NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

I'm wondering if some of this difference in opinion has its roots in the degree to which our enjoyment of RPGs derives from the pleasure we get, or the importance we place on, performing for others at the table.

 

[Aldarc]

I'll turn that around and ask, "Why should every type of action be resolved the same way?" Why does it make the game better to do this with a dice roll, rather than just let players roleplay however they want?

You ignored my earlier post. That's fine. That said, sometimes what players want to roleplay is a character who refuses to be affected by external forces, feelings, or thoughts because they are stuck in a "play to win" mentality. They play as children who erect "invisible force fields" around their characters and make themselves immune to the possibility of being psychologically affected. Part of the interest in resolving this with dice is that we are playing to find out what happens to the characters. We are challenging our characters and finding out what sort of people they are as we roleplay them, use dice to resolve these unknowns, and bind ourselves to the results with integrity.

I don't see how this would increase verisimilitude.

Many philosophers believed that humans were rational creatures. The reality of being biological creatures is that we are not entirely rational or even as rational as we imagine ourselves to be. Our brain chemistry and body can have unexpected influence on our human thoughts, emotions, and feelings. We can likewise be affected by others even if we would otherwise choose not to be with our rational minds. Sometimes people get mad and upset despite knowing perfectly well that there is no good reason for it. There is also a lot of self-deception when it comes to human psychology. There are even many times when we find ourselves surprised by our thoughts, feelings, and emotions, particularly when they would seemingly defy the expectations of our typical choices.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think I agree with verisimilitude. Not just in this case, but in any game mechanic. Does dice rolling...pure randomness...ever result in verisimilitude? (If you had said "consistency"....as in treating all resolution the same...I might have agreed.)

And players can do surprising things as easily...or more easily?...than dice rolling.



I would say that it's because avoiding getting stabbed isn't a thought, or a state of mind. It's an action you attempt to take.



Yeah, and it always ends up in the same place: preference. I just don't feel like my character and I are one when the game (or the GM) tells me what my character would think or do.

If the results of those rolls can logically follow from the setting details and circumstances, in logical proportions (more or less), then yes, they absolutely can IMO generate verisimilitude.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Actually, one more specific response: I prefer it when the players are tricked, swindled, persuaded, etc. I like feeling that cold chill down my spine when I, the player, have a sudden realization that we have greatly, dangerously, perhaps disastrously, erred. I don't so much enjoy pretending to feel that way.

Pretending is to me what roleplaying is fundamentally, so I have no problem using the rules of the game to provide part of the script (or material to aid in Improvisational acting if you prefer).

 

[soviet]

'My character can never be tricked, persuaded, entertained, intimidated, or scared, he has perfect control over his emotional response to all external stimuli' does not strike me as verisimilitudinous. Unless your character is a robot I guess.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You ignored my earlier post. That's fine. That said, sometimes what players want to roleplay is a character who refuses to be affected by external forces, feelings, or thoughts because they are stuck in a "play to win" mentality. They play as children who erect "invisible force fields" around their characters and make themselves immune to the possibility of being psychologically affected. Part of the interest in resolving this with dice is that we are playing to find out what happens to the characters. We are challenging our characters and finding out what sort of people they are as we roleplay them, use dice to resolve these unknowns, and bind ourselves to the results with integrity.


Many philosophers believed that humans were rational creatures. The reality of being biological creatures is that we are not entirely rational or even as rational as we imagine ourselves to be. Our brain chemistry and body can have unexpected influence on our human thoughts, emotions, and feelings. We can likewise be affected by others even if we would otherwise choose not to be with our rational minds. Sometimes people get mad and upset despite knowing perfectly well that there is no good reason for it. There is also a lot of self-deception when it comes to human psychology. There are even many times when we find ourselves surprised by our thoughts, feelings, and emotions, particularly when they would seemingly defy the expectations of our typical choices.

This has nothing to do with the characters being unaffectable perfectly rational robots. They are not. It is just that it is the player who runs the mental model of the character, which determines how they react and how they're affected. I see this as the primary role of the players and it is highly undesirable for the mechanics to try to substitute for this process.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

'My character can never be tricked, persuaded, entertained, intimidated, or scared, he has perfect control over his emotional response to all external stimuli' does not strike me as verisimilitudinous. Unless your character is a robot I guess.

But that's not what's happening. The whole conversation is bizarre to me. Are you not capable of roleplaying a character who has a personality, emotions, flaws, natural reactions etc without the rules telling you to?

 

[Micah Sweet]

'My character can never be tricked, persuaded, entertained, intimidated, or scared, he has perfect control over his emotional response to all external stimuli' does not strike me as verisimilitudinous. Unless your character is a robot I guess.

And since many of those feelings can result in game-relevant negative circumstances for the PCs, it is unfortunately (IMO) encouraged for the players to decide not to feel them. Which is why I favor making more use of the mechanics in that regard.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that's not what's happening. The whole conversation is bizarre to me. Are you not capable of roleplaying a character who has a personality, emotions, flaws, natural reactions etc without the rules telling you to?

Of course. But without some degree of enforcement, the player is encouraged to ignore those feelings if they result in any detriment to their PC.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You ignored my earlier post. That's fine.

Not intentionally! I must have overlooked it somehow. Sorry.

That said, sometimes what players want to roleplay is a character who refuses to be affected by external forces, feelings, or thoughts because they are stuck in a "play to win" mentality. They play as children who erect "invisible force fields" around their characters and make themselves immune to the possibility of being psychologically affected. Part of the interest in resolving this with dice is that we are playing to find out what happens to the characters. We are challenging our characters and finding out what sort of people they are as we roleplay them, use dice to resolve these unknowns, and bind ourselves to the results with integrity.

So, that strikes me as a "some players will be jerks, and we need rules to protect us from that" kind of argument, which I see a lot. My response is that jerks will be jerks, and no amount of rules will prevent that, so your best strategy is to not play with jerks.

Many philosophers believed that humans were rational creatures. The reality of being biological creatures is that we are not entirely rational or even as rational as we imagine ourselves to be. Our brain chemistry and body can have unexpected influence on our human thoughts, emotions, and feelings. We can likewise be affected by others even if we would otherwise choose not to be with our rational minds. Sometimes people get mad and upset despite knowing perfectly well that there is no good reason for it. There is also a lot of self-deception when it comes to human psychology. There are even many times when we find ourselves surprised by our thoughts, feelings, and emotions, particularly when they would seemingly defy the expectations of our typical choices.

I think this is a variant of the previous argument. It is saying that players won't choose to take sub-optimal actions for the good of the overall story. And I disagree.

And, again, if they refuse to do that...don't play with them.

Usually this leads to the "well then why roll dice for combat?" argument, so I'll pre-emptively answer: while I want to make mental decisions for my character, I do not want to do the same for combat. I don't want to try to imagine the scene and the trajectory of the sword and the placement of the shield and the quality of light etc. etc. etc. and try to make that call.

I think one reason for this is that don't really see any story value, in terms of expressing my character's individuality, in the decision. So there's much less incentive, compared to mental decisions, to allow the sword to hit me, or allow mine to miss, in order to better portray my character. It's all downside, no upside. And I don't want to have to make that call for every sword stroke.

However, I will say that when I have used @iserith's* rule for PvP, that when one PC attacks another the target gets to narrate the result, that I have frequently seen players allow the blows to land. So there's that.