NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Aldarc]

In literally every instance of play where the spotlight is on a given character in games like Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, Vampire - The Requiem Second Edition, Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, insert game with binding social mechanics players are making decisions about what their character believes, what their aims are and what course of action they will pursue. It's simply done under a set of established constraints based on established fiction and complications that occur through the course of play. You might not like those constraints or see the value in them, but it is disingenuous to say that players are not making decisions for their characters when that's what they are doing in almost every instance.

Another note: in every case I can think of games where there are some sort of binding social mechanics or mechanics that influence thoughts and feelings the impact of these things are not random. Random rolls to determine if something occurs are part of it, but we either talking about defined effects or complications that are determined by the judgement of the GM based on the fictional situation. You're losing a conflict or failing a check where something fictionally relevant impacts your character. No one is rolling on a random mood chart unless you are playing a 5e Eladrin.

Even in D&D where you may have abilities where a "mundane" character inspires a teammate, whether that is 4e or 5e, I think that it's pretty clear that WotC still believes that the players are likewise still "making decisions about what their character believes, what their aims are and what course of action they will pursue." And I suspect that most players don't care or somehow consider getting a morale boost from their non-magical teammate as any sort of mind-control or impediment to their roleplaying. It's worth considering whether this concern reflects an incredibly fringe position, as (again IME) most players don't give a flying flip about these sorts of things as impediments for roleplaying their character.

 

[Maxperson]

In literally every instance of play where the spotlight is on a given character in games like Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, Vampire - The Requiem Second Edition, Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, insert game with binding social mechanics players are making decisions about what their character believes, what their aims are and what course of action they will pursue. It's simply done under a set of established constraints based on established fiction and complications that occur through the course of play. You might not like those constraints or see the value in them, but it is disingenuous to say that players are not making decisions for their characters when that's what they are doing in almost every instance.

Sure, I can make a decision for my character that goes completely against everything the character is based on established constraints. I don't see how that improves things.

Another note: in every case I can think of games where there are some sort of binding social mechanics or mechanics that influence thoughts and feelings the impact of these things are not random. Random rolls to determine if something occurs are part of it, but we either talking about defined effects or complications that are determined by the judgement of the GM based on the fictional situation. You're losing a conflict or failing a check where something fictionally relevant impacts your character. No one is rolling on a random mood chart unless you are playing a 5e Eladrin.

If a resolution mechanic can result in success or failure, then it's a random resolution mechanic. I haven't seen anyone suggest that people are rolling on some random mood chart.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah but I think I could sell Maxperson or Crimson on the Apocalypse World (maybe the Monsterhearts) mechanics because they're a really good example of applying gentle pressure in one area to charge the actual free-form roleplay (that max and crimson describe doing) that happens in another.

Most of the generalised examples of rolling for control I've read here are pretty terrible.

How does it work?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To continue my thought from my previous post, the basic structure of RPGs is that the GM describes the situations and the player tells how their character reacts to it and what they do. So here the situation is that a bear attacks you. And next it would be the player's turn to decide what they do about it... except it is suggested that instead the player doesn't get to decide that and we randomise it instead. At this point I would just hand the character sheet and the dice to the GM and leave, as I am obviously not needed for running this character.

No, you conceive that to be the structure of all RPGs, but in fact it is, at best, the way only a few specific styles of game work. In fact I would argue that games like D&D are extremely vague about how they work precisely because most play pretends to do what you suggest, but actually does other stuff behind the curtain.

What I really, at the most basic level, appreciate about the best RPGs is real clarity and honesty as to what they are and what they demand. That doesn't require a specific type of play, but a lot of what is generally taken as a given around here is anathema to it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, you conceive that to be the structure of all RPGs, but in fact it is, at best, the way only a few specific styles of game work. In fact I would argue that games like D&D are extremely vague about how they work precisely because most play pretends to do what you suggest, but actually does other stuff behind the curtain.

What I really, at the most basic level, appreciate about the best RPGs is real clarity and honesty as to what they are and what they demand. That doesn't require a specific type of play, but a lot of what is generally taken as a given around here is anathema to it.

Perhaps you could explain some of these alternative RPG structures?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nope. Not a one. But I get to decide which things won't ever bother him, because I know the character. Which things have a chance to bother or not bother him. And which things will bother him without a roll, because I know the character.

A random resolution system prevents me from making characters with a personality, because as soon as I do, the system is in serious danger of forcing the PC to act so badly out of character that the character and game will be ruined for me.

Excellent! Then it's probably a good thing that I make realistic characters.

This feels like adversarial play vs what I would consider more collaborative. Like, in all the various games I have been a player in over the last few years there have always been points where another participant put a new/different interpretation on my character. Sure, I'm the one playing the character, I devised the characters personality and motives. At no point do I recall being absolutely dictated to, but in almost every case the game's mechanics, and fiction, brought who I was playing, their nature, to a head.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, I can make a decision for my character that goes completely against everything the character is based on established constraints. I don't see how that improves things.

I think a point here is that ideally, for these types of games, you shouldn't be doing that much establishment of what the character is prior to the gameplay. Part of the point of playing is to establish exactly who the character is.

If you've already decided who the character is, then you're just demonstrating, not discovering.

 

[Maxperson]

I think a point here is that ideally, for these types of games, you shouldn't be doing that much establishment of what the character is prior to the gameplay. Part of the point of playing is to establish exactly who the character is.

If you've already decided who the character is, then you're just demonstrating, not discovering.

I don't mind that to an extent, but I do like to establish the core of my PC. The stuff that orbits the core is stuff that I don't mind discovering about him as we play, since there's no way I can know everything about a PC.

 

[thefutilist]

How does it work?

Without going too deep. The constraints on characters are.


One: When you choose a class there is an implicit set of values involved that must be part of the character 'at the start of play'. So for instance if you pick The Driver, part of his value set/beliefs/personality must involve the belief that he's free to just leave, nothing is tying him down.

This expresses itself in the mechanics when you sleep with someone. You have to roll a dice and on a success you're fine but on a miss you get a negative modifier on rolls until you prove that they don't own you.

Why the mechanics good: Well if enough roleplay has happened such that you think the character has changed, the mechanics kind of force a question. Are you falling for them in such a way that you 'would' stay? If so, no roll and it's perfect time to express to the group why.


Two: There is a 'social' move but it can only be used on a PC by another PC and it's very limited. You roll it when you want something from them and on a success they still get to choose if they give you it or not. If they do they get exp. Otherwise it's limited to use on NPC's.

Why it's good: Even with NPC's you're only rolling for transactional stuff. Real loyalty and connection only come about through roleplay with them.


That's a very broad overview and it still requires being a little bit more meta than ultra deep immersionists might like. Basically it still requires you to state what your character is thinking and feeling although most of this comes after a chunk of roleplay and often isn't necessary.

Now I'm reading this back I don't know how well I'm selling it lol. I guess what I mean is that if you played it I don't think there's anything in it you would strongly object to and there 'might' be stuff you come to think of as really neat.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem with a lot of social systems is they're underdesigned compared to combat systems, so its not always at all clear what "tactical choices" in social engagement are useful as compared to counterproductive. You can get this a little bit in combat sometimes, but its far more opaque and up-to-the-GM in social interactions. Its probably one of those things you could address a bit if players were willing to ask and GMs willing to answer (probably using a skill roll to determine it at least in part) things like "Do I think complimenting the baron on his military prowess will go over well?"

I agree in principal that pretty much all things in an RPG should be a mix of choices and in-character skills in leading to success, but that requires them to be at least vaguely be supported in a not-completely-ad-hoc way.

Obviously I don't know your position on it precisely, and I don't recall you as having been particularly an 'edition warrior'. 4e gave us this kind of an entirely generalized conflict resolution system with a decent amount of tactical depth, and it was absolutely blankety-blanked on. The message then was how dare the game try to structure such things. Yeah, various weak arguments were made about how it's no good, etc. but you can see the quality of the system in action in numerous 4e PbPs on this site.

I'm not sure there was one single overriding reason for the rejection, but clearly if the trad community that is most of EW wanted such parity, they could have it in a trice. There have been MANY incarnations, not just SCs. Heck, if you follow 5e's social encounter mechanics, straight from the DMG it's pretty well developed.