A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

And I can't fathom you coming to the conclusion that (1) isn't a significant part of many/most of the participants in these threads over the years who agree with your overall position.

I think you and I have very different ways of thinking and of approaching RPGs (which isn't a bad thing at all). Looking at your post above about NPCs for example, you seem to take a much more 'engineer'-minded approach. I don't take that approach at all. I am not factoring in things like what is the real life 'hit rate' for a social interaction. I am thinking of it in terms of what do I know about what his NPC wants, and this NPCs personality, and how would that shape their reaction to the PCs words (and honestly this really is much more intuitive than step by step----you try to feel the NPCs headspace and how they react). All I can say is I have very satisfactory campaigns on both sides of the screen using this approach. Is it an accurate simulation of social interaction in the real world? Doesn't matter to me. Does it feel life-like and believable to me? Yes. That is what matters.

 

[Campbell]

So I think that both economists and gamers greatly overestimate the degree to which human beings are rational actors.

I think if your aim is skilled play of the fiction not having meaningful social mechanisms makes a certain degree of sense. After all you want to reward a player's ability to build up evidence and make a compelling case. In my experience it's not a good model for the way like actual human beings behave. We are convinced to do many things we do not want to initially do. Seldom by a compelling argument. It also tends to make for fiction that resembles Star Trek far more than The Last Kingdom or Vikings.

I think if you want a game where characters have rich emotional lives that are somewhat removed from the rich emotional lives of their players (hence not LARP style drama) having some sort of mechanism to reinforce that is usually a good thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm sure you like it.

Why do you need to include it when we're analyzing play. It doesn't help me understand your position. It seems to me its just a rhetorical RE-framing device to remind everybody (again) that you feel your playstyle is under attack and appealing to that grievance. If its not that...what is it?

I want to focus on analyzing the impacts of play not your (or anyone else's) feelings.

I am being polite. I put it there because I think your analysis is actually an attack on the playstyle.

 

[prabe]

1) I was indeed talking about "saying yes" in Free Roleplay.

I'm glad I caught it the second time. ;-)

2) I'm specifically talking about "PCs asking for something hard and/or painful" which is pretty much every meaningful social conflict in a TTRPG. In those situations, the "hit rate" for Face PCs (and the players playing them) is absurd to the point of being more in line with "Down the Rabbit-hole Wonderland" than anything resembling fidelity to a reality featuring position-entrenched opposing parties.

I don't radically disagree. I don't think I've exactly been arguing against you on social skills--I have a pretty strong preference for systems to have them. And while I'm not thrilled about running social conflict like combat (the rhythm is different, and I find narration of the equivalents to dodges, parries, blows to be difficult) I'm not opposed to there being a system to determine success/failure other than "seems legit."

On the other hand, if a game allows people who want to be good at fighting to be REALLY GOOD AT FIGHTING then it seems fair to allow people who want to be good at talking people into things to be REALLY GOOD AT TALKING PEOPLE INTO THINGS.

We get all kinds of complaints from certain D&D conversation participants about martial PCs being able to jump chasms or hold their breath or cleave stone or compel enemies toward reckless challenge or cow Kings with force of will (or other genre logic-infused touchstones for martial characters) because it fails to resemble fidelity to a simulation of x (even if x is a High Fantasy reality). However, it seems to me that the hit rate for Face NPCs in Free Roleplay should yield similar incredulity and jar immersion!

I believe I have heard of the Guy at the Gym Fallacy. It sounds as though you're talking about things from 4E that people might have objected to on immersion grounds; my objection would be more "if I wanted to play a spellcaster, I would." As to Face PCs' hit rates ... see my second paragraph.

Am I crazy?

I don't think you're crazy. At least not about this. I think there may be differences in tastes and preferences, but that's different.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It seems to me its just a rhetorical RE-framing device to remind everybody (again) that you feel your playstyle is under attack and appealing to that grievance. If its not that...what is it?

I don't understand why this keeps getting brought up. i do think the playstyle is being attacked by people, but I don't think I am invoking a sense of grievance to persuade. What I am doing is trying to point out that the playstyle works in practice which is ultimately what matters here.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would defnitely not sign off on 1 as you have phrased it. And I think I have been very, very clear about this in many of our conversations here. I keep seeing a 'its impossible to simulate reality" straw man in these discussions, and I am quite clearly not coming at this from that level of realism at all (I pretty consistently use the term believability or believable for that very reason, and I have been using it for years).

Not saying things in there may not apply, but your phrasing is not what I am looking for. I want the things my character says and does to matter. I want to feel like if I make a compelling argument, it has more weight than if I make a bad one. And I think most of the time, with most GMs, this is how I feel. It isn't about the person in the group who is an actual lawyer, making the most lawyerly argument and therefore convincing the NPCs or the senate in the game. Again, it is a game. This isn't a serious attempt to simulate reality, it is an attempt to emulate a believable world or genre. And when I invoke logic, I am referring to the GM's judgment being logical, not on the players making logical arguments through their characters (logic doesn't always work, sometimes what works is appealing to what a person wants, rather than appealing to their sense of reason). What I want is for the GM to seriously ask him or herself things like "How would Josephus respond to what Brendan just said to him, based on what Joesphus wants and knows?" when evaluating what I am doing.

BRG. This is truly frustrating.

I've been accused of semantics in this thread (when I 100 % WAS NOT playing rhetorical semantic games...nor would I ever...they're an obnoxious waste of time).

Above, I don't know how to look at your first paragraph (pertaining to my 1).

How is "believable to BRG" meaningfully different from "fidelity to BRG's model of a reasonable simulation of x (parley/argumentation between opposing parties in this case)." I have no clue why you're dyng on this hill.

If you would like, just sub "believable to BRG" anytime I say anything like fidelity to a simulation of x or causal logic constrained/coupled or whatever. It doesn't matter. You find it a reasonable approximation to thing x, therefore good for play and your immersion.

What I'm asking is "why do you find it believable?" It is clearly UNbelievable. If you (BRG) as a Face PC via Free Roleplay in your games are moving position-entrenched NPCs off of their positions at anything resembling the rate that you invariably are...well, the only thing its approximating is genre and wieldy for a TTRPG. Those are both fantastic things! But they're not believable in any (even the most ridiculously lose) interpretation of the word!

 

[Fenris-77]

I do think that games can profitably include mechanics for social interaction that would allow a less social and talk-y player to play a socially adept character. Burning Wheel's duel of wits is a good example.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've been accused of semantics in this thread (when I 100 % WAS NOT playing rhetorical semantic games...nor would I ever...they're an obnoxious waste of time).

Above, I don't know how to look at your first paragraph (pertaining to my 1).

How is "believable to BRG" meaningfully different from "fidelity to BRG's model of a reasonable simulation of x (parley/argumentation between opposing parties in this case)." I have no clue why you're dyng on this hill.

If you would like, just sub "believable to BRG" anytime I say anything like fidelity to a simulation of x or causal logic constrained/coupled or whatever. It doesn't matter. You find it a reasonable approximation to thing x, therefore good for play and your immersion.

What I'm asking is "why do you find it believable?" It is clearly UNbelievable. If you (BRG) as a Face PC via Free Roleplay in your games are moving position-entrenched NPCs off of their positions at anything resembling the rate that you invariably are...well, the only thing its approximating is genre and wieldy for a TTRPG. Those are both fantastic things! But they're not believable in any (even the most ridiculously lose) interpretation of the word!

Do players in your games really have at best a 1 in 20 chance of persuading anyone?

If not why aren’t you striving for a more believable game?

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm glad I caught it the second time. ;-)

I don't radically disagree. I don't think I've exactly been arguing against you on social skills--I have a pretty strong preference for systems to have them. And while I'm not thrilled about running social conflict like combat (the rhythm is different, and I find narration of the equivalents to dodges, parries, blows to be difficult) I'm not opposed to there being a system to determine success/failure other than "seems legit."

On the other hand, if a game allows people who want to be good at fighting to be REALLY GOOD AT FIGHTING then it seems fair to allow people who want to be good at talking people into things to be REALLY GOOD AT TALKING PEOPLE INTO THINGS.

I believe I have heard of the Guy at the Gym Fallacy. It sounds as though you're talking about things from 4E that people might have objected to on immersion grounds; my objection would be more "if I wanted to play a spellcaster, I would." As to Face PCs' hit rates ... see my second paragraph.

I don't think you're crazy. At least not about this. I think there may be differences in tastes and preferences, but that's different.

So, on (2), would it be fair to say that you agree with me that the completely unbelievable (reality-defying...incredulous...whatever you want to call it) "Hit Rate" by Face PCs in TTRPG social conflicts is underwritten by genre logic and what is expeditious/wieldy to attain functional/enjoyable TTRPG play?

 

[Manbearcat]

Do players in your games really have at best a 1 in 20 chance of persuading anyone?

If not why aren’t you striving for a more believable game?

Of course not. I'm not the one (nor would I ever) advocating/championing opposing party argument/parley fidelity or believability/coherency per our experiential (in our lives) derived model of parley or whatever you want to call it.

I don't see how anyone ever reading my words on these boards would think I am.

The games I run are undergirded by genre logic, thematic potency and coherency, dramatic impetus, and what is required to make a TTRPG work.

So I don't give a crap about Face NPCs securing parley victory at an Alice in Wonderland rate. Not only don't flinch, it NEEDS to happen for functional, thematically coherent, dramatically fortified TTRPG play.

But I simultaneously don't flinch at martial PCs doing all of the "unbelievable" things I mentioned above (I mean...they can wade into mortal, melee combat against Ancient Red Dragons and somehow survive and slay the beast) right alongside those "unbelievable" Face PCs! Not only don't flinch, it NEEDS to happen for functional, thematically coherent, dramatically fortified TTRPG play.