Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Campbell · Jul 13, 2019

I have already spoken on how social mechanics can serve as an immersion tool to help players feel what their characters should be feeling in the moment.

Another crucial function can be to deliberately welcome the wholly unwelcome. It introduces outcomes which no one at the table would deliberately choose, but are nonetheless compelling. Vincent Baker calls this the fundamental purpose of RPG mechanics. Like as a GM and a player you are fond of this character. You like want the best for them, but in order for dramatic tension to exist there needs to exist the possibility things will not turn out the way you hope. Think of it like PC death in combat.

With the sort of character focused play I am talking about here character concept as an idealized version of who your character is and how you expect their story to play out has absolutely no place. Your job is to play a character. Not a concept. We're creative collaborators. The expectation is that our contributions will impact each other.

I also think there is a measure of talking past each other because most people are viewing social mechanics through the specter of charm person and 3e's horrible Diplomacy rules. I personally favor games where player choice of decisions is preserved as much as possible, but where those decisions are colored by the mechanical impact of social mechanics. This weekend I'll get into details from actual games.

Ovinomancer · Jul 13, 2019

Maxperson said:
By making the hard choice obviously. I you can't fail to pick a choice, but none of the choices may be what you want, so there is no success. Challenge has more than one definition and not of them are binary. Trying to limit a challenge to success or failure is a False Dichotomy.

What do you have if there's no failure, and no success, though? Not a challenge. If you can't fail, if there's no risk, then it's not a challenge. Does it have to be abject, absolute failure? No, of course not, but there has to be something at risk and that risk has to be losing that something.

And here's where we're having a disconnect: you insist that the player has 100% sole authority over characterizations. Taken as given, then nothing is ever risked if the player is making a choice about that characterization. If you chose to change your character, then you've chosen it. That characterization was never at risk -- there's no way you can lose the characterization. What I'm seeing is an argument that a choice can be offered that risks the player's characterization, but this fails at first contact because the player is making the choice about the characterization -- it's still exactly what the player wants. If you, personally, exhibit difficulty in making a choice to change your characterization, this doesn't make the choice special or suddenly a challenge -- you're still the only one exercising your 100% authority, and you cannot lose this or have it reduced (again, taking the initial premise for granted).

It's not that a choice can't be part of a challenge. A choice to enter a room full of monsters usually kicks off a challenge and becomes part of it, but that challenge isn't "do I decide to go in or not" it's "do I overcome this room full of monsters" and your choice is many-fold for how you might do this. I think that some mechanic is necessary for an RPG, because we have no other way to resolve uncertainty, and uncertainty is necessary for challenge to exist. Just as the chance to fail must exist or there is no challenge. And, again, you cannot fail to exercise your authority over characterization because you make a choice about your characterization.

Ovinomancer · Jul 13, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Okay Mr Grumpy - can't take a joke - but can belittle others

Dude, irony, again.

Ovinomancer · Jul 13, 2019

FrogReaver said:
In real life - What about chess? Is Chess a challenge? (assuming two nearly equally skilled players)

Is there a mechanic? Can you fail? Can you succeed? There's your answer, three times over.

If you play chess against yourself, is there a challenge? This is more akin to using your sole authority to determine characterization to make a choice about your characterization. You can't fail this challenge, you can just choose which side you win on.

Umbran · Jul 13, 2019

pemerton said:
Whether you need mechanics (social mechanics, emotional mechanics, whatever they might be) to generate that sort of challenge is a further question. My view is that you don't, although obviously they might help.

I tend to agree. "Need" is an absolute, and there are few absolutes that actually hold for us. Mechanics may make it easier to make such challenges, and/or make them eaiser for players to accept.

The key idea I take away from this is one of fidelity - to the fiction, and to what is revealed about the character in the fiction.

"Fidelity" has two connotations. One is "strict adherence" - this is like a "high-fidelity recording". I don't think that's the sense meant here. The sense intended here is probably "faithful".

And that's important. Because if we use the first, then fidelity is, "You wrote that your character is Lawful Good, so you cannot take that action." Fidelity, meaning faithfulness, is more about making the character a real person - who can make errors and change over time..

FrogReaver · Jul 13, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Is there a mechanic? Can you fail? Can you succeed? There's your answer, three times over.

Then I'm confused. In chess you can choose between all choices. Earlier you said that meant something wasn't a challenge

Ovinomancer · Jul 13, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Then I'm confused. In chess you can choose between all choices. Earlier you said that meant something wasn't a challenge

Yes, you are confused. Finally, agreement.

FrogReaver · Jul 13, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Yes, you are confused. Finally, agreement.

This is a discussion board. If your not going to discuss with me then stop talking to me.

Ovinomancer · Jul 13, 2019

FrogReaver said:
This is a discussion board. If your not going to discuss with me then stop talking to me.

Dude, irony.

Umbran · Jul 13, 2019

FrogReaver said:
At first you say a hard choice isn't a challenge. Then you say you believe a challenge can be made without mechanics. What other method could possibly result in a challenge besides either mechanics or a hard choice?

It is late, but let me see if I can construct one... I will use example presented before - the chaste knight is offered Excalibur in exchange for their chastity. We can call this... "The Maiden and the Sword".

On the face of this, it is just a hard question - and only hard in the sense of our having put a stake in the ground in claiming the character was chaste, and we often dislike being put in a position where we turn out to have been wrong. Even if there's a mechanical loss in no longer being chaste, there's a mechanical gain in having Excalibur. It is still just a choice.

But, we can re-position this, so that it becomes a challenge: "Knight, do you have what it takes to remain chaste *and* keep the realm safe?" This is not a choice - they can't just say, "yes" and have it be true. They have to prove it. It is a test that one can pass of fail. It does not have a specific mechanic associated with it. This is a place where the core concept of the character (chaste protector of the realm) is challenged. If the character does not pass this challenge, they effectively lose one or both of those aspects - they are either not chaste, or not really a protector of the realm.