Players choose what their PCs do . . .

pemerton · Jul 14, 2019

Campbell said:
Sometimes the best person to socially engage in a situation is based on intimacies rather than who is the most socially gifted.

I think this is very important when approaching social/emotional conflict in RPGs. Otherwise there is a significant risk of all the characters turning out to be the same ie merely expedient. That's fine for Dying Earth but not desirable in general, in my view.

Campbell said:
You can be changed through the course of a social encounter even if you ultimately succeed. Like wounds on the battlefield. You risk your beliefs by arguing for them.

Can you explain this further in relation to the system you've described? Is this the depletion of Willpower, or something else as well?

Campbell said:
No mechanics are actually necessary. Anything can be resolved through consensus. That's what the online freeformers do. However, sometimes consensus is like boring and stuff.

Between (i) conensus and (ii) mechanics that directly attack PC beliefs/convictions lies (iii) scenes/situations framed with genuine stakes and binding outcomes.

In mentioning (iii) I'm not meaning at all to downplay (ii). But because historically D&D as a system, and as played, has had very little of (iii) there can be a tendency to skip over it in these discussions.

Tony Vargas · Jul 14, 2019

Campbell said:
I'm going to start with an example of a system that I consider to have the most impact on player agency of the games I like to play, , but also the richest in terms of representing highly dynamic characters. Exalted 3e's social influence system is ...

I've never glanced at Exalted. All I've heard about, 2nd-hand, is that it was WWGS's ST-like stab at fantasy, the PCs are demigods, and most of all, in a very derogatory way, that it's wild, over-the-top superheroics. "...then you might as well be playing Exalted!" Like it was the RPG equivalent of Godwins Law or something.

FrogReaver · Jul 14, 2019

Campbell said:
Let me start off by saying I do not like viewing game mechanics through the lens of necessity. No mechanics are actually necessary. Anything can be resolved through consensus. That's what the online freeformers do. However, sometimes consensus is like boring and stuff.

I'm going to start with an example of a system that I consider to have the most impact on player agency of the games I like to play, , but also the richest in terms of representing highly dynamic characters. Exalted 3e's social influence system is built off of intimacies that represent a character's beliefs, philosophies, and relationships. They come in 3 strengths - minor, major, and defining. In order to convince a character (PC or NPC) to do something they would not otherwise do you must target one of their intimacies that supports what you are trying to convince them of. The strength of that intimacy determines what you can convince them to do. Regardless you cannot convince them to do something that would cause them to abandon a Defining Intimacy. They can also bolster their defenses with a intimacy of the same strength or better that they possess.

In play it works like this usually: Two parties are trying to convince each other that their course is right. They play a cat and mouse game trying to discover what the other values while concealing their own intimacies. Your first defense is your Guile which represents how well your able to conceal your emotions and motivations. Then the parties will try to bolster or weaken intimacies through social influence in order to put themselves in a position to convince the other party. This can become quite interesting if multiple parties are involved. Then finally arguments get made and attempts are made to persuade.All attempts to influence must go through Resolve which represents your ability to hold steadfast to your beliefs. This is modified by the intimacies at play. Even if successful you are forced to a Decision Point allowing you to point to another sufficiently strong intimacy and spend a Willpower to reject it. It takes a lot to convince someone to do something in this system, especially if they are built for the social game at all.

Here's what I like about this system:

It allows for grand confrontations at court that are every bit as tense as the most pitched of battles.

It can be used in the midst of combat allowing for a duel of wits that parallels the one on the ground. This is one of my favorite tropes.

It allows multiple PCs to have meaningful impacts on social encounters by deploying different levels of expertise and supporting and bolstering each other against attempts to influence them.

You can be changed through the course of a social encounter even if you ultimately succeed. Like wounds on the battlefield. You risk your beliefs by arguing for them.

Everything you do must still be based on your fictional positioning.

Sometimes the best person to socially engage in a situation is based on intimacies rather than who is the most socially gifted.

It seems to me that while the mechanics mentioned are miles ahead D&D's mechanics for NPC interaction, that such mechanics when used on PCs will do 2 things

1. Because a human will always be able to outperform a rather simplistic algorithm in judging what is more true to the character in question then this simple mechanical algorithm will inherently produce less fidelity than a PC under player control in those moments.
2. Limit the characters you can play to the ones specifically allowed by such a system, which is far fewer than is allowed by a system where the player is in control of their PC's thoughts, emotions and actions.

FrogReaver · Jul 14, 2019

Consider a D&D game. An NPC is trying to persuade a PC to do something. The DM states the NPC's case with a high level overview. To provide some context for the players into how persuasive the NPC argument was the DM rolls the NPC's persuasion skill just so they players can gauge how convincing said NPC would be to the average person. Then the players take the NPC's specific argument and the persuasion skill roll and filter that through the character they are playing and come to a conclusion of how to have their PC react.

In this situation what is gained from actually requiring a persuasion contest with binding results for the PC in order to determine if he was persuaded?

Lanefan · Jul 14, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
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.

However - and this seems to be getting ignored here - in choosing which side you win on you're also choosing which side you lose on (which, to reverse your words above, also means you cannot succeed this challenge); and in the RPG sense it's most likely the chosen loss that'll have the consequences attached.

And yet again I ask you: does every challenge have to be a binary succeed-fail affair? And if so, why?

Ovinomancer · Jul 14, 2019

pemerton said:
I can see why you say this. But for me, this brings us back to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s remarks:

The absence of choice in the example I provided occurred at the point of the killing. At that point, thie player learns - without having any say over it - that his PC is a killer. At that point, playing the character with integrity generates the crisis. There were subsequent events, too, that played on the crisis. That's part of the GM's job (in my view) - once the pressure point is clear, the GM needs to work it, not relax it, so that the player isn't spared the consequence of what has happened. This isn't quite GM decides, but it's a definite demand on the GM that puts the GM in a very different role from (say) the impartial GMing of Gygaxian D&D, or the most common approach to Classic Traveller.

The example of play invovling Nighcrawler that I posted upthread is somewhat similar in these respects. Events unfold which are not fully under the player's control (due to the use of action resolution mechanics). And as a result, the player, playing the character with integrity, finds that the character is changed. (In that case, Nightcrawler discovers that he is not as romantic and perhaps not as devout as everyone, including the player, thought.)

I appreciate that this does not unfold the same way - in terms of the interplay of choice and mechanics - as what you've had in mind in your posts. I think it's also very different from the example of choosing chastity or Excalibur. In that example - as it has been presented - there is no moment of crisis. There is nothing that has happened to the character that forces a reconsideration of who s/he is.

Here is also another angle on it. As presented, the Excalibur choice can come down to mere expedience - and has been framed as that by some posters: is the short-term gain of the Excalibur power-up worth the long-term loss of (say) fellowship with members of the knightly order, or the king's respect, or whatever else is forfeited along with the chastity.

Whereas in the sorts of examples I am putting forward, expedience is not a consideration. The player is forced to choose a way forward for the character, and is not guaranteed to be able to succeed in the way chosen.

RM is in many ways a D&D variant. But it has a few points that differentiate it from straightforward D&D of the era. The possibility of non-fatal victory in combat is one; aspirations towards a non-combat resolution system is another. The latter rests on a skill system which has - as a side-effect - the generation of PCs who are far richer in detail and hence implicit characterisation than an AD&D PC.

There are also some features of the actual resolution system which - while there is nothing like "fate points" - allows a player to decide in what sorts of ways his/her PC tries hard to succeed and what risks s/he takes, both when fighting and when casting spells.

So while it's easy to bundle RM into the pile of late-70s/early-80s ultra-sim games, it has these features that make it a distinctive vehicle for character-oriented RPGing.

When I look at a system like Burning Wheel, it has a lot of tech that RM doesn't: a system for metagame currency (Beliefs, and the fate points etc that are related to them); much much better action resolution (intent and task, let it ride, "fail forward"); and PC development that is much more tightly integrated with player choices. But the basic devices for putting pressure on the character, and driving change, are the same as what I've described in my examples of play.

I'm 100% for playing with integrity. But, this thread has largely been about three things -- the proposition you posed in the the OP about the difference between two types of action declaration, if a GM should have authority over the characterization at any time, and what constitutes a challenge. Your example does address integrity of characterization, but doesn't touch on any of the previous discussion. That was the end of my point.

Ovinomancer · Jul 14, 2019

Lanefan said:
However - and this seems to be getting ignored here - in choosing which side you win on you're also choosing which side you lose on (which, to reverse your words above, also means you cannot succeed this challenge); and in the RPG sense it's most likely the chosen loss that'll have the consequences attached.

And yet again I ask you: does every challenge have to be a binary succeed-fail affair? And if so, why?

It wasn't ignored. I'm saying it's not a challenge, and you're here adding support for that.

As for why a challenge has to be binary, well... if you don't risk anything, ie, there's nothing you can lose, then you're not being challenged. If you can't win something, then it's also not a challenge, because you're just engaged in a choice between two bad things proposed by someone else. It's only when you're motivated to stake something to achieve something that a challenge exists.

To be blunt, I'm seeing a lot of GM proposed alternatives that the player then chooses from being presented as a challenge. You get A or B, pick. This doesn't ask the player what they want to stake, or if this is a situation they'd engage anyway, but is, instead, the GM intervening and forcing a change in character. An action that is anathema at the point of resolution, apparently, but just fine and tolerable if it's just narrowing the available choices beforehand.

Ovinomancer · Jul 14, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Consider a D&D game. An NPC is trying to persuade a PC to do something. The DM states the NPC's case with a high level overview. To provide some context for the players into how persuasive the NPC argument was the DM rolls the NPC's persuasion skill just so they players can gauge how convincing said NPC would be to the average person. Then the players take the NPC's specific argument and the persuasion skill roll and filter that through the character they are playing and come to a conclusion of how to have their PC react.

In this situation what is gained from actually requiring a persuasion contest with binding results for the PC in order to determine if he was persuaded?

This reads very much like someone without experience in other play trying to suggest that other play must be more limited because, obviously, their play isn't limited at all!

But, let's look at the outcomes that are okay in this example above.

The PCs ignore the NPC.
The PCs initiate combat with the NPC.
The PCs agree with the NPC.
The PCs do something else entirely.

All of the above are good outcomes to your example because it's that person engine deciding, and they're the best deciderers. But, I'm absolutely certain that the above is not what you meant. Instead, you have a list of unspoken additional requirements. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s social contract probably shows up, in that you're expected to play within the social contract. Here, this would be that the players should accept the proposition and the roll and use the table's understanding (read GM's) of how their character acts to figure out a path that doesn't violate these things while still accomplishing something the player wants. But, this is all just a hidden set of controls on the game that you're ignoring -- it doesn't actually work how you describe, there's a huge number of unspoken limits in place. So, you argument boils down to "why speak the limits out loud." Lots of reasons. Everyone understands them, for one. Everyone can agree to them, for two. And, on the gripping hand, the GM is also held to them, something that isn't usually true in D&D.

But, that's not to say that the above is bad. It's not, else the majority of gamers are bad. It isn't the best way, though, it's just the D&D way, and, even there, you're find plenty of arguments on these very boards about social skill use against PCs. So, it's not even that cut and dried in D&D. But, other ways exist, and enable play in ways you're not familiar with. You should assume that because it's different it's lesser. That's like saying the combat rules for 5e are better than the combat rules for Basic. They are different, they result in a different game, but one isn't necessarily better than the other -- it's a personal choice.

FrogReaver · Jul 14, 2019

It's interesting to me that a hard decision for a player is being referred to as "not a challenge". To me that's the greatest kind of challenge in an RPG. That said, I'm going to avoid defining challenge and simply look at various situations whether they be challenges or not and how they effect play.

Consider a persuasion attempt on a PC. Whether there is risk or not will depend on the thing the PC is being persuaded to do. So for this example, let's assume there is a risk to being persuaded. That would mean we could define success as not being persuaded and remaining in the status quo and failure as being persuaded.

So then what happens when that persuasion is resolved mechanically
-The player sits out of the loop and has no input on how their character would react (which also means they have no conflict of interest in how their character is reacting)

What if the persuasion is resolved by player decision based on the actual argument provided and any other aids (such as an NPC persuasion roll to indicate how well orated the argument was)
-The player is solely responsible for choosing whether their PC succeeds or fails, which runs the risk of a player making the determination for out of character reasons, but when the player avoids out of character motivations and attempts to reach the decision to pass or fail, they are facing nearly the same mental challenge that their PC in the game is facing.

I can see where for some the style I'm advocating for would be impossible. Some would always rely on out of character motivations if given the opportunity. But for those that can avoid that, I cannot see how the style I advocate for isn't far superior.

pemerton · Jul 14, 2019

FrogReaver said:
It seems to me that while the mechanics mentioned are miles ahead D&D's mechanics for NPC interaction, that such mechanics when used on PCs will do 2 things

1. Because a human will always be able to outperform a rather simplistic algorithm in judging what is more true to the character in question then this simple mechanical algorithm will inherently produce less fidelity than a PC under player control in those moments.
2. Limit the characters you can play to the ones specifically allowed by such a system, which is far fewer than is allowed by a system where the player is in control of their PC's thoughts, emotions and actions.

I'll leave the fidelity claim to one side. But the second claim is an empirical one. I'd be curious to see if it's true. Personally I doubt it - I don't have experience with Exalted, but in my experience with other systems that provide various sorts of systematic support for engagement with PC motivations and emotions the range of characters played - when considered in proportion to the overall number played - tends to be increased, not narrowed.

FrogReaver said:
Consider a D&D game. An NPC is trying to persuade a PC to do something. The DM states the NPC's case with a high level overview. To provide some context for the players into how persuasive the NPC argument was the DM rolls the NPC's persuasion skill just so they players can gauge how convincing said NPC would be to the average person. Then the players take the NPC's specific argument and the persuasion skill roll and filter that through the character they are playing and come to a conclusion of how to have their PC react.

In this situation what is gained from actually requiring a persuasion contest with binding results for the PC in order to determine if he was persuaded?

Now I haven't yet read [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s post not far below, where I am guessing (maybe I'm wrong?) that he is going to press the issue with me about choice vs challenge.

But in this post I want to make clear that what I am talking about, in trying to convey my view as to how a character conception can be challenged in the absence of mechanics of the sort that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has described, is - at least to my eyes - nothing like what you (Frogreaver) describe here.

I'll put to one side the GM making a Persuasion roll and telling the player that result, as I don't see what that adds to the situation - mechanics work as mechanics, but I don't see what work they are meant to do as guidelines.

With that put to one side, what we have is simply the GM telling the player that a NPC wants such-and-such from the PC. I can't see any pressure there. Any tension. Any challenge.

The player can weigh pros and cons, try and calculate consequences, even decide non-rationally based on feeling if s/he likes, or a coin toss, what to do. But I can't see how this puts the least bit of pressure on the player's conception of his/her PC's character.

FrogReaver said:
Consider a persuasion attempt on a PC. Whether there is risk or not will depend on the thing the PC is being persuaded to do. So for this example, let's assume there is a risk to being persuaded. That would mean we could define success as not being persuaded and remaining in the status quo and failure as being persuaded.

So then what happens when that persuasion is resolved mechanically
-The player sits out of the loop and has no input on how their character would react (which also means they have no conflict of interest in how their character is reacting)

What if the persuasion is resolved by player decision based on the actual argument provided and any other aids (such as an NPC persuasion roll to indicate how well orated the argument was)
-The player is solely responsible for choosing whether their PC succeeds or fails, which runs the risk of a player making the determination for out of character reasons, but when the player avoids out of character motivations and attempts to reach the decision to pass or fail, they are facing nearly the same mental challenge that their PC in the game is facing.

I can see where for some the style I'm advocating for would be impossible. Some would always rely on out of character motivations if given the opportunity. But for those that can avoid that, I cannot see how the style I advocate for isn't far superior.

Your notion of "risk" here seems so narrow that it's hard to engage with from the persepctive of the sort of play I've been trying to articulate over my past several posts.

And the focus on "out-of-character" reasons is very strange. No one in this thread (as far as I can tell) is talking about the source of motivations that the player draws on. What's at issue is whether or not the character conception can be challenged. I don't see that it's possible in the approach you describe for the player to discover (as opposed to decide) that his/her PC is different from what s/he thought.

So you will never have moments of play that evoke such classic narratives as Lancelot discovering that he values his love for Guinevere over his loyalty to Arthur. Or Rick (in Casablanca) discovering something like the opposite.