NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TwoSix]

Feels kinda “I can’t play a human being”-ey! But maybe that’s just me. Maybe you all actually do that sort of 3rd party vetting in your lived lives and I’m the anomaly!

You mean you DON'T hear the narrator as you're looking for a patron to punch at the bar?

How do you even feel immersed in your own life?

 

[Bill Zebub]

See my reply just above. I think this is just wrong.

Unless by "decisions for their character" you mean authorial decisions (about what the character feels, how they behave, etc) which are not things that the character themselves has control of. In which case I agree that TB2e has less of this than 5e D&D, which is why I think the characters feel more human. Because the player has less authorial control that does not conform to the actual capacity of the character to make decisions.

Yes, I think "authorial decisions" is what I am talking about, if I'm parsing that term correctly.

Your comment about "characters feel more human" is illuminating, and is maybe a less flippant way of expressing what I said upthread about "playing cops and robbers" versus "participating in an art-house crime drama film."

I'm honestly not trying to portray characters with depth of personality that's not me, and explore this alternate persona. I'm mostly dressing up as an elf fighter or dwarf cleric for halloween in order to overcome challenges and get loot, and sprinkling on some personality for flavor.

Is that a "lesser" form of roleplaying? Less sophisticated, sure. But fun as heck.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm honestly not trying to portray characters with depth of personality that's not me, and explore this alternate persona. I'm mostly dressing up as an elf fighter or dwarf cleric for halloween in order to overcome challenges and get loot, and sprinkling on some personality for flavor.

Is that a "lesser" form of roleplaying? Less sophisticated, sure. But fun as heck.

Somewhere in the sphere of what used to be called "avatar play" and "token play".

 

[Bill Zebub]

Somewhere in the sphere of what used to be called "avatar play" and "token play".

I honestly get confused by all the nuanced terminology, but "avatar play" sounds more accurate than "token play". To me, "avatar play" sounds more like the osr style I prefer, where "token play" sounds more like the "roll a skill without describing what you are doing" type of play.

But, again, I don't really follow the discussions about how those terms are used so I'm just making this up.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I honestly get confused by all the nuanced terminology, but "avatar play" sounds more accurate than "token play". To me, "avatar play" sounds more like the osr style I prefer, where "token play" sounds more like the "roll a skill without describing what you are doing" type of play.

Well, its a very old set of terms, but the distinction used to be whether you applied roleplaying, but where roleplaying yourself, or whether you were considering the character just a game chit--but it didn't mean you weren't solving things with your own decision making (this first got used in the OD&D and AD&D1e period so you had little choice), it just meant that you were playing the character more like a microtactical wargame than really what most people consider roleplaying.

But, again, I don't really follow the discussions about how those terms are used so I'm just making this up.

You almost never see them used anymore anyway. Those were largely used in rec.games.frp.advocacy decades ago.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, I think "authorial decisions" is what I am talking about, if I'm parsing that term correctly.

I don’t think that in immersive roleplay it is really about “authorial decisions.” It is the internalised model of the character “telling” you how they feel and react.

If one views playing characters as making decisions from some detached third person author perspective, then I certainly can see how rules dictating some of those decisions would be less jarring.

Your comment about "characters feel more human" is illuminating, and is maybe a less flippant way of expressing what I said upthread about "playing cops and robbers" versus "participating in an art-house crime drama film."

I'm honestly not trying to portray characters with depth of personality that's not me, and explore this alternate persona. I'm mostly dressing up as an elf fighter or dwarf cleric for halloween in order to overcome challenges and get loot, and sprinkling on some personality for flavor.

I’m trying to portray a character with different personality and I feel certain sort of rules can get in the way of it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, its a very old set of terms, but the distinction used to be whether you applied roleplaying, but where roleplaying yourself, or whether you were considering the character just a game chit--but it didn't mean you weren't solving things with your own decision making (this first got used in the OD&D and AD&D1e period so you had little choice), it just meant that you were playing the character more like a microtactical wargame than really what most people consider roleplaying.

Huh. I wonder about that part in bold. Admittedly I don't have a lot of exposure to the entire gaming world....maybe 10 or 12 different sub-communities (a high school club where I was a teacher, my own kid's middle school group, my in-person adult group, organized play at a FLGS, some online groups I've found, an attempt to "get the band back together" from the early 80s, etc.)....but I've never actually played RPGs with anybody who does this more immersive roleplaying. Enworld is really the only place I see it discussed/defended, so I've always assumed it's not even slightly representative of the larger population.

EDIT: maybe an analogy would be the statement "most people don't consider Kraft singles to be real cheese."

I actually think most people do think it's cheese. Just not the kind of people who would be active in a cheese-related online community.

 

[pemerton]

And as for the last case, this is misunderstanding how immersive roleplay works. (Perhaps because you don't do that?) Player "chooses" in the same way that you "choose" to be scared when watching a scary movie. It is not really a choice, rather the reaction if produced via the interaction of the GM's evocative descriptions and roleplaying the character.

And when is the last time in one of your sessions that a PC was distracted by the design of a carving above a doorway? Or by a beautiful sight more generally?

Even when it comes to retreating from combat, I don't believe that many players ever, in a typical D&D game, literally panicked. It seems to me - based on my own observations and experience, plus the reports of others - that retreat and surrender are almost always actions decided upon rationally, and not things that occur because of an emotional response in the player.

Even moreso when it comes to, say, having a PC fall in love - or even be infatuated by - a NPC. This is almost always the player making a decision, not the player being emotionally moved by the power of the GM's narration.

Furthermore, almost all of these examples are from combat, which in D&D is the part where people switch to "tactics mode" and there is not that much roleplaying present (though there still of course will be some.)

And? I mean, suppose that I replied that my TB2e example is from a Trickery conflict? (Which it is.) What difference does this make?

This is a reason why some people do not like this approach of handling combat, and I totally get it. So If your argument is that your whole game is like the combats of D&D in this regard, then I believe you, but it is actually supporting my point, not yours.

On the contrary - the RPGs I prefer generally don't have fiction-divorced resolution of the sort that is common in D&D combat. For instance, in the context of a TB2e Trickery conflict, the stakes are established and consolidated, and the ensuing possible scope for compromise made clear, in the course of the conflict - in the case of a Trickery conflict, via the details of what the players have their PCs say and do, and what the GM has the NPCs say and do.

Had the players wanted to roll into a Kill conflict in the event of a failure at Trickery, they could have tried to achieve that - eg by including threats and/or the loosening of weapons in their sheaths as part of their action declarations for their PCs. But they didn't - the last thing they wanted was a Kill conflict, given that they were already in terrible shape (as per the actual play report, all the PCs were Injured and two were Sick as well).

players can choose whether encounter will be a combat or negotiation irrespective of enemy attitude, they can choose whether the fight risks their life, they cannot escalate from failed negotiation to a fight etc...

So, as per what I've posted above, the last thing you say is not true. It depends on what is staked - which is something I have repeatedly mentioned, with reference also to the content of the compromise, but does not seem to be something that you are taking seriously - I suspect because you are used to a system in which the GM is at liberty to decide what is at stake in any conflict at any time.

As for whether or not an encounter will be combat or negotiation, that depends on how the encounter occurs - if the players initiate it, then they are free to declare whatever action for their PCs they prefer. In 5e D&D, the GM is at liberty to decide that a combat will be a combat one, by having the NPCs just ignore entreaties and parleys and so on. But there are other versions of D&D - eg AD&D and B/X - where the GM is generally expected to roll a reaction to see what happens if the PCs attempt to negotiate. In TB2e, rather than one-roll resolution it is open to the players to call for an extended conflict, or for the GM to suggest one.

If an encounter is the result of a twist - GM narration consequent on a failed test - then the GM determines the nature of the conflict. This is how, for instance, the PCs in my TB2e game ended up having to fight a giant lizard and then a giant tick in Kill conflicts:

They knew, from their time in the dungeons, that there was some sort of way out - a tunnel or similar - other than via the Moathouse stairs. So they Scouted for that, but failed. Another twist: they did find a way in, through the rubble and damage on the south-west corner of the Moathouse, but it led them to the lair of the giant lizard, which attacked - initiating a kill conflict. The PCs started with disposition 8, and the lizard with 11, and at one point the PCs were down to 2 hp left; but Fea-bella used Wizard's Aegis and they scripted some clever and successful Defends, and so they finished the conflict with no hp lost and so no compromise owed, while the lizard was dead.

They then scavenged in the lizard's room, but this failed to and so they suffered another twist - a giant tick dropped from the ceiling and started sucking Fea-bella's blood! This was another kill conflict. Unfortunately for the players, their scripting worked against them - they won the conflict in a single round, but the final volley was Attack vs Attack, and so while Golin handily killed the tick it also got in some good licks of its own, so that a half-compromise was owed. The PCs were all Angry, Exhausted and Injured. Golin also failed a Health test for exposure to disease from the tick, and so became Sick.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, I think "authorial decisions" is what I am talking about, if I'm parsing that term correctly.

Your comment about "characters feel more human" is illuminating, and is maybe a less flippant way of expressing what I said upthread about "playing cops and robbers" versus "participating in an art-house crime drama film."

I'm honestly not trying to portray characters with depth of personality that's not me, and explore this alternate persona. I'm mostly dressing up as an elf fighter or dwarf cleric for halloween in order to overcome challenges and get loot, and sprinkling on some personality for flavor.

Is that a "lesser" form of roleplaying? Less sophisticated, sure. But fun as heck.

I wouldn't say it's "less sophisticated" - especially because I don't think the TB2e game that I GM is all that sophisticated! (Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant I think are a tad more sophisticated, but still pretty B-movie.)

But the issue of feeling human is a big deal to me. I don't generally want my RPG play to be about overcoming challenges and getting loot. (That's fine as an occasional one-off.) As a player, my peak RPG experiences have been playing Burning Wheel, and overcoming challenges and getting loot are not part of the game at all (at least for me as a player; when I GM, my friend who plays is a little bit more loot-inclined than I am).

 

[pemerton]

If one views playing characters as making decisions from some detached third person author perspective, then I certainly can see how rules dictating some of those decisions would be less jarring.

Just for clarity: I was contrasting authorial decision-making with actually inhabiting the character. And I was saying that a system in which my character only (say) panics if I choose to have them panic - that is, a system where the player has to make a choice that the character doesn't make - is one in which authorial decision-making predominates, and consequently is one in which PCs feel less human.

Conversely, I generally prefer RPGs in which the PCs feel more human. And one way this is achieved is by having a system which can bring it about that a PC acts in a way that is not chosen but rather is (in some loose sense at least) involuntary. Panicking, being distracted by beautiful things, falling in love, stumbling, sneezing - these are all examples of this (at various levels of profundity, as far as the character, and their nature and personality, are concerned).