Mind control redux (split)

[Michael S. Miller]

Sure, but here's the deal:  The "owner" of the character(PC or GM) still needs some form of input.  The player has no input without their character, so they need some form of input.  Even if its the Fulminata Social, Trollbabe relationship, or Donjon facts "I state your action/goal/fact, but you roleplay it" sort of thing.  But this also requires some Social negotiation amongst the group.

That's an interesting thought... Just because a character is mind controlled doesn't necessarily mean that the player's input into the character's actions need be dictated. I really like the idea of the controller giving the PLAYER of the controlee a set of guidelines/motivations to abide by, and then the player of the controlee decides how the control manifests. Either "Shaking with the effort to put down the gun, but unable to control my hand, my sweaty finger pulls the trigger" or "With the snap of his fingers, my face goes blank and all conscious thoughts winks out. I'm a blank slate waiting for commands. I smoothly raise the gun and cleanly squeeze off three shots at center-mass." That kind of choice for the player could be nifty.

[Lxndr]

That's my preferred way of mind control.  :D
I'd rather be told "You are now feeling a lot of love for the villain.  You're otherwise just like you were before.  Go!"

[Michael S. Miller]

Actually, I think that this touches on the reason behind the "knee jerk reactions" you previously identified, Lxndr. Sorcerer is very much a game about Author Stance -- about enabling you as a player to tell the stories that you want told. Since mind control, as usually handled in PRGs serves to take away a player's control of their character, it stands opposed to Author Stance and thus, is generally not considered appropriate for this game.

A brief discussion of the role of Player empowerment can be found in The Meta-Metagame Level of Sorcerer

[Lxndr]

Bankeui>

Sorry for not getting to you earlier.

1.   I'm glad that I was interpreting you correctly; PCs are protagonists, and non-player-characters are non-protagonists, even if they are helpful and not harmful.  I also agree with you - to use a TV analogy, the PCs are the "stars."  In X-Men: Evolution, the PCs all play second fiddle to Charles Xavier, but it's not HIS show, it's THEIRS.

2.   I agree with you there, too.  In short, any individual NPC cannot be deprotagonized; PCs disempower GMs through other means.  Things may be a "setback" to the GM's goals, but that's part of what gameplay is about.  Even if I have a "GM-PC" in a character group, if they decide to leave them behind, or slaughter them, I am not disenfranchized because I still have the entire fictional universe as my toy.

   Cue maniacal laughter here, I guess.  But it's true.

3.   You've really just described my favorite form of mind-control-in-game.  The person playing the character with the mind control says "My attempt succeeded.  Your goal is now X.  Nothing else is important until you do X.  Go!" or maybe "My attempt succeeded.  You now feel X towards Y, instead of (or in addition to) your normal feelings.  Everything else remains unchanged.  Go!"

   As a GM, I would enjoy this chance to stretch the mental muscles of my major NPCs (and minor NPCs?  pshaw, who cares what happens to them? - that mind controller guy wants to get play from that woman over there, let him get play, it can't ALWAYS be some huge plot struggle).  As a PC, I believe I would enjoy this also (though any significant change both permanent AND irreversible, or a GM using this particular trick too often, would frustrate and/or bore me).

   In either case, if I thought that character would try to twist things about, I'd describe that struggle and perhaps even request another roll (whether to shake it off, or to hold the urge back, maybe some sort of "Come on, Alex, you feel love for him, but you KNOW you hate him, remember what he did to your father...").  

   I agree, though, that it should require some negotiation amongst the group.  As a GM I'd make it pretty clear that mind control would exist, and if the rules were set up so that it could be used on PCs, I'd make it clear that it might happen.  At least in Sorcerer, though, I like the double edged sword of "can't be used on people with a Lore above 0" since it protects the players, but it also protects their sorcerous enemies.

I have other questions/comments, which I will put in another post.

[Lxndr]

In an earlier post I made the following comments and questions that I've yet to see answered by anyone.  I am rephrasing them here.

(1)   Perception seems to not fit at all as "getting people to hallucinate."  Its purpose, mechanically, is to make people see things better, or otherwise enhance senses.  Daze, on the other hand, is a power with a target, whose mechanical purpose is to screw with perceptions.  Some sort of Daze enhancement, then, seems the "proper" way to build such a power.  Does anyone have any reason why Perception should be used instead?

(2)   When Taint is used, it can/will cause physical and psychological malformations, changes.  Are these permanent?  Humanity comes back, but when it does, will his horns go away?  Will his psychological malformation go away?  I know a part of this is "defined in player group" but I'd still like to hear people's opinion.s

(3)   How well does hypnosis handle "post-hypnotic" suggestions (i.e. ones that wouldn't go off until Will is restored).

(4)   This one is specifically asked to Ron  You've mentioned in the past (in that previous thread, actually) that you feel that mind control is often the lazy writer's excuse to avoid stories. You specifically mentioned Wild Cards. Do you feel that Puppetman's use of mind control from Wild Cards was sloppy/lazy/etc? He seems to me to be rather a good example of the kind of sorcerer I seem to keep imagining. How would you emulate him in Sorcerer, or would you? Gregg Hartmann seems to be the sorcerer, and Puppetman the demon inside him (parasite? possessor? he comes complete with Desire and Need, either way).