NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep. And I've roleplayed things like that out with my characters in the past. I don't need a resolution mechanic to do it for me. When confronted with a dilemma that might result in something like that, I am fully capable of struggling through it and figuring out which way my PC will go.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't know about @Crimson Longinus in this situation, so speaking for myself I could do it. If I have agree to play in a specific style of game that is different from what I normally prefer, I will do my best to play in that style. I may ultimately end up not liking it and not return for a second game, but I'm not going to damage the play.

 

[TwoSix]

Yep. And I've roleplayed things like that out with my characters in the past. I don't need a resolution mechanic to do it for me. When confronted with a dilemma that might result in something like that, I am fully capable of struggling through it and figuring out which way my PC will go.

It's not a question of capability. It's the idea that choosing to resolve a character's emotional struggle based on player fiat would feel (if you're attuned to this way of thinking) anti-immersive.

You feel A. Other people feel !A. Some aesthetic responses can't be reconciled.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't know about @Crimson Longinus in this situation, so speaking for myself I could do it. If I have agree to play in a specific style of game that is different from what I normally prefer, I will do my best to play in that style. I may ultimately end up not liking it and not return for a second game, but I'm not going to damage the play.

I believe that you feel this way, but I'd want to make the die roll to be sure if that's what actually happens.

 

[Maxperson]

I believe that you feel this way, but I'd want to make the die roll to be sure if that's what actually happens.

No need. I know myself well enough that there's no doubt!

I've done stuff like that before to experience games I haven't played. Sometimes it goes well, and other times it goes badly(as in I don't like it and don't play again).

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a question of capability. It's the idea that choosing to resolve a character's emotional struggle based on player fiat would feel (if you're attuned to this way of thinking) anti-immersive.

You feel A. Other people feel !A. Some aesthetic responses can't be reconciled.

Yeah. Going by the responses I've seen here, that's the case. I just have a very hard time understanding how someone who is living and breathing the character's life, emotions and thoughts, and struggling with that character's dilemmas, isn't feeling immersed.

I can understand how they might prefer a different form of immersion, but I can't understand how it's anti-immersive.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Given that we really don't know one way or another, I prefer to assume that those with preferences different than mine could enjoy and thrive at my table, instead of believing that it is more likely they would fail at it, or refuse to cooperate. That they would love it if they would just try it, regardless of how much we argue about it on internet forums.

It just seems like a kinder way to think about people I don't really know.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, there are a few core moves in DW that generally constitute 'combat'. There's Hack & Slash, generally triggered by saying you swing at someone who's ready to fight; there's Volley, where you 'shoot' at them; there's Defend, where you interpose between a threat and a target; and Defy Danger, where you just generally do something dangerous. Any of these could be triggered by describing an action which the participants agree should be covered by that move. The list is not exhaustive either; there could be playbook moves, like backstab, or even location moves devised by the GM.

The original question, BTW, wasn't yes/no, despite the response. Not sure why it got panned. As you say, the answer is simple, in PbtA (at least most implementations) a fictional action is described and it triggers a rule, a move. That often leads to a GM move in response. Only player moves generally have dice associated with them, the GM just says stuff.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, I would put it this way; if you live long enough, you will see a lot of 'impossible' stuff! If you're lucky, it just teaches you that you know a lot less than you think you know.

I remember a mild example. I was walking across this golf course in the middle of the night, and the damned sprinklers started up. Consciously it was not really a big deal, but I learned about 'flight response' because the rest of me was bugging out of there! Full speed ahead. It was a solid 10 seconds of pure spectating, not in the driver's seat. And that's, trust me, the tip of the iceberg on "we are not in control of ourselves!"

 

[Gimby]

Yeah. Going by the responses I've seen here, that's the case. I just have a very hard time understanding how someone who is living and breathing the character's life, emotions and thoughts, and struggling with that character's dilemmas, isn't feeling immersed.

I can understand how they might prefer a different form of immersion, but I can't understand how it's anti-immersive.

To give an example from a fairly recent game - it was a Ravnica based game and I was playing a law abiding Azorius functionary. As part of the characterisation, I decided to try and sure that the party didn't kill any citizens. I'd taken Spare the Dying as a cantrip and was delivering it by familiar to fallen NPCs who the party had been fighting with. The character had been doing pretty well with this and had ensured that everyone on both sides had survived all fights.

Due to some bad dice luck, the character was pushed into a situation where they had to chose between healing a fallen NPC and ensuring a party member was certain to stay up the following turn (I could predict from what we were facing that they were likely to, but I could ensure that they were).

In the end, I decided the character would keep the party member up - trading a momentary tactical advantage for the life of the NPC. This lead to a bunch of character development, interesting roleplay and so on over the next several sessions. However, in retrospect if I'd made the other choice and the party member had been dropped, it would have also lead to a bunch of development, interesting roleplay and so on, so it wasn't just a choice of "what was more interesting".

However, while I certainly felt immersed in the character at the time and the decision was a great dilemma, I was taking some meta-game considerations into account (Initiative timings, player party cohesion) and was making the decision not as a snap judgement call, but struggling over it for a minute or more, in a situation where the character was in a dark dank hole, but the player was in a nice warm living room.

It's the kind of thing that might have triggered a Humanity test in Vampire, a Compassion test in Exalted or something similar in Pendragon.

As it was, either way would have produced a fun game and I'd have learnt something about the character - making it by fiat has kind of sat badly since, it felt more like something done for meta-game reasons than being true to the characterisation. But the opposite choice may have also have felt like that in retrospect (We all know the potential risks of Its What My Character Would Do, and it was partly in pursuit of a self imposed OOC challenge). In this case, leaving it to fate would have removed the second-guessing