NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[hawkeyefan]

I already addressed that:
(not counting games which have super simple combat mechanics too)

I don't think having a core resolution mechanic is the same as having super simple combat mechanics. Why do you say that?

So the condition was willingly initiated by the player in the first place?

The rage was initiated by the player, yes. He was angry and chose to have his character rage. It also gave him a boost to easily catch up to the boy.

I mean in a sense that he chose to rage in the first place. Which he presumably didn't need to do. Then again, if he can decide that, why cannot he also decide to end it?

What's interesting about that? This is what I'm asking you. In this example and this example only, can you see the purpose of going to the dice? Can you see how simply allowing the player to choose robs the situation of any weight?

Stop taking this example and trying to extrapolate it to every single instance of play, and every single decision the player may make. No one is advocating for a game to do that.

Just look at this one example and answer the question... do you see why using the mechanics rather than player fiat in this example created an interesting element of play?

So sort of a sidenote. What you mean by disastrous? Are you running a game where a PC beating a child is a thing that can happens and whether it does is randomised? What are you implying here?

The specifics were not set, but some sort of violent or at least frightening encounter between the character and his son seemed to make sense.

It's not really how people work. People are capable of making choices. And I think this specific example with its implications of domestic violence is particularly fraught.

It's not fraught. It's a perfectly cromulent example. Everyone playing in the game was perfectly comfortable with everything that happened, or would have potentially happened in play.

If you can't engage with that example, then just stop replying. Don't try and paint the example as "fraught" or problematic in any way.

So no, I don't want to play a game where I am not capable of making such choices doer my character, and I don't want to play a game which implies that people are incapable of such choices, but are just driven my random impulses instead.

And to me drama and pathos is about making hard choices. If you outsource the choice to the dice, it is gone.

What hard choices are you talking about? The situation I described was an easy choice, if left to a choice... but people don't always do what's obviously correct, do they?

What you're advocating for is to manifest your character conception. Which is perfectly fine as far as preferences or interests go. But I think presenting this as some kind of deeper level of immersion or what have you is just flawed. You've already made all the choices.

They do. They definitely do. Because I don't use mechanics that rob them of those choices.

Then what was your point about combat requiring more rules because it involves more choices? This comment seems to contradict that.

You can have "risks" and "lose" in social situations many different ways* without having to randomise the character's personality and belies. And if you want to test the latter, then put them in a situations where there is no obvious "correct" answer, one where their different values and priorities are conflict. Then you still leave the choice to the player, you have an impactful test for the nature of the character. That will be far more compelling than whether they can roll high enough on the dice.

No, you can't.

Again, apply this logic to combat. If players are allowed to decide the outcome of each fight they get into, each attack they make, then where does the risk come from?

Is it a risk that they may choose to lose? Can we really describe that as a risk?

* (Though combats and social situations are fundamentally different and the latter is far more nuanced and rarely about "winning" or "losing.")

So... it's more nuanced and as a result needs fewer rules? But when more decisions are involved, more rules are needed? I can't keep what you're saying straight.

And generally, I think social conflicts absolutely are about winning and losing. You're trying to get something... do you get it? These are the kinds of interactions I'm talking about.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You mentioning a PC being "stressed out" made me wonder that sort of mechanic is viewed by those adamantly against PCs having less than 100% control over all their actions. In some games (Marvel Heroic is a good example) a PC can be functionally "downed" by mental or emotional stress, without being involved in a physical combat at all, much less being hit. How does that square?

As an aside, this is also true of Eclipse Phase.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Low myth and Story Now play rely on generating fiction on the fly, though once established it is binding. There may also be specific mechanical constraints depending on the game. But in a general sense these games start with fiction. So, in Dungeon World I describe sneaking up behind a guy and ganking him, or at least trying to. The corresponding Thief move is triggered, resolution proceeds. Honestly, it is not radical in form. Failure might produce various outcomes, that is either dictated by the move, or the GM decides.

I read this 3 times and i can't figure out if it's a "yes" or a "no" answer.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I read this 3 times and i can't figure out if it's a "yes" or a "no" answer.

Dungeon World and its offshoots (like Stonetop) allow for a variety of tactics that you’re talking about. They are not presented as a list of predetermined conditions, but rather always flow from the fiction.

But yes, the game does allow for advantages and grouping up on people and things like that. Usually, you describe what you want to do, and it likely triggers a move and you roll to see how it goes.

 

[Maxperson]

What you're advocating for is to manifest your character conception. Which is perfectly fine as far as preferences or interests go. But I think presenting this as some kind of deeper level of immersion or what have you is just flawed. You've already made all the choices.

No we haven't. Not even close.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No we haven't. Not even close.

Who’s “we”? Just speak for yourself Max.

No. I'm saying I create a personality and experiences for my PC and sometimes I KNOW 100% how he would react to something based on that and my vision for him. Sometimes not.

Comments like this certainly paint a different picture, despite the “sometimes not” bit added at the end.

Because as your other comments have indicated… “sometimes not” still means you get to always decide.

Again, a perfectly fine way to handle it, and plenty of the games I play use this approach to one extent or the other. There’s just nothing wrong or “less immersive” about a different approach.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Dungeon World and its offshoots (like Stonetop) allow for a variety of tactics that you’re talking about. They are not presented as a list of predetermined conditions, but rather always flow from the fiction.

But yes, the game does allow for advantages and grouping up on people and things like that. Usually, you describe what you want to do, and it likely triggers a move and you roll to see how it goes.

Huh? I was just asking @AbdulAlhazred if what I described is an example of how he using "story now".

And, yes, I play Dungeon World and I have Stonetop (although haven't actually played it.)

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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.

I think this is pretty central to a good RP experience for me, regardless of the system used - the notion of uncertainty with regard to how a character might react in a given situation - although I'm not necessarily advocating that the dice be used as the (only) means by which that uncertainty is resolved.

In the real world, we might be be surprised by our own actions: made proud, disappointed; occasionally amazed or horrified. Our own characters (i.e. us, we) are defined by our actions, not by a pre-held set of ideas about how we think we should behave. I think we all (assuming none of us are abject narcissists) understand that we could be better; we all grapple with our fears and regrets.

I think that approaching our characters (i.e. our avatars) with the same perspective is pretty rational. We might have a character concept - personality traits, a backstory etc. - but, functionally, the character is always a tabula rasa until their actions have actually been manifested in the shared imaginary space.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think having a core resolution mechanic is the same as having super simple combat mechanics. Why do you say that?

Because such core mechanic is usually way simpler than full combat rules of a game such as D&D or Exalted. Point was that complex social mechanics are unwieldy and cannot be reasonably used in midst of an IC conversations. Whether game has complex combat rules or not is besides the point.

The rage was initiated by the player, yes. He was angry and chose to have his character rage. It also gave him a boost to easily catch up to the boy.

What's interesting about that? This is what I'm asking you. In this example and this example only, can you see the purpose of going to the dice? Can you see how simply allowing the player to choose robs the situation of any weight?

Stop taking this example and trying to extrapolate it to every single instance of play, and every single decision the player may make. No one is advocating for a game to do that.

Just look at this one example and answer the question... do you see why using the mechanics rather than player fiat in this example created an interesting element of play?

In very minimal sense like having a roll to avoid trap etc. But I don't think it is worth the drawbacks.

The specifics were not set, but some sort of violent or at least frightening encounter between the character and his son seemed to make sense.

It's not fraught. It's a perfectly cromulent example. Everyone playing in the game was perfectly comfortable with everything that happened, or would have potentially happened in play.

If you can't engage with that example, then just stop replying. Don't try and paint the example as "fraught" or problematic in any way.

Well, it is fraught because "I couldn't control myself" etc is what violent abusers say to avoid responsibility and its BS. They had a choice. So I don't want to have game rules that make that BS narrative true.

But I think because this example indeed is so problematic, it highlights the issue with "you never know how you'd react" thing. You don't fully know, but it doesn't mean there aren't some things you know for sure. Like I know for sure that I will be never so angry that I would beat a child. And I think these are the sort of things most people know of themselves and thus the players should know of their PCs.

Now perhaps the player believes the character indeed is monster and is capable of such a thing. And if they're willing to roll for it, I have no problem with that.* But at the same time if the player just said that seeing the how the child is afraid of him makes the rage instantly melt away, then we should go with that instead.

* (Beyond having a problem with having on screen child abuse perpetrated by a PC in the first place...)

What hard choices are you talking about? The situation I described was an easy choice, if left to a choice... but people don't always do what's obviously correct, do they?

It indeed was not a situation with a hard choice, at least as presented. Thus I think it was not a good situation for testing the nature of the character.

What you're advocating for is to manifest your character conception. Which is perfectly fine as far as preferences or interests go. But I think presenting this as some kind of deeper level of immersion or what have you is just flawed. You've already made all the choices.

Have you made all the choices in your life? Does the fact that you're fully realised actual person instead of a vague sketch of literary character mean that? That you play your character as real person instead of randomising their personality and reactions doesn't mean all choices are made; it means you actually do make those choices instead of outsourcing them to the dice.

Then what was your point about combat requiring more rules because it involves more choices? This comment seems to contradict that.

You got it backwards. Combat does not have more rules because it has more choices, it has complex rules to create those choices.

No, you can't.

Again, apply this logic to combat. If players are allowed to decide the outcome of each fight they get into, each attack they make, then where does the risk come from?

Is it a risk that they may choose to lose? Can we really describe that as a risk?

But no one has said players get to decide outcome of every social situation, merely that they get to decide how their characters react and feel. That is not the same, is it? Like by definition a social situation involves other people, right? You don't get to decide how they feel or react. And if they're NPCs, player agency doesn't matter and we can actually use some dice when needed.

So... it's more nuanced and as a result needs fewer rules? But when more decisions are involved, more rules are needed? I can't keep what you're saying straight.

And generally, I think social conflicts absolutely are about winning and losing. You're trying to get something... do you get it? These are the kinds of interactions I'm talking about.

Situations that are more nuanced and complex are harder to make conform to a rule structure, that is by necessity somewhat rigid. And like I said, you can still "win" or "lose" in a social situation without taking away the player's agency over their character's reactions and feelings.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Crimson Longinus

Your observation about personal responsibility resonated and is likely one deeply held reason there’s so much push back when it’s suggested a player doesn’t decide character actions or emotions.

As a related anecdote. When Ive been roleplaying a character a while I still find opportunities to be surprised at the actions I’m having them take. So Dice are not required for this even in a ttrpg. And as you note again, definitely not in real life either.

Another thing I find many players doing is that if they are uncertain they roll their own dice to determine character action, even though doing so is technically non-binding in game terms.

So IMO the problem isn’t that the dice decide these things at times, it’s when the dice decide them when the player is sure about what the decision/action should be. That dice are then used to bind the player into a different decision/action is where we really see pushback.