NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Maxperson]

Just to flip this around: I know someone who would never slip on a slippery log. Her poise and balance are (by more standards) near-superhuman.

Even Olympic gymnasts slip on the balance beam.

The idea that mental/emotional phenomena are somehow distinct in being knowable, or under a person's control, isn't really plausible in my view.

Plausible or not, there are things that will just never get me angry that will get someone else angry. Your belief doesn't alter that fact.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

There does seem to be - on some level at least - a peculiar inversion of the roles which certain posters are apt to take in this sort of exchange.

Which is to say, those posters whom I have come to expect as deferential to GM authority, and who might be regarded as generally less collaborative in determining their approach to the story, are advocating vociferously in favour of absolute player agency and autonomy in the emotional positioning of their characters. These are also posters whom I would normally associate with “let the dice fall where they will.” And perhaps with the idea of a unified mechanic for PCs and NPCs - rather than different rules applying to characters based on their status.

Conversely, posters whom I would normally associate with advocating for player agency are, in this particular instance of social interaction, championing the idea of randomness as the means by which social conflict is resolved.

I don’t see any paradox or contradiction here - I mean, I understand the nuance of the positions.

But we are strangely selective about which things we designate as “mine,” “yours,” “ours” and “the province of Fortuna.”

 

[pemerton]

You test the beliefs of characters by putting them in situations where they have to make hard choices without obvious "correct" answers. Randomising the character's reaction and denying the player the agency of making the choice would defeat the whole point.

Is there a system that actually does this? I don't think I know of one.

It seems to be what several people in this tread want. Also, to me it seems you play games like this. I remember your old example from your knight game where two sexist knights were courting the same lady, and they argued over it and the decision of who would get her and who would give up was outsourced to the dice.

This gives me a clearer sense of the ways in which you seem to be misdescribing various mechanics, and mischaracterising their role in play.

Here's the episode of play from Prince Valiant that you have mentioned:

Sir Justin and the squire both compted for Violette's attention, but the initial set of rolls was tied; and then when they sat down to discuss the situation man-to-man over some ales the Presence + Fellowship rolls likewise tied. So neither yielded to the other, and she enjoyed the romantic attention of both of them.

It would never occur to me to describe this as randomising a character's reaction and denying the player agency of making the choice in a hard situation.

Rather, the players made a choice for their PCs - to resolve their romantic rivalry by discussing the matter together. And the resolution of that discussion was tied, so their rivalry continued.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This gives me a clearer sense of the ways in which you seem to be misdescribing various mechanics, and mischaracterising their role in play.

Here's the episode of play from Prince Valiant that you have mentioned:
It would never occur to me to describe this as randomising a character's reaction and denying the player agency of making the choice in a hard situation.

Rather, the players made a choice for their PCs - to resolve their romantic rivalry by discussing the matter together. And the resolution of that discussion was tied, so their rivalry continued.

And had it not been tied, the dice would have made the decision for them. I don't think there was mischaracterisation on my part. Now if the players choice to evoke the mechanic, it is less of an issue, though I still think it is not good practice to substitute roleplaying with dice. And was it their choice? Could they have decided to just have the discussion and make their decision without mechanics being involved?

Also, you still have not addressed how mechanics that force characters to fall in love with NPCs somehow does not affect characters' goals in this game of knightly romance.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

And had it not been tied, the dice would have made the decision for them. I don't think there was mischaracterisation on my part. Now if the players choice to evoke the mechanic, it is less of an issue, though I still think it is not good practice to substitute roleplaying with dice. And was it their choice? Could they have decided to just have the discussion and make their decision without mechanics being involved?

Also, you still have not addressed how mechanics that force characters to fall in love with NPCs somehow does not affect characters' goals in this game of knightly romance.

I'm not sure if @pemerton has further elaborated on this specific anecdote earlier on this thread, but in his referenced account:

Sir Justin and the squire both compted for Violette's attention, but the initial set of rolls was tied; and then when they sat down to discuss the situation man-to-man over some ales the Presence + Fellowship rolls likewise tied. So neither yielded to the other, and she enjoyed the romantic attention of both of them.

nothing tells us whether the dice rolls (...or coin flips; research tells me PV uses coin flips) were used as 1) a substitute for roleplaying, 2) at the climax of roleplayed discussion to determine outcomes and provide resolution, or 3) came in to frame how the actual role-played discussion comes about.

Narrativist RPG design is so varied that any of the three can generate productive gameplay.

---
Let's say that I'm playing Sir Justin and you, the reader, is GMing this game, and thus tasked to play the squire. We are both sitting down to discuss the situation, man-to-man over some ales. Let's also say that, just for the purposes of this example, as Sir Justin I will not easily back out of my position to compete for Violette's attention, and you as the squire will not easily back out of your position to compete for Violette's attention.

How do we actually resolve this? How do we determine what happens next?

See, you say:

Could they have decided to just have the discussion and make their decision without mechanics being involved?

I'm just really having a hard time imagining how on earth are we going to come to an agreement on what happens next through PURE discussion. Like, I'm gonna make my points, and you are going to make your points, and I will not easily back out and you won't easily back out. Don't you see a problem here? We need resolution mechanics! We need a way to determine who gets their way.

Now, historically, one solution that has given to this problem is: Either a week in advance during prep or right at that moment, the GM privately writes down the squires intellectualized value set. Just like he writes down the answer to the secret lock combination on the treasure set, or the few ways to deactivate the water trap. He "nails" down the squire's personality.

The resolution mechanic is: if, during the conversation, Sir James correctly guesses what makes the squire's personality tick, he gets the girl. The "discussion" is not really a discussion. It's puzzle solving with or without dice rolls and with or without hints masquerading as "role-play".

Another solution is, you know, The GM "feels" it out. At some point in the discussion the GM determines he is done listening to Sir James arguments and provides a viable "exit". Did the role-play in our discussion provide resolution to our dilemma, or did we just say words until the GM rendered their judgement over their, current, preferred outcome? Do they even take the effort to retroactively justify it on the "role-play" we just did?

If my conception of Sir James is inviolate, if I say: "Sir James will never give up on his chase for Violette, specially not for a meager squire" WHAT amount of role-play will ever make me as a player decide to give this discussion. What can you possibly say as the squire that would make me "Oh, you know what...maybe he does have a point and I will totally back out."

Should I also secretly write down my value set and we play who solves the puzzle first?

---
We are both sitting down to discuss the situation, man-to-man over some ales. Now, my conception of Sir James isn't as inviolate, but I'm still gonna go hard on this, perhaps even harder.

1. Role-play helps inform the roll

We role-play. I'm gonna make my points, and you are going to make your points, and I will not easily back out and you won't easily back out, but at some point we detect uncertainty. One says something that makes the other go: "Uhh, you know what...that argument, if presented with the right emphasis...and you know even if your character further brought at this or that...could actually make my character back out for now."

Should we roll to see if your character actually manage to pick up on that subtle cue or if it leaves him vulnerable to a fatal misstep?

2. The roll frames the role-play

We roll and turns out the squire gets Sir James to back out.

"What!? That's so unexpected for my character. How on earth did this happen?" "Uhh, yeah that's kind of funny. Hmmm, maybe when they were on their third ale he asked him about that time when..." "Oh no...I see where this is going."

In this case role-play can not only cement the outcome, but the narration of the outcome itself can help inform future rolls or open up further conflicts.

3. The roll completely substitutes the role-play

We roll and it turns out we tied.

"We see you guys walk into the inn and sit down at the table to talk it out, but, over the course of the next week we both see you redouble your efforts to win Violette's heart. It seems like whatever you guys talked about further fueled the competition between you. Oh, and Violette is loving all of it."

All three perfectly functional and productive.

4. Turns out through role-play we actually discover our fault lines and one of us is actually willing to back out

Also cool! I'm just glad we have three other options for if that wasn't the case.

---

@pemerton Sorry for totally hijacking and elaborating over your play example. I just saw it as a good place for me to enter the thread with something to share.

 

[thefutilist]

Should I also secretly write down my value set and we play who solves the puzzle first?

You fundamentally misunderstand this way of playing, both the goals and the procedures. The players (and I include the GM as a player) aren't interested in seeing the story go their way or in winning, which precludes the whole framing of the thing as a puzzle.

They make a character, nail down their personality and just play that authentically. They do what the character would do and we find out what happens based on that. Including not having any type of resolution if that's what authentic play requires.

If you can imagine such a style of play then you might get where we're coming from. If not I can try and answer any questions you have.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure if @pemerton has further elaborated on this specific anecdote earlier on this thread, but in his referenced account:

nothing tells us whether the dice rolls (...or coin flips; research tells me PV uses coin flips) were used as 1) a substitute for roleplaying, 2) at the climax of roleplayed discussion to determine outcomes and provide resolution, or 3) came in to frame how the actual role-played discussion comes about.

Narrativist RPG design is so varied that any of the three can generate productive gameplay.

---
Let's say that I'm playing Sir Justin and you, the reader, is GMing this game, and thus tasked to play the squire. We are both sitting down to discuss the situation, man-to-man over some ales. Let's also say that, just for the purposes of this example, as Sir Justin I will not easily back out of my position to compete for Violette's attention, and you as the squire will not easily back out of your position to compete for Violette's attention.

How do we actually resolve this? How do we determine what happens next?

Firstly, I assumed that in the situation question both chracters are PCs. Like I've said many times I have no issue with using social skills against NPCs.

I'm just really having a hard time imagining how on earth are we going to come to an agreement on what happens next through PURE discussion. Like, I'm gonna make my points, and you are going to make your points, and I will not easily back out and you won't easily back out. Don't you see a problem here? We need resolution mechanics! We need a way to determine who gets their way.

No, I don't see a problem. It is like in real life. People discuss, perhaps an agreement is reached, perhaps not.

Now, historically, one solution that has given to this problem is: Either a week in advance during prep or right at that moment, the GM privately writes down the squires intellectualized value set. Just like he writes down the answer to the secret lock combination on the treasure set, or the few ways to deactivate the water trap. He "nails" down the squire's personality.

The resolution mechanic is: if, during the conversation, Sir James correctly guesses what makes the squire's personality tick, he gets the girl. The "discussion" is not really a discussion. It's puzzle solving with or without dice rolls and with or without hints masquerading as "role-play".

It is not puzzle any more than real people with their values, goals and preferences are a puzzle.

Another solution is, you know, The GM "feels" it out. At some point in the discussion the GM determines he is done listening to Sir James arguments and provides a viable "exit". Did the role-play in our discussion provide resolution to our dilemma, or did we just say words until the GM rendered their judgement over their, current, preferred outcome? Do they even take the effort to retroactively justify it on the "role-play" we just did?

Right. Hence the previous method where the resolution is based on the personality of the participants and the points raised in the discussion is preferable.

If my conception of Sir James is inviolate, if I say: "Sir James will never give up on his chase for Violette, specially not for a meager squire" WHAT amount of role-play will ever make me as a player decide to give this discussion. What can you possibly say as the squire that would make me "Oh, you know what...maybe he does have a point and I will totally back out."

Perhaps there is nothing that could change the mind of Sir James. If it is so, then so be it.

Should I also secretly write down my value set and we play who solves the puzzle first?

I mean yes, you should actually plant the personality, values and goals of your PC. That to me seems rather basic part of playing a roleplaying game.

---
We are both sitting down to discuss the situation, man-to-man over some ales. Now, my conception of Sir James isn't as inviolate, but I'm still gonna go hard on this, perhaps even harder.

1. Role-play helps inform the roll

We role-play. I'm gonna make my points, and you are going to make your points, and I will not easily back out and you won't easily back out, but at some point we detect uncertainty. One says something that makes the other go: "Uhh, you know what...that argument, if presented with the right emphasis...and you know even if your character further brought at this or that...could actually make my character back out for now."

Should we roll to see if your character actually manage to pick up on that subtle cue or if it leaves him vulnerable to a fatal misstep?

You were almost there! But then you stopped roleplaying and started of-gaming and brought rules into it. If it feels to you that the argument would convince your character, then it does. Phew! We did it!

2. The roll frames the role-play

We roll and turns out the squire gets Sir James to back out.

"What!? That's so unexpected for my character. How on earth did this happen?" "Uhh, yeah that's kind of funny. Hmmm, maybe when they were on their third ale he asked him about that time when..." "Oh no...I see where this is going."

In this case role-play can not only cement the outcome, but the narration of the outcome itself can help inform future rolls or open up further conflicts.

Yeah, this is not roleplaying, this is inventing some narrative around the outcome given by the dice after the fact.

3. The roll completely substitutes the role-play

We roll and it turns out we tied.

"We see you guys walk into the inn and sit down at the table to talk it out, but, over the course of the next week we both see you redouble your efforts to win Violette's heart. It seems like whatever you guys talked about further fueled the competition between you. Oh, and Violette is loving all of it."

That's terrible though and defeats the whole point of playing the game in the first place. I would do this except perhaps for expediency for super trivial things like haggling with a merchant for a small sum. (But come think of it, we usually just roleplay that too.)

All three perfectly functional and productive.

4. Turns out through role-play we actually discover our fault lines and one of us is actually willing to back out

Yes. That is what I want to do.

Also cool! I'm just glad we have three other options for if that wasn't the case.

I am glad that we have the three other options, as I don't want them to be used and I think their use is detrimental to the sort of gaming I want. Again, you do you; if you like it go for it.
But the fact remains that in the case where the roll is used it removes the player's agency to make the decision. I am not sure why it so hard to admit that this is what is happening.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

You fundamentally misunderstand this way of playing, both the goals and the procedures. The players (and I include the GM as a player) aren't interested in seeing the story go their way or in winning, which precludes the whole framing of the thing as a puzzle.

They make a character, nail down their personality and just play that authentically. They do what the character would do and we find out what happens based on that. Including not having any type of resolution if that's what authentic play requires.

If you can imagine such a style of play then you might get where we're coming from. If not I can try and answer any questions you have.

Sure! Let's try it now. You're the GM. Nail down whatever you want about the squire, based on whatever's relevant for the discussion at the inn.

"Listen kid, you gotta stop it with Violette. She told me she is annoyed by your constant insistence to ride with her. I command you to cut it off."

 

[zakael19]

You fundamentally misunderstand this way of playing, both the goals and the procedures. The players (and I include the GM as a player) aren't interested in seeing the story go their way or in winning, which precludes the whole framing of the thing as a puzzle.

They make a character, nail down their personality and just play that authentically. They do what the character would do and we find out what happens based on that. Including not having any type of resolution if that's what authentic play requires.

If you can imagine such a style of play then you might get where we're coming from. If not I can try and answer any questions you have.

This is just a restated version of this:

Another solution is, you know, The GM "feels" it out. At some point in the discussion the GM determines he is done listening to Sir James arguments and provides a viable "exit". Did the role-play in our discussion provide resolution to our dilemma, or did we just say words until the GM rendered theirjudgement over their, current, preferred outcome? Do they even take the effort to retroactively justify it on the "role-play" we just did?

If my conception of Sir James is inviolate, if I say: "Sir James will never give up on his chase for Violette, specially not for a meager squire" WHAT amount of role-play will ever make me as a player decide to give this discussion. What can you possibly say as the squire that would make me "Oh, you know what...maybe he does have a point and I will totally back out."

Or if player vs player, one player just goes more or less "ok, I've portrayed my character enough, I dont really have a resolution at stake here lets move on;" or we turn to genuine player vs player arguments and somebody is left feeling like they were denied the outcome they wanted (I've seen both of these multiple times).

 

[thefutilist]

Sure! Let's try it now. You're the GM. Nail down whatever you want about the squire, based on whatever's relevant for the discussion at the inn.

"Listen kid, you gotta stop it with Violette. She told me she is annoyed by your constant insistence to ride with her. I command you to cut it off."

Without more situational framing, the thematic pay off is limited but I'll give it a try.

'You command me?' The Squire is silent for a moment and averts his eyes. then looks straight at you, determination in his face 'Command all you want good Ser, I'm ready to accept the consequences, true love will find a way.'