Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Maxperson]

This characterisation of play seems to involve a category error: it posits that NPCs exercise causal power over the events at the gaming table.

That is impossible, though, because NPCs are purely imaginary, and imaginary beings don't exercise causal influence over real-world events.

This is not correct. The NPCs do exercise that power over events. They do it through the DM who has created the personality, desires and goals, quirks, etc. for that NPC and puts himself into the NPC's shoes to make that decision. When I make a decision for an NPC, I am not making a decision for myself at all. The NPC may decide to take a course that I myself would not take were I to make the same decision on my own.

The same presumably applies to PCs. The players ought to be making the decisions that their PCs would make, and not the ones that the players just feel like making without any thought about the PCs goals and motivations.

That is, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is not "see[ing] the advisor as having an agenda that can be pushed against the players via narration" (the advisor doesn't narrate - the advisor simply acts). Rather, Maxperson is seeing the GM as enjoying the authority to put into question, in some fashion, the advisor's relationship with the baron in spite of the outcome of the skill challenge (he hasn't explained exactly how this would be done: does he imagine the GM rolling a CHA/Diplomacy/Persuasion check for the advisor against some DC also set by the GM?).

No. I am in fact seeing the advisor as having his own agenda.

I think that if I had described the PCs using (say) some sort of Geas spell on the advisor, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would not be positing that the matter of the advisor's capacity to change his relationship with the baron is still open. Which is to say, Maxperson is not confused, in general, by the concept of finality in resolution. For whatever reason, though, he seems unable to accept that finality had been achieved on this occasion, via this particular mechanical procedure.

Correct. I get you view it as final. My issue is the advisor developing a spontaneous case of retarded in order to accomplish that finality, because retarded is the only thing that explains him not attempting to mitigate the damage.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm going to take another stab at the framing of play as either GM driven or driven by the other players. Previously, I have taken issue with presenting this as a binary, particularly in regard to my desire to not really have anyone driving for particular outcomes, but for everyone to simply bring it and play the game to find out what happens. I am going to attack it from another angle.

If player agency is not a thing that you either have or you do not have is it a spectrum? I do not think so. I believe we have agency over specific things. Historically, one of my major pain points with playing most mainstream roleplaying games is the tactical overhead view it tends to give you of your character, the setting, and their situation instead of the deeply personal view that we have of our own lives. We tend to have far more agency over our characters in a roleplaying game than we do over our own lives. Things like the weight of social obligations, the people we care about, our cultural traditions and practices, emotional safety, limits of perspective, our natural curiosity, our personalities, and our own intuitions and emotions hold far more sway over us than they do for our characters. This often results in a sort of Uber Rational form of play where Player Characters seldom seem like authentic people. Roleplaying games often do a good job of representing physical violence and consequences, but often ignore the vast and far reaching impact of other elements of the fiction.

One of the things that most indie roleplaying games push back against is the Walled Off Gardens we create when we play most mainstream roleplaying games. In Systems Design a Walled Off Garden is an information system where users can only interact and use data in pre-approved ways. Access is rigidly controlled. The ways in which we generally play most mainstream games function in very similar ways. We have Character Concepts, Visions For Our Worlds, and The Story to think of. We don't want to risk that anyone might get hurt, but we don't really want to talk about stuff so we construct these very elaborate webs of ways you are allowed to use my stuff.

I don't mean for that to come off super harsh. I just mean that we are generally very protective of the things that belong to us. Because play exists in this culture where my character wholly belongs to me and is not shared it is precious to me. Generally as a condition of play I accept that physical violence might happen to my character, but other forms of violence are generally off the table. This includes social violence, psychological violence, emotional violence, and can even include what I would call Conceptual Violence. Conceptual Violence occurs when the events of play redefine a character in a way that makes a player like them or identify with them less. So if I'm the Social Guy and I fail a crucial Diplomacy roll in a crunch moment I look over to the GM because I don't want the dice to define my character. Here's another example: I am playing a Paladin because I love the idea of playing a good guy with a Code of Honor. I don't really want my character to be put in situations where following the code is difficult for me as a player because I want to play a good guy - not a conflicted guy. This is a form of player agency generally expected in mainstream play, but not in most indie play. Fate is real big on protecting players from Conceptual Violence.

Consider social mechanics in most mainstream roleplaying games. Generally players' characters are immune to being meaningfully influenced by other players' characters and NPCs except in ways that players allow. Additionally mechanisms for influencing NPCs are entirely under the GM's purvey. Let's contrast this with a game like Masks. In Masks there are no mechanisms to represent lasting physical harm, but there are mechanisms with teeth to represent who a character cares about, how they see themselves, and their emotional states. These mechanisms can be deployed from one player's character to another player's character, on NPCs, and as consequences applied by the GM. We are all required to follow the fiction, and the player character affecting mechanisms provide more room for decision making. Still this is a meaningful difference in player agency. When running Masks one of my hard moves is to say now you care about what this NPC has to say and there are mechanics that back that up. A player can also provoke someone susceptible to their words say what an NPC does and as long as it makes sense in the fiction and they succeed as the GM I cannot do a damn thing about it. I have to follow the fiction.

Let's say I am running Burning Wheel and two players' characters get into an argument about stuff that hinges on their beliefs. According to my principles as I GM if one player isn't willing to Say Yes to the other we are going to Roll The Dice. I would call for a binding Duel of Wits.

The same concept applies for things like character backstory. In the games I prefer to run and play you do not get to come to the table with a 2-3 page backstory or any backstory at all really. We are all collaborators. I want everyone to be interested in everyone's stuff. I also want this stuff to actually matter to play. The best way to encourage that is to work on it together in a meaningful way. I fully expect connections between various players' stuff and active and vigorous collaboration. This is a meaningful difference in agency.

Finally, let's take a look at the assumption that the players' characters are part of a group and can depend on one another. In many of the games I like to run and play this is not a valid assumption to make. I expect shared interests on the part of all players, but do not require it of their characters. Often a significant portion of the active adversity in a game like Apocalypse World can come from the other players' characters. If you want their help you generally have to actually earn it. Alliances are often temporary and tend to shift over time. I feel like this is also a fundamental difference in player agency.

This is good stuff, but I'm genuinely confused by what you mean by player agency in this context. I view it as the ability for the player to make meaningful choices, but you seem to view it more as how much jeopardy of harm the player may be in via his character and/or how much other players have a say in how a player plays his character? Because, to be frank, the idea that that DM can dictate that I, as a player, must play my character in a way that forces me to care about an NPC is alien to the concept of player agency. It's an interesting mechanic, for sure, but it actively requires that the player relinquish some agency, some freedoms of choice, for it to take effect.

I do agree about many mainstream games (read D&D here) work to reduce a character to a set of numbers and combat abilities. I'm trying to break down my players reaching for dice to answer questions as they ask them and instead frame their intent and, if I deem it necessary, I'll ask for them to roll. Mostly because I'm tired of "I ask the guard where (clatter) the King is, I have a 13 Diplomacy check," but also because I'd like them to consider their character as more than the numbers.

What's funny about this is that they do this very well in some other systems, but prefer D&D and always seem to revert to type.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO your analogies all seem off... I feel like this is akin to your PC loosing a battle... then going up a level, finding a magic sword and going back to ambush the same guy who beat you... and you as DM claiming the battle between you two was already decided you can never fight him in any way again. IMO... it's not the same challenge it is a different challenge with a (slightly) different agenda.

This is a good point. If the DM is not allowed to do anything that might affect a success, the PCs become in effect immortal after their first success at anything. Death would completely "undo" that success in the same way that mitigation "undoes" the advisor's outing.

 

[billd91]

That is, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is not "see[ing] the advisor as having an agenda that can be pushed against the players via narration" (the advisor doesn't narrate - the advisor simply acts). Rather, Maxperson is seeing the GM as enjoying the authority to put into question, in some fashion, the advisor's relationship with the baron in spite of the outcome of the skill challenge (he hasn't explained exactly how this would be done: does he imagine the GM rolling a CHA/Diplomacy/Persuasion check for the advisor against some DC also set by the GM?).

It doesn't really matter what resolution method he uses, but you might want to be careful about trying to get into someone else's head. How do you know he's not seeing the advisor has having agency? That's your bias. I'm not convinced it's his.

Whereas I have repeatedly, and quite clearly, asserted that the relationship between advisor and baron is settled as part of the skill challenge. It's one of the outcomes that the players, by their play of their PCs, have secured. This is why I made the comparison to reducing an enemy to zero hp; or to a moral or loyalty check in classic D&D. These are all mechanics the produce finality in resolution: they don't simply generate temporary pertubations in the fiction which the GM is free to retest or reopen.

I think that if I had described the PCs using (say) some sort of Geas spell on the advisor, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would not be positing that the matter of the advisor's capacity to change his relationship with the baron is still open. Which is to say, Maxperson is not confused, in general, by the concept of finality in resolution. For whatever reason, though, he seems unable to accept that finality had been achieved on this occasion, via this particular mechanical procedure.

This is not correct. (And, again, appears to involve the same category error.)

It is, however, perfectly reasonable. Have you given us any reason to believe the advisor's agendas, whatever they are, are permanently and conclusively foiled other than to say the players passed some mechanical test that exposed the advisor? For Maxperson, using one method to foil and agenda isn't necessarily the end of the matter. And that's every bit as reasonable as your assertion that their mechanical pass permanently settles the issue because either could be true based on the fiction of the event and the ultimate consequences the advisor faced. If he merely lost the trust of the baron, that trust could be repaired. If he was imprisoned, he could be released, even pardoned. If he was executed, well... let's just say that villains often have ambiguous deaths. That's what enables them to be recurring villains.
If you've decided that the advisor's done because you won't be using him in your scene framing in the future - fine. It's final. But a similar situation in Maxperson's game, clearly, wouldn't be final.

 

[pemerton]

one of my major pain points with playing most mainstream roleplaying games is the tactical overhead view it tends to give you of your character, the setting, and their situation instead of the deeply personal view that we have of our own lives. We tend to have far more agency over our characters in a roleplaying game than we do over our own lives. Things like the weight of social obligations, the people we care about, our cultural traditions and practices, emotional safety, limits of perspective, our natural curiosity, our personalities, and our own intuitions and emotions hold far more sway over us than they do for our characters. This often results in a sort of Uber Rational form of play where Player Characters seldom seem like authentic people. Roleplaying games often do a good job of representing physical violence and consequences, but often ignore the vast and far reaching impact of other elements of the fiction.

I think a fairly typical manifestation of what you call "Uber Rational" play, and what I would probably call a species of "alienation" from the PC, is the idea that social interaction can all be handled by "the face" character - as if the fighter, the wizard etc go through life never having anything they want to say to another, never being moved, etc.

One feature of the advisor scenario that I haven't paricularly called out, but that I think is rather significant as one sign or marker of how it was unfolding at the table, is that (i) the final check of the challenge is a social chec (to goad the advisor), and (ii) it is made by the player of the 10 CHA, no trained social skills, fighter/cleric. That is to say, the player is invested in the fiction, and cares about how the fictional position of his PC. He doesn't want his PC to just sit there looking gormless, the butt of the advisor's jibes, and so he (in character) speaks out.

I have also seen this happen in combat eg the invoker/wizard charge an opponent wielding his Rod of Seven Parts. Because that is what expresses the motivations of the PC given the fictional position, even if - from a wargaming point of view - it is not the most rational of choices.

An interseting feature of 4e, compared to (say) AD&D or BW, is that it tends to create a lot of space for these sorts of "irrational" action declarations because it is rather soft on players as far as consequences are concerned. I can imagine that for your ( [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s) concerns, that might make it a bit insipid. For me, it is a fairly nice reconciliation of my sentimentality (which wants the players to win) and my desire for the game to emphasis immersion in the fiction and the characters (which I feel it delivers, as per these examples I've given).

Generally as a condition of play I accept that physical violence might happen to my character, but other forms of violence are generally off the table. This includes social violence, psychological violence, emotional violence, and can even include what I would call Conceptual Violence. Conceptual Violence occurs when the events of play redefine a character in a way that makes a player like them or identify with them less.

<snip>

Consider social mechanics in most mainstream roleplaying games. Generally players' characters are immune to being meaningfully influenced by other players' characters and NPCs except in ways that players allow.

<snip>

Let's say I am running Burning Wheel and two players' characters get into an argument about stuff that hinges on their beliefs. According to my principles as I GM if one player isn't willing to Say Yes to the other we are going to Roll The Dice. I would call for a binding Duel of Wits.

Again, this made me think of some episodes of play I've experienced.

In the OP game, after the discovery of the cursed black arrows (which some posters upthread characterised as what you have called "conceptual violence), there was a DoW between the mage PC and the wizard/assassin (assisted by the elven ronin). The mage lost, and so had to give up on his commitment to redeem his brother.

In our MHRP game, after seeing Wolverine kill a defeated NPC in cold blood and thereby suffering significant emotional trauma, the same player - playing Nightcrawler - reached the 10 XP trigger for his religious milestone, and abandoned his religion. Which then required spending 5 XP to change out his Devout Catholic distinction. The character definintely changed as a result of those things.

4e doesn't really allow for this sort of thing, because it's got no really effective PvP mechanics (even if the focus is just on combat, PvP combat in 4e is not going to play all that well for my purposes, because it won't leverage the mechanical features of the system that - again, for my purposes - make the system work, which depend on the various mechanical asymmetries between PCs and NPCs).

 

[pemerton]

a fictional construct can be assigned agendas (else how do stories work?), and those can be played with integrity by the DM/GM.

This happened in the episode of play I described. The advisor had an agenda. He pursued it (as described in the post you quoted). He failed.

That is why I disagree with the contrast you drew between "GM-centric" and "player-centric". There is no difference in respect of NPCs pursuit of their agendas. The difference concerns the process whereby the outcome of that agenda is resolved.

My understanding of the area of contention seems to be around in-game events where the NPC can exercise causal power over said events. You may exercise a playstyle where that isn't a desired aspect of play but that doesn't make it impossible.

Huh? Of cousre the advisor can, in the fiction, do things (ie exercise causal power over the fiction). Eg he can say things, which others hear.

That's not in dispute.

What [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is saying, however, is that the advisor saying things might change the baron's mind about him. Whereas, in the particular context under discussion, that is not going to happen because the baron's mind is already made up. And the players achieved that result, by succeeding at the skill challenge.

In other words, the issue is not what can the advisor do in the fiction? It is what directions for the fiction are open, or not, give what has happened at the table?

The advisor had his own agenda. He pursued it. He attempted to force the PCs' hands, in two ways (at least: the session was several years ago, and so even with the benefit of an actual play report my memory is not perfect):

(1) The advisor tried to trick/goad the PCs into revealing information about the whereabouts of the tapestry; the players dealt with this by such measures as taking steps to ensure that the most vulnerable PC, the dwarven fighter/cleric with CHA 10 and poor social skills, was not at the table with the advisor;

(2) The advisor escalated things to try and force the PCs to reveal him to the baron, so that they would be tarnished as trying to smear him and/or take advantage of his magic secrets (eg the tapestry), rather than being the heroes who had saved the baron from his influence. Had the players failed at the challenge, it is likely that something of this sort would have happened, as the evening would have ended with the advisor leaving the dinner, apparently forced out by the PCs speaking against him but not proving their case.​

His attempts to do this, however, failed. The PCs kept the information about the tapestry secret; and the advisor's strategy (2) ended up backfiring, as the baron accepted the word of the dwarven "paladin", in the context of the advisor being goaded into revealing himself.

Can I ask two questions...

1.) Who initiated a mechanical resolution of this?
2.) How was that mechanical resolution implemented?

Here is a link (perhaps the third or fourth time I've linked it in this series of posts) to the actual play report. That post contains the answers to your questions. The short version: the PCs attended dinner with the baron, at the baron's request; they matched wits with the advisor; the advisor lost. Mechanically, this was a skill challenge. It was framed and adjudicated by me, the GM. The skill checks whose resolution determined the outcome were made by the players, for their PCs.

GM Driven games don't by necessity mean players can't resolve the conflicts through action resolution procedures. It seems the difference is that in GM driven games... well the GM has just as much right to use said resolution procedures for NPC's as well

<snip>

In a GM driven game both players and GM are able to express agency and protagonism through their characters. The GM can drive action just as readily as the players through having agendas and goals for NPC's

As I have already posted, the advisor had his agenda. He pursued it. In the particular context of 4e skill challenge resolution, this occured via my narration of the advisor's actions: to quote from the original actual play report ("Paldemar" is the advisor),

The general pattern involved - Paldemar asking the PCs about their exploits; either the paladin or the sorcerer using Bluff to defuse the question and/or evade revealing various secrets they didn't want Paldemar to know; either the paladin or the wizard then using Diplomacy to try to change the topic of conversation to something else - including the Baron's family history; and Paldemar dragging things back onto the PCs exploits and discoveries over the course of their adventures.

Following advice given by LostSoul on these boards back in the early days of 4e, my general approach to running the skill challenge was to keep pouring on the pressure, so as to give the players a reason to have their PCs do things. And one particular point of pressure was the dwarf fighter/cleric - in two senses. In story terms, he was the natural focus of the Baron's attention, because the PCs had been presenting him as their leader upon entering the town, and subsequently. And the Baron was treating him as, in effect, a noble peer, "Lord Derrik of the Dwarfholm to the East". And in mechanical terms, he has no training in social skills and a CHA of 10, so putting the pressure on him forced the players to work out how they would save the situation, and stop the Baron inadvertantly, or Paldemar deliberately, leading Derrik into saying or denying something that would give away secrets.

The NPC pursued his goals. He lost. There is no difference between you, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and me over whether or not NPCs have goals and pursue them. The difference is over how to determine when the PCs fail in that pursuit.

The advisor's motivations do not enter the storyline at all

This is wrong. The advisor's motivations are central to the scene, as is evident in the description of it in the actual play report (linked and quoted above).

I see the advisor as being capable of having an agenda that can be pushed via narration (by the DM/GM of course just as the players narrate the agendas for their PC's). you say this isn't possible

No. To repeat mysefl: I'm saying that that already happened, and the NPC lost.

This is why I keep using the word finality. The NPC tried to push his agenda, but it didn't work. The PCs' counter-agenda succeeded, resulting in the advisor's standing at court being undone. (This is why, in multiple posts, I have made the comparison to Wormtongue being outed as a traitor at the court of King Thedoen.)

I don't think the confusion was around finality in resolution but around, as @Ovinomancer cited, a difference of playstyle in how NPC's are run and what purpose they serve.

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] didn't identify any difference in purpose. He purported to contrast the world existing for players to pit themselves against, as an antagonist (the characterisation of "player-centric") and the world and NPCs having their own agendas, that they force against players (the characterisation of "GM-centric"). But there is no contrast between these things. They are just two different ways of describing opposition between the PCs and various other elements of the shared fiction.

What I am talking about is the difference in how NPC's are run. The particular difference at issue in this discussion is over who gets to determine that a NPC failed in pursuing his/her agenda.

what I (and others I believe) don't understand is why the advisor can not then pursue a different agenda of mitigating the fall out in the eyes of the Baron

<snip>

even with your example of a geas spell... it isn't a permanent settling of said relationship. It has a duration, means of dispelling it, etc.

The advisor can - in the fiction - do whatever he wants. It's just that at the table, we already know that such stuff is mere colour. The baron's mind is made up about the advisor, because the players won the skill challenge.

There's no mystery here. That's what it means to win a skill challenge with the goal (among other things) of estabslishing the baron's opinion of the advisor.

On the permanence of this (or of a Geas spell, etc), see my post immediately after the one you replied to. Dispelling the geas is in the same general ballpark of GM moves as raising the defeated enemy from the dead, etc. The issue of when results can be reopened is a significant one. But they can't be reopened in the session immediately following the players' victory, when nothing in the fiction has changed to reopen them, and nothing at the table has changed either (eg the players haven't had a subsequent failure, which might have as its consequence the advisor once again growing in the baron's estimation).

IMO your analogies all seem off... I feel like this is akin to your PC loosing a battle

I don't at all understand how the players winning a skill challenge is meant to be analogous to the PCs losing a battle. However, if that is how you see it, it would help explain why you do not share my view about the significance of the players' successs.

I feel like the pertinent question here is "Does your game procedure allow for the framing of scenes by the DM that are not in response to explicit player declaration?" For example, to use the advisor concept introduced previously, let's say that the advisor is enraged by the PC's success at reducing his status in court. He is so enraged that he performs an arcane ritual in secret to summon a malevolent extraplanar entity, which he commands to attack the PCs.

I think having said demon attack the PCs in retribution would be a natural and expected consequence in "living world"/"NPC agenda" play procedure games. The PCs have angered the advisor, having the advisor retaliate is a second-order consequence of their actions. But this framing would be problematic in a BW/Cortex style game, as the advisor's action aren't a direct consequence of any PC's failure to mechanically reach their intent. Now, being attacked by a demon could be a consequence of a hundred other possible future failures on the PC's part, and tying the demon's appearance back to the spurned advisor would make a satisfying narration for that consequence. But ultimately, you wouldn't introduce a summoned demon simply as something for the PCs to have a conflict with without player input.

This is interesting.

In the actual game that this came from, the advisor - having lost socially - set out to win via brute magical power (ie the scene transitioned into a combat scene). The players had no objection to this: in D&D 4e combat is, in general, a "legitimate" (heck, even a default) mode of presenting and resolving opposition; and it followed naturally from what they had succeeded in doing (goading the advisor into outing himself).

In BW, I think it would depend on other elements of context - eg, what other Beliefs various PCs have about the advisor, opposing demon summoners, etc.

I agree that there are constraints on framing that go beyond asking "What would I do if I were an evil advisor outed at court?"

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton brought up an example where a decision by a PC to side with the Raven Queen instead of Vecan, resulted in Vecna (without a roll) hurting said PC's familiar. It appears in that instance the NPC (Vecna) had an agenda, which was pushed by GM narration. If I recall correctly, @pemerton did not feel this was a real consequence as the 'damage' to the familiar was only temporary (and therefore colour).

You recall isn't quite correct.

The consequence was not mere colour. It was a meaningful consequence. It followed from what the player had staked on the action resolution, which had two main "vectors": (1) The player (as his PC) had implanted the Eye of Vecna in his familiar; (2) The player (as his PC) had chosen to thwart Vecna by actively taking the steps to ensure that the soulds of the dead of the Underdark would flow to the Raven Queen rather than to Vecna.

 

[Campbell]

This is good stuff, but I'm genuinely confused by what you mean by player agency in this context. I view it as the ability for the player to make meaningful choices, but you seem to view it more as how much jeopardy of harm the player may be in via his character and/or how much other players have a say in how a player plays his character? Because, to be frank, the idea that that DM can dictate that I, as a player, must play my character in a way that forces me to care about an NPC is alien to the concept of player agency. It's an interesting mechanic, for sure, but it actively requires that the player relinquish some agency, some freedoms of choice, for it to take effect.

I do agree about many mainstream games (read D&D here) work to reduce a character to a set of numbers and combat abilities. I'm trying to break down my players reaching for dice to answer questions as they ask them and instead frame their intent and, if I deem it necessary, I'll ask for them to roll. Mostly because I'm tired of "I ask the guard where (clatter) the King is, I have a 13 Diplomacy check," but also because I'd like them to consider their character as more than the numbers.

What's funny about this is that they do this very well in some other systems, but prefer D&D and always seem to revert to type.

It does involve giving up a measure of agency we normally have in most mainstream games and is definitely not right for everyone, and should adamantly be done with discipline and sensitivity. However, it helps us to go places where we would otherwise not go and experience compelling stories that are fundamentally about characters.

In a game like Masks players retain complete autonomy over character actions. This is not like Vampire where we fail our Self Control roll and frenzy. What changes is the mechanical impact of those actions. When someone has Influence over you it is harder to work against them on a mechanical level. Let's take a look at the impact of one of the Conditions which represent a character's emotional state:

When you are Angry take -2 to Comfort or Support Someone or Pierce The Mask. Being Angry means it is difficult to provide emotional aid or see beyond the obvious.
Clear Angry by hurting someone or breaking something important. You can remove the Angry Condition by lashing out. You can still control your anger. It just impacts you until you either act out or someone Comforts Or Supports you. The game also provides other means to clear Conditions.

It's all about providing a play space where other elements of the fiction can be just as important and worthy of representation as the physical stuff. We have all been conditioned to accept that we do not have agency over physical consequences even though that has a dramatic and binding impact over our play experience. I'm not sure how social and emotional consequences are meaningfully different. In meatspace I do not have control over when I am angry, the impact of other people's words, or my cultural indoctrination. I still control my behavior, but these things are impactful. The game is structured so that there is plenty of meaningful decisions to be made around the themes of growing up, coming together as a team, social pressure from adults and your peers, and dealing with the turbulence of adolescence. Plus kicking some super villain tail in between. It's meant to provide an experience like the Teen Titans, Young Justice, or New Mutants.

It is a particular philosophy of game design. It says that rules can serve to reinforce the experience of playing a character with integrity. They can bring our characters experiences to life and let us live them. Through the right resolution mechanics, the right reward systems, and principled play we can alleviate the conflicts that exist between playing our characters with integrity, playing the mechanics, and playing the fiction optimally. When we do things right they are the exact same thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thus, when - in the next session - I started framing something that put that success into doubt, a player called me on it. He was correct to do so. The players are entitled to their victory, and it is not liable to being undone by GM reframing.

That's the (bolded) bit I'm confused by. We're you 'framing' things at the next session to negate the prior SC, so they'd have to out the NPC all over again? I know you said you didn't remember the specifics, but I'm having trouble thinking of something that'd do that, rather than just being 'damage control' or 'spin' on the NPC's part. Sudden reversals of fortune are a standard in genre, well, pulp and melodrama corners of genre, anyway.

The advisor had his own agenda. He pursued it. He attempted to force the PCs' hands, in two ways (at least: the session was several years ago, and so even with the benefit of an actual play report my memory is not perfect):

(1) The advisor tried to trick/goad the PCs into revealing information about the whereabouts of the tapestry; the players dealt with this by such measures as taking steps to ensure that the most vulnerable PC, the dwarven fighter/cleric with CHA 10 and poor social skills, was not at the table with the advisor;

(2) The advisor escalated things to try and force the PCs to reveal him to the baron, so that they would be tarnished as trying to smear him and/or take advantage of his magic secrets (eg the tapestry), rather than being the heroes who had saved the baron from his influence. Had the players failed at the challenge, it is likely that something of this sort would have happened, as the evening would have ended with the advisor leaving the dinner, apparently forced out by the PCs speaking against him but not proving their case.​

His attempts to do this, however, failed. The PCs kept the information about the tapestry secret; and the advisor's strategy (2) ended up backfiring, as the baron accepted the word of the dwarven "paladin", in the context of the advisor being goaded into revealing himself.

Just as, in combat, a NPC can't keep pursuing his/her agenda if reduced to zero hp, or if his/her moral breaks; so likewise in a skill challenge. If the challenge is resolved with the players successful, and their success defeats the NPC's agenda, then that is as it is: the agenda has failed.

OK, that helps, some.

 

[Lanefan]

This is all too hifalutin' for me so I'm just going to poke at a few specific logs in the fire...

I don't mean for that to come off super harsh. I just mean that we are generally very protective of the things that belong to us. Because play exists in this culture where my character wholly belongs to me and is not shared it is precious to me. Generally as a condition of play I accept that physical violence might happen to my character, but other forms of violence are generally off the table. This includes social violence, psychological violence, emotional violence, and can even include what I would call Conceptual Violence. Conceptual Violence occurs when the events of play redefine a character in a way that makes a player like them or identify with them less.

Would this include things like unexpected and permanent alignment change, thus forcing a change of character class due to alignment restrictions? Permanent polymorph into an obvious member of a different culture than your own (thus completely changing one's relationship with one's own culture)? Cloning? Long-term quest or geas effects that force a character into certain courses of action she might well never have otherwise taken? Charm and-or domination effects, whether by another PC or by the opposition? Etc.

I ask because these are all things that have happened in our games. Quests and charms happen all the time, the others much less often but all have happened to my own PCs.

It's part of the game.

Consider social mechanics in most mainstream roleplaying games. Generally players' characters are immune to being meaningfully influenced by other players' characters and NPCs except in ways that players allow.

Depends how much PvP you allow. Charming someone else's unco-operative PC is a staple around here.

When running Masks one of my hard moves is to say now you care about what this NPC has to say and there are mechanics that back that up. A player can also provoke someone susceptible to their words say what an NPC does and as long as it makes sense in the fiction and they succeed as the GM I cannot do a damn thing about it. I have to follow the fiction.

Sounds just like charm spells, only without the magic.

Let's say I am running Burning Wheel and two players' characters get into an argument about stuff that hinges on their beliefs. According to my principles as I GM if one player isn't willing to Say Yes to the other we are going to Roll The Dice. I would call for a binding Duel of Wits.

Which, ironically enough, takes away player agency in a game that purports to promote it.

If two characters get into an argument re conflicting beliefs, if true player agency is to be maintained they should and must be allowed to sort it out on their own; even if it means one or both ultimately leave the party or one ends up hurting or even killing the other.

I'm not sure how you can have this...

The same concept applies for things like character backstory. We are all collaborators. I want everyone to be interested in everyone's stuff. I also want this stuff to actually matter to play. The best way to encourage that is to work on it together in a meaningful way. I fully expect connections between various players' stuff and active and vigorous collaboration.

...and this...

Finally, let's take a look at the assumption that the players' characters are part of a group and can depend on one another. In many of the games I like to run and play this is not a valid assumption to make. I expect shared interests on the part of all players, but do not require it of their characters. Often a significant portion of the active adversity in a game like Apocalypse World can come from the other players' characters. If you want their help you generally have to actually earn it. Alliances are often temporary and tend to shift over time.

...at the same time. If you're forcing them all to have connections with each other built as a groupthink exercise among the players, you're also largely baking in their reasons to work as a team and stand up for each other whether any given player wants this or not; making it unlikely they're ever going to significantly oppose each other or get rough with each other or walk out on each other.

Lanefan