Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Ovinomancer · Jul 14, 2019

FrogReaver said:
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.

You're imagining bad play, and so it is bad. Go back to the example I presented about the knight and the maiden. All the results of that were from the knight attempting to do things -- ie, player initiated. All of the outcomes were due to what the player explicitly had up as stakes -- ie, player initiated. These are in game where the GM's authority is much more limited and the players have greater authorities -- but they tend to move the boundaries around. If you're imagining D&D where the GM gets to declare player actions as well as having the authority over everything else, then, yes, this is a problem and should be avoided -- we agree wholeheartedly.

But, outside of that kind of D&D framework, things work. Hence the reason I keep bringing up the D&D framework and people not looking outside of it as being an impediment to understanding.

But, to go back to choice not being a challenge -- you can't lose a choice. You've not staked anything prior to the choice (at least in the examples given). You're just choosing between options. And, as I noted above, there's a heavy sense of these options being GM imposed anyway. I mean, your chastity or Excalibur example -- who set those stakes? Did the player decide that they'd risk their chastity to get the sword or was it, as presented, the GM saying that you can have the sword if your break your chastity? If it's anything at all like the latter, isn't this just the GM using force to set stakes for you?

chaochou · Jul 14, 2019

FrogReaver said:
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)

This is entirely ignorant of the range and applications of mechanics available and written into rpgs. You've clearly never read, far less used, any of them and yet seem completely certain of the impact of every one of them on the play experience.

Explain how your persuasion situation is resolved in Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits. Then explain how it is resolved in Blades in the Dark. Then in Apocalypse World.

You can't, though, can you? Because you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You're just blerting out guff.

FrogReaver said:
What if the persuasion is resolved by player decision based on the actual argument provided...

Then it isn't persuasion. I simply choose whatever is most expedient and justify my choice however I please.

FrogReaver · Jul 14, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
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!

I appreciate the actual response! Thank you. I think if what you suggest here is the case then it will be easy for you to show I'm wrong. So let's see what you said.

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.

Sounds good so far

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.

Remember how frustrated you got when you thought I was putting words in your mouth. Please have some empathy and don't inadvertently do the same to me.

Instead, you have a list of unspoken additional requirements. @
Maxperson
's social contract probably shows up, in that you're expected to play within the social contract.

Sure, there are additional requirements to table play. No argument there.

Here, this would be that the players should accept the proposition
and the roll

Click to expand...

Not in the example I provided. There is no additional requirement from any source that the NPC's persuasion attempt succeed even if he rolled well.

and use the table's understanding (read GM's) of how their character acts

Click to expand...

this isn't a requirement in the example I provided. The player is free to have his or her character act as he sees without relying on the table or Gm's understanding of his character.

to figure out a path that doesn't violate these things

Click to expand...

The example was a simple persuasion scenario that could easily occur in D&D. There's no path at the moment of persuasion, just are you persuaded or not. In either system I imagine you can roleplay that persuasion quite a bit differently without invalidating the initial determination that you were persuaded to do something.

while still accomplishing something the player wants.

Click to expand...

Ideally the players primary goal is to have their character act like their character would act.

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.

Click to expand...

Most of the restrictions you wanted to place on my example aren't actually necessary. It does work as described. I am getting the impression that your argument is that if it did work as described that I would be totally right in my assessment that adding the additional mechanical resolution step would add nothing?

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.

I tried to ask what was gained by doing this the way you are proposing. I would love to know the answer to that so I could form the same conclusion you just did - because if there is something gained I can get to the neither is better or worse, just different.

EDIT: Formatting borked and can't turn off bold (that I never turned on in the first place)

Nagol · Jul 14, 2019

FrogReaver said:
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.

Because fundamentally, regardless of how much agony a player feels over making a choice, any choice provides absolute fidelity of play if the chooser is also the only arbiter.

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)

Not true. A lot of systems provide the player tools to alter the result (a la a negotiation system) or alter the stakes of the argument.

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.

Sure, it can happen. But NPCs are continuously limited by the charisma, eloquence, and amount of forethought provided of the GM. The player is faced with a whole bunch of additional out-of-character motivations too. 'Bob doesn't like adventures on the water, let's skip this pirate hunt.', 'Didn't Tim say he doesn't like her? What is he up to?', 'I'm bored, let's move the situation along. I say "Yes"', "This pizza is really good. What was the NPC saying again?"

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.

It isn't superior in very many instances most of which boil down to player/table preference regarding the type of game played and the type of challenges explored.

FrogReaver · Jul 14, 2019

chaochou said:
Then it isn't persuasion. I simply choose whatever is most expedient and justify my choice however I please.

Herein lies the problem. You are so convinced you must keep a player from cheating (choosing the expedient option) that you have invented mechanics that police the game to such a degree that those players who won't simply choose the expedient have a far less enjoyable time.

If your players need policing to ensure they aren't just choosing the expedient option then those systems you describe certainly work better. If they don't then they are limiting.

Maxperson · Jul 14, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
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.

By one limited definition of challenge, sure. By other definitions of challenge that's simply wrong. You can in fact be challenged without a win/lose scenario happening.

verb
verb: challenge; 3rd person present: challenges; past tense: challenged; past participle: challenged; gerund or present participle: challenging

1.
invite (someone) to engage in a contest.
"he challenged one of my men to a duel"
- enter into competition with or opposition against.
  "incumbent Democrats are being challenged in the 29th district"
- make a rival claim to or threaten someone's hold on (a position).
  "they were challenging his leadership"
- invite (someone) to do something that one thinks will be difficult or impossible; dare.
  "I challenged them to make up their own minds"

As you can see, all it takes is a difficult situation. Without some serious brain damage going on, everyone is capable of making up their mind on something, so the bolded example is not one that is a success/failure situation, as no failure is actually possible. When I have a social challenge to my PC that results in a difficult decision to the core of the character, it is in fact a challenge even though there is no win/loss condition.

pemerton · Jul 14, 2019

Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel has been mentioned.

It's an interesting example, because it permits PCs to be persuaded (by other PCs, or by NPCs) but doesn't change their underlying motivations/orientations.

In the context of (say) a maiden trying to persuade a PC to help her, it can certainly permit that. And if the maiden is charming or flirty that can factor into her checks (eg FoRK Seduction and/or Soothing Platitudes into Persuasion). The PC may not have his/her heart fully melted, but can find himself unable to deny the maiden's demands.

Personally, based on my own play experience, I see this as different from (say) MHRP or (if I understood it right) the Exalted mechanic that was described upthread - because the fundamental convictions of the PC can't be changed in this way.

I see it as much closer to my paladin example - just as the paladin in my RM game learned (didn't choose) that he was a killer, and had to somehow deal with this, so in BW the PC can learn that he is someone who will aid a winking maiden, and has to somehow integrate this into his self-conception. If this happens enough times the PC can change pretty significantly.

To me, what seems fundamental in these sorts of cases is that the PC does or becomes something that the player didn't get to choose, and that something matters to the PC's self-conception. But nor is it just GM force. It's the mechanics at work that produce these results, and hence force the crisis upon the PC.

Having to choose between chastity and Excalibur, or having to choose whether to be persuaded by the GM's NPC, does not have this structure at all. It's a choice, and nothing more. The PC has not unexpectedly done or become something different or troubling.

pemerton · Jul 14, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Herein lies the problem. You are so convinced you must keep a player from cheating (choosing the expedient option) that you have invented mechanics that police the game to such a degree that those players who won't simply choose the expedient have a far less enjoyable time.

If your players need policing to ensure they aren't just choosing the expedient option then those systems you describe certainly work better. If they don't then they are limiting.

This completely misunderstands [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s point.

As I posted upthread, "cheating" or acting on out-of-game motivations has nothing to do with what anyone is talking about in this thread.

The basic point is that, in the scenarios you keep putting forward, nothing happens to the PC's inner being or self-conception that the player did not choose. So the player choose that which s/he prefers. Depending on mood, table practices, etc, this might be the thing most likely to produce victory in the quest, or the thing most likely to be seen as entertaining, or even the thing s/he thinks is truest to the character as s/he conceives of it.

Whatever the player chooses, s/he is not forced to confront something new or unexpected about his/her PC.

Maxperson · Jul 14, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
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. @Maxperson'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.

All of those ARE valid responses and within the social contract depending what it is that the supper suggester is suggesting. If for example, he's suggesting that the paladin murder his own sister, that suggesting is going to fail no matter how persuasive the NPC(barring magic of course). It could also result in being ignored, combat or something else entirely.

Without an actual scenario, with detailed background on the PC or PCs, their experiences in the game, etc., I can't know what would or would not be valid and/or outside the bounds of the social contract. That's why the player is the only person who can accurately come up with social responses, such as whether his PC's heart warms or not. He's the only one who will have the requisite level of knowledge of everything it takes to come up with the correct response. The DM can only give an educated guess and hope he gets lucky.

Aldarc · Jul 14, 2019

Maxperson said:
By one limited definition of challenge, sure. By other definitions of challenge that's simply wrong. You can in fact be challenged without a win/lose scenario happening.

verb
verb: challenge; 3rd person present: challenges; past tense: challenged; past participle: challenged; gerund or present participle: challenging

Ah, there we go. It's not a pemerton megathread until Maxperson gets into a debate of semantics and pulls out a lexicon so that he can argue definitions. We are also just missing Maxperson broadening the sense of a term such that it becomes meaningless in the discourse; let's say, something akin to "Everything is a challenge."