NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TwoSix]

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.

A lot of this also comes down to attuning yourself to the rhythm of the game you're playing. If you're playing a game where the character's emotional or physical response may be dictated by the resolution method, then deciding your personal vision of the character's reaction is more important than the resolution means you're not embracing the game.

And if you can't embrace what a game does, than you probably shouldn't be playing it, right? Like I don't think anyone here thinks that @Crimson Longinus would be a good fit for the Stonetop game that @hawkeyefan is describing.

Just like I don't play first-person shooters because I'm terrible at them, some people shouldn't play certain TTRPGs.

 

[Aldarc]

A lot of this also comes down to attuning yourself to the rhythm of the game you're playing. If you're playing a game where the character's emotional or physical response may be dictated by the resolution method, then deciding your personal vision of the character's reaction is more important than the resolution means you're not embracing the game.

And if you can't embrace what a game does, than you probably shouldn't be playing it, right? Like I don't think anyone hear thinks that @Crimson Longinus would be a good fit for the Stonetop game that @hawkeyefan is describing.

Just like I don't play first-person shooters because I'm terrible at them, some people shouldn't play certain TTRPGs.

I'm reminded of Michael Scott in the US version of the Office when he's going to improv class. Instead of embracing the improv and rolling with the improv scenarios, he keeps imposing his visions on the scene, pulling out his "gun" and turning all scenarios into violent situations for his persona "secret agent Michael Scarn." I think we are all supposed to recognize that he is playing at improv in bad faith.

Edit: correcting typing errors because typing with a sleeping cat on arm iz hard.

 

[payn]

I'm reminded of Michael Scott in the US version of the Office when he's going to improv class. Instead of emracing the improv and rolling with the improv scenarios, he keeps imposing his visions on the scene, pulling out his "gun" and turning all scenarios into violent situations for his persona "secret agent Michael Scarn." I think we are all supposed to recognize that he is playing at improv in bad faith.

Thank you, this is a great example of what ive been trying to think of. When I experience it (which is pretty seldom these days) im going to call it "going Michael Scarn".

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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.

At the risk of being very dark, I think history is full of examples of previously moral people becoming monsters when confronted with the right combination of stressors, and they would have similarly asserted an inability to be monsters - until those stressors were applied.

The lines between civility and barbarity are very thin.

 

[Micah Sweet]

At the risk of being very dark, I think history is full of examples of previously moral people becoming monsters when confronted with the right combination of stressors, and they would have similarly asserted an inability to be monsters - until those stressors were applied.

The lines between civility and barbarity are very thin.

Truer words were never spoken. I really don't believe you can know what you're capable of until confronted by a situation that brings it out.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I don't need to just speak for myself in this case. @Crimson Longinus responded with agreement to my statement upthread that it wasn't for everything, or even most things. Just that sometimes we know and during those times we need to be able to make the decisions. And that it's about the player struggling with the dilemma the PC has encountered.

He already spoke, and I am informing you that for us it's not even close to all choices already having been made.

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

No they don't. You are misinterpreting the picture rather badly if you think so.

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

It's not possible for a person to know every detail about every possible circumstance such that all choices will have already been made prior to the PC encountering situations. Most of the time the issue will be in doubt, though we might know that it the PC leans one way or the other.

As I posted upthread, if I have established that my character is greedy for wealth and also loyal to my companions, being placed into a situation where I can gain wealth by betraying one or all of them will create a rather powerful dilemma for my PC. In such a situation I can 1) struggle with the choice, feeling it within myself as I figure out which way he will go(and it's not guaranteed that I will not betray my companions), or 2) I can just be a curious observer as some sort of resolution process decides for me and not feel the conflict.

I prefer to feel the conflict and resolve it myself. Some of my characters would take the gold, and some would remain loyal. It depends on the character's personality and experiences with his companions, so is too varied to give you a decision which way it would go here on the forum.

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.

For me it 100000000% is less immersive. I'm not immersed in being an observer to how my character will react to a situation like I describe above. Not even a little bit. I'm completely immersed in the character when it's me struggling to come up with the decision to a dilemma the PC has encountered.

 

[Bill Zebub]

At the risk of being very dark, I think history is full of examples of previously moral people becoming monsters when confronted with the right combination of stressors, and they would have similarly asserted an inability to be monsters - until those stressors were applied.

The lines between civility and barbarity are very thin.

Absolutely!

It's just a question of to what extent game mechanics dictate those things, versus letting players make those choices. And there's no right answer; different games, different preferences.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And if you can't embrace what a game does, than you probably shouldn't be playing it, right? Like I don't think anyone here thinks that @Crimson Longinus would be a good fit for the Stonetop game that @hawkeyefan is describing.

/thread

Just like I don't play first-person shooters because I'm terrible at them, some people shouldn't play certain TTRPGs.

...except this makes it sound like Crimson would be "terrible" at Stonetop, as opposed to just not enjoying it.

 

[TwoSix]

...except this makes it sound like Crimson would be "terrible" at Stonetop, as opposed to just not enjoying it.

I don't think I've seen enough evidence to suggest that CL would be able to integrate his preferences with hawkeyefan's enough to be able to play in his game without damaging the play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

...except this makes it sound like Crimson would be "terrible" at Stonetop, as opposed to just not enjoying it.

It depends on whether he could properly engage with it even if he wasn't enjoying it. When it comes to things like this, I'm not sure how often those two threads meet in the middle; if you're subconsciously resisting the mechanical premise the game is based on, its unlikely you're going to be good at it either.