Doesn't your remark that it's silly concede the point - ie that the player is not really in control of these PC mental states? That if they want to play a character who is not hallucinating or otherwise deluded, they have to adapt their PC mental states to reflect the GM's narration of the things the PC knows and perceives?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency
- Thread starter cranberry
- Start date
Conflict resolution is by simultaneous blind declaration of 3 "moves", that are then resolved against one another. The fiction that accompanies the moves is what establishes the context for success and for compromises.
If the players think that they are going to lose, they can choose moves that increase the likelihood of a compromise, and/or they can introduce fiction (eg having their PCs say stuff) that helps shape the content of the compromise.
Instead of a Trickery contest, the players could have initiated a Kill contest. As things played out (ie scripting, rolls, etc), it is likely that many of the PCs would have been killed. But instead, they were captured. You think that the difference is profound in some way, not just in fictional terms, but in agency terms. But I'm not seeing it.
The choice to Trick rather than to Kill is itself an expression of agency by the players. It establishes a different set of stakes. It allowed two of the players to achieve their PC goals, of escaping the swamp, even though they lost the conflict. Whereas being killed, or driven off back into the swamp, would not have achieved that goal.
Did your game also feature a long discussion, in advance, about how to infiltrate the enemy installation (eg via steal, via fighting, via trickery)? Did it have a memorable attempt by the PCs to persuade the (new) bandits that they (the PCs) were emissaries from a previous group of bandits the PCs had confronted a few times?
The players made their call, as to approach to take, and we resolved it. It was colourful, and memorable. The resulting escape from the Moathouse dungeon was also colourful, and memorable. I've got no reason to think it would have been better if there had been a fight to the death instead.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Hmm, that didn't really answer the question.
Two illustrative examples:
1. A wizard casts charm person, and at the same time roleplays what that looks like in the fiction (handwaving, mumbling, etc.). But regardless of what he roleplays, it's a DC 13 Wisdom save, as determined by his level and his Int score.
2. The same wizard wants to talk his way past a guard, but he has a terrible Charisma so instead he tries to confuse the poor guard, spinning a convoluted tale and attempting to bewilder the guard using his 17 intelligence. In this case there's no specific rule to determine the outcome, so the DM, thinking this sounds cool, and knowing that the guard is not particularly committed to his job, tells him to make an Int check with a DC of 14.
In the first case the player's narration was entertaining but completely irrelevant to the mechanical resolution.
In the second case, the player's narration was essential for another person at the table (this time the DM) deciding what the probabilities would be. In other words, one participant's evaluation of the quality of another participants actions influenced the mechanical resolution.
In Torchbearer, to what extent does that (the second case) happen?
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
No, not at all. The opposite. I took a rather extreme case, where it's nearly impossible to ignore the physical reality, and showed that it's still possible to describe a mental state uninfluenced by that reality.
And, sure, it would be exhausting (and annoying to everybody else) to constantly deny the reality of the setting. But I don't see that as an argument for taking away their ability/right to do so.
But would you agree that, if the player did as you describe, then their PC would be hallucinating or otherwise deluded? So that what you're saying is that the player is free to play their PC as being out-of-touch with reality.
There are two options for resolution of an attempt to talk one's way past a guard: simple, or extended.
A simple test would be Manipulator vs Manipulator. A clever con counts as "supplies" for Manipulator, and so would grant +1D (in a context where a pool of 5 or 6 dice is a pretty good-sized pool). If the player is very invested, there are other ways of adding dice to the pool in advance (by spending Persona) and/or rerolling fails (by spending Fate or Persona, provided the PC has a salient Wise).
An extended conflict would be a Trickery conflict. This requires the players to script their blind declaration. The con would be a piece of equipment that affects the roll for one or more particular moves (depending on details, it might be a distraction - +1D Manoeuvre - or a prop - +1D Feint; the former is probably better for a wizard, as Manoeuvre is resolved on Lore Master which is a skill a wizard is likely to have).
Player cleverness also applies in the scripting of the declaration. The GM is expected to play their NPC in accordance with the NPC's Nature descriptors, Instinct, Traits, etc - and so the players can form conjectures as to how the GM will script, and can then script intelligently in response.
When the extended conflict is resolved - because one side's disposition has been reduced to zero - then any compromise has to be determined. At our table, generally I as GM take the first stab at suggesting the comprise, but it has to be agreed to by the players. The degree of compromise depends on the extent to which the winning side's disposition was reduced. The content of the compromise depends upon the details of the fiction, which - in a Trickery conflict - will depend primarily on what was said during the resolution of the conflict. The losing side may get some of what they want; or the winner may incur a cost.
For instance, we could imagine the wizard tricking the guard, but becoming Angry because of the time taken and resulting frustration. Or maybe the guard lets them through but accompanies them, or heralds their arrival. The range of possibilities in the sort of scenario you describe is pretty broad!
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Absolutely.
But that does not mean that every time their mental model is different from what others expect it is "out of touch with reality". The interesting and important cases are not where the player wants their character to not believe in something as concrete as a door, but when they want their character to (for example) disagree that an NPC was persuasive.
For a GM to declare that a door exists does not require any buy-in from the PC. The door's existence is completely independent of the PC's mental state.
But for a GM to state "you find the NPC persuasive" with the same certainty as "there is a door" requires the DM to not just establish what their NPC does, but also how the PC reacts to it, which depends to a large extent on their existing internal state.
So your claim that the PCs internal mental state is just another feature of the setting is only true if the GM's purview also covers that PCs brain. And that's the foundation of my stance: that the PCs brain is the one and only thing that belongs exclusively to the player. So, no, the GM may not dictate how their NPCs persuasiveness is received. (Not that I'm 'right'; I'm saying that's how I want my RPGs designed.)
From the Scholar's Guide, pp 218-9:
In Torchbearer, we give you four tools you can use to make your expeditions more than just loot hunts and massacres. Beliefs, creeds, goals and instincts all contain the potential to hook in players and push play to another, more intense level.
If, during an adventure, you find an opportunity to present a player with the choice of either playing a belief or acquiring loot, then you’ve offered what we call a meaningful decision. At this juncture, the player must decide what is most important: satisfying that belief or scoring some loot.
Torchbearer thrives on choices like that. The game presents many opportunities for the players to earn benefits and improve their characters—through the rewards mechanism, advancements and acquiring loot. If you pit acquiring a reward against acquiring loot, your players will squirm and struggle with that decision. And the ultimate outcome will be more meaningful for the tension.
The game becomes even more interesting once you present decisions that set a belief and a goal against one another. If a player has a belief to soak up loot and a goal to teach their young companion, what will they do if their young charge is captured - but they’ve also stumbled on a statue with glittering gems for eyes? Will the player waste time prying out those gems or will they hurry to the rescue?
If a character has a belief about making it rich but a goal about serving the common good, the game master can create tension by offering conflicts that fork both priorities. . . .
The key to playing Torchbearer is to insert those situations into your adventures and leave them there for the player to decide. Don’t force them. You can prompt a player to make a choice, but let them make the decision. Neither outcome is correct or better. It’s the decision that matters. . . .
But if they do write those beliefs and goals about solving the riddle, saving their companions or scoring a big haul, be sure to give them a chance and include those moments in your game.
If, during an adventure, you find an opportunity to present a player with the choice of either playing a belief or acquiring loot, then you’ve offered what we call a meaningful decision. At this juncture, the player must decide what is most important: satisfying that belief or scoring some loot.
Torchbearer thrives on choices like that. The game presents many opportunities for the players to earn benefits and improve their characters—through the rewards mechanism, advancements and acquiring loot. If you pit acquiring a reward against acquiring loot, your players will squirm and struggle with that decision. And the ultimate outcome will be more meaningful for the tension.
The game becomes even more interesting once you present decisions that set a belief and a goal against one another. If a player has a belief to soak up loot and a goal to teach their young companion, what will they do if their young charge is captured - but they’ve also stumbled on a statue with glittering gems for eyes? Will the player waste time prying out those gems or will they hurry to the rescue?
If a character has a belief about making it rich but a goal about serving the common good, the game master can create tension by offering conflicts that fork both priorities. . . .
The key to playing Torchbearer is to insert those situations into your adventures and leave them there for the player to decide. Don’t force them. You can prompt a player to make a choice, but let them make the decision. Neither outcome is correct or better. It’s the decision that matters. . . .
But if they do write those beliefs and goals about solving the riddle, saving their companions or scoring a big haul, be sure to give them a chance and include those moments in your game.
And from pp 221-2:
Players can convert their relationship characters into friends and enemies during play.
To make a friend, the player must make a genuine and sincere gesture to the character that appeals to the character’s idiom. Sometimes a thoughtful gift is enough, but in some cases you might have to prove yourself across multiple adventures. Go with your gut. Do you feel a kinship between these two characters? If so, then add the friend to the player’s allies list. They’re considered a friend for all that implies in the rules.
Making a friend might involve arguments and debates, but you can’t argue someone into agreeing to be your friend. Such agreements are merely alliances and friendship may or may not be the result.
Conversely, it’s possible to make new enemies in play. If you deem that a player has treated a character cruelly or callously, you should add that character to the player’s enemies list. This character now counts as an enemy for all that implies in the rules. This new enemy will seek to bring about the character’s downfall directly or through careful plotting.
To make a friend, the player must make a genuine and sincere gesture to the character that appeals to the character’s idiom. Sometimes a thoughtful gift is enough, but in some cases you might have to prove yourself across multiple adventures. Go with your gut. Do you feel a kinship between these two characters? If so, then add the friend to the player’s allies list. They’re considered a friend for all that implies in the rules.
Making a friend might involve arguments and debates, but you can’t argue someone into agreeing to be your friend. Such agreements are merely alliances and friendship may or may not be the result.
Conversely, it’s possible to make new enemies in play. If you deem that a player has treated a character cruelly or callously, you should add that character to the player’s enemies list. This character now counts as an enemy for all that implies in the rules. This new enemy will seek to bring about the character’s downfall directly or through careful plotting.
Here was your example, upthread:
Where does the necromancer come from? Are they an established enemy? If not, why is the GM framing a situation where they are trying to command the PC? How has this necromancer become salient?
Likewise, the sick mother. Where has this state of affairs come from?
And what about the red ruby of doom - why is that salient? Have the PCs been searching for it, and for clues about it? Or is the GM just pulling it into play like a rabbit from a hat?
As I posted upthread, you seem to be assuming that the GM is under no constraints in framing scenes, establishing conflicts and stakes, establishing failure results, etc. None of that is true of the GM in Torchbearer 2e, in Burning Wheel, or in Marvel Heroic RP. Prince Valiant is more informal in the way it discusses these things, but I think there are some pretty clear "best practices" for that game also.
But this isn't true in D&D - charm, fear etc magic has been a part of the game from its very origins.
Maybe you don't use those mechanical subsystems? I know there's been some discussion of these upthread, but I've not followed all the contributions from all the participants.
Similar Threads
