NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

What I do not understand about this, is that why that same unexpectedness that they experience in the real life does not translate to similar unexpectedness of character behaviour. Like, yes, real people can react unexpected ways to unexpected situations. And when you are immersed in the character and are presented with an unexpected situation in evocative manner, the same thing happens. Why do you need the dice for this?

 

[CreamCloud0]

What I do not understand about this, is that why that same unexpectedness that they experience in the real life does not translate to similar unexpectedness of character behaviour. Like, yes, real people can react unexpected ways to unexpected situations. And when you are immersed in the character and are presented with an unexpected situation in evocative manner, the same thing happens. Why do you need the dice for this?

because the medium of the tabletop forces you to make a conscious decision rather than an instinctual reaction, therefore the disconnect in the process caused by the medium is to be resolved by a tool of the medium.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, once our BitD game my character was in trouble. He wasn't fond of the rest of the crew's dealings with a demon, but he was concerned about a bunch of orphans as well. So, at one point he's out of options, things are going sideways, the team is doing the demon thing, kids are going to die, etc. So it is either basically death and the end of the crew, or invoke She Who Slays in Darkness. This was a great moment of play IMHO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

because the medium of the tabletop forces you to make a conscious decision rather than an instinctual reaction,

Why? When I am immersed in a character, I certainly have instinctual reactions to the situations the character ends up in.

I get that it doesn't always work, as there are a lot of distractions in RPGs. Like D&D style combat rules are rather unimmersive as so much focus is on rules and tactics so it breaks the flow. And that's why I absolutely do not want similar flow breakers for social situations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, once our BitD game my character was in trouble. He wasn't fond of the rest of the crew's dealings with a demon, but he was concerned about a bunch of orphans as well. So, at one point he's out of options, things are going sideways, the team is doing the demon thing, kids are going to die, etc. So it is either basically death and the end of the crew, or invoke She Who Slays in Darkness. This was a great moment of play IMHO.

I assume you didn't throw the dice to decide which way to go? (And which was it?)

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I get that. It still doesn't explain the anti-immersion statement from earlier in the thread. I'm not failing to understand how they could be immersed another way, or even prefer that other way. I'm failing to understand how if you are fully embodying your character, thinking and acting as that character, you are anti-immersed.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I get that. It still doesn't explain the anti-immersion statement from earlier in the thread. I'm not failing to understand how they could be immersed another way, or even prefer that other way. I'm failing to understand how if you are fully embodying your character, thinking and acting as that character, you are anti-immersed.

it's not fully embodying your character that is anti-immersive to us, it's that when fully embodying your character comes with the assumption of such total assurance of how they will react in any given circumstance.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

it's not fully embodying your character that is anti-immersive to us, it's that when fully embodying your character comes with the assumption of such total assurance of how they will react in any given circumstance.

It doesn't! It is just that the unexpected reactions are generated the same way they're in the real life, rather than by the mindless dice.

 

[Maxperson]

it's not fully embodying your character that is anti-immersive to us, it's that when fully embodying your character comes with the assumption of such total assurance of how they will react in any given circumstance.

Has anyone said it's in any given circumstance? I've only seen it said that it happens sometimes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I assume you didn't throw the dice to decide which way to go? (And which was it?)

In that case I of had to just decide. I can see how such a decision could be posed as a devil's bargain. You'd still have a choice though.