NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

I don't think anyone here is "really upset".

I find that interesting, because I also haven't noticed anybody being "upset" (unless it's people I have blocked) about the inverse, which is the claim I was responding to.

But in retrospect, I guess saying "upset" and then adding a /shrug kind of comes across as insulting, doesn't it? I apologize.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Luckily, in many games (D&D included) defeating the dragon is not just about the rolls, is about tactics, it is about the choices the players make during the combat. If it was just a roll, then there really wouldn't be agency.

And what makes you think that social encounters that incorporate mechanics aren’t similar?

Let’s keep it simple. Did you read about the example I shared from Stonetop… where the Heavy had to make a Wisdom roll to stop raging and therefore avoid doing something dangerous with his kid? Do you really not see how that die roll enhanced the situation?

All that can and does happen. It is just happens via putting the characters in unexpected situations and having players who are capable of replaying different personalities. And yes, it is deeper to actually immerse in the situations, inhabit the character, and have these reactions be authentically created by the situation and genuinely felt than just rolling the dice.

And from agency perspective I just don't get this. If you outsource the character's feeling, reactions, choices etc to the dice, then what do you even need the players for? I want to roleplay a character, not a random generate a story of said character. Now that is a bit of an exaggeration and I understand that people who play this way do not perceive it like this, but that's how it appears to me. It just is so weird to me that the same people who always talk about the importance of the player agency are perfectly fine with eroding said agency in this sort of major way.

So you don’t need players for combat?

All your criticisms fall apart once we look to combat in RPGs.

It's not called self-control for nothing.

What? That doesn’t help the discussion in any way. Unless you’re saying that everyone everywhere always has total self control.

Why would you play with a player like that? I don't. If someone is at my game to just game the system and not really roleplay out a PC with personality and character, they should find a different game to play in. My game is not the one for them.

How can you tell? How do you determine if a player is somehow gaming the system or just making decisions for their character?

What if you questioned a player choice and they said “I always know how my character would react to X, and this is it?”

I don’t think you’re being very consistent in how you’re approaching the idea.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, I don't actually think I have played a system where there's a general mechanic which literally dictates PC behavior. Some PbtA playbooks may do that in certain moves, perhaps, as part of the game's premise, maybe? I guess maybe it's more common in, say, Monsterhearts (I have not played it)? In AW for instance the Persuede move used against another PC just, at most, gives you XP for doing what the other character wants. And if you want what they want, then it's just fiction, there's no move at all.

Typically what happens in PbtA play is you roll 9-, or 6-, and the GM gets to make a move. Within the bounds of agenda, principles, and fiction a GM could certainly form a move like "your nerve fails you, thinking about the pain she will feel is too much for you" or something like that. BW's Steel checks do something similar as I understand it. Note that in both BW and any properly run PbtA these stakes should be on the table at the start. FitD is especially strong here.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Look, I am not arguing that games that impose rules around these things are bad, or that people shouldn't enjoy them. For people who want to do that (e.g. pemerton and Torchbearer) then great! I am arguing that:

1. Such rules/systems are not necessary in order to have rich roleplaying where characters take actions that aren't always optimal.
2. It's pointless to try to use such rules to force somebody to play their characters the way we would play their characters, if their characters were ours. Which they are not.

I agree with 1. I'm not so sure about 2. For me it's not pointless (as GM) to have rules which encourage or may steer play in a direction that would otherwise be predictable (less fun) at the table based on a player's limited roleplaying capabilities in a specific area of a character.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I agree with 1. I'm not so sure about 2. For me it's not pointless (as GM) to have rules which encourage or may steer play in a direction that would otherwise be predictable (less fun) at the table based on a player's limited roleplaying capabilities in a specific area of a character.

As long as the player wants to do it that way, yes. This is the point I've been trying to make, not just in this thread but for years:

If a player likes having the roleplaying scaffolding and wants to play a game that provides that scaffolding, great! Lots of people are saying this and I agree. It's not what I want, but we all have our own preferences.

But when the argument becomes that some players will made "bad" decisions, as defined not by the player but by others at the table, and so the answer is to keep them in line with rules...that I think is pointless. (And especially when the argument is that systems that do NOT define such rules...such as 5e...should be interpreted to do so.) Either just be at peace with the way other people play their own characters, or find new people to play with.

In a way this reminds me of the debate about removing racial ability modifiers...for the most part nobody was worried about the impact on their own characters, they were worried about how other people might choose to play. "Oh no! What if somebody plays an orc with 17 charisma at 1st level instead of waiting until 4th level? It will ruin my immersion! Not that any of my friends would do that, but it might happen, somewhere!"

I don't get it.

 

[thefutilist]

Yeah, I don't actually think I have played a system where there's a general mechanic which literally dictates PC behavior. Some PbtA playbooks may do that in certain moves, perhaps, as part of the game's premise, maybe? I guess maybe it's more common in, say, Monsterhearts (I have not played it)?

Some people play Monsterhearts in a similar way to Masks, where social conflict inflicts emotional conditions but I don't like it. It's almost always better for the social tag to be what a group thinks about you. Monsterhearts has one genius mechanic but it's genius because it's the only overt 'story game' mechanic in the game (more or less). You can make an OOC/author based decision to turn someone else on. They have to agree to it before the roll but that's because the games very explicitly saying you do not control your sexuality.

But yeah I think games that do dictate PC behaviour do it best when it's both staking out specific thematic ground and it's bouncing off the other systems in a fruitful way. Inspectres and Showdown can both totally change your perspective of your character but they really don't have anything like a trad structure. My Life with Master dictates character actions but it has very specific limits set on it. Also whenever I've played those three games with more trad minded people they're like 'it was fun and I'd do it again but it's not a roleplay game.'

 

[AnotherGuy]

I say mental, because I decide what my character thinks and believes, not the dice, and those things are mental.

That is fair. There is that element.

Madness and Sanity mechanics involve the supernatural.

DMG Page 259
Most relatively mundane effects impose short-term madness, which lasts for just a few minutes.

Why would you play with a player like that? I don't. If someone is at my game to just game the system and not really roleplay out a PC with personality and character, they should find a different game to play in. My game is not the one for them.

I kinda explained my reasoning in my reply in post #1333
If one can work around a friend's limitations for everyone to have fun, one generally does. And if one is willing to work with others for the better of the game, then it works.

One of my players had a character who had a serious phobia of the undead. He was terrified of them when they showed up, often running or hiding. Sometimes he would overcome it a bit after a few rounds and try something long distance. When an undead that caused fear showed up and he was asked to roll a save for his character he said, "No. I fail that roll automatically. There's no way I could overcome supernatural fear in my state." So he ran his behind off for the duration of the fear.

I have those types of players too at the table, who lean into their weaknesses. Both rewarding and challenging creatively for the DM.

I'm not sure if it plays out like that, or if you've just organized it for understanding, but if it plays out like that, I'd hate it. I like my social encounters to be smoother than that. I want to roleplay back and forth, occasionally stopping to roll some check or other and then the social encounter moves on from there with the direction dependent on what the result of that check was.

I'd hate to have to stop and figure out what the PC will do, what the NPC will do, and what the stakes are before starting to roleplay.

We on the main roleplay scenes free-form, however the next 1-2 sessions will see much decision making via tactical downtime and a lot of exploration of the social pillar with relationships explored and tested in this final council meeting before the assault on Tiamat.
I've been looking over the characters' TIBFs and character goals, creatively thinking how they may be applied to earn these XPs and push individual storylines forward.
I want to use more than just Deception/Persuasion and Insight for this very intense social interaction that is to take place over days within fiction.
Sanity and Madness (short-term), coupled with others mechanics can elevate the game within the social pillar. It definitely doesn't come at the expense of the free-form play.

The GM/table can still handout Advantage on a roll for excellent roleplaying or reward a player in a different way. I'm not removing free-form exchange, I'm just looking to add another layer, have the dice perhaps push the story in directions we never imagined and make the so-called fluff of a character matter.

EDIT: I'm looking to explore possible mechanised emotional conditions of various levels during debate, discussion and argument and have the player leverage a character's fluff to earn XP (which is one of our levels of progression).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps you could explain some of these alternative RPG structures?

I would roughly put games into a couple of bins based on player stance on character.

Classic - pawn stance play. Character is essentially unimportant. You can RP, but the PC is simply a point of view for the player. There are generally no rules related to PC behavior.

Traditional - evolution of classic play. Usually a result of, or reactions to, the breakdown of classic play. Typically involves things like social skills and sometimes subsystems that arbitrate PC responses. Depiction of a fixed PC concept within authored story arcs. Player often has options revolving around genre role and things like power ups. RP can range from pawn stance to being the central activity. Retains classical division of authority, players determine character related stuff, GMs handle everything else and typically generate plot/meta-plot.

Neo-trad - Characters, within a genre/premise, are the primary focus. Story arcs and plot are generated on the basis of player choices about character trajectory and primarily revolve around showcasing characters. GMs may devise story arcs, and generally manage scene description and rules interactions, but don't determine elements that impact PCs. At most the GM may offer up situations as fodder for RP and arc development.

Narrativist - these are varieties of play in which game and RP combine within the context of genre and premise. Characters and story elements arise out of an intersectional process of some kind. No one participant is entirely authoritative over specific areas of play, typically. Most of these games are Story Now play featuring joint input into fiction, plot, and character, with GMs and players typically differentiated by tool set and focus. Unlike neo-trad there is no hard and fast character concept.

Real world play cannot be pigeon holes in any of these bins, but different game architectures definitely define the general intended approach.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, I don't actually think I have played a system where there's a general mechanic which literally dictates PC behavior. Some PbtA playbooks may do that in certain moves, perhaps, as part of the game's premise, maybe? I guess maybe it's more common in, say, Monsterhearts (I have not played it)? In AW for instance the Persuede move used against another PC just, at most, gives you XP for doing what the other character wants. And if you want what they want, then it's just fiction, there's no move at all.

Typically what happens in PbtA play is you roll 9-, or 6-, and the GM gets to make a move. Within the bounds of agenda, principles, and fiction a GM could certainly form a move like "your nerve fails you, thinking about the pain she will feel is too much for you" or something like that. BW's Steel checks do something similar as I understand it. Note that in both BW and any properly run PbtA these stakes should be on the table at the start. FitD is especially strong here.

Yeah, the way folks who aren't familiar with these games are speaking about their dynamics really make mutual understanding (and understanding by any lurkers) pretty difficult.

Our current game of 1KA is a good example. You have several things working in concert:

* Attachments like so:

* Essential Attachment moves/rules like so:

* XP incentives regarding Attachments like so:

-------------------

So there is a lot push/pull, lever/incentive/fallout in there to generate a certain sort of experience of dynamic, explosive character evolution for Warring States Japan play Kurosawa-style.

There is no straight fiat (GM nor player nor system) nor is there a paradigm of rolls arbitrarily dictating play or character inner workings. There is (i) multi-faceted, integrated game tech meant to work in concert with (ii) a vital conversation of play and evolving milieu, each inspiring and informing the other.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That seems fine to me, because it still gives me the ultimate control over whether my PC does something. I don't have an issue with what you described there.

Thanks for overview of how it works.