NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep. Sitting at the table inhabiting the character and feeling the desperation of trying to control the supernatural rage within me.

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.

I could, but it's better to experience these things in real time.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No.

No? Okay. I seem to recall a prior conversation about social mechanics where you had said something very much like that.

Perhaps I’m misremembering.

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.

Is it a risk if you choose it? This is my point.

Again… let’s look to combat in D&D. What makes it risky?

If there was an RPG whose combat resolution was “the player decides what happens” would you consider combat in that game to be as risky as it is in D&D?

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.

Thinking about the character and what they’re facing equals zero immersion to you? That makes no sense… that’s all you can do.

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.

Because I think it’s different to learn something than it is to decide something.

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

For me, the means of arriving there is a significant part of the process, and why I view them so differently.

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.

So you’re never immersed during combat when you play D&D? Never felt the tension when you have 4 hit points left and the cleric’s out of spells, and the wizard’s failed his second death save, and everything’s about to go wrong… and then the last remaining enemy attacks you… and you know if he hits, it’s over. And the GM rolls the die…

And you what? Feel nothing?

Yep. Sitting at the table inhabiting the character and feeling the desperation of trying to control the supernatural rage within me.

When people are struggling to control something like that, would you describe what they’re doing as simply making a choice?

I could, but it's better to experience these things in real time.

But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re not actually experiencing the things. You may be trying to imagine what it’s like and to imagine yourself as the character and so forth… but no matter how far you may go with that, there is still some distance involved. And, to me, that distance makes a huge difference.

 

[Maxperson]

No? Okay. I seem to recall a prior conversation about social mechanics where you had said something very much like that.

Perhaps I’m misremembering.

You are. All I said was that certain things won't ever make me angry, not matter who is trying it. Not everything. Not it's impossible to put one over on me. Nothing like that.

Is it a risk if you choose it? This is my point.

100%. It could go either way for me, just like a resolution mechanic. The results of the action happen to me, just like with a resolution mechanic. Only the road there is different.

Again… let’s look to combat in D&D. What makes it risky?

If there was an RPG whose combat resolution was “the player decides what happens” would you consider combat in that game to be as risky as it is in D&D?

There are different kinds of risk. Social isn't combat where you take damage and try to socially "hit" each other. Such a game would be horrid.

Player: "I tell him that his mother is ugly. 18! A hit! He takes 7 give in to me damage!"

No thanks.

Thinking about the character and what they’re facing equals zero immersion to you? That makes no sense… that’s all you can do.

From the outside? Maybe you don't understand what immerse means. Because you can't immerse yourself in the character while standing outside of it looking in. You can get some other gratification out of it, but whatever you get out of it, you are not immersed IN the character.

Because I think it’s different to learn something than it is to decide something.

Once again, because you seem to fail to understand what is happening with what I am describing. I...............am............learning............something. My method of getting there doesn't change that fact.

For me, the means of arriving there is a significant part of the process, and why I view them so differently.

Excellent! And I really mean that. You should play the way you enjoy playing. I play the same way. The means of arriving there is a significant part of the process. I just prefer a different means of arriving at what I learn about my character.

So you’re never immersed during combat when you play D&D? Never felt the tension when you have 4 hit points left and the cleric’s out of spells, and the wizard’s failed his second death save, and everything’s about to go wrong… and then the last remaining enemy attacks you… and you know if he hits, it’s over. And the GM rolls the die…

Almost never. There's far too much die rolling and looking up abilities and such. That's why I prefer social and exploration over combat.

And you what? Feel nothing?

Sure I feel something. Just not immersion. Tension =/= immersion. Happiness =/= immersion.

When people are struggling to control something like that, would you describe what they’re doing as simply making a choice?

It's often not simple. And discovery about the character is frequently a part of it.

But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re not actually experiencing the things. You may be trying to imagine what it’s like and to imagine yourself as the character and so forth… but no matter how far you may go with that, there is still some distance involved. And, to me, that distance makes a huge difference.

It's close enough to be immersed in the character and experience a good approximation of those things. I'd rather have a close approximation to the experience and be immersed IN the character, than have something far from approximating the experience and be an outside observer.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You are. All I said was that certain things won't ever make me angry, not matter who is trying it. Not everything. Not it's impossible to put one over on me. Nothing like that.

No, it was a much older conversation, from an older thread. I remember it now... you said that no salesman could ever sell you something you didn't want. That it was impossible. It struck me as a very odd claim to make, which is why I remembered it.

100%. It could go either way for me, just like a resolution mechanic. The results of the action happen to me, just like with a resolution mechanic. Only the road there is different.

But it's not just like a resolution mechanic because you get to decide. And you can decide based on so many things... so many social (like real world at the table, I mean) influences or any number of other things.

Now, I'm not saying that such choices can't be meaningful, or enjoyable in play. Or that every such decision must be made by the dice. I just think that there are times when the dice are called for, and that enhances play.

There are different kinds of risk. Social isn't combat where you take damage and try to socially "hit" each other. Such a game would be horrid.

Player: "I tell him that his mother is ugly. 18! A hit! He takes 7 give in to me damage!"

No thanks.

That's all dodging the questions., and doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

What makes D&D combat risky?

If a game left combat resolution up to player fiat, would you consider combat in that game to be as risky as D&D?

From the outside? Maybe you don't understand what immerse means. Because you can't immerse yourself in the character while standing outside of it looking in. You can get some other gratification out of it, but whatever you get out of it, you are not immersed IN the character.

I don't see it as you do. The "inside" and "outside" concept doesn't resonate with me. I don't think that doing one makes me incapable of doing the other. I can do both.

Once again, because you seem to fail to understand what is happening with what I am describing. I...............am............learning............something. My method of getting there doesn't change that fact.

It does to me, is my point. Whatever label you want to use... "learning" or something else... I think the two methods are different enough to point out the distinction.

Excellent! And I really mean that. You should play the way you enjoy playing. I play the same way. The means of arriving there is a significant part of the process. I just prefer a different means of arriving at what I learn about my character.

Almost never. There's far too much die rolling and looking up abilities and such. That's why I prefer social and exploration over combat.

That's bonkers for so many reasons.

First, because chance is inherently exciting. We don't know what will happen... that's generally a more interesting/exciting/scary situation than the known.

Second, because that kind of tension that the dice can produce is along the same kind that the actual situation would produce. The entire situation of that combat and why it was so dire was framed by rules. They can help create that tension... which helps us feel something of what the character feels.

Third, dice rolls and table procedures and so forth don't destroy my immersion. People mention this very often and I always find it odd. If that's the case, why not just do some freeform roleplay? Why play a game with procedures if what you really want to do is immerse deeply in character?

Fourth, because your game of choice is 5e D&D. Social and exploration aren't really its strong suits.

I mean, honestly... if you really want to explore character a bit more deeply, the kind of power fantasy game that D&D delivers is probably not the best way to do that. I mean, the player's conception of character is inviolate... the game is designed more to facilitate character portrayal than it is about exploring character in any way.

Sure I feel something. Just not immersion. Tension =/= immersion. Happiness =/= immersion.

Sure, but you feel tension as a player when the character would feel tension in the fiction. You feel nervous or afraid when the character would be nervous or afraid.

Don't you think that can help facilitate immersion?

And then, by extension, don't you think removing the choice from the player could help someone immerse in a situation where the character is not actually mentally capable of making a choice?

It's often not simple. And discovery about the character is frequently a part of it.

And which method do you think is probably more likely to introduce unwanted results? Player choice, or some kind of randomized resolution?

It's close enough to be immersed in the character and experience a good approximation of those things. I'd rather have a close approximation to the experience and be immersed IN the character, than have something far from approximating the experience and be an outside observer.

Sure, but giving the player that level of control... to clearly make a decision... in a situation when the character may not quite be capable of making a decision... you don't think that's immersion breaking?

 

[Aldarc]

But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re not actually experiencing the things. You may be trying to imagine what it’s like and to imagine yourself as the character and so forth… but no matter how far you may go with that, there is still some distance involved. And, to me, that distance makes a huge difference.

An actor will never be Hamlet. They can try to embody Hamlet as best as they can. They can emotionally invest themselves into the character of Hamlet. They can try their best to understand Hamlet as a person. They can immerse themselves in roleplaying as Hamlet. However, there will always be a psychological divide between the actor and themselves acting as the character of Hamlet. The actor knows that they are putting on a performance, and one of their goals of an actor is to put on a good performance of the character that brings life to the character and entertains the audience, possibly one that furthers their own acting career.

While there are obvious differences in media between a theatrical play and a TTRPG, that distance you describe is nevertheless present. The gulf in that cognitive gap between the player/actor and the character being portrayed is arguably larger in a TTRPG where there are a lot more unknowns that can arise in the fiction that aren't pertinent for an actor portraying a character in a play: e.g., "Does my character know about monster weaknesses? How would they react to a dragon's roar? How much do they know about their home town/country?"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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,

I did not say complex combat rules are better. That's why it is besides the point, as the point was that I don't want social rules as complex as combat rules in games that have complex combat rules! Whether the game actually has complex combat rules or not is irrelevant to this point.

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

Assuming that you were actually to portray the situation with sufficient nuance and evocativeness that it would be both immersive and allow different compelling paths, then definitely yes.

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.

There is no conflict. That you might not beforehand know exactly what your reaction will be, doesn't mean it could be anything.

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.

I think this pretty much he most boring possible way to do it. "Can I roll a big number on the dice" is not a compelling character moment. Yes, characters need to be put in place where they must make hard choices, where they can learn something of themselves and grow. But you need to actually build those situations, and the character, via the player must genuinely react to them. You're trying to substitute roleplaying with mechanics. To me me this more like random story creation rather than the sort of first person exploration of the character that I prefer.

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.

Then put the character in such situations, and then the player's mental model of the character will produce the reaction. And sometimes that will be surprising and "bad" one. Again, don't substitute roleplaying with dice.

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

Rules are not required to make choices. Not when the situation is nuanced, as well as one that can still be easily intuitively understood. Social situations are such to most people. combat less so. Now I think people with real combat experience could probably run fights in way more freeform way whits it being intuitively comprehensible to them. But most of us do not have such experience. It can still of course be done, but it is understandable why instead many games have a tactical framework that is more compressible to the players and they're allowed to make choice about it.

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

I do that too. And LARPs. I think more people should do such ruleless or extremely rules-ligth formats. I think it would help to understand for what sort of things the rules are actually needed for.

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.

I just cannot see the dice deciding the dramatic personal decisions the character makes as anything else than removal of very fundamental sort of player agency.

Look, this is going nowhere. If you and your players like games where the important character decisions are made by the dice rather than the player, go for it. I presume your game is going well and the players are happy, so it obviously is the right approach for the group. But I don't want to play that way, I don't want to make my players to play that way. I want the players to actually make the important decisions for their characters.

 

[Aldarc]

By the way, I know for a fact that my character would never lose sanity or go insane if they encountered creatures or phenomena from the Cthulhu mythos.

 

[zakael19]

I want the players to actually make the important decisions for their characters.

Key note here, we're not saying players dont make important decisions - they do! They pick an approach, or action, or tact, or whatever - and then the outcome of the world reacting and acting upon them may or may not be up to a dice roll.

BITD provides a great example of this in Harm discussion for Deep Cuts:

Other types of level 1 Harm are removed when it makes sense in the fiction. If you’re Intimidated by Bazso Baz, how long does that last? Was is a one-time thing, or does it stick with you for a while? That’s for the player to decide, based on how they portray their character.

Note that this is a hybrid here: the outcome of a situation had a mechanical and emotional effect on a character sheet. Maybe the player confronted the mob boss on his turf about something and rolled a 1-3 on a Sway or something, and the GM was like "yeah no he looms over you with his knife still bloody from what he did to your friend and you feel your guts turn to water as he licks it slowly staring you in the eyes - mark L1 Harm Intimidated and he's going to have his thugs toss you in the street." So we've acted on the character's internal state, but the final resolution - what that emotional trauma means to them is still in their hands.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it was a much older conversation, from an older thread. I remember it now... you said that no salesman could ever sell you something you didn't want. That it was impossible. It struck me as a very odd claim to make, which is why I remembered it.

That's true. Sales tricks do not work on me since I've learned them and they actually annoy me when sales people try them on me. Someone being genuine with me about the product is more likely to make a sale than if they try to sell me on it. If I don't want it, though, I don't want it and nobody can get me to buy it by just talking to me.

That's far different than no one can trick me.

But it's not just like a resolution mechanic because you get to decide. And you can decide based on so many things... so many social (like real world at the table, I mean) influences or any number of other things.

Deciding is as much of a resolution mechanic as rolling a die. It's just not random.

Now, I'm not saying that such choices can't be meaningful, or enjoyable in play. Or that every such decision must be made by the dice. I just think that there are times when the dice are called for, and that enhances play.

I agree. It just never enhances play for me when it forces my character to do something he would never do under those circumstances. During those times, it severely detracts from play and can ruin the entire character for me.

That's all dodging the questions., and doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

What makes D&D combat risky?

The chance of failure.

If a game left combat resolution up to player fiat, would you consider combat in that game to be as risky as D&D?

Depends on the player. For some players, no. For some, yes. It's still apples and oranges, though.

I don't see it as you do. The "inside" and "outside" concept doesn't resonate with me. I don't think that doing one makes me incapable of doing the other. I can do both.

But not simultaneously. I don't believe that anyone is capable of being inside the PC, thinking and acting as the PC would, while simultaneously being outside of the PC looking at, discussing, and resolving a mechanic. Humans aren't that good at multitasking.

I think you can be in the character, step out for resolution, and then hop back in again, but to me that's a lesser method than just remaining immersed for the entire process.

It does to me, is my point. Whatever label you want to use... "learning" or something else... I think the two methods are different enough to point out the distinction.

They are different methods at arriving at the same place, yes. I agree that there is a distinction.

That's bonkers for so many reasons.

Should I start calling your method bonkers?

First, because chance is inherently exciting. We don't know what will happen... that's generally a more interesting/exciting/scary situation than the known.

Nothing about what I am saying involves anything being known in advance. The result of what I do is just as unknown during the process as your random resolution mechanic. With both methods the outcome is just as unknown.

Why do you believe that your unknown more interesting/exciting/scary than my unknown?

Second, because that kind of tension that the dice can produce is along the same kind that the actual situation would produce. The entire situation of that combat and why it was so dire was framed by rules. They can help create that tension... which helps us feel something of what the character feels.

I don't believe that the dice can produce tension closer to the actual situation than inhabiting the character and virtually being in the actual situation. Being immersed in the character and feeling the situation is closer to the actual situation than pulling back out of the character to figure out stakes and having some resolution before going back into the character again.

Third, dice rolls and table procedures and so forth don't destroy my immersion. People mention this very often and I always find it odd. If that's the case, why not just do some freeform roleplay? Why play a game with procedures if what you really want to do is immerse deeply in character?

Because physical =/= mental. Because the PC can know things that I do not.

I can put myself into social/mental situations easily and resolve those far better and more accurately than random resolution ever could. I know my PC's personality and beliefs far better than any random resolution system ever could. However, I can't do that with physical actions or the unknown.

For example, if my PC is a great sailor, he will have knowledge on sailing that is far superior to my knowledge that basically comes down to, boats have sails. A resolution process involving aspects of sailing will better represent the PC's ability to sail.

Fourth, because your game of choice is 5e D&D. Social and exploration aren't really its strong suits.

I mean, honestly... if you really want to explore character a bit more deeply, the kind of power fantasy game that D&D delivers is probably not the best way to do that. I mean, the player's conception of character is inviolate... the game is designed more to facilitate character portrayal than it is about exploring character in any way.

I disagree with you on exploration. D&D does a fine job at exploration. With regard to social, rules and mechanics get in the way of that. I can explore my character far better by putting myself into the character and feeling the social situation than any resolution mechanic can. And I guarantee you that I will be discovering things about my character quite a bit.

Rolling a die to discover if my character is honorable or dishonorable in a situation is in my opinion very inferior to being inside my character and discovering through roleplay if he is honorable or dishonorable in that situation. I would much rather feel the conflict and how he arrives at honor or dishonor than to just watch a die clack clack clack across a table.

Sure, but you feel tension as a player when the character would feel tension in the fiction. You feel nervous or afraid when the character would be nervous or afraid.

Don't you think that can help facilitate immersion?

I already do those things. By immersing myself in the character, I feel tension when he feels tension in the fiction. I feel nervous when he feels nervous in the fiction. I feel afraid when he feels afraid in the fiction. And to a far greater degree than watching that die clack clack clack to let me know if I should be any of those things.,

And then, by extension, don't you think removing the choice from the player could help someone immerse in a situation where the character is not actually mentally capable of making a choice?

How often are the characters not actually mentally capable of making a choice. Feeblemind spell comes to mind.

And which method do you think is probably more likely to introduce unwanted results? Player choice, or some kind of randomized resolution?

Depends on the player. And also by what unwanted results means. Is it unwanted because it is a negative to the PC? Or is it unwanted because it forces a blatantly out of character action? For me the former isn't unwanted, but the latter is.

Sure, but giving the player that level of control... to clearly make a decision... in a situation when the character may not quite be capable of making a decision... you don't think that's immersion breaking?

I know for a fact that it's not immersion breaking, because I do it all the time with it strengthening the immersion, not breaking it like resolution mechanics do.

I've seen you(and others here) mention freeform roleplay to me. That's also not what I am asking for. I'm perfectly okay with not being immersed in my character 100% of the time. For things that improve gameplay(and yes that is subjective), I'm fine with going out of character to engage in resolution mechanics. Rolling to find a secret door or disarm a trap for example.

Social situations, though, don't improve for me by engaging social mechanics. They are useful on NPCs, but detract when used on PCs. They lessen my ability to feel the fear, tension, etc. that the PC feels.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Is there a qualitative difference between spells which influence behaviour (charm, feeblemind, dominate, fear etc.) and skills which provoke an emotional and behavioural response from a PC?

Besides convention/tradition, and “it’s magic,” that is. It seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction to me.