NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[AbdulAlhazred]

So Blades in the Dark qualifies as narrativist, I assume? I've played 24 sessions, and there has been exactly one instance where a die roll defined emotional state of the character. So maybe we are doing it wrong, but I don't think so. I don't believe the player relinquishing control of such things is required for narrativism.

I don't disagree. I don't think I ever stated it was necessary. I stated that character is somewhat intersectional. Usually that manifests with another player/GM interpreting the fiction in a way that puts your character in a new light. Or maybe the GM tossing a consequence or bargain at you that redirects your play. As you say, it is possible for that to produce a situation where your character does something unintended.

In my BitD play my PC was never mechanically compelled, except for being stressed out of play. Still, at least 2 very distinct instances arose where attempting to play to my original concept was impossible unless I wanted to effectively end the game. A few others came up where I had to deal with situations that changed the character to some degree.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't disagree. I don't think I ever stated it was necessary. I stated that character is somewhat intersectional. Usually that manifests with another player/GM interpreting the fiction in a way that puts your character in a new light. Or maybe the GM tossing a consequence or bargain at you that redirects your play. As you say, it is possible for that to produce a situation where your character does something unintended.

In my BitD play my PC was never mechanically compelled, except for being stressed out of play. Still, at least 2 very distinct instances arose where attempting to play to my original concept was impossible unless I wanted to effectively end the game. A few others came up where I had to deal with situations that changed the character to some degree.

Right. And those sound like the sort of putting character in difficult situation and giving them hard choices that I like. Such definitely can make the character to do unexpected and develop into a unforeseen direction. That is all excellent, and does not require the player to relinquish the control of the character to the mechanics.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In combat they actually need to make a lot of choices. So they definitely are needed.

I think this is a critical distinction. Even in a fairly simple combat system like 5e, the squares you choose to stand on and move through have a dramatic impact on which dice get rolled. When you do finally roll the dice, your decisions have had a huge impact on the possible outcomes. And those decisions are not abstracted: I'm actually choosing a square on the board that feels cautious or aggressive or whatever.

(Interesting decision making does not require a grid; it can work in TotM as long as there are meaningful tactical options.)

But in some games, as the number of meaningful choices declines, so does my engagement with the combat system, until it feels like the dice are determining the outcome, not my decisions.

That's how social resolution mechanics...that I've seen...feel to me.

If anybody wants to point me to a social resolution system that feels more like my first example, I'd love to read up on it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think this is a critical distinction. Even in a fairly simple combat system like 5e, the squares you choose to stand on and move through have a dramatic impact on which dice get rolled. When you do finally roll the dice, your decisions have had a huge impact on the possible outcomes. And those decisions are not abstracted: I'm actually choosing a square on the board that feels cautious or aggressive or whatever.

(Interesting decision making does not require a grid; it can work in TotM as long as there are meaningful tactical options.)

But in some games, as the number of meaningful choices declines, so does my engagement with the combat system, until it feels like the dice are determining the outcome, not my decisions.

That's how social resolution mechanics...that I've seen...feel to me.

If anybody wants to point me to a social resolution system that feels more like my first example, I'd love to read up on it.

TB2 and/or straight up BW.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Well, it's deep night down under, else @pemerton would have already commented on this... BW and its descendants have quite well developed systems for this type of thing.

Only speaking of BW, but, in the case of Duel of Wits (DoW), it's an extended rock/paper/scissors system involving scripting in advance. It's ornate, and I love it, but this is definitely not to everyone's tastes. (TB and MG are less obviously complex and probably better designed.)

That said, something that might be of interest in the framing of the DoW rules regarding what that means as far as a character's beliefs (lowercase b) and behavior:

"This system often refers to audience reaction. This is the true benefit of winning. Rarely is the opponent convinced of the merits of the argument, but all those around him now see the advantages clearly displayed against the fallacy of the loser's assumptions." (BWGR p 398, Winning a Duel of Wits)

"The loser must abide by the results of the argument: He's lost and he's agreed to go along with whatever it was his opponent proposed at the outset of the duel -- for the time being, of course...Remember that these rules don't dictate reality or true feelings. They only dictate public performance and acknowledgement of the 'truth.'" (BWGR p 399, Losing)

"If a player is particularly open-minded, he can, of course, have his character change his mind when and as he chooses. Being convinced of the merit of an argument is an acceptable result of these mechanics, but it is not a hard and fast rule." (BWGR p 400, Losing)

It's a long way of saying that it's not mind control. So, if a DoW were framed regarding a character's betrothal, that character could be convinced to become engaged to someone other than their true love, but it wouldn't mean that their character was not in love with their true love, just that the weight of their social obligations or whatever make the betrothal they want untenable for now. What they do about that is up to the player.

 

[payn]

I think this is a critical distinction. Even in a fairly simple combat system like 5e, the squares you choose to stand on and move through have a dramatic impact on which dice get rolled. When you do finally roll the dice, your decisions have had a huge impact on the possible outcomes. And those decisions are not abstracted: I'm actually choosing a square on the board that feels cautious or aggressive or whatever.

(Interesting decision making does not require a grid; it can work in TotM as long as there are meaningful tactical options.)

But in some games, as the number of meaningful choices declines, so does my engagement with the combat system, until it feels like the dice are determining the outcome, not my decisions.

That's how social resolution mechanics...that I've seen...feel to me.

If anybody wants to point me to a social resolution system that feels more like my first example, I'd love to read up on it.

Paizo put out Ultimate Intrigue and the AP War for the Crown. There would be these social events where the players are faced with a plethora of nobles and figures and a goal to gather info, change attitudes, and often both.

Going in the players were often privy to who supports and is opposed to their positions as well as neutral. Adjusting the attitude and/or position of any particular noble would have an effect on overall goal. Now a PC could just approach any NPC and try to straight talk them, but that wouldnt be advantageous. By engaging in social encounters the PC can gain info that will help persuade, intimidate, coerce, etc.. If you dont plan out each encounter, and come armed with the best approach, it can lead to loss of allies, or worse, gaining enemies. Missed chances to uncover valuable information also hangs in the balance.

Typically, there is no way to get everyone on board, or uncover every piece of valuable intelligence. So, the players need to pick their social battles and hope for the best result. Though, there is plenty of choices and nothing is resolved via a single die roll.

 

[Bill Zebub]

TB2 and/or straight up BW.

Huh. I've read and re-read descriptions (mostly from @pemerton) of those, but if you're right then I guess I'm still not getting it.

In my mind it feels similar to "stances" in The One Ring's combat system: you declare what stance you are in (e.g. "Forward") and that choice did have an impact on outcomes, but it all very felt very...oh, I don't know...abstract. Board-gamey. Not like I'm in a battle.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Paizo put out Ultimate Intrigue and the AP War for the Crown. There would be these social events where the players are faced with a plethora of nobles and figures and a goal to gather info, change attitudes, and often both.

Going in the players were often privy to who supports and is opposed to their positions as well as neutral. Adjusting the attitude and/or position of any particular noble would have an effect on overall goal. Now a PC could just approach any NPC and try to straight talk them, but that wouldnt be advantageous. By engaging in social encounters the PC can gain info that will help persuade, intimidate, coerce, etc.. If you dont plan out each encounter, and come armed with the best approach, it can lead to loss of allies, or worse, gaining enemies. Missed chances to uncover valuable information also hangs in the balance.

Typically, there is no way to get everyone on board, or uncover every piece of valuable intelligence. So, the players need to pick their social battles and hope for the best result. Though, there is plenty of choices and nothing is resolved via a single die roll.

That all sounds pretty awesome, but from your description it was more about the set up of the scenario, and less about the rules themselves. Is that at least sort of correct?

When I've had great success with social encounters it was the result of prep time, not rule systems.

 

[payn]

That all sounds pretty awesome, but from your description it was more about the set up of the scenario, and less about the rules themselves. Is that at least sort of correct?

When I've had great success with social encounters it was the result of prep time, not rule systems.

Id say its a combo, but yes, mostly set up and prep. The rules are neat in that they allow you to gain insight to using skills that dont appear to be social based after you discover how to apply them (like dexterity, handle animal, etc.. to impress a notable NPC). Key parts of info are hidden, and through engagement you can gather the pieces, but maybe not all of them.

This is definitely a planned encounter sequence and not something id have a random NPC bust out of nowhere.

 

[hawkeyefan]

They usually aren't Exalted 2e's social combat is the only instance of social mechanics nearing combat mechanics in complexity (not counting games which have super simple combat mechanics too) and it was a total disaster. Even if it wouldn't have other issues (and it did) such complexity simply is not suitable to be interlaced with a naturally flowing conversation.

But what about the many games that don’t differentiate all that much based on what kind of conflict or challenge the player is dealing with? How come many of those games all seem to work so well?

What "tactics" did you use there? It just seems to me the dice dictated the character's behaviour in an important scene.

If by “tactics” you mean what decisions did the player make to arrive at that situation… then it started with me asking what his character was doing. He responded that he was at the forge to hep his wife, who is the blacksmith. They’ve been having troubles because he’s often away from town for days or weeks at a time, leaving her to take care of their many children. So he was trying to mend that situation. We made a Charisma roll to see how it went, and he rolled poorly, so I added the complication of the wayward son hearing something he said and running off in anger. The player then decided that he too was angry… which for his character can be dangerous. A storm kicked up immediately and he ran after the boy.

He caught up to him so we decided what was most important was if he would be able to stop raging… a roll he had yet to succeed at. It uses Wisdom, one of his lowest stats.

So the situation was an accretion of prior player decisions and results of attempted actions. That’s why the agency argument doesn’t ring true… the player knew exactly how things got to this point and why.

So then the outcome… could he calm down and try and resolve the issues with his son? Or would he do something disastrous?

Letting him choose takes away the stakes. All the past events that led us to this moment… they can simply be ignored so he could choose the happy resolution.

This is the key I think… the player has not already decided everything about his character ahead of the events of play. He’s actively learning about his character THROUGH play. Is he the kind of guy who’d put his son in danger? We found out when the dice landed.

That’s how people work. We have ideas about who we are and what we’ll do. Some of those ideas may be stronger than others. We may be right about these things. We may be wrong. We cannot KNOW until we are in the moment and actually dealing with it.

In combat they actually need to make a lot of choices. So they definitely are needed.

Your players don’t make lots of choices in social interactions?

No, not at all.

Sure it does.

Let’s say the character in my Stonetop game from the example above was instead chasing an enemy with the intention of attacking them. Is he robbed of agency because we don’t leave the outcome of the attack up to him, but rather to the dice?

I don’t think anyone here would describe it as such.

It’s about risk. It’s about the “unwelcome” results that Vince Baker talks about in bit that @Manbearcat posted. Combat is full of risk. Characters can die or lose and fail at their objectives and so on. It would lack risk if we instead left the outcome up to the players.

To obtain that same level of risk in a social or emotional way, there needs to be similar risk involved. Without that risk, as I said… you’re much more simply portraying character rather than exploring character.