Why no mind control?

[Bailywolf]

I'm curious why sorcerer includes no mind control or mind reading type powers in the basic set of demon abilities...  These would seem to offer some intresting new complications... and horrors.

For example, a sorcerer has to take his demon's word for it when the demon claims to be relaying the thoughts of a subject... do you trust your demon?  Is it well fed?

And imagine the personal horror if an agressively helpful demon (the sort who rips into bank vaults the second you mention being short on rent this month) decides to 'help' your social life...

I figure some basic controls need to be in place... you can't read a demon's mind, demons can't compell their masters etc.

Has anyone else chewed this idea any?  And Ron, what were the design considerations which went into limiting these aspects in your defualt Sorcerer mix?

[Ron Edwards]

Bailywolf,

Bluntly, I hate mind control. It strikes me as a lazy writer's inability to construct a decent conflict that relies at least in part on protagonist decisions.

I hate it in Wild Cards, I hate it in The X-Men, I hate it in The Dark is Rising, and I hate it anywhere else. It ruins a story for me; the only conflict becomes "Oh, I did this, but I wasn't responsible, but no one will believe me." The longer the story, the more it relies on hitting the "repeat" button for this one, rather boring conflict.

I only like it when it's demonstrably ineffective - the hero may ignore the mind control if he or she "really means it." Of course, this is not, then, mind control - just a reaction to another person's influence, which IS interesting.

Imagine the difference between Heracles' berserk rages as found in the myth [his own, personal problem] and as might be found as a result of RPG-type mind-control [Hera "makes him" rampage about]. Imagine the difference between Gunnar's desire to preserve peace in his community [a legitimate personal desire, in contrast with his equally legitimate rage at swallowing insults], and as might be found as a result of RPG-type mind-control [someone simply "makes" him put up with the insults].

In both cases, I argue that the former is a meaningful, engaging plot/character element, and that the latter is uninteresting crap.

One last point. In literature, myth, and other media, mind control shows up in a very dilute fashion, like love potions or geases. In these cases, I argue that the "item" is interesting as a plot device because the action in question (falling in love with Isolde, e.g.) is NOT especially surprising in the first place.

I suggest that the INTERESTING elements of the issue (influence of another's input, prompting more unsavory impulses that already exist to some extent, etc) ARE available in Sorcerer simply using interactive role-playing as well as the various Binding, Possession, and Will mechanics. But the "demon took over my mind" potential - which renders the actual actions utterly trivial - is not present, not even in Possession (the demon shares/controls the body, NOT the mind).

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

On 2001-09-14 12:09, Ron Edwards wrote:
But the "demon took over my mind" potential - which renders the actual actions utterly trivial - is not present, not even in Possession (the demon shares/controls the body, NOT the mind).

Hello Ron,

Just out of curiosity what do you see as the difference here?  I mean if a Possessor controls my body to go out and kill someone and then takes off leaving me holding the bloody knife then in terms of plot ramifications I really don't see this as being different than a passer 'hypnotizing' me into committing the crime willfully.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

I have to agree with Jesse. I just don't see what the problem is. It certainly doesn't preclude other forms of character interaction from occuring, and in fact is just another. Is character A forcing character B physically to stab character C uninteresting because it really isn't interaction between charactes B and C? Isn't that just an interaction between Character A and character B as well as between character A and character C? And to the extent that they have to share the experience causes a relationship between character's B and C? Sounds interesting and horrific to me, probably doubly so if the means is psychic and not physical.

I'm really having a hard time even seeing where your problem arises, much less being able to sympathize with the problem.
I personally love mind-control as a subject. Including but not limited to those ambiguous moments where nobody is sure who is "responsible". This was essentially the subject of the Law & Order episode I saw last night (and lots of others) where the defendant claimed that he had been driven by a painting to murder someone (and was therefore not legally responsible). He was convicted, but the argument has legal validity in some cases. Yes, there is a defense that is something like "Not Guilty by Reason of Mind Control" in real life. Heck, I could see Mind Control as an entire premise for an entire game.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-14 12:50 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Sorry guys. I'm pretty unbendable on this one.

For instance, I see Mike's examples (e.g. the painting) as being tremendously different from mind control as it often shows up in RPGs (e.g. the Puppet Master power in game-of-your-choice).

If you don't see it that way, that's fine. Feel free to develop any mind-control material in your own games - or even in mini-supplements - and knock yourselves out.

Have to run. More later.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

On 2001-09-14 12:59, Ron Edwards wrote:
Sorry guys. I'm pretty unbendable on this one.

Hey, no problem.  I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.  In fact I'm no fan of mind control or telepathy myself.  But I was hoping you'd shine some more light on why you feel that possession of the body and possession of the mind are different if the consequence of action is the same.

Jesse

[Uncle Dark]

Hi.

I won't presume to speak for Ron (I am not worthy! :smile:), so nobody should think that I am...

I'm not unhappy to see no mind control or telepathy in Sorcerer.  For me, it falls into the same area as "the GM should never tell a player how her character feels" rules.  Player control of character is one of the few places a player has near-absolute autonomy (traditionally), so I'd rather not mess with it.

As for telepathy, all too often (in fiction and RPGs) I see it used as little more than a sort of psychic cell phone.  I know my own thoughts are  somewhat chaotic and stream of consciousness (duh) and I imagine the thoughts of others are similar.  Simply allowing telepathy as an invisible walkie talkie seems to me to be... unatmospheric.  In much the same way that magic in many RPGs (and too many fantasy novels) "feels" no different than super-powers or high tech.

Lon

[Bailywolf]

Remarkable.  I've never had a problem with mind control/reading exactly... generaly when I have a problem, its with its usage in a story (and thus more a problem with the writer/creator than with the concept).  As a player, it is one of my favorite 'kooky powers'.

As for managing mental control when used against players... well, this is easy... a GM controls a player's perceptions... the demon compells Joe to go and kill an importiant CEO... but the GM tells Joe's player he is on the run, and the only way to make it stop is to go and take down a major crime boss... GM controls input.  

And what a Kicker?  After believing you have destroyed your enemies, you realize you've been the mental pawn of dark forces, and are now on the run from the law.

And the permutations?  Without even altering the rules very much, think about a Possessor who can Spawn other, mini possessors... a sorcerer could create a mini network of possessed/controlled victims in high places... and with Link, see through their eyes.

Everyone has a hang-up, I suppose.  I generaly hate "morality mechanics".  Sorcerer is just under my knee-jerk threshold on this one, but you can look at my first post on the forum to see my prefered take on humanity.

[Ron Edwards]

Bailywolf,

I think that we are perhaps talking about two different "levels" of something and calling it one thing.

For instance, your suggestion about a Possessor with Spawn and Link is perfectly reasonable and interesting. Likewise the Kicker suggestion.

To me, neither of those suggestions involve using Mind Control in the sense of an ability separate from the pre-existing ones. Either of those suggestions uses the current mechanics/abilities without any problem.

The kind of Mind Control I'm objecting to would be one that DID require a new ability, and corresponds with an RPG mechanic found in many games - "Your character is now the GM's, as a result of an NPC using a power on you."

Sorcerer doesn't have such an ability. If you squint, such an effect is possible using Taint and the default rules for 0-Humanity, but even that is more iffy than the classic Mind Control as found in (say) GURPS Supers.

Hey. Did we just solve the problem? Maybe we did. Perhaps my answer to your first post on this thread might be rewritten as follows:

***
Mind Control is very difficult in Sorcerer, but it is possible. A Possessor demon arguably controls its host, although I might say that the host's mind is not actually under sway (a sticky point, probably not defensible).

I suggest that Taint, defining 0-Humanity as coming under the unswervable influence of the Tainting-demon, is a good mechanic. One could even tweak it with bonuses, by relating the use of Taint to any Humanity loss that the target has already incurred, thus illustrating the idea that one must have "provided an opening" to the demon via one's own choices in the past.

What doesn't seem immediately clear is how a PERSON can exert Mind Control over another person. A group could permit a demon to confer Taint rather than remain its user.
***

How's that?

Best,
Ron

P.S Over five years of playing this game and it still occasionally whacks me with useful rules-usage that I never anticipated.

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-09-14 15:34 ]

[jburneko]

On 2001-09-14 15:33, Ron Edwards wrote:
The kind of Mind Control I'm objecting to would be one that DID require a new ability, and corresponds with an RPG mechanic found in many games - "Your character is now the GM's, as a result of an NPC using a power on you."

Argh!  I'm really sorry.  I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'm really really fascinated by this.  I still don't see the difference between the above and a Possessor forcing you to do something.  Is there any other way of stating your position that might make the light bulb go on?

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Jesse,

Ummmm ... OK ... but I am time-constrained and it has to wait. And besides, I want confirmation of how wonderful it was for me to unbend and actually find a constructive answer to the original question of the thread, using the already-existing rules.

Oh. I just praised and confirmed myself, didn't I? All set then.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Jesse,

While I don;t personally understand Ron's problem with it, I can see his point that these are (at least) two different things.

1. In some types of control, the character being so assaulted would have his attitudes changed somehow so as to cause that character to do the things desired. This can be subcategorized further.
   A. The character when regaining control will be aware that it was tampered with as it's "normal" thought patterns reemerge.
   B. The character may be aware that what it did is uncharacteristic, but not sure why it did what it did.
   C. The character thinks that what it did was charcteristic (this last would be a powerful ability to permenantly change people's personalities, and should probably be limited to, say, Satan or other such top honcho demons, if allowed at all; essentialy violates any sense of freewill)

2. In other cases the character may have a will to not do such things but find himself unable to control his body, his brain essentially temporarily short circuited from the body. This can further be subclassified into at least three situations that I can think of.
   A. the character's conciousness is aware when it's body is being controlled and can still sense things norally
   B. where the conciousness is only aware that it has been temporarily booted out of control, and can contemplate things (such as the horror of the situation), but not sense anything
   C. when losing control the character is temporarily gone, or possinbly dreaming or something. When regaining control the charcter may have "Tempus Fugit" or may think that they have blacked out, etc.

To be precise we might refer to number one as Mind Control, and tonumber two as Body Control. Using this sort of description and genre, I'd say that Soul is the one thing you can't control in another charcter, as the character's soul is it's essence, it's motive force. Soul might be destroyable, however. This would leave the body as a husk with a new tennant permenantly.

In most of these situations I can see a continuing struggle for control between the two entities, and that can be a very interesting form of interaction. As we discuss this I keep thinking "The Excorcist" with intermittent use of the body by both the devil and the girl. IIRC at the end she had no recollection of the events which would put the event into category 2.C. above.

All of these possibilities have different implications and each can be truely horrific in different ways. I have to agree with Ron and others that these are not ususally played to good effect, but I think that stems from a lack of creativity in their use moreso than any literary or systemic problems. He has just eft in his game the ones that are less likely to be abused or mishandled.

Mike Holmes

[Blake Hutchins]

From a roleplaying perspective, mind control often creates more problems than it does opportunities for interesting play. The reason is simple: players hate being mind-controlled and will often do whatever it takes to get control back. I've been on both GM and player sides here, and I myself have to admit I dislike having control of my character taken away.

In Vampire, the main paranoia of players revolves around the fear of mind-control, and I think it makes for lazy GMs who ignore the political intrigue in favor of a "you are in my power" approach to the issue of manipulation. I once played a mind-controller who essentially took over the rest of the party (blood-bond) without their being aware of it. Though I kept it secret from them and very, very low-key, the fact remains that by doing so, I deprotagonized these characters. When the players found out, they immediately took action to escape the control, even to the point of having their characters commit suicide.

In my experience, mind-control scenes involving the control of players tend to be strained and somewhat less effective.

Best,

Blake

[Ron Edwards]

Hi all,

For those of you who are interested in mind-reading and telepathy and so on, feel free to use the demon ability Perception. Just WHAT can be read or sent or whatever should be a matter of creativity and taste among an individual playing group.

I would urge people not simply to adopt the standards of Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. It's a fine book, but its ideas have been lifted and spliced wholesale into mainstream-SF culture, often without grace. There are lots of other ways to use mind/ESP/etc material.

Best,
Ron

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Obviously, Schism deals with telepathy in some detail.

Argle bargle. Have to go help a friend move -- if anyone has any questions, feel free to email me or post in the MMT forum here at da Forge.