I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

[Adventus]

On the subject of disbelieving an illusion, I have a story to give you about a dog I had a few years ago and a couch.

 

The dog had been marking his territory on a couch we had in our living room. We couldn't get the smell out. So one night, when the dog was out back, I took the couch out the front. I then went out back and got the dog. When the dog came in and saw the couch was GONE, he looked at us. Then, disbelieving the couch was really gone, he backed up and took a running leap onto the couch. Which was GONE! Hit the window, slid down and landed in his doggie bed, which had been put in when I removed the couch.

 

Where am I going with this, you ask? If a player is going to disbelieve something is real, he has to do something that shows he believes what he is seeing is an illusion. Like jumping on a couch that isn't there.

[Nolgroth]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

Challenge the perception of reality. Yeah, makes sense. If you disbelieve that there is really a wall of flame in front of you, stick your hand in it. The problem is, did your hand just get burnt or is that part of the illusion.

 

As an interesting aside, Mental Illusions can cause damage and Images cannot. One would think that the "tricking perception" aspect of Images would allow one to do "damage" as part of the Image. Even if it were only Stun because you feel the "pain" of an attack.

 

And further, in order to craft a convincing illusion, it might be expected that one has intimate knowledge of what the illusion could do. I can only imagine the steps necessary to get a wall of fire illusion just right.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I see the "disbelief" aspect of mental illusions as being addressed by the accumulated Ego requirement, combined with the breakout roll. A further mechanism strikes me as overkill.

 

I also see Mental Illusions using the target's own mental faculties - he perceives what he would expect of a Wall of Fire. Images, however, need to be controlled by the attacker, which is why broader, more complex images are more difficult to successfully implement.

[sinanju]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I see the "disbelief" aspect of mental illusions as being addressed by the accumulated Ego requirement, combined with the breakout roll. A further mechanism strikes me as overkill.

 

I also see Mental Illusions using the target's own mental faculties - he perceives what he would expect of a Wall of Fire. Images, however, need to be controlled by the attacker, which is why broader, more complex images are more difficult to successfully implement.

 

I agree with the original poster. My gaming groups since first edition DnD in 1977 have always required an act of belief (or disbelief) to have any chance of dispelling an illusion.

 

Don't think the dragon is real? Then just ignore it's attack. If you dodge, block, hide, run, whatever--clearly you don't really disbelieve. To do otherwise is to invite rules lawyers to shout "I disbelieve!" at everything while they continue dodging, blocking, etc. with complete sincerity. We insisted that you put your money where your mouth was.

[Markdoc]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I see the "disbelief" aspect of mental illusions as being addressed by the accumulated Ego requirement, combined with the breakout roll. A further mechanism strikes me as overkill.

 

I also see Mental Illusions using the target's own mental faculties - he perceives what he would expect of a Wall of Fire. Images, however, need to be controlled by the attacker, which is why broader, more complex images are more difficult to successfully implement.

 

I mostly agree, with the exception that making an active "act of disbelief" is one way of getting a bonus to your breakout roll. If that roll fails of course, you take the consequences.... I agree that your mind will fill in the details: you see and hear the fire, you feel the heat - but if you know you are facing Illusio, master of magic, then some scepticism is reasonable.

 

In a way, this is a hangover from D&D days where there was nothing to define "disbelieving" as an action, as noted above.

 

cheers, Mark

[Comic]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

Doesn't always translate so well, once characters have the level of power where their beliefs and actions based on them might well alter the reality they live in.

 

Be a terrible way to find out you had a Ring of Wishes, for example.

 

Or were suffering the insidious 'gratitude' of a powerful extraplanar being.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I agree with the original poster. My gaming groups since first edition DnD in 1977 have always required an act of belief (or disbelief) to have any chance of dispelling an illusion.

 

Don't think the dragon is real? Then just ignore it's attack. If you dodge, block, hide, run, whatever--clearly you don't really disbelieve. To do otherwise is to invite rules lawyers to shout "I disbelieve!" at everything while they continue dodging, blocking, etc. with complete sincerity. We insisted that you put your money where your mouth was.

 

There are differing schools of philosophy here. Is it the player or the character who is disbelieving? The player may not recognize there is something wrong with the Hydra attacking the group, where the character, who has fought such creatures before, may well perceive such a flaw. The character may be smarter, or more perceptive, than the player, or the opposite may be true. Should the ability to avoid the implications of the illusion depend on the ability of the player, or of the character?

 

I agree that, having decided that the rules will require an act of disbelief, the character/player can't have it both ways - "disbelieve" in such a case means active disbelief, not a claim of disbelief while hedging your bets.

 

I mostly agree, with the exception that making an active "act of disbelief" is one way of getting a bonus to your breakout roll. If that roll fails of course, you take the consequences.... I agree that your mind will fill in the details: you see and hear the fire, you feel the heat - but if you know you are facing Illusio, master of magic, then some scepticism is reasonable.

 

In a way, this is a hangover from D&D days where there was nothing to define "disbelieving" as an action, as noted above.

 

This approach is certainly workable, but it requires the GM ensure that the fact this is an illusion, not a real creature, not be known to the player. This goes beyond simply not telling them they have been attacked by a mental illusion - asking about EVC's, mental defenses, etc. in proximity to the encounter is a hint to the player.

 

Active disbelief should then require dropping your defenses - DCV 0, shield/force field down, etc. In other words, removal of all active defense against the "illusion" you are attempting to disbelieve. If you're wrong, you have still dropped your guard. If Illusio did, in fact, Summon a Hydra, you are no longer dodging or blocking its attacks.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I am not singling out Hugh Neilson, but just using his clearly stated summation of how some GMs insist that disbelief must be portrayed.

 

Active disbelief should then require dropping your defenses - DCV 0' date=' shield/force field down, etc. In other words, removal of all active defense against the "illusion" you are attempting to disbelieve. If you're wrong, you have still dropped your guard. If Illusio did, in fact, Summon a Hydra, you are no longer dodging or blocking its attacks.[/quote']

 

I can entertain a pretty healthy skepticism without dropping my guard. If I suspected that something that, if real, could eviscerate me if I just cooperated with it (but wasn't), my expression of disbelief would begin with looking for inconsistencies in the (hypothetical, thus far) illusion. "I disbelieve" should not be an action whereby someone rejects reality and substitutes one they prefer, but the declaration that they have seen through the illusuion because it is, in fact, no longer capable of harming them.

 

Active disbelief begins with questions like "Are there any inconsistencies between the thing I'm experiencing and things I've had previous experience with?" not "I throw down my weapons, drop my shield and begin removing my armor, and if I have time, I'll put an apple in my mouth."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I'm not a fan of requiring active disbelief. However, in Hero, the need to:

 

- hit the target's ECV

- overcome his EGO (and mental defenses, if any)

- avoid the breakout roll, repeatedly over time

 

seems an adequate representation of passive disbelief.

 

I would also grant an immediate breakout roll when an inconsistency is noted, potentially with bonuses depending on the significance of the inconsistency. This would reasonably include a teammate pointing out an inconsistency after already evading the illusion himself.

 

To obtain yet another means of escape from the mentalist's snare should, IMO, require something significantly greater. Such as active rejection of the illusion on all fronts. "It's not real. I close my eyes and step forward."

 

In D&D, there is less or no automatic passive disbelief. I am inclined to give characters either a save or a Spot/Listen as appropriate roll to perceive an inconsistency which would give rise to an automatic save - passive disbelief. A careful examination should award another Spot roll, at a reduced DC to take into account the character's greater attention to detail.

 

A further save when an inconsistency is noted, potentially with bonuses depending on the significance of the inconsistency, also seems reasonable. This would reasonably include a teammate pointing out an inconsistency after already evading the illusion himself.

 

If all that has failed, however, they also need to move to active disbelief.

 

One of the biggest problems with requiring active disbelief based on an inconsistency is the difficulty in applying this equitably to NPC's. The GM always knows it's an illusion. Applying a "passive disbelief" system largely resolves this issue.

 

A second, however, is players gaming the system. "Well, there's no penalty for disbelief, so my character attempts to disbelieve everything - he's not very trusting of his own senses." Again, a passive disbelief system largely resolves this. You want to distrust the evidence of your own eyes, after passive disbelief reveals nothing? Then you take a risk.

 

But that extreme of "active disbelief", to me, is a last resort. A GM who sets this as the bar to have any hope of noticing a flaw in an illusion (eg. D&D - you get no save, nothing, without active disbelief) is, to me, being just as unreasonable as the player whose first statement after every description from the GM is "I disbelieve".

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

A second, however, is players gaming the system. "Well, there's no penalty for disbelief, so my character attempts to disbelieve everything - he's not very trusting of his own senses." Again, a passive disbelief system largely resolves this. You want to distrust the evidence of your own eyes, after passive disbelief reveals nothing? Then you take a risk.

 

But that extreme of "active disbelief", to me, is a last resort. A GM who sets this as the bar to have any hope of noticing a flaw in an illusion (eg. D&D - you get no save, nothing, without active disbelief) is, to me, being just as unreasonable as the player whose first statement after every description from the GM is "I disbelieve".

 

I think the "I Disbelieve!" response is an artifact of the original AD&D's mindset wherein, Gygax seemed to espouse an adversarial relationship betwixt GM and Players. But I'm just guessing.

 

Players who disbelieve everything they encounter is a symptom of a campaign where nothing can be trusted to be what it appears to be. If the campaign in question is one the players used to play in, a little experience with your campaign should eventually break them of Disbelieving Tourette's Syndrome™. Of course, if they started doing this in your campaign, you may have grown overfond of illusory attacks. Cut it out. The only reason illusion works so well is because most of reality isn't illusory (and all you philosophy majors be quiet, this isn't philosphy but gaming we're talkin' about! ).

 

You want to limit your players' ability to disbelieve? Give them clues when they really arefighting an illusion. That way you can simply tell them "Sorry, but none of the evidence I've presented to you is inconsistent with reality. Did you take 'from Missouri' as a psychological limitation?"

 

I think a reasonable way to simulate "active disbelief" would be to grant the person a breakout roll (with all appropriate penalties) with a +1 for each -1 DCV penalty the player takes versus the alleged illusion. Skill levels used for DCV should never be used in this case, to prevent players from just buying defensive skill levels for the sole purpose of disbelieving illusions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

Players who disbelieve everything they encounter is a symptom of a campaign where nothing can be trusted to be what it appears to be. If the campaign in question is one the players used to play in' date=' a little experience with your campaign should eventually break them of [b']Disbelieving Tourette's Syndrome™[/b]. Of course, if they started doing this in your campaign, you may have grown overfond of illusory attacks. Cut it out. The only reason illusion works so well is because most of reality isn't illusory (and all you philosophy majors be quiet, this isn't philosphy but gaming we're talkin' about! ).

 

It's just as often a symptom of "gamism". There is no penalty to disbelief, so why not do it every time so I'll always get my save if it's an illusion. And sometimes it's the player who casts an illusion. The GM whose NPC's always disbelieve are just as bad as the player whose character goes around with an "I disbelieve" T shirt.

 

I think a reasonable way to simulate "active disbelief" would be to grant the person a breakout roll (with all appropriate penalties) with a +1 for each -1 DCV penalty the player takes versus the alleged illusion. Skill levels used for DCV should never be used in this case' date=' to prevent players from just buying defensive skill levels for the sole purpose of disbelieving illusions.[/quote']

 

hmmm...so I can take a 0 DCV penalty every phase and get a breakout roll with no bonus every phase?

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

It's just as often a symptom of "gamism". There is no penalty to disbelief, so why not do it every time so I'll always get my save if it's an illusion. And sometimes it's the player who casts an illusion. The GM whose NPC's always disbelieve are just as bad as the player whose character goes around with an "I disbelieve" T shirt.

 

 

 

hmmm...so I can take a 0 DCV penalty every phase and get a breakout roll with no bonus every phase?

 

After giving it some thought, I mught consider giving them no breakout roll until they have at least -1 to their DCV. Of course if you want to just nail down every possible course of action the players might take so they can only do what you want them to, the problem isn't about disbelieving illusions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

After giving it some thought' date=' I mught consider giving them no breakout roll until they have at least -1 to their DCV. Of course if you want to just nail down every possible course of action the players might take so they can only do what you want them to, the problem isn't about disbelieving illusions.[/quote']

 

I think the problem here is someone wanting too many chances to disbelieve the illusion. The character had:

 

- the opportunity that the attack would miss

- the opportunity that the attack would fail

- the first breakout roll

 

and will get further breakout rolls as time goes on. How many more opportunities should the target receive to neutralize the attacker's attack power?

 

This should be addressed from both points of view. The PC who is tricked by illusions wants all those extra breakout opportunities. The PC who is using illusions as his own attack may feel quite differently. I think whatever rules are used for illusions should ensure that they are not markedly different in effectiveness from other abilities at the same level (be that D&D spell level, Hero point costs or whatever other metric you care to use).

[Markdoc]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

This should be addressed from both points of view. The PC who is tricked by illusions wants all those extra breakout opportunities. The PC who is using illusions as his own attack may feel quite differently. I think whatever rules are used for illusions should ensure that they are not markedly different in effectiveness from other abilities at the same level (be that D&D spell level' date=' Hero point costs or whatever other metric you care to use).[/quote']

 

I'd agree with this, but encourage role-playing based efforts to gain another breakout roll for two reasons. One, mental illusions and mind control can often be extremely powerful, even balanced against their cost. It's appropriate and in genre to let them have a strong effect, but if that effect lingers too long, it can be problematic. The second reason is that because of the way these powers work, it can be frustrating for the player (if she knows it's an illusion or that he's being mind-controlled) to act the part in-game. Most decent role-players will do that - up to a point. It becomes less fun if you miss a breakout roll and know you have another minute (let's say 20-25 actions) to go on dealing with an illusion. In the end, the game is about fun.

 

Allowing the player to seek (in-game) for a way to break a mental illusion or mind control allows the powers to be effective (short term) but gives the player to do something active to respond (reducing frustration factor). Win/win, as I see it. Of course, the same applies to NPCs

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I'd agree with this' date=' but encourage role-playing based efforts to gain another breakout roll for two reasons. One, mental illusions and mind control can often be extremely powerful, even balanced against their cost. It's appropriate and in genre to let them have a strong effect, but if that effect lingers too long, it can be problematic. The second reason is that because of the way these powers work, it can be frustrating for the player (if she knows it's an illusion or that he's being mind-controlled) to act the part in-game. Most decent role-players will do that - up to a point. It becomes less fun if you miss a breakout roll and know you have another minute (let's say 20-25 actions) to go on dealing with an illusion. In the end, the game is about fun.[/quote']

 

OK, maybe I'm just appallingly stupid, but I fail to see how failing the breakout roll and being stuck for a turn, or a minute, is significantly "less fun" than any of the following:

 

- being Flashed for 12 phases (a typical 12d6 result on an undefended target) and thus unable to have any real impact on the combat. Sure, it's "only" one turn, but it's easy enough to reapply, say, every six segments to keep you flashed.

 

- being Drained 42 character points (2 hits from a 60 AP drain - 1 hit from a Suppress) from your STR (your Brick can't do damage; most other characters need an amazing roll just to act); your DEX (your OCV and DCV are reduced by 4 or 5 each - good luck hitting or avoiding being hit), CON (any hit should now STUN most characters), BOD (probably dead), INT/EGO/PRE (unlikely you can make the CHAR roll to act)? SPD (how often do you move with 4 SPD gone) or END (so...want to burn some STUN to act) are also good targets.

 

- being knocked to -11 or -21 STUN with a lucky hit (REC next turn or next minute)

 

- being Entangled, say, 4d6, 8 DEF if you rely on foci or attacks which do no BOD

 

Your teammates might be able to help you out on some of these - of course, they can also take actions to assist you in getting another breakout roll, so that seems breakeven.

 

Why is the Illusion or Mind Control any more "not fun" (or do you allow characters to take special actions to recover from all other debilitating combat results)? At least my character is still acting, and Mind Control can be tons of fun if you role play your character's new eagerness to engage his teammates in a tactical manner.

[Markdoc]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

OK' date=' maybe I'm just appallingly stupid, but I fail to see how failing the breakout roll and being stuck for a turn, or a minute, is significantly "less fun" than any of the following: [/quote']

 

I've snipped the examples, but there's two substantial differences. First, none of the straight attack powers you mention can turn you on your own team, which mental powers can do. It's one thing to take an opposing character out - it's another to get them to partially swap sides.

 

Secondly, many players hate the thought of their PC being "out of their control". The same player who is a bit annoyed by his PC being beaten unconscious will often be highly irritated by the same PC being manipulated by illusions or mind control. Sure, it may appear illogical, but it's folly to pretend it doesn't happen. It's the same motivation that leads some PCs to fight to the death to avoid capture. SteveL comments on this control issue in the core rules for a reason: it's a relatively common problem.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I've snipped the examples' date=' but there's two substantial differences. First, none of the straight attack powers you mention can turn you on your own team, which mental powers can do. It's one thing to take an opposing character out - it's another to get them to partially swap sides. [/quote']

 

For me, it's more fun to swap sides, since I'm still able to play my character, albeit not to accomplish his own goals. With the proper mindset (role playing vs "win the scenario - us vs the GM"), role playing a character who has been mentally controlled to battle his teammates to the best of his ability is a very fun experience. But I may just be lucky to have a great group of players, in this respect as well as several others I've noted previously on the boards.

 

Secondly' date=' many players hate the thought of their PC being "out of their control". The same player who is a bit annoyed by his PC being beaten unconscious will often be highly irritated by the same PC being manipulated by illusions or mind control. Sure, it may appear illogical, but it's folly to pretend it doesn't happen. It's the same motivation that leads some PCs to fight to the death to avoid capture. SteveL comments on this control issue in the core rules for a reason: it's a relatively common problem.[/quote']

 

I agree that the issue exists. I forget how fortunate I am to have a gaming group that doesn't have this issue. Role playing my character through combat, a puzzle, a moral dilemma or controlled into behaving against his usual personality is all part of the fun. An excess of any of these would get boring and become "no fun", of course, but that applies to all of them.

 

It comes back, I suppose, to "know thy players".

[Kristopher]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

Personally, I have little patience for anything that takes control of my character out of my hands. It is in no way in, near, or within sight of my idea of fun.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

Personally' date=' I have little patience for anything that takes control of my character out of my hands. It is in no way in, near, or within sight of my idea of fun.[/quote']

 

I prefer to view Mind Control or Mental Illusions as restricting the choices of my character. While Mind Controlled to, say, attack his own teammates, I still control his choice of tactics, attack selection, target selection, etc.

 

His choices are also restricted if he's KO'd, Stunned, Flashed, Drained, needs to save his DNPC or is blocked from certain actions by his personality (whether or not formally a psychological limitation).

 

Now, if the GM just said "You're mind controlled so I'll run your character", I would consider that taking control of my character out of my hands. That would be no fun. But mind control that restricts his choices? Lots of things restrict the characters' choices - those challenges are part of the fun. At least in my little world. If I want to dictate everything that my character does, including what obstacles stand in his way, I'll write a book, not play a game.

[teh bunneh]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

We used to have an illusionary lamp in my college apartment. When you turned it on, the room appeared brighter, but the light was entirely useless for doing what light is supposed to do -- it didn't make it any easier to read, or write, or do detail work, or see things, or anything. It was really weird. You'd be sitting on the couch reading, and think "It's getting dark. I'll turn on the lamp so I can see my book better. *click* ...Huh. I can see that it's on, but that didn't help at all."

[Markdoc]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I agree that the issue exists. I forget how fortunate I am to have a gaming group that doesn't have this issue. Role playing my character through combat' date=' a puzzle, a moral dilemma or controlled into behaving against his usual personality is all part of the fun. An excess of any of these would get boring and become "no fun", of course, but that applies to all of them.[/quote']

 

I feel I should point out that I'm not suggesting my current group of players are like this: they in fact are quite happy to play mind control, mistaken identity, illusions, etc, (see my campaign log for examples). But I've played with a lot of groups and am aware that for some players it's an issue. When thinking about the rules, I tend to shy away from "what fits my current group" because I pick them fairly carefully these days and think more about how something would fit all the different types of players I've seen.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kristopher]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

(Disclaimer: I might be a touch sensitive about things right now, given what's going on in my life, gaming and otherwise. Also, I am not directing this at anyone in particular.)

 

I sometimes pick up an underlying implication that players who don't like to have their characters mind controlled or otherwise psychically manipulated are somehow flawed or less mature or whatever as gamers. And honestly, I resent that implication.

 

I am of the opinion that a GM should keep in mind the kind of things that each player does and does not like. The player who doesn't like romance subplots shouldn't constantly have them thrust upon him. The player who gets really pissed off about betrayal shouldn't be forced to play through a DNPC or Contact stabbing him in the back unless his character really really did something to cause it. And they player who doesn't like to have this character mind controlled shouldn't be the target for Menton when the group is attacked.

 

If nothing else, it's a game, and it's supposed to be fun, and so the GM shouldn't do things that make the game the opposite of fun for particular players.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

(Disclaimer: I might be a touch sensitive about things right now, given what's going on in my life, gaming and otherwise. Also, I am not directing this at anyone in particular.)

 

I sometimes pick up an underlying implication that players who don't like to have their characters mind controlled or otherwise psychically manipulated are somehow flawed or less mature or whatever as gamers. And honestly, I resent that implication.

 

I am of the opinion that a GM should keep in mind the kind of things that each player does and does not like. The player who doesn't like romance subplots shouldn't constantly have them thrust upon him. The player who gets really pissed off about betrayal shouldn't be forced to play through a DNPC or Contact stabbing him in the back unless his character really really did something to cause it. And they player who doesn't like to have this character mind controlled shouldn't be the target for Menton when the group is attacked.

 

If nothing else, it's a game, and it's supposed to be fun, and so the GM shouldn't do things that make the game the opposite of fun for particular players.

 

While I agree steping on a player's psychological limitations can be bad for the game, how far does one take thiss? Some players don't like their characters to:

 

- get killed

- get injured

- take damage

- be ridiculed

- be ineffective

- be disrespected

- be disadvantaged by their Disadvantages

- be limited by their Limitations

- lose

- have the bad guy get away

- have the bad guy survive

 

Do we change the game to cater to their wishes, or suggest they consider whether this game is right for them? The game cannot always cater to every player's whims every time.

 

I would say it is no more, and no less, fair for a player is to expect every game to cater to his likes or dislikes than it is for the GM to expect the players to design and run their characters exactly as he would. If a player detests the thought of Mind Control robbing his control of his character, he should stick to games where this is not in genre.

 

I can't think of many. Modern action-adventure, I suppose. Mental control seems reasonable in Pulp, Fantasy, Sci Fi and Supers, but there are likely subgenres where it would not be.

[sinanju]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

I've snipped the examples, but there's two substantial differences. First, none of the straight attack powers you mention can turn you on your own team, which mental powers can do. It's one thing to take an opposing character out - it's another to get them to partially swap sides.

 

Secondly, many players hate the thought of their PC being "out of their control". The same player who is a bit annoyed by his PC being beaten unconscious will often be highly irritated by the same PC being manipulated by illusions or mind control. Sure, it may appear illogical, but it's folly to pretend it doesn't happen. It's the same motivation that leads some PCs to fight to the death to avoid capture. SteveL comments on this control issue in the core rules for a reason: it's a relatively common problem.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Good points, but on the other hand...

 

Steamteck could tell you that when my characters are mind-controlled or suffering from illusions, I've always done my damnedest to ace the other PCs. I found the fun in working hard to make sure I wasn't holding back, that I was going after them just as aggressively as I went after bad guys.

 

Of course, part of that may be the very Pulp-ish style of Steamteck's campaigns. Having your PC get defeated, captured and having to fight your way out, or being mind controlled occasionally by mentalist bad guys was just part of the cost of being a Hero....

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I DISBELIEVE YOUR REALITY! OR The couch is really there!

 

Steamteck could tell you that when my characters are mind-controlled or suffering from illusions' date=' I've always done my damnedest to ace the other PCs. I found the fun in working hard to make sure I wasn't holding back, that I was going after them just as aggressively as I went after bad guys.[/quote']

 

I agree - the character's combat behaviour shouldn't change, only the targets. Now, if the character is highly emotional and tactically less than stellar, he'll go after the guy on the team that he doesn't like all that much, even if it's not tactically sound, just like he would do the same against the villains.

 

But when the Mind Controlled character suggests he would Spread his energy blast to hit all his teammates with 3d6 damage when he's never used the Spreading rules in the past 45 sessions, he's clearly not playing to the spirit of the game.