Hello,

Ron and I have been going back and forth about characters emotional motivations. In his last email he suggested I open up part of the discussion to the rest of the forge. So here is the relevant parts of the correspondence:

Ron Wrote:

"So the GM's job is to give Sebastian a situation in which, yes, MOST people would walk away or take the easy way out. John McClane could have left the building, in Die Hard. Ellen Ripley could have left Newt to die, in Aliens. Luke Skywalker could have
joined his father and the two of them could rule the galaxy, in The Empire Strikes Back. What matters is that they didn't do these things, although they could have."

And I replied:

"Hmmm, I guess this is where I start to have problems. In all these situations the stakes are MUCH higher than what I saw in The Chill. John McClane is worried about the life of his wife of many years. There's a
deep bond there. If he fails he'll have to live for the rest of life with the death of his wife. Ellen Ripley had time to bond with the child. Ellen and Newt were together for a long long time before the
child's life was at stake. If she had simply left I CAN believe that she will be experiencing what-if nightmares for the rest of her life. And finally in the case of Luke Skywalker he knows that MILLIONS will
suffer if he gives into the dark side.

"Now look at Lew Archer in The Chill. We have the death of one woman he knew for less than 15 minutes and a young couple of whom he is simply an Employee. I guess I just don't see these stakes as high enough
or personal enough to motivate Archer to action and this is why I feel like he's divorced from the REAL story. It felt like either business or curiosity was motivating him.

"Now to put this all in a role-playing context I have no idea how to bring about this kind of bonding with NPCs. Think about the scene in Aliens when Ripley goes in to check on Newt and they have that bonding
moment where they fall asleep on the floor together. This scene alone is sufficient to give Ripley a personal stake in preserving that childs life. It's now emotionally engaging to the character (as well as
the audience, and the player if this were an RPG)

"But in my experience such scenes DO NOT happen during an RPG. If the PCs talk to an NPC it's to try and get enough information to get to the next major plot point. Despite giving them AMPLE time and opportunity to do so. They don't ask about NPC's personal lives or connections. They aren't trying to get to KNOW the NPC or care about the NPC they're trying to get to the
next 'point of interest' (i.e. where the action is)."

So there you have it. "How do you facilitate emotional bonding between PC and NPC?" is essencially the question on the table.

Jesse

Well, I guess the short answer is that I don't know. And honestly, I don't think *anybody* knows. The old chestnut is to make the NPC part of the PC's background. That sometimes works.

And I've been in games where I've become very attached to the NPCs, typically because they represented or were associated with something that was important to my character. Surely this is what all "Dependant NPCs" and "Codes of Honor" in RPGs were meant to foster.

But as to what techniques GMs use to achieve this effect... clueless.

That wasn't a very helpful post, huh.

Off the top of my head, I think you get PCs attached to NPCs the same way you hook PCs into the story--through the players.

Of every NPC I can think of, either one I've created or one I've encountered as a player, the one's I or the players have become attached to (instantly or over time) have been one that hooked the players, either because the NPC was just darned likeable (even if the NPC was something of a nogoodnik) or was one of those characters-you-love-to-hate (like one of the NPCs in my renaissance Mage game, based on Draco Malfoy from Harry Potter--my players loved it everytime he appeared, even as the booed & hissed him).

If you've hooked the player, you've hooked the character. (& I don't buy the "hook both" argument, simply because I have never run into someone who was incredibly drawn into a game as a player, but still kept the character from engaging.)

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-07-18 17:45 ]

Josh - that's very true.

I guess the question is what kind of the characters would the players like to associate with (or like to be opposed to) but not like to be?

Cos the ones you want to be are player characters...

I guess I haven't spent enough time on the player side of the table, but as a GM I've often been surprised when PCs bonded with characters who weren't meant to be particularly likeable or bond-able. Maybe that was because they were the well-played, interesting ones and atttracted the players...

Hey Jesse,

So there you have it. "How do you facilitate emotional bonding between PC and NPC?"

I think the question you want to be asking is, "How do you facilitate emotional bonding between the player and NPC's?"

Take a look at my description of the scene between my girlfriend's character Leah and an NPC named Marla in the "I think my girlfriend is a...simulationist" thread. Marla is currently the most compelling NPC in Scott's Sorcerer scenario solely because of her strong contribution to a protagonizing scene for Leah. Guaranteed that when Marla comes on camera in the future, the players will notice with high interest.

Paul

On 2001-07-18 17:44, joshua neff wrote:

Of every NPC I can think of, either one I've created or one I've encountered as a player, the one's I or the players have become attached to (instantly or over time) have been one that hooked the players, either because the NPC was just darned likeable (even if the NPC was something of a nogoodnik) or was one of those characters-you-love-to-hate (like one of the NPCs in my renaissance Mage game, based on Draco Malfoy from Harry Potter--my players loved it everytime he appeared, even as the booed & hissed him).

Goals. Fears. Motives. Passions. Secrets. Interesting quirks or hobbies. A life outside the orbit of the player characters. Of these, goals and motives are, in my opinion, the most important. Every NPC of note should have something that steers him in an interesting way. He should have something at stake, a goal or desire or passion that puts him in motion and doesn't make him a static prop tossed in the path of the PCs.

Examples:

- The smart-mouthed punk barista chick with the green mohawk who wants to be a boxer.

- The chain-smoking magician pool shark with a gambling compulsion and a grudge against his ex-wife.

- The blacksmith who loves his family and will do anything to shield them from his secret: he's a werewolf.

- The well-heeled cyborg art dealer who's running out of money due to his drug addiction and is being blackmailed by a rival.

Create a character who harbors an internal conflict or who is pointed in a definite direction, add some interesting characteristics, and you're more likely going to make someone who will stick in the players' minds and affections.

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-07-19 13:02 ]

On 2001-07-19 00:59, jburneko wrote:

I once asked a playwrite, whos work I am very fond of, how she constructed her plays. She replied, "I think of a group of characters. I then, throw those characters into a situation and from there the play writes itself." To this day I can't imagine how this works. But I'm beginning to believe that my failure to understand how this works is the key to alot of my disappointment and frustration with RPGs.

The result is that I can't improvize actions for the character very well because I don't KNOW the character. I know how to characterize the character but I don't know what the character would do in a given situation.

So here's my question: How do you think about your characters? What brings a character to life for you and helps you to better improvize actions and reactions for that character?

So here's my question: How do you think about your characters? What brings a character to life for you and helps you to better improvize actions and reactions for that character?

Hi Jesse,

I hope you don’t mind a little advice from my experience. Let me try and parse it out by your question.

jburneko wrote:

Ron Wrote:
So the GM's job is to give Sebastian a situation in which, yes, MOST people would walk away or take the easy way out. John McClane could have left the building, in Die Hard. Ellen Ripley could have left Newt to die, in Aliens. Luke Skywalker could have joined his father and the two of them could rule the galaxy, in The Empire Strikes Back. What matters is that they didn't do these things, although they could have.

Hmmm, I guess this is where I start to have problems. In all these situations the stakes are MUCH higher than what I saw in The Chill. John McClane is worried about the life of his wife of many years. There's a deep bond there.

Ellen Ripley had time to bond with the child. Ellen and Newt were together for a long, long time before the child's life was at stake.

Finally in the case of Luke Skywalker he knows that MILLIONS will suffer if he gives into the dark side.

Now to put this all in a role-playing context I have no idea how to bring about this kind of bonding with NPCs.

Think about the scene in Aliens when Ripley goes in to check on Newt and they have that bonding moment where they fall asleep on the floor together.

It's now emotionally engaging to the character (as well as the audience, and the player, if this were an RPG).

But in my experience such scenes DO NOT happen during an RPG. If the PCs talk to an NPC it's to try and get enough information to get to the next major plot point, despite giving them AMPLE time and opportunity to do so.

They don't ask about NPC's personal lives or connections. They aren't trying to get to KNOW the NPC or care about the NPC they're trying to get to the next 'point of interest' (i.e. where the action is).

So there you have it. "How do you facilitate emotional bonding between PC and NPC?" is essentially the question on the table.

So, this seems to be coming back (and a lot of my GMing problems come back to this) to the fact that I can't write characters. I have a very, very hard time with this.

I once asked a playwright, whose work I am very fond of, how she constructed her plays. She replied, "I think of a group of characters. I then, throw those characters into a situation and from there the play writes itself." To this day I can't imagine how this works. But I'm beginning to believe that my failure to understand how this works is the key to a lot of my disappointment and frustration with RPGs.

In the past I've viewed characters as simply a means to move the plot.

My story ideas (both static and interactive) start usually with some kind of logistical idea. I might develop an interesting way for a villain to take over the world. Or I might come up with clever way to kill someone. And then I extrapolate the characters I need to achieve that effect.

Generally, I randomly assign a sex to them. And finally I color with some personality quirks to make them 'memorable.'

The result is that I can't improvise actions for the character very well because I don't KNOW the character. I know how to characterize the character but I don't know what the character would do in a given situation.

So here's my question: How do you think about your characters? What brings a character to life for you and helps you to better improvise actions and reactions for that character?

Jesse -

This is a bit of a shortcut, and shouldn't be construed as the end-all be-all of character advice, but maybe it will help you as a stepping stone:

Try to imagine what your NPCs would be up to if the PCs never entered the picture at all. You've mentioned that you tend to view characters as a means to an end - the PCs' ends, in this case - so take the PCs out and try to figure out how your NPC would run her life without them.

In my old, terribly railroaded Mage game, I at least managed to come up with good NPCs. The head of the local Iteration X cabal had an inferiority complex and was engaged in an intense professional rivalry with the head of the Progenitors. One of the PCs' allies - a normal, unawakened private detective - was gay and dealing with HIV. Neither of these things had anything to do with the PCs, and in fact the campaign could have gone on forever without the PCs ever learning about them - but they always informed the NPCs' actions. This made them seem a bit more real, and less like they were simply reacting to whatever the PCs happened to be doing.

You've also mentioned, in other forums, that you dislike coming up with setting background that isn't directly relevant to the plot of your game. That sort of background is essential, though, for coming up with 3-dimensional characters. Your NPCs should have lives that don't necessarily revolve around what your players do.

-Mike.

So there you have it. "How do you facilitate emotional bonding between PC and NPC?" is essencially the question on the table.

One of the other advantages to having very well-defined npcs, aside from having players become attached to them, is that when you are feeling very lazy, you don't have to try to write a plot. This works especially well in a game set in a limited locale (I call it the Dark City approach).

I used to do this all the time when I was in college because I didn't have the time to come up with plot hooks. I'd just let the PCs give a little push and spend weeks figuring out what the repercussions of the PC actions were, and then what the repercussions of those actions were, and so forth. Maybe the stories weren't inspired, but I didn't have to really do anything and the players always seemed happy. Eventually, I'd see a pattern forming, and choose to take the game in that direction to create a bigger story arch.

Hey everyone,

I've been thinking about this a lot since the beginning of this thread. And I've been working up a lot of personal belief that making an NPC compelling to the player, which is what's important, doesn't much have anything to do with the reasons we've been exploring here. It doesn't much have anything to do with how substantially imagined the NPC is, or how immersive the player is, or how much game time or character background is spent setting up a relationship between PC and NPC. I'm sure all of us can cite examples of players taking an interest in specific NPC's that we'd never have anticipated. It happens all the time, it's flukey and unpredictable enough that I'm thinking the traditional methods we've examined for establishing NPC significance to players aren't actually the relevant ones.

I'm thinking the key to player interest in a given NPC is primarily related to the theme that player is working up through their PC protagonist.

In the scene between Leah and Marla that I described in the "I think my girlfriend is a...simulationist" thread, Marla leapt to significance and prominence for every single player during that scene because we're the audience for the theme of workplace rivalry that my girlfriend has been working up. The players haven't discussed the themes they're working up, or what they perceive each other's themes to be, but the favorable audience reaction to that scene is enough to say that at some unconscious level, they know how Leah's theme is gelling and they're enthusiastic to see how it resolves itself. And they're excited about Leah as a protagonist.

Compare that scene with one from the first session of the same scenario. My character Steffan had confronted the Senator's wife, Sarah about having potentially jeopardized the re-election campaign by having a bunch of conspicuous doctor appointments. The background for the scenario is that Sarah's doctor appointments were suspicious enough to Steffan that he investigated, discovering that she has just been diagnosed with HIV. The scene was partly Steffan abusing Sarah during a time of personal distress for her, about her stupidity. And Scott played her as kind of weak, turning away from Steffan at one point near tears. It was an okay scene...but nowhere near as great as the scene with Leah and Marla. And I'm fairly certain that Marla and Sarah had similar levels of work-up by Scott, similar levels of emotional immersion from him when he was playing them, and that I and my girlfriend were operating with similar levels of suspension of disbelief when playing those two scenes. So why the different levels of significance for Marla and Sarah? I'm thinking it's because although Steffan's theme is about him being a relatively inhumane user and manipulator, it isn't so much about him being a user and manipulator of the weak. When I think about what fits for him, it's a theme of him being a user and manipulator of users and manipulators. So again, although the play group hasn't actually discussed our characters' themes, we're clearly aware of the themes we're interested in seeing. So because the scene with Sarah didn't really contribute to the theme we want to see for Steffan, there's a general lack of interest in Sarah.

Newt is important because Ripley's player is riffing on a theme of motherhood. John McClane's wife is important because McClane's player is riffing on a theme of still loving someone who's left you. Vader is important in The Empire Strikes Back because Luke's player is riffing on a theme of knowing your power is the legacy of a monster.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the coherent imagining and effective playing of NPC's isn't important. I think it's a requirement. What I'm suggesting is that it isn't ultimately what drives player interest in an NPC.

Now if you can tell me why Sebastian Warfield fits with the theory, I'll descend into even more enthusiasm.

Paul

I think that the nail has been hit head on with Paul's analysis. NPCs that effectively drive forward character protagonism are those that will be the most remembered, and most liked by the *players* (whether or not the *characters* like, hate, or are neutral to them). Why? They are plot elements that are important in the PCs story. Even if I create the most interesting NPC in the world with a ton of background, and play him to the hilt, if the PC isn't able to advance his protagonism by interacting with the character, then he will essentially be relagated by the players to the status of interesting local color.

What kind of NPC drives forward character protagonism? Well, it isn't the guy you get directions from. Unless that guy resists. And not so much resists to the extent that the information never comes out, just enough to be an interesting challenge. This is just an example, though. The actual form of the challenge can be anything. Maybe the character encountering the NPC just has to realize that the NPC just needs somebody to listen to him for a while before he'll tell what he knows. Or perhaps an appropriae amount of grovelling will get another to introduce you to that important person. So like any other plot element that NPC becomes a memorable event in the game, one that advances the plot. Players will return to the memorable ones. Just like in real life, stress causes bonds to form more readily. Be they positive or negative.

The other type of NPC that promotes protagonism are those that need help. And to the extent that it can be argued that a character helping a particular NPC is helping themselves, that makes the protagonism level higher. So if my character rescues a nameless stranger from a building full of terrorists, OK, they were helpful, but only a little despite there being dozens of them. But if my character rescues his ex-wife, that really advances his protagonism, his story.

So, you've got your two basic types of protagonism promoting NPCs, the good guys and the bad guys. Or rather NPCs that make the PC look good while helping, and those that challenge the PC to overcome obstacles that they represent. Note, the best are ones that switch back and forth. That ex-wife is a challenge and soeone who needs help simultaneously.

A key that I've found is limiting the amount of effort that I put into NPCs into only these kinds of characters. Other NPCs are handled with very litttle (often none) characterization at all, unless I need to dressup a scene or something (in which case I'm not including the NPC withthe intent of getting the PCs interested in them, anyhow). Quality, not quantity. After that third DNPC, they all start to lose a little importance, no? And as Ron has pointed out, if every encounter with a shop clerk ends up being a battle to obtain a bottle of dish detergent, this makes the bad guys cheap as well. Not all NPCs should resist all the time. Vary their responses a little.

One huge problem that I've discovered is that players often make characters who actually don't need other characters. This is one of those defense mechanisms. Essentially, players know that if they make their characters succeptible to becoming attached to other characters, they know that the GM will use that to hook them into potentially negative situations. This is why DNPCs are worth points as a disadvantage in Champions and GURPS, etc. To balance that "inconvenience". You know these characters. Players decide that their background is that they have permenant incurrable amnesia. What percentage of PCs would you say are orphans? I'm guessing that the Orphan rate is about 100 times real life. Often this is related to lazyness as well.

As I said, this is a problem because, it means that NPCs, often one of the most powerful ways to make a story interesting, are often ignored by these characters. I've seen players have their "loner" characters sleep with an NPC, and then when that NPC gets kidnapped the next day the character just says, "Eh, so what; didn't really like her anyhow." Yeah, I'm sure there are real people who act like that, uh-huh. And they're often protagonists, too, uh-huh.

This is also related to the defense mechanism about having to become emotionally invested in the game at all. Providing hooks for this type of character becomes relegated to only those sorts of things that benefit them directly. Which gets boring fast, and is really unrealistic. It is for some, essentially, fantasy fulfilment to be able to live a life in which they don't have to care about anybody but themselves. I try to disallow this as much as possible in my games.

I'd like to coin a term here. Using the relationship map idea, these characters would be called Islands. I an see them off in a corner of the map with no lines leading to or fom them. If they do have relationship lines to anyone, they must be labeled Apathetic.

If you have players like this, it's going to take a more essential attitude adjustment to get them to take notice of your NPCs. They need to understand that your game has more depth to it than they apparently do. If these players are seriously and honestly intent on this method of play, I suggest running something much more gamist for them, where NPCs are nothing but stops for info or widgets on the way to the rest of the quest.

That rambled a bit. Sorry, Friday, you know. Maybe I'm way off. :wink:

Mike Holmes

I'd like to chime in and agree with Paul provisionally. I agree that Paul's answer works for a Narrativist game. However, player interest is piqued for different reasons with different play goals. For example, for the Gamist, an NPC is memorable and gripping because of the challenge that he represents. For an Explorative, an NPC is moving because he advances the experience of the world (or because he adds to the overall pathos level. ;-] )

Regardless, an interesting NPC is not merely interesting to the character (although there does need to be a connection within the game). An interesting NPC is interesting (first and foremost) to the players.

On 2001-07-18 16:04, as part of a discussion of pc/npc bonding issues jburneko wrote:

"Despite giving them AMPLE time and opportunity to do so. They don't ask about NPC's personal lives or connections. They aren't trying to get to KNOW the NPC or care about the NPC they're trying to get to the
next 'point of interest' (i.e. where the action is)."

Another line of attack for the problem you are discussing (pc/npc bonding) is to look at this issue: player motivation and focus.

If the players are only interacting with the npc's as intermediaries on the way to "the plot" or achieving "the goal" of the rpg, then no wonder it's hard to get them to bond. You really do have to work hard to make your npc dashing or twisted or fit them very carefully into the character's background or make them strike a chord with your player's psyche.

However, if the enjoyment of playing is found in the interactions between characters, and characters and world, then you'll have a much easier time of it. If the pc's have broader motivations than amassing wealth and power, then they will have "real" motivations to interact with n-people they meet. And then, sometimes they will hit it off and bond, sometimes they won't. Just like in real life.

It occurs to me, as I right this, that even when you are lucky enough to be playing with folks who are asking questions of the npc and who are interested in the world etc. it is still challenging to get co-gamers to engage with your npc's. At least I've found it so. Well, not to engage, but really to bond. I just ran a long segment of play in a game where three of us normally fully co-gm. (Please ask me about that experience, that's partly why I'm here on this forum :smile: and there were a couple situations that didn't work out how hoped. Characters rubbed eachother the wrong way, rather than getting intrigued. I'm still puzzling over that...

Ah, well. There's my addition to the debate.

Thanks for the interesting conversation!

Emily Care

Welcome to the Forge, Emily. And yeah, as someone who currently co-GMs a game, I'll bite: what about your three person full co-GM experience?

Best,

Blake

Hello All, Hello Blake,

First off, I want to give a link to an excellent discussion of ways to encourage the type of play that supports deeper interaction and bonding between PC's and NPC's. It follows:

Encouraging Role Playing

http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/styles/encouraging_rp.html

Next, in answer to Blake:

You are co-gming!!! Tell all! But it might be better if we take this conversation to the "Narrative Sharing" topic I started after I posted this. I don't want to take up too much out of topic space. :smile: I've described some of the way our game is working there..please write about your experiences!

Back to the question at hand, my experience with character bonding is that roleplaying that emphasizes PC-NPC interaction, and gives more screen time and energy to NPC's allows much deeper interactions.

Moment-to-moment experience oriented rather than goal oriented play allows for bonding to happen over a longer period of time. You get to build up common experiences with NPC's and PC's. Instead of building the connections into whatever character's backstory, it develops in the _story_.

http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/styles/encouraging_rp.html



Hmm. Interesting, but definately not techniques that I'd ever use to try and encourage roleplaying. They seem far too confrontational.

*tell* the player what his character is feeling.


This should never, ever be done. I really can't stress how much of a bad idea this is. You want to help the player's identification with the character, not destroy it.

*tell* the player what his character is feeling.

This should never, ever be done. I really can't stress how much of a bad idea this is. You want to help the player's identification with the character, not destroy it.

Raven,

I see both sides of this one. For the most part I agree with you, in that I see a certain amount of uncontrolability in emotion. Some emotions just happen to you. Especially if they're magically or technically induced (not the Orbital Mind Control Lasers again!).

On the other hand, I wouldn't usually (never say never) bitch at a player who didn't play the emotions I forced on the character the way I thought they should be played. In the vampire example, it would be just as valid a response for the player to declare that the character stands firm despite the terror, as it would be to run. So would a number of other things.

Now, it occurs to me that a lot of this may hinge on what stance the player is playing from.

In actor stance, a player may view a GM-induced emotion as a role-playing challenge. Or the player may view it as the GM horning in on the one area in the game he has control of.

Other stances may be more flexible.

Lon

On 2001-08-09 21:01, greyorm wrote:

*tell* the player what his character is feeling.

This should never, ever be done. I really can't stress how much of a bad idea this is. You want to help the player's identification with the character, not destroy it.

And I can't stress how GOOD of an idea this is. I've used this with both my newbies and my old hands, and its worked wonderfully to get people into character.

In real life, we oftentimes don't have a choice, or make a conscious decision to feel or behave a certain way, we just DO. Suddenly.

In a role-playing game, this is a challenge: "Staring at the vampire, utter horror grips your heart and you you feel a panicked need to run from the predatory waves that flow from the creature," because now you have to PLAY that, none of this unrealistic, ego-based "I'm not scared of you, ancient red dragon," stuff; and it is also a great tool, because it helps link a player to the situation on a very human level, very intuitive level. I know I get more out of a description of feeling, in that feeling "there" sense, than I do just a tactile description.

Obviously, Knight feels that character mental states are utterly inviolate to the players...I think that's a standard assumption in play, but I don't know if it is necessarily a good assumption or tactic in play.

Well, the imposition of a state of mind does not necessarily imply taking over the PC like a puppet. I could and would TELL such a character that they are afraid, that they want to run. Then I let the player decide whether the character will run, or will stick it out, pounding heart and knocking knees and all.

On occassion I will impose physical movements as well, especially if they are autonomic reflexes. One of my better action scenes was a field cavalry charge, and with the combination of charging, bouncing horses, dust, slit vision helms, etc, I felt completely free to tell players that their character had ducked, or reached for balance, things like that. I am giving the player the experience of their animal body and monkey brain having a set of reflexes rather independant of the conscious intellect. I tried to narrate this scene much as one might do a modern stuttered, cluttered video shoot; first person rather than top down, narrating impressions and stimuli as they were experienced rather than than in any analytical form.

So fair enough, this is not going to appeal to everyone. But my players loved it, and their eyes were fairly glowing with the rush of it all. some of them remarked it was the first time they had really felt what a melee might feel like, and I was very gratified with these responses. Its a form I hope to be exploring more deeply soon (whoo, I have recieved my copy of Lajos Egri's book).

GM: You're so scared you run away.

On occassion I will impose physical movements as well, especially if they are autonomic reflexes...I am giving the player the experience of their animal body and monkey brain having a set of reflexes rather independant of the conscious intellect.

Raven,

Point taken. Actually, I wasn't trying to imply that you would do anything of the kind (remember, I started out saying that I agreed with you), just leaping from what you said in the direction I wouldn't normally go.

Sorry if that was unclear.

Lon

Sorry if that was unclear.

Hmm, but surely, forcing a mindset is a heavy prompt to certain actions? Surely it limits the scope of "all available" plausible course of action.

Hmm, but surely, forcing a mindset is a heavy prompt to certain actions? Surely it limits the scope of "all available" plausible course of action.

I think the extent of the problem depends on the players. I agree with Raven that some kind of limited scale, lizard brain approach is very workable, so long as the choice of response stays with the player. However, two guys in my current Mage group will absolutely not accept anything externally imposed on their character's internal mindscape. That's the reason mind control poses such a difficult challenge in a story. Many, many players do *not* want their characters to submit to the intimate dominance represented by strong emotions or arcane mental influences.

In my group, "Joe" refuses to roleplay any "uncool" emotions, meaning he'll play grief, rage, or compassion, but he won't go with fear or self-doubt. He absolutely won't go with any flows if mind-altering stuff is involved (though he's cool tinkering with other players' minds). Joe's approach is to devote 100% of his gameplay effort to work around any emotion or mental state he doesn't like, to the extent of sulking if he doesn't swiftly break out of it. I've learned over the years that it's not worth challenging him on this, so I provide other emotional challenges and choices to him without imposing any unwanted reactions. Joe's somewhat of a control freak in real life, and so long as I don't challenge him on his core issues, he's a fine member of the group.

"Bob" has a somewhat different approach: he as a player simply ignores any emotional input he doesn't want, even if he fails rolls or is affected by some event or element that he expects others to submit to. It's doubly frustrating because when his character is offstage, he buries his nose in a book and refuses to engage emotionally with the game. I anticipate he will not join future games with this group.

This iteration of the original topic probably deserves its own thread, but.... How do the rest of you handle mind control stuff in play?

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-08-13 13:46 ]