NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[CreamCloud0]

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

i meant 'any circumstance' as in any given occasion has a chance of you perfectly knowing how they'd react, rather than the 'any circumstance' that's closer to 'every circumstance'

 

[Aldarc]

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.

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.

This. Moreover that medium is fundamentally a game, and the incentive structures that exist in games sometimes mean that there are reasons for the player to "adjust," whether consciously or not, how they embody their character so that it more appropriately aligns with various win conditions, optimal actions, or otherwise of the game. Even if a player may choose to play their character in suboptimal ways in certain moments, these game factors can still influence how the player may choose for their character to react in given circumstances on the whole. In itself, this is not a problem IMHO. However, the problem can rest in what you say above "the total assurance of how they will react in any given circumstance." It just reads as a lack of awareness of our cognitive blind spots as humans that factor into how we roleplay characters in a game.

 

[Maxperson]

i meant 'any circumstance' as in any given occasion has a chance of you perfectly knowing how they'd react, rather than the 'any circumstance' that's closer to 'every circumstance'

It may seem like "any circumstance" from the outside, but it's really only once in a while. The vast majority of the time that clarity isn't there, so there's no chance of perfect knowledge.

 

[zakael19]

This. Moreover that medium is fundamentally a game, and the incentive structures that exist in games sometimes mean that there are reasons for the player to "adjust," whether consciously or not, how they embody their character so that it more appropriately aligns with various win conditions, optimal actions, or otherwise of the game. Even if a player may choose to play their character in suboptimal ways in certain moments, these game factors can still influence how the player may choose for their character to react in given circumstances on the whole. In itself, this is not a problem IMHO. However, the problem can rest in what you say above "the total assurance of how they will react in any given circumstance." It just reads as a lack of awareness of our cognitive blind spots as humans that factor into how we roleplay characters in a game.

Baker has talked about how the evil delight of games designers is to replace your natural inclinations with those they desire to reach into your brain and place there via mechanics/premise/incentives/etc. It's like how Harper stresses to players for BITD to just go with your first, most fun or interesting sounding instinct in a moment and let the dice / game play out. And then it mechanizes this with XP incentives for letting vice and trauma and such like take over.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

As an example, there are people I know that would simply find the assumptions in most close-to-the-original PbtA systems unpleasant and grating; they might try to engage with it because of the campaign premise, but I don't think the things baked into resolution in those systems would stop annoying them just because they'd try, and that would be bound to have an impact.

(And to be clear, I'm not talking about the emergent setting/story elements here, but some of the things created by the systemic assumption that complication is what is interesting, and what it means for resolution).

 

[thefutilist]

It may seem like "any circumstance" from the outside, but it's really only once in a while. The vast majority of the time that clarity isn't there, so there's no chance of perfect knowledge.

The way I play I'm assuming that this moment is a defining moment of the characters life. I know what they'll do in most situations but the results of the fiction might change the characters worlds view.


I guess I'm playing to find out three things, in broad strokes.


One: How the situation is going to resolve for all the characters

Two: The consequence of my characters priorities

Three: If my characters priorities change because of the events of game


Because you can't model the entirety of a character I'll end up discovering some incidental things about them. They like chocolate ice cream or whatever but I have the core world view locked down when I begin.

EDIT: There's lots of stuff that that fleshes the character out more and stuff I incorporate because of shared histories with other player characters and so on. The solid core has to be there immediately though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

It’s not beside the point at all.

And the thing is, just because combat rules may be more complex, that doesn’t automatically make them better. I’ve played games with minimal combat rules that allow for a lot of tactical decision making and dynamic situations than very codified rules.

Hence why I advocated for rules systems that resolve a variety of conflicts with the same core process.

You say that those are “too simple” for combat, but then you point out how complex rules for social situations are “unwieldy and cannot be used amidst IC conversations”. Neither is actually arguing against what I’m saying,

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

So you think that play would have been enhanced by allowing the player to decide if his character stopped raging?

You don't fully know, but it doesn't mean there aren't some things you know for sure.

Actually, yes, that’s what it means. the two parts of your sentence here are in conflict, which I think is emblematic of your statements overall.

You cannot know something for certain until after the fact. You can have a strong idea, and you may very well be right… but you cannot know.

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.

Well, except this is pretty much exactly the situation that the player wanted to examine in play. His Instinct is “Duty” and that has manifested in play as his duty to the town as one of its champions versus his duty to his family.

This is precisely the kind of situation the GM is meant to put the character into.

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.

No, that’s my point. I haven’t decided ahead of time exactly what I’ll do as a person. I have a good idea… I’m generally a good guy, I care for my friends and family, and all that kind of stuff… but I also know I have flaws. And I know I’ve been fortunate enough to never have those flaws be strongly tested against my virtues.

Not everyone is so lucky.

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

What does this mean? Rules are required to make choices? But your whole point is about the significance of choices absent any rules.

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.

Okay… so why are you playing an RPG? Why not just freeform roleplay?

And I don’t at all agree with your assessment that going to the dice robs players of agency. You’re kind of ignoring all the buildup to the point a roll is made in favor of just classifying the roll as not being up to the player.

I would view the situation in my Stonetop game very differently if the player had just been allowed to choose the result. I would think that would be more damaging to agency… he went into the situation knowing the stakes and making decisions on it all along. To just erase the stakes… to remove the chance for things to go poorly? To me, that’s not honoring player agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I say that you should just speak for yourself so I can address your points to you and his points to him.

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

Haven’t you, in the past, claimed to have never been manipulated by people in real life? Or that you’ve never been conned in real life? Something like that?

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.

That’s fine. Again… I think that’s more portraying character than inhabiting character. There’s no risk. Whatever happens, it’s what you decided to have happen.

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.

That’s so strange to me. Because when I get to a point like the example I offered in my Stonetop game, I’m really thinking about both outcomes. I’m not just devoid of thought. It can be very involved stuff. The dice just determine which way it goes… and then I play it as if I’m a person that chose that. I learn something about the character… i don’t just decide something about the character.

There’s no game without risk. I put something on the line about my character, and then I see how it turns out. That I may learn something unwanted is what makes it risky.

If you want to describe riskless portrayal as deeply immersive, that’s your prerogative… I’ve just laid out why I don’t think that’s a good description for it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

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.

These are very well said points… very much what I’ve been driving at, and much more succinct!

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.

Because the word “fully” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. No matter how immersed you may feel, you’re not actually the character. You’re not in a fraught situation with major stakes on the line, desperately trying to control the supernatural rage within you.

You’re sitting at a table with friends playing a game.

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.

But no they’re not… that’s the point. You can sit there and deliberate and consider what you “know of your character” and take a sip of your drink, and consider a previous encounter that was similar, and then decide how to act.

No matter how “immersed you are, you’re still a player deciding something about a character.

So at times, when it may make sense or in certain circumstances, I think it’s valuable to put the player’s idea of their character to the test in a way that they cannot control. That gives me a much stronger sense of the character as a person distinct from myself, which (somewhat paradoxically, perhaps) allows me to better inhabit the character.

This. Moreover that medium is fundamentally a game, and the incentive structures that exist in games sometimes mean that there are reasons for the player to "adjust," whether consciously or not, how they embody their character so that it more appropriately aligns with various win conditions, optimal actions, or otherwise of the game. Even if a player may choose to play their character in suboptimal ways in certain moments, these game factors can still influence how the player may choose for their character to react in given circumstances on the whole. In itself, this is not a problem IMHO. However, the problem can rest in what you say above "the total assurance of how they will react in any given circumstance." It just reads as a lack of awareness of our cognitive blind spots as humans that factor into how we roleplay characters in a game.

Absolutely true, as well.

We’re playing a game. In my opinion, the rules of the game should tell us something about play. So should my decisions as a player (and a GM, too, absolutely). But take away one of those elements… player decisions or rules results or GM decisions… and I think you’re losing something vital to what makes an RPG an RPG.

 

[Maxperson]

Haven’t you, in the past, claimed to have never been manipulated by people in real life? Or that you’ve never been conned in real life? Something like that?

No.

That’s fine. Again… I think that’s more portraying character than inhabiting character. There’s no risk. Whatever happens, it’s what you decided to have happen.

No risk? There's lots of risk. Risk doesn't appear or go away just because the dice decided what happened or I did. If my PC decides to betray the party for the gold, he risks alienating them enough to end up dead or cast out of the group. Just the same as if a resolution mechanic determined that he betrayed the party for gold. He's also going to go through the same emotional trauma of having betrayed friends he felt loyal to prior to the large bribe.

That’s so strange to me. Because when I get to a point like the example I offered in my Stonetop game, I’m really thinking about both outcomes. I’m not just devoid of thought. It can be very involved stuff. The dice just determine which way it goes… and then I play it as if I’m a person that chose that. I learn something about the character… i don’t just decide something about the character.

If I played your way, I'd think about both outcomes to, but from outside the character so there is zero immersion for me. To be immersed IN the character, I have to be IN the character, not outside looking in.

And I don't know why you would think that I don't learn something about my character. Before the internal battle I go through to figure out which way he would go, I have no idea which way he would go. Even though I decide, I learn something about my character every bit as much as you do with your resolution mechanic.

There’s no game without risk. I put something on the line about my character, and then I see how it turns out. That I may learn something unwanted is what makes it risky.

I do the same thing. We just get to the same place from different directions.

If you want to describe riskless portrayal as deeply immersive, that’s your prerogative… I’ve just laid out why I don’t think that’s a good description for it.

I wouldn't know about riskless immersion. And I don't think looking from the OUTSIDE in can be called immersion IN the character at all. A resolution mechanic to decide what my character does would be as immersive as having a resolution mechanic to decide for me whether my Monopoly piece buys the property I land or or not.