NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[thefutilist]

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

That's really interesting because the intersection of mechanics and 'it's what my character would do' is what I consider peak Narrativist design. Do you think the mechanical considerations contributed more to the bad taste or the fact you had to retain group cohesion?

 

[Bill Zebub]

This thread is starting to feel like "if you don't like bitter, hoppy IPAs then you don't really appreciate beer" so I think I'll bow out.

-- Pilsner/Lager Guy

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

"Different from yours" and "actively contrary to yours" are not the same thing. In this case this seems like the latter. And note I didn't say they'd refuse to cooperate, just that their fundamental antipathy to it would make it unlikely they'd do a good job.

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

I don't think its unkind to suggest that people are likely to be bad at a job they hate, even if they're trying.

 

[Gimby]

That's really interesting because the intersection of mechanics and 'it's what my character would do' is what I consider peak Narrativist design. Do you think the mechanical considerations contributed more to the bad taste or the fact you had to retain group cohesion?

I think it was the conflict between the characterisation to date and the desire to win the encounter - was I projecting my (as a player) desire for "winning" over the personality of the character, or was I roleplaying the character's development of attachment to their comrades? Would I have made a different decision if this had been encounter 3 of the campaign rather than encounter 50?

Ultimately, I didn't have to maintain cohesion - I've just wrapped up a campaign in the last week where the character party shattered into a mass of contradictions in the last session and everyone agreed it was a great session. In this case I could have stuck to the characters displayed principles and taken that fallout (which as I say, could well have been nothing, chances were the tactical edge wasn't strictly speaking needed)

I can certainly believe that other people are capable of sufficient deep immersion that this kind of dilemma works for them fine, but I personally struggled with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think its unkind to suggest that people are likely to be bad at a job they hate, even if they're trying.

I think that's reasonable. I'm really not a fan of games with a strong narrativist lean. When I've played them anyway, I've been bad at them. Since I've learned more about them through you guys, I now realize I was even worse at playing them correctly than I thought.

And that's ok. No harm no foul.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

100% agree here.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Usually when I’m that conflicted about a course of action I roll my own dice to make the decision. The only difference is that I have control over when the dice get rolled and when I decide without them. Which means that in moments I’m absolutely sure what my pc would do, the dice don’t get in the way of that either.

 

[Maxperson]

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

This is a great example of preferring or engaging in a different form of immersion, but doesn't answer my problem of not understanding how someone who is embodying their character to the point of feeling the dilemma the PC is undergoing can feel anti-immersed.

 

[Maxperson]

Usually when I’m that conflicted about a course of action I roll my own dice to make the decision. The only difference is that I have control over when the dice get rolled and when I decide without them. Which means that in moments I’m absolutely sure what my pc would do, the dice don’t get in the way of that either.

And also what the chances are. Sometimes I'm not sure which way the PC will go, but know that he's much more likely to go in direction A than B, so I give B like 1-4 and A like 5-20 or something.

 

[CreamCloud0]

This is a great example of preferring or engaging in a different form of immersion, but doesn't answer my problem of not understanding how someone who is embodying their character to the point of feeling the dilemma the PC is undergoing can feel anti-immersed.

people are stating that even with themselves rather than a character they are embodying they can find they react in unexpected ways, therefore having such total assuredness that your character will for certain react in certain ways or make certain decisions in various circumstances often with extenuating emotional influences comes across as very unrealistic, even if you choose to 'react badly' the fact that you have the faculty to make the decision in said circumstances comes across as highly artificial.