NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[deleuzian_kernel]

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.'

"Did you not hear what I said? She doesn't want you around kid. You are fooling yourself by thinking it's true love. I'm trying to keep you away from disappointment."

By the way @thefutilist, I'm not trying to enter into a pissing match with you to see who gives up first. I enter this conversation open to see if this:

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.

is true. If by just playing authentically to our character's personality we can somehow arrive at resolution and if there is anything PRODUCTIVE to be had by just having that conversation.

I think eventually you and I will find that as we keep escalating, unless we find a method of resolution, things will continue to go on and on and on, specially if this love is as high stakes for your squire as it is for Sir James.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

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



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



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.



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



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.



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!



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



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.)



Yes. That is what I want to do.



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.

Let me ask you something @Crimson Longinus, if this were your game and you were GMing, and the context I provided was factual: Sir James and the squire have good points to make, Sir James and the squire will not be easily dissuaded, what would be your point of us sitting down to discuss it? You are playing the squire authentically and I will play Sir James authentically. What do you hope will happen during the conversation? That things will resolve in the manner in which they are predetermined to resolve (based on you nailing down the squire's personality)? That I will guess what I need to say in order to get you to concede?

Let's say we have been going at this for 20 minutes, with no end in sight. What do we do then? Do you just declare the scene over or move on by having the squire leave? Did the squire leave because he wanted to leave or because you wanted him to leave?

I will move on with this conversation trying to argue how you are not fully correct on my scenario 1 and that we need some form of resolution to have functional play, and leave scenarios 2 and 3 out of the picture given how you so quickly dismissed them, but I do want to say that both of them are highly productive and highly engaging techniques that are immediately recognizable by someone who plays games this way. Might it be that instead of you saying: This is not roleplaying or that's terrible, you might amend to say: "I am yet unfamiliar with ways in which this could be considered successful or even fun."

 

[Maxperson]

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?

See, you say:


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.

It seems to me that two men competing for the attention of a woman have no decision to make regarding her ultimate disposition. They would both compete in whatever manner they chose, probably involving some mechanics to get her to lean towards one of them, and then Violet would make her own decision about which of the men she will favor. Or heck, if they both do badly, she may decide to go with Sir Thurston Thirdplace

 

[thefutilist]

"Did you not hear what I said? She doesn't want you around kid. You are fooling yourself by thinking it's true love. I'm trying to keep you away from disappointment."

By the way @thefutilist, I'm not trying to enter into a pissing match with you to see who gives up first. I enter this conversation open to see if this:

is true. If by just playing authentically to our character's personality we can somehow arrive at resolution and if there is anything PRODUCTIVE to be had by just having that conversation.

I think eventually you and I will find that as we keep escalating, unless we find a method of resolution, things will continue to go on and on and on, specially if this love is as high stakes for your squire as it is for Sir James.

Oh I'm assuming you're entering the conversation in good faith but I'm rejecting your framing on aesthetic grounds. I'll continue our hypothetical to hopefully show why.

Me OOC: Wait Andre, you just said you commanded me, was that a real thing or like an empty threat?

We appear to have totally different play priorities but can you imagine if this was a fictional story the very first line you said screams thematic and moral ramifications. You're using your position of authority over him to get your way, presumably with consequences if he doesn't obey?

If it IS an empty threat then you need to make more impassioned characters for this style of play to work or maybe something like...

OOC: Sir James is stopped in his tracks, he realises he's gone straight to throwing around his authority to get his way.

Me ooc: The squire is still staring, passion in his eyes.


What now? This is good stuff.

Do you see how your play priority of getting your way, overcoming the challenge, is informing your character play. While my play priority is informing mine. It's context sensitive.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let me ask you something @Crimson Longinus, if this were your game and you were GMing, and the context I provided was factual: Sir James and the squire have good points to make, Sir James and the squire will not be easily dissuaded, what would be your point of us sitting down to discuss it? You are playing the squire authentically and I will play Sir James authentically. What do you hope will happen during the conversation? That things will resolve in the manner in which they are predetermined to resolve (based on you nailing down the squire's personality)? That I will guess what I need to say in order to get you to concede?

Let's say we have been going at this for 20 minutes, with no end in sight. What do we do then? Do you just declare the scene over or move on by having the squire leave? Did the squire leave because he wanted to leave or because you wanted him to leave?

Again, assuming both are PCs, it is for the players to decide how it ends. Outside of the internet people will not have endless unproductive discussions. Someone will just leave.

Furthermore, real discussions are about more than winning and losing. Perhaps indeed neither man will stop pursuing Lady Violette, but they will agree that this nevertheless will not break their friendship. Or perhaps the discussion is goes into a less amicable direction and they become enemies. Or perhaps they just gain better understanding where the other is coming from. Or perhaps they realise the obvious, that they're haggling about a woman like she was a piece of merchandise, and it is ultimately up to her to decide who she wants. (Hopefully neither of these idiots.)

I will move on with this conversation trying to argue how you are not fully correct on my scenario 1 and that we need some form of resolution to have functional play, and leave scenarios 2 and 3 out of the picture given how you so quickly dismissed them, but I do want to say that both of them are highly productive and highly engaging techniques that are immediately recognizable by someone who plays games this way. Might it be that instead of you saying: This is not roleplaying or that's terrible, you might amend to say: "I am yet unfamiliar with ways in which this could be considered successful or even fun."

I have experienced such resolutions, it is not fun for me. I know. And no, I don't need to roll the dice for it.

 

[thefutilist]

Furthermore, real discussions are about more than winning and losing. Perhaps indeed neither man will stop pursuing Lady Violette, but they will agree that this nevertheless will not break their friendship. Or perhaps the discussion is goes into a less amicable direction and they become enemies. Or perhaps they just gain better understanding where the other is coming from. Or perhaps they realise the obvious, that they're haggling about a woman like she was a piece of merchandise, and it is ultimately up to her to decide who she wants. (Hopefully neither of these idiots.)

Hopefully people can say see Crimson is saying the same thing as me. Our play priorities aren't about winning or losing but lead us inexorably towards the ethical/meaning ramifications.

 

[zakael19]

Do you see how your play priority of getting your way, overcoming the challenge, is informing your character play. While my play priority is informing mine. It's context sensitive.

It's not "overcoming a challenge" its "resolving a conflict." Even in total free-form role-play, conflicts are poised and resolved - but my understanding is that based on the research around those it's either via audience style consensus or whoever is better at talking/social maneuvering.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

It seems to me that two men competing for the attention of a woman have no decision to make regarding her ultimate disposition. They would both compete in whatever manner they chose, probably involving some mechanics to get her to lean towards one of them, and then Violet would make her own decision about which of the men she will favor. Or heck, if they both do badly, she may decide to go with Sir Thurston Thirdplace

Oh yeah! This is just about what happens at the inn. Do either of us back out of our advances to win the young maiden's heart?

It might just be that Sir James' overt challenge is all Violette needs to see him for the brute he is.

 

[thefutilist]

It's not "overcoming a challenge" its "resolving a conflict." Even in total free-form role-play, conflicts are poised and resolved - but my understanding is that based on the research around those it's either via audience style consensus or whoever is better at talking/social maneuvering.

I really don't see things that way. This might sound pretentious but earlier in the thread I was saying that what Maxperson is doing is a form of expression about the human condition. Making a statement. Basically mutually creating art. It's just from the first person perspective it's often framed and feels like, this is what my character would do. This has a lot of unconscious influence.

So the conflict is between the characters, not the participants. The resolution is basically making a statement about the human condition.

Let's say I have the squire cede because he's scared of going against Sir James authority. How does that work out for him? How does throwing around his authority work out for Sir james?

Anyway the other part of this is the idea of moral/thematic escalation. (and crimsons recent post was a good example of that)

A character might not get their way but what then?

Let's say that Sir James started the conversation more amicably and was like, you're young and inexperienced this is puppy love. The squire doesn't cede. What does Sir James do? maybe he escalated across a moral line and 'that's' when he starts throwing around his authority. What does that say about him as a person? How does it work out for him?

So to get back to your point. Audience consensus or who is better at social manoeuvring is still missing the point. That framing still conceives of things as control over the story. Does that make sense?

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Me OOC: Wait Andre, you just said you commanded me, was that a real thing or like an empty threat?

We appear to have totally different play priorities but can you imagine if this was a fictional story the very first line you said screams thematic and moral ramifications. You're using your position of authority over him to get your way, presumably with consequences if he doesn't obey?

If it IS an empty threat then you need to make more impassioned characters for this style of play to work or maybe something like...

OOC: Sir James is stopped in his tracks, he realises he's gone straight to throwing around his authority to get his way.

Me ooc: The squire is still staring, passion in his eyes.


What now? This is good stuff.

Do you see how your play priority of getting your way, overcoming the challenge, is informing your character play. While my play priority is informing mine. It's context sensitive.

I don't see the problem that stopped you, but maybe it's a translation to text.
Let's recap. I first commanded you to stop, but you are fine with ignoring my command, because your love for Violette matters more to you. Perfect! Your answer makes sense to me. You actually said: "true love will find a way."

Based on what the squire said, what I perceived to be a moment of young foolishness and an opportunity for me, I clearly immediately my tactics towards convincing him that he is misguided, that she doesn't love him back. If it wasn't clear I'm trying to keep you away from disappointment. is a clear shift in strategy.

I...I hope you don't mean to suggest this is not allowed? That SOMEHOW I AM OBLIGATED be following through on my "empty threats"? That I can't shift strategies based on what you say? Like, come on! Actually play with what I'm saying and engage this in good faith.

Also, me saying that she doesn't love him back has...like no effect? He just keeps staring at me? He is so confident in himself that doesn't doubt it for a second?

Ok! I'll will take it in good faith.

This kid is smarter than I thought. Saw right through my play. "Ok kid, you are leaving me no choice. If you don't stop this you will be immediately relieved from your duties and will have to abandon the company."