Functions of Empathic Mind Control

[phoenix240]

One construct for Emotion Control is Mind Control: Xd6  -1/2 Emotions only. 

 

How would interpret this Limitation? Can the user only create emotional states or can they direct them to some extent? 

 

For example would: Run from me in Terror!" be a legimate command with this power or could the user only make the Target feel afraid and their reaction is pretty totally up to the player/gm. 

 

How would judge the required level of effect in the latter case? 

[eepjr24]

I would say that they can create emotional effects, which within their understanding of the subjects complications have a reasonable chance of doing what they want.

 

Re: "Run from me in Terror", I would say that is not valid, but "Fear me!" would be. If they knew the subjects general reaction was to run from things they fear then that would accomplish the same effect. If on the other hand the subject had a complication or personality trait that they always faced down their fears, it would not work as intended. The wrinkle would come if they managed to get EGO +30 and overcome the "Face my fears" trait. Then I would have it default back to normal human behavior which tends to flee from that which is fears.

 

I think the second bullet under each EGO+ entry in Mind Control provides a good guide for how to figure the required effect already without much interpretation. (6e1, pg 253)

 

- E

[phoenix240]

Ego+30 seems a little steep doesn't it? 

[eepjr24]

Ego+30 seems a little steep doesn't it? 

I am just going by RAW. 6e1 253:

EGO +30

   Target will perform actions he is violently opposed to doing

   Target will believe statements that contradict strongly held personal beliefs or principles (including Psychological Complications) or that contradict reality under direct observation.

So for a hero with a Complication like "Fearless" or "Always faces their fears", that is what would be required. 

 

Now for your average Joe faced with a super villain? Anything greater than EGO would send them scampering. For a highly outclassed Hero, (say 150 or 200 points versus a 350 point villain), EGO +10 would do it in my book. For someone in the right ballpark of power (say a 250 point hero versus a 200 to 300 point villain), EGO +20 feels about right.

 

All of these could be modified in the normal ways (Add 20 if you want them to think the fear was their own cowardice, etc).

 

Sorry if the first post led you to think I meant everything would require +30.

 

- E

[phoenix240]

Its not that I meant I wouldn't require Ego+30 in all but the rarest cases, something like suicidally brave/reckless:Ver Com, Total.

[eepjr24]

Its not that I meant I wouldn't require Ego+30 in all but the rarest cases, something like suicidally brave/reckless:Ver Com, Total.

Your game, you run it how you like. =) You asked how others would handle it, that's how I do it. Mental powers in Champs can get pretty powerful, even without making it easier by lowering the rolls needed to exceed EGO.

 

- E

[massey]

I'd allow "run from me in terror!" at a -1/2.  Why?  Because "enter the access code, open the door, go down the hallway, talk your way past the security desk, and retrieve the item from behind the force field" is possible with the basic power.

 

Mind control at -1/2 should still be capable of a lot of effective moves.  Just making them feel afraid leaves too much open to interpretation, given that you've purchased a fairly expensive power with your points.  If you're lucky, you get a GM who is willing to roleplay things out.  If you're unlucky, you get a GM (or players, if you are the GM), who try to no-sell the effect.  "Oh yeah he's afraid but he still attacks you."  You had to use an attack action, spend a lot of points, and overcome Ego + whatever.  It's still Mind Control, you should get what you paid for.

 

At -1/2, I'd allow you to use it as regular Mind Control, but the actions performed would have to have a strong emotional link.  Very complex instructions would be hard to justify, unless they were really thematically appropriate.  For instance, Freddywise the Evil Dream Clown uses his emotion control on the teenage girl to make her afraid.  He hits her ECV, rolls Ego +20, and tells her "run away from your friends, down that dark alleyway, then seek shelter in the old abandoned amusement park."  I think that's more representative of emotion control as we see in fiction than just a general "I make you mad/happy/in love/angry" thing.  

 

Remember, a lot of the time when we see those powers used, the person drops everything and acts as stupidly as possible.  They're in a life or death situation and they turn to attack their buddy because they hate them now, or they stop fighting the zombie so they can confess their love to somebody else.  Think of the movie "Liar Liar", where he's just got to tell the truth for 24 hours.  And by "tell the truth", I mean "say the stupidest thing he can, at the worst possible time".  It's not supposed to be emotion control, but game wise it's still probably functioning as a limited form of mind control, where his actions are defined for him.

 

If you're the player, and your GM gives you crap about it and wants to make an "emotions only" overly limiting to you in play, then define the limitation differently.  "limited instructions" -1/4, and "must be connected to emotional state" at -1/4, and I think you'd be fine.

[bigdamnhero]

For example would: Run from me in Terror!" be a legimate command with this power or could the user only make the Target feel afraid and their reaction is pretty totally up to the player/gm.

I've always played it as the latter: you cause the emotion, but you can't control what the character does with it. Typically the GM decides what's the most appropriate way for a character to react. If you can effectively direct the character's actions, then that's not much of a Limitation. In that case "controlling emotions" just becomes the sfx of what is mechanically normal Mind Control, which is fine but you don't get a Limitation discount for that.

 

The "Alter/Inflict Emotions" Power (Champions Powers p122, or 5ed Ultimate Mentalist p115) discusses this in more detail. It says for example you couldn't make a character go stand under a particular tree:

 

"...not even if he tries to avoid the Limitation by claiming "I'm going to inspire a love of that tree..."" (emphasis mine)

 

Under "Fear" it says:

 

"Victims who fail their EGO Roll normally flee, tho they may be paralyzed with fear or may lash out at the feared object/phenomenon in panic."

 

The nice thing about empathic control is you define what emotion you want to inflict, but you don't necessarily have to define a specific effect, which means you'll typically get some some result regardless of the effect level you achieve. At EGO+0, maybe he's not scared enough to run away but he shifts all his CSLs to DCV. At EGO+10 depending on the target's motivations maybe he's still loyal enough or desperate enough to not run but he switches to all Blocking & Dodging. At EGO+20, he's scared enough to run if he can disengage relatively safely. At EGO+30? He throws down his sword, turns his back on you, and runs away screaming and waving his hands in the air like a Home Alone cosplayer.

 

 

So for a hero with a Complication like "Fearless" or "Always faces their fears", that is what would be required.

Sure, no different from using regular Mind Control to order a target to attack someone they love or go against some other Complication.

 

..."enter the access code, open the door, go down the hallway, talk your way past the security desk, and retrieve the item from behind the force field" is possible with the basic power.

The way I've always played it, something that detailed requiring multiple actions (I count at least three discrete tasks) would constitute multiple commands, requiring multiple Attack Rolls or at least a Breakout Roll for each separate task. I could've sworn there was a discussion in RAW somewhere about what constitutes a "command" for Mind Control purposes, but I can't seem to find it at the moment?

 

If you're unlucky, you get a GM (or players, if you are the GM), who try to no-sell the effect.  "Oh yeah he's afraid but he still attacks you."  You had to use an attack action, spend a lot of points, and overcome Ego + whatever.  It's still Mind Cont.

Well if you get a GM who does that, then they're just being a dick and RAW won't help you.

 

He hits her ECV, rolls Ego +20, and tells her "run away from your friends, down that dark alleyway, then seek shelter in the old abandoned amusement park."

I honestly don't see how that's any different than regular Mind Control. At EGO +20, yeah the target's probably going to run. But if you have that much control over where & how they run, then that's just regular Mind Control with "emotions" as the sfx.

 

"limited instructions" -1/4, and "must be connected to emotional state" at -1/4, and I think you'd be fine.

Hmm...yeah, I might give you -1/4 for that. But it's certainly not worth the full -1/2.

[Marcus Impudite]

How people handle fear varies by the individual. A person with a Psychological Limitation such as "Timid," "Coward," or "Flees From Physical Combat" would run away for sure; but with anyone else, it's luck of the draw whether they'd run, become paralyzed with terror, or gnash their teeth and attack you just to prove they're not "chicken."

[phoenix240]

This almost seems like one of those abilities its better to "fake" with different powers and an Empathic Control SFX. 

 

"Scared stiff": mental Entangle.

 

"To scared for Rational thought" Int Drain or minus to Int rolls. 

 

 

Stuff like that. 

[Netzilla]

How people handle fear varies by the individual. A person with a Psychological Limitation such as "Timid," "Coward," or "Flees From Physical Combat" would run away for sure; but with anyone else, it's luck of the draw whether they'd run, become paralyzed with terror, or gnash their teeth and attack you just to prove they're not "chicken."

I ran a scenario a while back where there was an attack on a crowded night club. I represented the patrons with a couple boxes of small d6s that I rolled on the map to determine initial placement and reaction. On a 1-5, they would try to flee; on a 6, they'd do something else. The 6s were replaced with larger dice of another color. If those dice came up 1-5, that person froze in panic. The rest actually tried to fight back. Not neccessarily realistic ratios but gloriously chaotic and fun as a quick and dirty crowd reaction mechanic.

[Hugh Neilson]

At -1/2, the power loses some of its effectiveness. However, it's still a pretty good power. Mind Control, Emotions Only should be as good as Blast, no Range, for example.

 

"Your Mind Control will have no impact whenever the target's player makes a quip about how they feel your Mind Control but react the exact opposite of what you were trying to achieve" sounds like it's lacking in conscious control.

 

Massey contrasted

 

"enter the access code, open the door, go down the hallway, talk your way past the security desk, and retrieve the item from behind the force field" is possible with the basic power.

with

 

Freddywise the Evil Dream Clown uses his emotion control on the teenage girl to make her afraid. He hits her ECV, rolls Ego +20, and tells her "run away from your friends, down that dark alleyway, then seek shelter in the old abandoned amusement park."

BDH suggested the former requires multiple commands. First, I question that - the entire sequence of the first series is "bring me the object behind the Force Field", and each step along the chain is geared at this result. He didn't stop in the middle to get his Controlled victim to walk out into traffic and distract the Hero he's now trying to escape.

 

But if you would require separate commands for each step of "steal the object", then "run away from your friends", followed by "oh, there's a scary someone coming up the street - quick, duck "down that dark alleyway"", followed by "it's following you - "seek shelter in the old abandoned amusement park."" seems just as legitimate.

 

The -1/2 limitation should limit the nature of the commands given - they have to have an emotional link, which would be pretty challenging to pull off to get "retrieve that well guarded object behind the force field and bring it back to me here", as converting raw emotion to that objective would be a pretty complex task (time consuming - way longer than the full phase action that is also a -1/2 limitation if not impossible. But "Flee in terror" rather than "be afraid" being answerable with "I am terrified, so I lash out in fear using the exact same combat strategy I would have used without your mind control" seems perfectly reasonable.

 

"Be afraid - GM determines result of being afraid" seems like a variant of -1 No Conscious Control, tacked on to "emotional effects only".

[bigdamnhero]

BDH suggested the former requires multiple commands. First, I question that - the entire sequence of the first series is "bring me the object behind the Force Field", and each step along the chain is geared at this result. He didn't stop in the middle to get his Controlled victim to walk out into traffic and distract the Hero he's now trying to escape.

Yeah, that's fair. I do feel like there outta be a line somewhere so you can't give someone an infinite number of tasks based on one successful attack. But if you read this as "Go get the McGuffin" and everything else is just clarifying instructions I can see that.

 

But "Flee in terror" rather than "be afraid" being answerable with "I am terrified, so I lash out in fear using the exact same combat strategy I would have used without your mind control" seems perfectly reasonable.

 

"Be afraid - GM determines result of being afraid" seems like a variant of -1 No Conscious Control, tacked on to "emotional effects only".

Your GMs must be bigger jerks than those I'm used to playing with.   I reiterate that if your GM interprets "fear" in that way, then they're being a dick and the cost of one Limitation is the least of your problems.

 

And per RAW a -1 for NCC would mean you can't control what type of emotion you're projecting: could be fear, could be rage, could be love.

[phoenix240]

At -1/2, the power loses some of its effectiveness. However, it's still a pretty good power. Mind Control, Emotions Only should be as good as Blast, no Range, for example.

 

"Your Mind Control will have no impact whenever the target's player makes a quip about how they feel your Mind Control but react the exact opposite of what you were trying to achieve" sounds like it's lacking in conscious control.

 

Massey contrasted

 

 

with

 

 

BDH suggested the former requires multiple commands. First, I question that - the entire sequence of the first series is "bring me the object behind the Force Field", and each step along the chain is geared at this result. He didn't stop in the middle to get his Controlled victim to walk out into traffic and distract the Hero he's now trying to escape.

 

But if you would require separate commands for each step of "steal the object", then "run away from your friends", followed by "oh, there's a scary someone coming up the street - quick, duck "down that dark alleyway"", followed by "it's following you - "seek shelter in the old abandoned amusement park."" seems just as legitimate.

 

The -1/2 limitation should limit the nature of the commands given - they have to have an emotional link, which would be pretty challenging to pull off to get "retrieve that well guarded object behind the force field and bring it back to me here", as converting raw emotion to that objective would be a pretty complex task (time consuming - way longer than the full phase action that is also a -1/2 limitation if not impossible. But "Flee in terror" rather than "be afraid" being answerable with "I am terrified, so I lash out in fear using the exact same combat strategy I would have used without your mind control" seems perfectly reasonable.

 

"Be afraid - GM determines result of being afraid" seems like a variant of -1 No Conscious Control, tacked on to "emotional effects only".

This reflects out (myself and the co gm) in the matter,.

 

The topic is tricky since it touches on some areas like Potential Player Agency as defined by control over their PC's personality and reactions and handling emotions and the irrational emotion driven actions they can create when they are particularly intense .I've seen Pre attacks cause similar issues. But Pre attacks have some set mechanical effects that can't generally be ignored. Even of Testicular Fortitude Man wouldn't flee according to his player, he's still going to suffer whatever mechanical result comes from the Pre Attack rolling over his resistance. Emapthic Mind Control doesn't have that benefit. 

[Anaximander]

Different people respond to different emotions under different situations.  The typical response to fear is either fight or fright.  If the fear is particularly great, it can result in a kind of paralysis.  If you want a particular response, you should build that power with emotion control being an FX.  Here is the problem with emotion control powers in roleplaying games.  Both the GM and the players have to be mature and aware enough to interpret the data in order to roleplay correctly.

 

This is a real life circumstance In a game I was once in.  I was playing an elven ranger whose specialty enemy was orcs in a modified 2nd AD&D game.  The party was hired by a town to deal with a tribe of orcs that was involved with a lot of raids.  The party went into the orc camp to gather intelligence in order to resolve the orc problem.  An orc shaman cast an enrage spell over all present before an important orc raid.  The spells area of affect extended the player character party, and the only PC who failed his roll was my elf.   I know it is extremely unlikely for a 2ed AD&D elf to fail an enchantment/charm, but you don't know my history with dice.  Anyway, my character did actually speak orc; so, my character was enraged but in no particular direction; so, the pent up racial and professional hatred my character had towards orcs exploded into a killing spree.  Fortunately, the suddenness and ferocity of the attack caught the orcs completely off guard and we were able to win the battle.  Mind you, I normally play the voice of reason in most campaigns, but I felt that under the influence of the rage spell that my character would most likely lose his composure and lash out even though the purpose of the orc shaman's spell was aimed against the village my character was trying to protect.  The question is, is what I would have done if my character's anger and hatred was aimed at the village?  I do not know the answer to that because that isn't what happened, but since my character was Chaotic good, he probably would not go on a killing spree against innocents.  The most he probably would have done was quit the mission.

 

The point of this illustration is that if a PC or NPC comes under the influence of an emotion he should respond in the way that he would respond if he were to come under that emotion based on how that character is defined.  If I am the player running a character I genuinely like, I would know his or her character makeup sufficiently to know how he or she would respond under certain circumstances.  I may have problems deciding how a character would act if I am not really into the character or the campaign though.  As a GM running NPCs, if the NPC is important and I am really into him or her, I probably already know enough to at least establish a percentage.  For mooks and other unimportant NPCs, I would likely give the PC the results he intends unless if doing so would ruin the game.  I would never force a PC to a particular reaction because of an emotion control power.  I do like giving bonuses for excellent play, and to determine if a player qualifies, I would look at several factors.  They are complications and talents do the character have, are there clues in the characters written or stated background, and how does the player typically play the character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Your GMs must be bigger jerks than those I'm used to playing with.   I reiterate that if your GM interprets "fear" in that way, then they're being a dick and the cost of one Limitation is the least of your problems.

 

And per RAW a -1 for NCC would mean you can't control what type of emotion you're projecting: could be fear, could be rage, could be love.

Which is why I indicated a variant of NCC, rather than RAW NCC. That said, however, if we believe "only instills fear" is more limiting than "only controls emotions", it seems like that greater limitation makes NCC less limiting. Is that an appropriate result?