NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[hawkeyefan]

Using dice to make that decision is to me the easy and meaningless way out. I would rather feel the struggle with that decsion within myself as I embody my character.

Do the dice rolls to overcome the evil dragon feel so empty, too? Do you abandon them to just “feel the struggle” of the battle?

For what part of this did you need the dice for? There was choice, it was made, there are consequences.

In this case, it sounds like the woman getting pissed off was the consequence of a poor roll. Someone tried to schmooze her, did it poorly, and got the opposite reaction than what was hoped for.

I want the rules to produce unwelcome and unexpected situations. But I don't wan the rules to tell us how the character reacts to those situations, and what choices they will make.

You’re blocking off all kinds of unwelcome results that are fundamental to people in the real world and to characters in fiction. No one’s emotions ever get the better of them? No one loses control?

And this is “deeper” or “more immersive”?

There’s no risk to your concept of the character. Nothing can happen unless you approve it. You can never learn that your character is someone other than who you wanted them to be.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I want the rules to produce unwelcome and unexpected situations. But I don't wan the rules to tell us how the character reacts to those situations, and what choices they will make.

I'd say more accurately, there are certain "unwelcome and unexpected" situations you don't want; it just happens to be those situations involve character feelings.

 

[Maxperson]

Do the dice rolls to overcome the evil dragon feel so empty, too? Do you abandon them to just “feel the struggle” of the battle?

Equating emotional/mental with physical is a False Equivalence.

They just aren't close to being the same.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the first part of this has an important qualification buried in it "of the type I want". People can, indeed, desire the system to produce "the unwelcome" and still not want certain kinds of unwelcome states. And the line can be fairly fine.

I put it there because that is the exact work I intended it to do!

However, my post intends more work than just "the unwanted action resolution result which wrests from me (a player) my fiat-expected control of my PC's inner workings."

I also intend it to entail the following "unwanted" both in terms of action resolution results and in the meta of play:

1a) Action resolution procedures which allow players to have system-indexing (this is done in different ways) purview over their PC's accumulated knowledge which the GM doesn't have veto rights over (because of the expected GM unilateral control over setting in the Trad model). The unwanted in terms of play meta for the Trad model.

1b) However, if that action resolution procedure goes awry, the GM or system has (system-indexing) say over the accumulated knowledge fallout. The unwanted in terms of situation-state/gamestate being suddenly complicated.

2a) Action resolution procedures which allow players to have system-indexing (this is done in different ways) purview over their PC's friends/rivals/circle of contacts which the GM doesn't have veto rights over (because of the expected GM unilateral control over setting in the Trad model). The unwanted in terms of play meta for the Trad model.

2b) However, if that action resolution procedure goes awry, the GM or system has (system-indexing) say over the friends/rivals/circle of contacts fallout. The unwanted in terms of situation-state/gamestate being suddenly complicated.

---

Like the fiat-expected control over inner workings of the PC case, each of these four are different things, but they typically all hew to the same fault line dynamics.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But no one has opposed rolling to see whether the character manages to navigate the situation better or worse, but some are opposed rolling for the mental state of the character, for their choices, wants and beliefs.

I think it will be up for discussion exactly what a given result might mean in terms of what the character does. Maybe his willpower fails. Maybe something else, but we know the outcome has some downside in a PbtA on a 9-, for example. In at least some games the GM may have the right to decide, or another player might.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Equating emotional/mental with physical is a False Equivalence.

They just aren't close to being the same.

Why not? You make an assertion, but don’t back it up in any way.

Whether the actions are physical or emotional/mental doesn’t really matter… what we are talking about is a move made by a player of a game, and that move involves their fictional avatar attempting something.

Why should the rules of a game treat those things differently?

If I want to avoid being blasted by the wizard’s fireball, I have to make a roll. If I want to avoid being baited by an attempt to make me angry… why not make a roll?

In both cases, I want to avoid consequences from some form of external threat, by marshaling some resource of my character’s to succeed. My speed and or heartiness to avoid the fireball, my will or self control to avoid the taunt.

Aside from preference, why make a distinction?

 

[Maxperson]

Why not? You make an assertion, but don’t back it up in any way.

Of course I did. I was very clear on why I need to be able to decide thoughts, feelings and attempted actions for my PC.

Whether the actions are physical or emotional/mental doesn’t really matter… what we are talking about is a move made by a player of a game, and that move involves their fictional avatar attempting something.

Of course it matters. I can attempt to cross a slippery log. The outcome is automatically in doubt unless I have some magic means to prevent slipping, so there is a roll involved. I KNOW how my PC will react to X situation. There is no doubt, so there is no roll.

With physical acts there is generally an inherent chance of failure. There is failure chance with choosing my PCs thoughts and feelings about something, unless I choose for there to be.

Why should the rules of a game treat those things differently?

Because they are inherently different. Physical =/= mental. Mental is purely internal to the PC. Physical almost always involves external aspects which are generally beyond PC control.

If I want to avoid being blasted by the wizard’s fireball, I have to make a roll. If I want to avoid being baited by an attempt to make me angry… why not make a roll?

Fireball is external and generally beyond PC control and I the player generally cannot know for certain if he would succeed, fail or the outcome is in doubt. Anger is entirely internal and I the player generally know for certain if the PC would succeed, fail, or the outcome is in doubt.

In both cases, I want to avoid consequences from some form of external threat, by marshaling some resource of my character’s to succeed. My speed and or heartiness to avoid the fireball, my will or self control to avoid the taunt.

Taunts are not a threat. Nor can certain things ever anger me no matter who says it or how hard they try. For those things there could not possibly be any roll to anger me. Why should my PC be any different?

On the other hand, I can't guarantee that I will succeed at physical activities in the same way I can guarantee that certain things can't ever make me angry.

Aside from preference, why make a distinction?

Because they are inherently different things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Of course I did. I was very clear on why I need to be able to decide thoughts, feelings and attempted actions for my PC.

Of course it matters. I can attempt to cross a slippery log. The outcome is automatically in doubt unless I have some magic means to prevent slipping, so there is a roll involved. I KNOW how my PC will react to X situation. There is no doubt, so there is no roll.

With physical acts there is generally an inherent chance of failure. There is failure chance with choosing my PCs thoughts and feelings about something, unless I choose for there to be.

Because they are inherently different. Physical =/= mental. Mental is purely internal to the PC. Physical almost always involves external aspects which are generally beyond PC control.

Fireball is external and generally beyond PC control and I the player generally cannot know for certain if he would succeed, fail or the outcome is in doubt. Anger is entirely internal and I the player generally know for certain if the PC would succeed, fail, or the outcome is in doubt.

Taunts are not a threat. Nor can certain things ever anger me no matter who says it or how hard they try. For those things there could not possibly be any roll to anger me. Why should my PC be any different?

On the other hand, I can't guarantee that I will succeed at physical activities in the same way I can guarantee that certain things can't ever make me angry.

Because they are inherently different things.

They’re not different. They are things that are not entirely up to the person.

Your problem is that when you say “I know how my character would react to X” your X equals everything.

That’s not how people work.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I want the rules to produce unwelcome and unexpected situations. But I don't wan the rules to tell us how the character reacts to those situations, and what choices they will make.

How do you feel about the Madness rules in 5e as many of them dictate a course of action or at least prescribe/suggest several courses of action which may be taken by he character.
The madness rules also state that they can be imposed by relatively mundane effects, so not just magic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How do you feel about the Madness rules in 5e as many of them dictate a course of action or at least prescribe/suggest several courses of action which may be taken by he character.
The madness rules also state that they can be imposed by relatively mundane effects, so not just magic.

I always liked them. They seemed an elegant solution to handle being influenced in a long-term fashion.