the mental faculties of the victim in order to facilitate their "cooperation"...but it doesn't do so in a manner *guaranteed* to work. The imperfection of the mind bending gives the victim a chance to break free of their own accord, if their mind stumbles upon the cracks in the mind control through luck, training, mental discipline or sheer raw determination.
Note that at no point does the victim decide of their own free will to cooperate. By the time they decide to obey of their "own" accord, their will is very much not free. It is putty in the hands of the person controlling their thoughts.
That is the big issue with this whole line of thought. People are taking a scenario where a hero fails to have the *enormous* amount of willpower necessary to reliably resist the manipulations of a skilled mental controller, and they are implicitly turning the scenario into the hero having pre-existing crippling personality flaws that the mental controller exploits for their own ends. These two things are worlds apart. In one, the hero isn't perfect. Yeah, that's ok. In the other, the hero is seriously &*%$ed up, because a random person asked them to murder their best friends and they cooperated because it felt good...that is not OK. It's stupid, and it is implicitly forcing players to roleplay severely defective human(oid) beings instead of the heroes that they came to the table with.
I don't recall saying the magic has to last forever (or the opening post claiming that either for that matter). My example shows how magical charms often work in popular fiction.The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
I don't believe that your example supports your point, however.
You're seriously suggesting that Jill and Eustace, ordinary English children, really secretly believe that "There is no sun"? (Well, they're English, so I suppose that this might be on the edge of probability -- but no Spanish child would believe that for an instant.) This isn't them giving in to something they have always secretly longed for. This is magical compulsion, pure and simple, and they're not strong-willed enough to resist the compulsion. The same magical compulsion would make Jill believe that her name is really Robert Terwilliger and that's she/he is actually a mallard duck.... and again, these aren't secret desires she's been harboring in her heart.
I don't recall saying the magic has to last forever (or the opening post claiming that either for that matter). My example shows how magical charms often work in popular fiction.The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
I don't believe that your example supports your point, however.
You're seriously suggesting that Jill and Eustace, ordinary English children, really secretly believe that "There is no sun"? (Well, they're English, so I suppose that this might be on the edge of probability -- but no Spanish child would believe that for an instant.) This isn't them giving in to something they have always secretly longed for. This is magical compulsion, pure and simple, and they're not strong-willed enough to resist the compulsion. The same magical compulsion would make Jill believe that her name is really Robert Terwilliger and that's she/he is actually a mallard duck.... and again, these aren't secret desires she's been harboring in her heart.
This is a really good example. The kids didn't almost succumb to magic because they wanted to believe something or because believing felt good. They almost succumbed to magic because they had amazingly good feelings installed in them, and all of their feelings and memories of the surface systematically suppressed as they thought of them...almost. But not *quite* all of them. Just barely not enough to get them under the Big Bad Evil Girl(?)'s thumb for good.
The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
I don't recall saying the magic has to last forever (or the opening post claiming that either for that matter). My example shows how magical charms often work in popular fiction. Magic that is beguiling, subtle, charming, enchanting, seductive is more interesting than magic that simply overcomes your mental defences.
But that seems to be how the magic currently works: Breach mental defenses, force target to believe/act in a certain way. It has nothing to do with preexisting character flaws.
No one said the breach has to be obvious at the time.
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
I would argue that the current implementation already represents this. Your Will save is your ability to resist external influence. You are who you are; external influences including influential speakers and beguiling enchanters represent attempts to make you act against "who you are". Your will save represents how successful you are in remembering "who you are", shaking off the external influence, and acting according to your own desires. Failing a will save represents succumbing to that external factor and acting accordingly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the current implementation already represents this. Your Will save is your ability to resist external influence. You are who you are; external influences including influential speakers and beguiling enchanters represent attempts to make you act against "who you are". Your will save represents how successful you are in remembering "who you are", shaking off the external influence, and acting according to your own desires. Failing a will save represents succumbing to that external factor and acting accordingly.Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
I think you are misunderstanding Umbral Reaver's idea. The idea, as near as I can tell, is that failing a will save is not succumbing to an external factor, but succumbing to an internal character flaw that you've had all along. ("Why, yes, I've always wanted to kill my entire party at the behest of an evil sorcerer, of course I'll play along!") Magic, then, is not making you act against "who you are," but revealing more truly that you have been, all along, a schizophrenic, dissociative, sociopath. And you were just really good at hiding it, even from yourself, at Paladin Academy.
I think you are misunderstanding Umbral Reaver's idea. The idea, as near as I can tell, is that failing a will save is not succumbing to an external factor, but succumbing to an internal character flaw that you've had all along. ("Why, yes, I've always wanted to kill my entire party at the behest of an evil sorcerer, of course I'll play along!") Magic, then, is not making you act against "who you are," but revealing more truly that you have been, all along, a schizophrenic, dissociative, sociopath. And you were just really good at hiding it, even from yourself, at Paladin Academy.I would argue that the current implementation already represents this. Your Will save is your ability to resist external influence. You are who you are; external influences including influential speakers and beguiling enchanters represent attempts to make you act against "who you are". Your will save represents how successful you are in remembering "who you are", shaking off the external influence, and acting according to your own desires. Failing a will save represents succumbing to that external factor and acting accordingly.Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
This is also my understanding.
I also have to chuckle at the statistics of the whole thing. Not only is everyone implicitly a mentally disturbed piece of work, but a skilled enchanter can bring out their inner monster very reliably. Mid level Kitsune Enchanters are apparently masters of "detecting" Antisocial Personality Disorder, because they can induce its symptoms in virtually the entire population 19 out of 20 times with a wave of the hand. Give them a minute of time to do a few castings, and they will bring out the subject's inner demons virtually guarenteed, unless the subject is a very high level paladin or something similar that has immunity to mind-affecting or charms and compulsions.
That is, the GM does not have grounds to say that a character with the panicked condition wets their pants, denounces their god, or attacks their friends in a wild attempt to escape.
One could make the argument that wetting one's pants as the result of a failed save would be allowed. It is mostly flavorful in description, with no real in game consequences and fits the bodily reaction to severe shock and terror.
Full disclosure, this has happened in a campaign I ran. The PC in question was cowering in two overlapping fear auras, with a natural 1 on one of the saves. There was general agreement at the table that it was fair description of how someone would be emotionally overwhelmed.
I also have to chuckle at the statistics of the whole thing. Not only is everyone implicitly a mentally disturbed piece of work, but a skilled enchanter can bring out their inner monster very reliably. Mid level Kitsune Enchanters are apparently masters of "detecting" Antisocial Personality Disorder, because they can induce its symptoms in virtually the entire population 19 out of 20 times with a wave of the hand.
Not just Antisocial Personality Disorder, but any disorder they choose. In other words, everyone is not only implicitly mentally ill, but everyone has literally every disorder in the book, presenting in every possible way.
Open your copy of the DSM to a random page, choose your suggestion properly, and it will become apparent that anyone you like has been long been suffering from that disorder in secrecy.
...
Not just Antisocial Personality Disorder, but any disorder they choose. In other words, everyone is not only implicitly mentally ill, but everyone has literally every disorder in the book, presenting in every possible way.
Open your copy of the DSM to a random page, choose your suggestion properly, and it will become apparent that anyone you like has been long been suffering from that disorder in secrecy.
So...abracadabra, you now have had Bipolar and ADHD for your entire life?
My, isn't our heroic fantasy so heroic. Wizards magically conjure demons, and bards retroactively conjure mental illness. They are like time traveling psychological plague-bringers (&*%$ing Bards...EDIT:although that actually sounds pretty metal, now that I think about it). Sounds like a game I would want to stay far away from for my own sanity totally play.
as mentioned earlier, how do I determine who wins a stare contest. It literally went on for weeks in-game.Cool. There's crazier and even more petty s$&& in myths already. Let the players hash it out between themselves. Sounds stupid to me, but if they're having fun, whatever.
Keep playing with the other players while they have their pissing contest. They probably would have missed a lot of EXP and treasure if they'd opted out of an adventure to do that.
If it was during downtime...what's the issue?
it wasn't during downtime, and me and the other player's were not having fun. they stayed out of an encounter because of it. it ultimately led to me having to skip some portions i had set up so that that one of them finally starved.
to be clear, this wasn't actually a staring, contest, much much worse, it was a strange mental fight between the 2 due to OOC knowledge.
if you'd like me to go into detail I can but I'd rather not. it was rather disruptive and this kind of talk was the reasoning behind me not being able to just declare a victor, it was literally about who was willing to waste more real life time after a point.
Which is why I said don't let them waste time. Tell them to go sit in the corner while everyone else plays. Narrative agency is the freedom to choose what you want to do. If they want to sit in a corner and stare at each other for a whole session, they have made that choice. You don't need to make it fun for them.
And if the players are being pricks, that's where your GM power to simply remove them from the game comes in. Why even bother trying to deal with a&+@&+!s by using game rules?
for instance a normal person can't control if they're in love or not, but a PC "should" be able to.
Here's a specific point of confusion for you. We are not talking about how much control a PC has over themselves.
We are talking about how much a PLAYER has control over their CHARACTER.
The character is not in control of whether they fall in love or not. The character does not exist. It is a made up thing.
The player is what controls it. The player determines whether the character falls in love or not.
Uh...I've listed a number of pretty objective examples of how doing this in any blanket fashion makes no sense (and most people care about game worlds making sense), makes the game less fun for many players (also bad), and that there are much better mechanics for doing this (and have cited examples).
this is the only part i cared to respond to.
well, that means it isn't objective doesn't it. I mean objectively, if it's based on view point, it's subjective.
hint hint, I like this system, as a player that did it. did fail will save to not grab idol, did set off trap, 10/10 would have crippling curiosity again.
You're asking for an objective answer to an inherently subjective question. Do not use that to automatically flip this around and turn it into a good idea.
... eeeeehhhhhhh. Again, no, not necessarily. Being ignorant does not necessarily make you a dimwit.
You're conflating two things. "I don't know what it does, so it must be okay." with, "This feels so incredible that I don't want to stop, no matter the potential dangers."
The former is kind of stupid, but something that people still do.
The latter is something that many teenagers (and quite a few adults) do all the daggum time.
Why does it feel incredible? HOW does it feel incredible? And regardless, you'd have to be pretty far off the deep end for something like that to work in a combat situation. If you're in the middle of a sword fight and someone starts metaphorically fondling your privates, you're not going to go "Oh yeah, that feels good, do it some more!" you're going to go "Holy crap now I feel violated."
The guy that DOES have the first reaction is usually the one in fiction that IS the dimwitted sex fiend.
The closest to this I can think of is a series called Everworld, where the main character is basically mind raped by a woman into basically becoming addicted to sex with her. And even then he fought the magic where possible, retained his own autonomy in HOW he carried out her orders, and struggled through the withdrawal symptoms with a burning hatred when he was finally free. He ended up fighting through a final sex whammy to stab her in the stomach, as I recall, near the end of the series.
The argument could be made maybe for out of combat, but even then when you suddenly start feeling your metaphorical balls being fondled by an unseen assailant you're still probably going to go "Yeah, not okay with this" just the same as you would if some random person came up to you on a bus and started doing it.
And none of that is possible with the current system, and is exactly contrary to how a lot of these spells work. You have to change A LOT to make it work how you're suggesting, enough so that we're not really discussing the same thing right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
The closest to this I can think of is a series called Everworld, where the main character is basically mind raped by a woman into basically becoming addicted to sex with her. And even then he fought the magic where possible, retained his own autonomy in HOW he carried out her orders, and struggled through the withdrawal symptoms with a burning hatred when he was finally free. He ended up fighting through a final sex whammy to stab her in the stomach, as I recall, near the end of the series.
...
Just to hammer the point, I am going to take a guess and say that no (reasonable) character said or implied that the main character, who has basically been doped up with magi-rape to make him severely dependent on it, was primarily at fault for succumbing to the magic because of "personality flaws"...I'm just saying.
...
Well, this thread has been a whirlwind. Starting on overriding player agency, and moving into the territory of Mental Illness, Rape and Victim Blaming. I bet you all miss alignment threads now.
Another problem with the 'seduction of magic' angle is that a lot, and I mean A LOT, of spells specifically make you feel TERRIBLE.
I think there's an element of a good idea here, but very poorly phrased.
Now before you all light me on fire, allow me to explain.
First, this shouldn't apply to every Will save. Especially against stuff like Sleep and Paralyzation effects. Those don't really have a way to feed off inner weaknesses. You always had an urge to sleep in the middle of a fight? Yeah, no, toss that out. Similarly to spells that would just be too hard to justifly, like that one that makes you want to eat people.
I see this as attempting to add flavour to a failed will save, beyond 'You feel compelled to attack your friends.' Like any attempts to add flavour, it shouldn't be done constantly. (Which is why they don't recommend every spell and every sword swing be accompanied with a paragraph of purple prose.) Use it for crucial moments.
And, of course, it should be something the player is encouraged to add, not dictated by the GM.
So, for instance, let's take the righteous, honourable, Perry the Paladin, who rolled a 1 against a mind complusion effect and is made to attack his allies. The player decides to get flavourful. Rather than just saying 'My eyes glaze over and I swing at Waldo the Wizard,' he might play it as...
"For so long have I carried the burden of keeping my party alive and uncorrupted by darkness. I have struggled hard to show them the path of righteousness while still leaving them to be their own person. And yet they mock me. They consider me the burden, they say I 'cramp their style.' They only like me for my strength, and hate me as a person. Clearly, they have no interest in redemption. Are they not as bad as the demons I fight? They feed off me like a parasite..."
Now, this isn't actually what the Paladin really thinks. But in the heat of combat, compelled by a spell, the slight annoyance at being unliked on rare occasions when the Paladin's code interferes with what the party wants to do ends up blowing up into hating your supposed friends for mooching off you and treating you like dumb muscle than a loyal comrade.
The spell doesn't expose the flaw of "I always wanted to kill my friends," but it finds the slight flaw and problem "My allies seem to treat me as an annoyance," and inflates that slight annoyance to unreasonable proportions.
Like I said, not every (Or even most) Will Save(s), and not dictated by the GM. But it is a way one could add flavour to dramatic moments.
Another problem with the 'seduction of magic' angle is that a lot, and I mean A LOT, of spells specifically make you feel TERRIBLE.
Yep, for every Euphoric Tranquility there is a Cause Fear, Feeblemind, Crushing Despair and Phantasmal Killer
the fact that the side saying it's not a good idea, focus solely on character traits is the point, what if they're not character traits? what if they're simply human traits?
this all falls apart when you don't focus on someone say getting a will save to skim from the register, and it moves onto a will save to win a staring contest.
can I for the maximum greyest area possible, force a will save or fall in genuine love at first sight? I mean, it's usually argued that you don't get to choose to fall in love. Yet, i willing to bet that this is a no-no to most people.
"Falling in love" is NOT a universally human trait in the same way the blink reflex is. Asexual people are a thing that exists. You're saying players should not be allowed to play them?
What's more, the characteristics that cause someone to fall in love are even less generically human. If the GM is allowed to just decide based on a Will save that you fell for someone, you might end up falling head over heels for the tall, busty tavern maid when you personally see your character concept as being attracted to short, shy, intellectual men, and that tall, busty tavern maids don't tempt him in the slightest. Or vice versa.
In other words, no, I don't consider it a "gray area" in the slightest.
I'm saying if an asexual person falls in love, they can't choose not to, sure they can ignore it, but falling in love at first sight is particularly a chemical response. It's been measured, and lasts about 2 years.
if you want to get into unusual sexual attractions i'm Bi, so explaining this kind of stuff isn't going to prove your point.
i'm not going go down a rabbit hole that is the complexity of sexual preferences, but my understanding is that asexual individuals simply don't feel sexually attracted to people, it's not impossible for them to fall in love.
on a side note, what if this was secret magic at play? am I required to spoil that the shy intellectual guy is actually a witch and trying to disrupt the party? or can I simply roll the will save and then tell them they've fallen in love?
The player is what controls it. The player determines whether the character falls in love or not.
which I have to respond with why? the point is, there isn't a reasonable objective answer, just "that's how it's supposed to be".
this is my counter to most of what you said, it's subjective, it's not a bad idea, it's not a good idea, if it's no your idea, just leave.
I like this idea, i've played under this idea. It was fun, funner than just RPing i had a specific personality flaw.
Why does it feel incredible? HOW does it feel incredible? And regardless, you'd have to be pretty far off the deep end for something like that to work in a combat situation. If you're in the middle of a sword fight and someone starts metaphorically fondling your privates, you're not going to go "Oh yeah, that feels good, do it some more!" you're going to go "Holy crap now I feel violated."
and the thing is, you'll feel good for being violated, it'll be impossible for you to feel negative thoughts about the guy as they'll be replaced with undefined pleasure, just a straight kick of endorphins. that's my understanding of this particular tangent.
this really isn't about them wanting to kill your friends secretly. This is about maximizing every annoyance they've ever been to you and crushing every good thing they ever did. when they say they're your friend, you won't remember that.
Consider this:
What happens to the narrative if you describe failed will saves not as breached mental defenses, but as a failure of character, a submission to temptation or flaws? That the character chooses, of their own will (as determined by the roll of the die), to take the worse option?
In this case, the will save represents not just a psychic wall against effects, but strength of character. What kind of game would arise from this idea?
A game where player agency becomes less of a thing than the standard assumption.
This works for Dying Earth, but that's only because of the very structure and setting of the game.
The player is what controls it. The player determines whether the character falls in love or not.which I have to respond with why? the point is, there isn't a reasonable objective answer, just "that's how it's supposed to be".
this is my counter to most of what you said, it's subjective, it's not a bad idea, it's not a good idea, if it's no your idea, just leave.
I like this idea, i've played under this idea. It was fun, funner than just RPing i had a specific personality flaw.
It's subjective? Really? I had no idea.
Saying "lol but subjective dough" is not a counter. It is stating a fact as obvious as "The sun is round". Stop saying that as if it matters at all to this discussion.
The player is what controls it. The player determines whether the character falls in love or not.which I have to respond with why? the point is, there isn't a reasonable objective answer, just "that's how it's supposed to be".
this is my counter to most of what you said, it's subjective, it's not a bad idea, it's not a good idea, if it's no your idea, just leave.
I like this idea, i've played under this idea. It was fun, funner than just RPing i had a specific personality flaw.
It's subjective? Really? I had no idea.
Saying "lol but subjective dough" is not a counter. It is stating a fact as obvious as "The sun is round". Stop saying that as if it matters at all to this discussion.
if it's that obvious, good, then ask yourself "why is my commentary needed?" and "who benefits from my commentary?". If they're not for the benefit of the OP, then you're simply being disruptive because you feel this is wrong or something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of game would arise from this idea?
This is the discussion.
Instead, what kind of game does it produce if we assume GM and players are all okay with using this?
This is also the discussion.
Do I really need to explain to you how forums work? Here's a hint: Positive feedback and agreeing with everything about the premise of the discussion is NOT how they work.
Who benefits from my commentary? Anyone who is considering an idea like this. Because either they agree with my commentary, and don't do it, or disagree with my commentary and do it anyway. Either way, they are going into teh scenario informed about other opinions.
Now, how do they benefit from YOURS? What have you added to this discussion, exactly? Besides telling people to stop talking. Which is the exact opposite of benefiting whoever is reading this.
If you have some coherent reason WHY you like the idea, please share it. All you have said so far is "I have used it and liked it" and took a squat in the middle of this thread by asking random questions that only seem to apply to your own specific group of people you play with.
Post, don't post, I don't give a shit. Just stop pretending you're the thread police by telling people when they're allowed to post and what they can say when they do it.
I don't recall saying the magic has to last forever (or the opening post claiming that either for that matter). My example shows how magical charms often work in popular fiction.The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
I don't believe that your example supports your point, however.
You're seriously suggesting that Jill and Eustace, ordinary English children, really secretly believe that "There is no sun"? (Well, they're English, so I suppose that this might be on the edge of probability -- but no Spanish child would believe that for an instant.) This isn't them giving in to something they have always secretly longed for. This is magical compulsion, pure and simple, and they're not strong-willed enough to resist the compulsion. The same magical compulsion would make Jill believe that her name is really Robert Terwilliger and that's she/he is actually a mallard duck.... and again, these aren't secret desires she's been harboring in her heart.
Jill knew what the truth was. Her flaw was that she would rather accept an easy lie than a difficult to explain truth. This flaw was what let the witch influence her and made her agree that the sun did not exist. The witch cannot simply dominate Jill with a spell and control her like a puppet. Jill had to be convinced. Jill had to give in. The magic helps but at some level Jill has to agree, she can't be forced against her will.
I prefer magic that is more subtle, individual and intricate like that, it literally bursts with RP material.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jill knew what the truth was. Her flaw was that she would rather accept an easy lie than a difficult to explain truth. This flaw was what let the witch influence her and made her agree that the sun did not exist. The witch cannot simply dominate Jill with a spell and control her like a puppet. Jill had to be convinced. Jill had to give in. The magic helps but at some level Jill has to agree, she can't be forced against her will.
I prefer magic that is more subtle, individual and intricate like that, it literally bursts with RP material.
While subtle magic like that is really cool, and yes I agree full of RP material, Pathfinder magic is not built that way. Magic in DnD/PF is the overt "control her like a puppet" kind, and it's pretty baked into the system. You don't commune with the fire spirit of a nearby candle and bargain with it to produce a fireball; you yell loudly and flail your arms about and s#*! explodes.
The other side of that is, like the typical less-than-lethal fireball, the effects of your failed will saves are also short-term. Sure, you may betray your friends this time, but it isn't a permanent personality drift towards being a traitor. The type of magic that DnD/PF has used is a more "concentrated" kind, where effects are stronger but short-lived in all but the most extreme cases. Overall I think it makes the game feel more "action" instead of "drama".
Can this be changed? Definitely, it's just that you'd probably be better off using a different system that encouraged that type of magic to start with, and there is no shortage of them. Usually the benefit of homebrewing for PF players is system familiarity and published adventure availability, but in this case those are both lost due to the drastic changes that need to happen across the system.