NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[zakael19]

How about just portraying the body language and the vocal cues for real?

First off, a huge amount of us play online. Secondly, most of us aren't actors. Thirdly, many people have difficulty reading body language/vocal cues/etc and I wouldn't want their understanding of a situation to hinge on any of this. Being explicit in the shared conversation makes the game more comprehensible to all engaged. You obviously dont like this, but trust me - when people get used to this sort of 1st to 3rd person flowing multi-sensory word choice engaging depiction of the world, for many of us it creates a far better imaginary experience.

To me first person talking IC is one of the most essential aspects of roleplaying. If it is not happening, I don't want to participate.

Im gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and think you were confused by my phrasing and not just intentionally creating strawmen to argue about. When I run most of my games, we're usually sliding in and out of 1st-person speech. We do 3rd person descriptions of body language, movement, tone, gestures & etc. We do totally removed discussions of feelings and inner life. We take time to interrogate the why and how people's opinions are shifting, what startles them about that, how they expected things to go one way and then didn't. To me, the absolutely most essential part of roleplaying is conceiving of your character and saying what they do in a somewhat consistent manner at all times. Speech is cheap, actions mean things.

And then we may slide back to 1st person in a new scene, or whatever makes sense. As a result, I can mentally sim all these other characters waaaayyyyyy better then somebody who is merely speaking in-person (but isn't like, a professional actor + is just a disembodied voice at teh far end of Discord).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

First off, a huge amount of us play online. Secondly, most of us aren't actors. Thirdly, many people have difficulty reading body language/vocal cues/etc and I wouldn't want their understanding of a situation to hinge on any of this. Being explicit in the shared conversation makes the game more comprehensible to all engaged. You obviously dont like this, but trust me - when people get used to this sort of 1st to 3rd person flowing multi-sensory word choice engaging depiction of the world for many of us it creates a far better imaginary experience.

Most of us indeed are not professional actors, but I think acting skills are RPG skills and you get better by doing. And yeah, I said I refuse to play online, and you're getting to "whys" here. Though camera so that you could see people emote would alleviate the issue somewhat. even though it still would not be the same than being in the same space.

Im gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and think you were confused by my phrasing and not just intentionally creating strawmen to argue about.

Yes. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

When I run most of my games, we're usually sliding in and out of 1st-person speech. We do 3rd person descriptions of body language, movement, tone, gestures & etc. We do totally removed discussions of feelings and inner life. We take time to interrogate the why and how people's opinions are shifting, what startles them about that, how they expected things to go one way and then didn't. To me, the absolutely most essential part of roleplaying is conceiving of your character and saying what they do in a somewhat consistent manner at all times. Speech is cheap, actions mean things.

And then we may slide back to 1st person in a new scene, or whatever makes sense. As a result, I can mentally sim all these other characters waaaayyyyyy better then somebody who is merely speaking in-person (but isn't like, a professional actor + is just a disembodied voice at teh far end of Discord).

So supplementing first person interaction with third person narration? That of course is fine, and to certain extent necessary outside full LARPs. But I also think that a lot can be conveyed via expression of the character and it is more powerful when doing that way. You can say that your character is sad or you can portray them being sad. Both gets the message across, but I think the latter will evoke emotions better. And not just those of the people watching/listening, yours as well. When we portray emotions we start to feel those emotions to some degree.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A self imposed position.

So is preference of game system, but if the available ones are unsatisfactory, they are. Telling someone there's plenty of burger places around when they don't like burgers is kind of useless.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To me first person talking IC is one of the most essential aspects of roleplaying. If it is not happening, I don't want to participate.

I've known plenty of people who roleplay like crazy, but still only rarely do so in first person.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, hypothetical scenario time:

GM: "Yeah (explains dice result) it looks like you fall in love with the NPC"
Player: "What does that mean mechanically?"
GM: "Well, nothing. You're just supposed to roleplay Helga falling in love with Vile Enpeecee the Devious."
Player: "Ok, well I swing my axe and bash his head in."
GM: "Huh? That's not roleplaying. I said you fall in love with him..."
Player: "Yeah, well, that's what I saw me mum do to me dad when I was a wee lass. And she said she did it because she loved him, and she warned me, 'Helga, don't never go fallin' in love wit nobody. Never trust 'em."
GM: "You never put that in your backstory..."
Player: "Well, I can't put EVERYTHING in my backstory. Did I leave that part out?"

Upthread several people talked about being 'surprised' by the outcome of social interactions. I would think everybody at the table would be surprised by this turn of events, not to mention revelations of Helga's untraditional upbringing.

So....who would have a problem with this player's decision, and why?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok, hypothetical scenario time:

GM: "Yeah (explains dice result) it looks like you fall in love with the NPC"
Player: "What does that mean mechanically?"
GM: "Well, nothing. You're just supposed to roleplay Helga falling in love with Vile Enpeecee the Devious."
Player: "Ok, well I swing my axe and bash his head in."
GM: "Huh? That's not roleplaying. I said you fall in love with him..."
Player: "Yeah, well, that's what I saw me mum do to me dad when I was a wee lass. And she said she did it because she loved him, and she warned me, 'Helga, don't never go fallin' in love wit nobody. Never trust 'em."
GM: "You never put that in your backstory..."
Player: "Well, I can't put EVERYTHING in my backstory. Did I leave that part out?"

Upthread several people talked about being 'surprised' by the outcome of social interactions. I would think everybody at the table would be surprised by this turn of events, not to mention revelations of Helga's untraditional upbringing.

So....who would have a problem with this player's decision, and why?

How was this consequence (Helga falling in love with the NPC) determined? In what way is it expected to be binding per the rules or principles of play?

I mean… I wouldn’t really have a problem with this in say Pathfinder because it’s not really how the game works. The GM can tell me whatever they want about my character, I’m still free to declare whatever actions I want.

Better to use an example from a game that has mechanics that could actually produce something like this scenario.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean… I wouldn’t really have a problem with this in say Pathfinder because it’s not really how the game works. The GM can tell me whatever they want about my character, I’m still free to declare whatever actions I want.

That counts as an answer!

 

[hawkeyefan]

That counts as an answer!

Sure… but it’s an answer that doesn’t really tell us much. All it says is that in a game without binding social mechanics, such rules cannot be enforced.

A few posts back, I talked about my Stonetop game where the barbarianesque character had to make a roll… a Wisdom roll… to stop raging. If he didn’t stop, he would have done something dangerous or foolish with his son there.

How does anyone think that letting the player simply decide is more dramatic than letting the dice have their say?

*******

Another example from the same session of play… the Judge, a kind of cleric/paladin hybrid who serves as the town’s chronicler and arbiter, is concerned about another PC. That PC is the Seeker, someone in possession of a powerful but potentially dangerous artifact. The midwife, a member of the town council, came to the Judge and shared the same concern. She suggested to the Judge that the artifact be taken away from the Seeker and kept in the Judge’s Vault for safekeeping.

I asked the player of the Judge if his character could be convinced that this was a reasonable course of action. He said he could. So we decided to use the Persuade (PC vs. PC) move, even though this involved an NPC. Everyone was on board. He rolled for the NPC, and the result was that his character is convinced it’s a good idea.

So now the Judge is on the side of the NPC against one of his fellow PCs. It’s a very interesting dynamic, and one that makes absolute sense in the fiction and based on what we know of the characters.

It’s also one that would very rarely come up in a game of D&D or Pathfinder and similar games because few players would opt to “go against the group”, which is something you see strongly promoted as a foundational element of the social contract of play. “Work together” and “no PvP” and similar sentiments come up all the time.

 

[thefutilist]

Ok, hypothetical scenario time:

GM: "Yeah (explains dice result) it looks like you fall in love with the NPC"
Player: "What does that mean mechanically?"
GM: "Well, nothing. You're just supposed to roleplay Helga falling in love with Vile Enpeecee the Devious."
Player: "Ok, well I swing my axe and bash his head in."
GM: "Huh? That's not roleplaying. I said you fall in love with him..."
Player: "Yeah, well, that's what I saw me mum do to me dad when I was a wee lass. And she said she did it because she loved him, and she warned me, 'Helga, don't never go fallin' in love wit nobody. Never trust 'em."
GM: "You never put that in your backstory..."
Player: "Well, I can't put EVERYTHING in my backstory. Did I leave that part out?"

Upthread several people talked about being 'surprised' by the outcome of social interactions. I would think everybody at the table would be surprised by this turn of events, not to mention revelations of Helga's untraditional upbringing.

So....who would have a problem with this player's decision, and why?

Without context it's hard to tell but in principle I wouldn't have a problem with that. In Monsterhearts there is a similar mechanic for attraction and in that game it's a masterpiece of design. It often has similar results to the one you sketch. 'Oh I'm attracted to him, time to go beat him to a pulp.'

 

[zakael19]

Sure… but it’s an answer that doesn’t really tell us much. All it says is that in a game without binding social mechanics, such rules cannot be enforced.

A few posts back, I talked about my Stonetop game where the barbarianesque character had to make a roll… a Wisdom roll… to stop raging. If he didn’t stop, he would have done something dangerous or foolish with his son there.

How does anyone think that letting the player simply decide is more dramatic than letting the dice have their say?

*******

Another example from the same session of play… the Judge, a kind of cleric/paladin hybrid who serves as the town’s chronicler and arbiter, is concerned about another PC. That PC is the Seeker, someone in possession of a powerful but potentially dangerous artifact. The midwife, a member of the town council, came to the Judge and shared the same concern. She suggested to the Judge that the artifact be taken away from the Seeker and kept in the Judge’s Vault for safekeeping.

I asked the player of the Judge if his character could be convinced that this was a reasonable course of action. He said he could. So we decided to use the Persuade (PC vs. PC) move, even though this involved an NPC. Everyone was on board. He rolled for the NPC, and the result was that his character is convinced it’s a good idea.

So now the Judge is on the side of the NPC against one of his fellow PCs. It’s a very interesting dynamic, and one that makes absolute sense in the fiction and based on what we know of the characters.

It’s also one that would very rarely come up in a game of D&D or Pathfinder and similar games because few players would opt to “go against the group”, which is something you see strongly promoted as a foundational element of the social contract of play. “Work together” and “no PvP” and similar sentiments come up all the time.

Ok but why is this nearly the same set of events in my Stonetop too, lol. Down to the midwife having concerns! And the artifacts going into the Vault! The one difference is that another PC had to convince the Judge not to just smash some things, and store them to see if they could better the town (the discussion was “yeah but he’s only willing to be swayed because it’s the Marshal who I look up to as a wise mentor asking - who the rolled a 11 to resolve that conflict”).