It's a staple of superhero type games. Player A has mind control powers, and uses them on NPC's to various gains.

But the moment an NPC uses such an ability on a player there's this almighty crash as the unstoppable force of player protaganism meets the immovable object of the rules.

Now, first off, a lot of this will depend on the social contract, concerning such activites on the part of NPC's. That's fine and all, but I'm sure that something more directly useful that just that can be said about the matter.

Let me give two examples of games that have mind control type abilities, and try to discect why I think one is better than the other. Firstly, Vampire:the Masqurade. Two principle forms: Dominate and Presence. Both of the disciplines give quite precise, well defined descriptions of the effects. Dominate requires a precise specification of a command, and carries the understanding that the literal meaning must be upheld, whilst the spirit corrupted as much as possible. Presence gives emotional manipulation, and again is quite precise about the nature and magnitude of the effects. Note that the most general case it offers is either an invocation of fear, or devotion. Both cases have detail on how effective these are, and how difficult to resist they are.

An example from the opposite end of the spectrum is found in Abberant. Here, the ability Empahic Manipulation lets the user change a targets emotional state.

Now, in my experience, the Vampire example is not seen to be a problem. It's deprotagonisaion is well defined, and short term. There are clear activites that the player can do, whilst it's in effect (think of loopholes for dominate, unpredicable, but still benficial, things for presence). And it's possible to activly resist most of them, by expending a lot of a limited resource, whilst passive resistance is present.

With Abberant, active resistance is not possible, passive resistance is weak, unless the character specialises in it, and it's scope is huge.

Clearly, the more precisly defined the effect is, the more some aspects are mitigated. However, the more precise the effect, the less the player has to do, and the more time he has to feel deprotagonised.

Can the crash problem be reduced without precise restrictions on the nature of the abilities?

Stuart DJ Purdie wrote: Can the crash problem be reduced without precise restrictions on the nature of the abilities?

Andrew Martin wrote:

Stuart DJ Purdie wrote: Can the crash problem be reduced without precise restrictions on the nature of the abilities?

Let the player determine the effects of the enemy's mind control on their character?

Yes! Mind control is, I believe, sadly UNDERUSED in roleplaying games, out of fear of deprotagonizing. A lot of players would rather their characters die than be mind controlled (a symptom of "my guy" playing, if I have it right).

In order not to deprotagonize the PC, IMNSHO, you need two things:

(1) Don't use mind control "too often" (however that is defined)

(2) When the PC is controlled by an NPC, don't take it away from the player; after all, it's often fun to hose your own character over for sake of story. The best way to deprotagonize a character is to remove it from the player.

I just lost a good post on this to a browser error; hopefully I can recreate enough of it to be useful.

I do face this problem in Multiverser: players can create and define any skills they want. The limits are not in what can be done, or how much power can be wielded, but in the chance of failure--the more powerful the skill, the less likely you are to pull it off successfully. However, mind game skills are very popular among players, usually suggestions and illusions, but sometimes controls and possessions, and knowing the limits is important.

One thing I always remind them is that the NPCs get the same treatment they do. If they can do it to someone else, someone else can do it to them. Almost always when I say, "If I were to do that to your character, you would object that you should be able to avoid it," they agree.

That doesn't mean it can't be done; it does mean that it may be more difficult than the player wanted. I always allow a check to resist any sort of direct mind control (not always for illusions or suggestions, unless they're outrageous). Mind control can't be maintained by the user perpetually; it runs out eventually, and has to be consistently reestablished. Meanwhile, those controlled can continue to resist--additional checks if the imposed conduct is particularly inimical to character values or personality, for example.

Further, just as any player character can create a skill to seize control of another character, any player character can create a skill to throw off such control.

One way to protagonize the player whose character is controlled is to shift the conflict to an internal view. Don't think of limited mind control as "the character has lost control of himself" but "the character is in a battle for control of his body". Let the battle rage, with the controller making some of the decisions and actions and the character making others, until the character manages to win a decisive victory and drive the attacker out of his head. What his body does in this time may be confusing and erratic to those watching, but it's certainly not the case that the player isn't doing anything while the referee runs his character.

Consider the old Star Trek episode with the little protoplasmic blobs that attached to people's bodies and forced them to do what the group mind wanted. Spock was able to fight back and take control of his own body while efforts were being made to free him. (Ignore the part about how he didn't have to be blinded because only the invisible ultraviolet rays were needed.) A character can have as interesting an internal battle for control of his own body as he can have external interactions when he's got it.

Helpful?

--M. J. Young

Player <> Character.

With Mind Control, present the situation to the player. As a GM, tell the player "Do this." but don't refer to the character. Basically, you're setting an objective for the player to meet. That's their job for the scene. "Okay, my character has to kill the President." It's no different than the GM saying, "Make a 3rd level character" or "Make a Sabbat character" or "You're a big fantasy babe with horns and bushy 80's hair." The onyl thing different is that this is done in media res. The GM is setting forth an objective...the player must meet that objective head-on, because that's what the game dictates.

I'm Mind Controlling you right now to read this.

There have been mind control discussions specifically as it pertains to Sorcerer in the following threads:

Mind control redux
Mind Control Revisited
and
Why no mind control?

I'm sure there are others.

Yeah, I think that Jared hits it as far as I'm concerned. Just like character death, Mind Control is a way for the player to lose control over the character. Sure, it's temporary, but as long as the player is no longer in control, he's not playing and not having fun.

So, I'd either allow the player to run the character, or just use the mind control to frame to another scene that starts when the character becomes uncontrolled. Which would probably depend on whether the controling power let the character remember the period of control. I mean, if the character doesn't remember, it's a lot of fun to say, "You wake up in a room covered in blood with a dozen corpses around you."

The latter framing is no different than, say, if the character were captured, knocked out, and then framed. The problem the character faces is the same, and the player control is the same. So I fail to see the difference between the two (or are captures to be similarly avoided?).

I think that this topic has become overblown a bit. With a little common sense, I think that mind control is a fine thing to explore in play.

Mike