NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Manbearcat]

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).

I've mentioned many times before that so often in these discussions, (i) what is immersive gets conflated with (ii) what achieves my particular desired brand of Power Fantasy.

That conflation or premise-smuggling (conscious or not) is frustrating. (i) and (ii) are not the same. They may not even be related or might actually be inversely so. And that is certainly what you're pointing at above (even if indirectly!).

I'll also add that play can achieve extremely compelling heroic fantasy while characters are simultaneously beholden to human frailty like becoming smitten or falling prey momentarily to their "worse nature" (both of which require some real lack of volition by the party involved...authorship-by-fiat or always being able to opt out of becoming smitten or falling prey to your worse nature completely defangs the weightiness and experience of the concept at a fundamental level). I'll submit that might even make the experience of the moment, and the reflection upon that moment, feel more heroic!

Net, Power Fantasy occupies a different space from what usually typifies habitation/immersion and we really need to strive to be direct about this and stop the conflation. A statement like "I want to be immersed in a Power Fantasy where I win and/or always direct the inner workings of my humanity and/or author the arc of my Big Damn Hero" is a thing that can be desired. But dressing that up as some kind of default of habitation/immersion while simultaneously lamenting features of play/system that might actually entail the unfortunate machinery of the inner workings of humanity (to lose control, to possibly strive or suffer without remuneration, to sacrifice without reciprocation)? Not great.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've mentioned many times before that so often in these discussions, (i) what is immersive gets conflated with (ii) what achieves my particular desired brand of Power Fantasy.

I would guess that the problem is the word "immersive" is so broad as to be confusing.

When I play World of Warcraft (which I have started doing again because my son is old enough to play) sometimes when I jump my character off a really high cliff, I actually feel it in my stomach. I would argue this is because of immersion.

Alternately, if a GM were to tell me, "Wait, your character wouldn't know to burn trolls...you can't do that!" my sense of immersion...of the kind that I enjoy in RPGs...would come to a screeching halt.

But I don't think either of those types of immersion are even remotely the kind of immersion you are talking about.

So I don't think it's useful to use a term that can be defined so many different ways.

 

[TwoSix]

So I don't think it's useful to use a term that can be defined so many different ways.

I can't speak for @Manbearcat or @pemerton or anyone else, but I know I generally view it as a pointless term for categorizing or explaining play in a TTRPG.

I just tend to use it because it gets pulled out as a "point of play" rationale so often, but I agree the experience of "immersion" is so personal that its utility in discussion is almost zero.

 

[pemerton]

I can't speak for @Manbearcat or @pemerton or anyone else, but I know I generally view it as a pointless term for categorizing or explaining play in a TTRPG.

When it comes to my desired relationship to the character I am playing, I more often use "inhabitation" than "immersion".

One puzzle for me is that players who talk about immersion as a goal of play often seem to also prefer a "fish out of water" style to PC building, setting and situation, etc - and so whatever exactly they mean by "immersion", it can't pertain to the nature of or relationship to the character. Most often, I see the notion being applied to setting, although I think in two different sense: (1) where a setting is immersive if it is (near-)complete, pre-planned, has bestiaries and baedekers and the like; (2) where a setting is presented by the GM so that the players can "roll with it" without having to reckon with it being an authored thing. Though (1) and (2) are different, they may often be related in this sense: (1) can facilitate (2), even though it is not necessary (a GM can make up (2)-ish stuff without prep, if they are imaginative enough) and not sufficient (a GM might lack the skill to use the (1)-ish stuff to do (2)).

A side-effect of (2) is that it tends to mean it is the GM who is deciding what is at stake in many situations - and often secretly, revealing what was at stake down the track when the setting "dictates" that this be so. (I should add: (2)-ish-ness is on the player side; the GM who doesn't reckon with the setting being an authored thing is probably not going to be able to do their job.) So I think there is a tension between (2)-ish play and player agency in play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

The thing with token play proper is it really has no roleplaying in any sense most people use it. There's no attempt to think as a character at all (even as yourself). Like I said, its just treating the character as a wargame chit.

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.

I think you'll see the distinction I'm making above. Even playing yourself in the game has more roleplaying than what I'm talking about as soon as you ask the question "What would I do here" and try to be honest about it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

It was not above doorway, but our warlock has been distracted by occult carvings. They pretty often get distracted by their attraction to esoteric and need to be reminded by others about more pressing priorities.

Or by a beautiful sight more generally?

Our rogue gets distracted by pretty people quite often.

In any case, do you roll for such things in your game? Roll saving throw against a sculpture or be mesmerised by it?
This would annoy me quite a bit. Not because my character was inconvenienced, but because the GM or the game designers do not seem to trust me to roleplay my character properly unless the rules force me to.

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.

They probably do not literally panic, they however might be experiencing some level of genuine fear for their characters' well being. Same like whilst watching a scary movie you might be genuinely afraid, but probably not quite as afraid as if you were actually hiding from zombies in a ruined building or something.

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.

Narrate better then! This certainly has happened in my games and I have had the player to tell me that they really had no choice in the matter; from their immersed point of view of the character, the NPC just felt captivating to them.

And like with fear, I get that this is hard, and most of the time it probably is some shallower shadow of the emotion and then you willingly embrace it and run with it and let the character act upon it. But the core is still some real emotions not the rules telling you what to feel and do.

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

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).

Oh, so now it is possible to escalate? Earlier you implies it was not. I remain confused...

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.

If the player can set stakes in a manner the character could not, then they're not really making decision from the PoV of the character, are they?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Critical Role has been significant contributor to 5e's success and a big influencer for many people. I think a lot of people consider it to be the sort of game they want to have. And it is full of people roleplaying and portraying characters different from the players, a lot of character drama and genuine feelings.

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.

It to "most people" we include whole world, rather than just Americans, I'm not so sure. Like with their chocolate, Americans have terribly low standards for what passes for cheese.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've mentioned many times before that so often in these discussions, (i) what is immersive gets conflated with (ii) what achieves my particular desired brand of Power Fantasy.

That conflation or premise-smuggling (conscious or not) is frustrating. (i) and (ii) are not the same. They may not even be related or might actually be inversely so. And that is certainly what you're pointing at above (even if indirectly!).

I'll also add that play can achieve extremely compelling heroic fantasy while characters are simultaneously beholden to human frailty like becoming smitten or falling prey momentarily to their "worse nature" (both of which require some real lack of volition by the party involved...authorship-by-fiat or always being able to opt out of becoming smitten or falling prey to your worse nature completely defangs the weightiness and experience of the concept at a fundamental level). I'll submit that might even make the experience of the moment, and the reflection upon that moment, feel more heroic!

Net, Power Fantasy occupies a different space from what usually typifies habitation/immersion and we really need to strive to be direct about this and stop the conflation. A statement like "I want to be immersed in a Power Fantasy where I win and/or always direct the inner workings of my humanity and/or author the arc of my Big Damn Hero" is a thing that can be desired. But dressing that up as some kind of default of habitation/immersion while simultaneously lamenting features of play/system that might actually entail the unfortunate machinery of the inner workings of humanity (to lose control, to possibly strive or suffer without remuneration, to sacrifice without reciprocation)? Not great.

What are you talking about? This seems to be almost complete non sequitur to me. Why would you think these things are related, why would you think people mean "heroic power fantasy" when they say "immersion"?

 

[Bill Zebub]

It to "most people" we include whole world, rather than just Americans, I'm not so sure. Like with their chocolate, Americans have terribly low standards for what passes for cheese.

Ok, fine, edit my comment to say "Americans". It's an analogy; not trying to start an argument about cheese.

"If we include everybody on the planet, less than 0.0001% think that RPGs are immersive in the way you are describing."

 

[Umbran]

Narrate better then! This certainly has happened in my games and I have had the player to tell me that they really had no choice in the matter; from their immersed point of view of the character, the NPC just felt captivating to them.

And like with fear, I get that this is hard, and most of the time it probably is some shallower shadow of the emotion and then you willingly embrace it and run with it and let the character act upon it. But the core is still some real emotions not the rules telling you what to feel and do.

Or, you know, don't assume everyone else works like you, let folks find the tools and rules that help them do what they want, and don't look down on what they do if it isn't your thing.