NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[deleuzian_kernel]

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.)

Dude, I love this. It pains me to see how we disagree so much on technique if this is indeed your play priority, because this is my play priority.

I think you don't think that what we do with technique gets us the above. Reliably. Your response to my posts makes me think that you really don't.

The question that me and other posters have about your techniques is....who is rendering these moral and ethical judgements. Are we doing it together? Or is it really just the GM who pronounces moral judgement through overt declaration or illusionism?

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?

This goes for you too! Like, it seems like we totally agree on play priority. All those up and downs and complexities you are describing, I want and get them too. The problem I have with the above is that you say that the conflict is between the characters, not the participants. The conflict does exist in some level at the participant level because we are advocating for their in-fiction conflicts of interest. If you don't advocate for what the squire wants, who will? Certainly not me, I want the opposite.

 

[thefutilist]

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."

Oh right yeah. I think in play there's some amount of OOC discussion to make sure we actually understand what the other is communicating. In systems where conflict of interest potentially lead to a dice roll, that discussion would usually happen then.

Also I'm not suggesting you can't say what you want but just saying what you want doesn't mean I'll judge it as good play. One of the first hurdles people have to cross when engaging this way is that they need characters who wear their hearts on their sleeve. Lying or deceiving tends to reduce all thematic statements to 'well how well can I lie?'

A good example of that is the following:

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."

That's great stuff. So in response I could have the Squire lie about his intentions and stay with the company, maybe because being removed means he won't be able to see the Princess. Or he wants to try and have both and so on. We enter dubious ground though, not saying it can never be done but it's something to watch out for.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Dude, I love this. It pains me to see how we disagree so much on technique if this is indeed your play priority, because this is my play priority.

I think you don't think that what we do with technique gets us the above. Reliably. Your response to my posts makes me think that you really don't.

I believe you might get the same narrative. But to me how we get that narrative matters.

The question that me and other posters have about your techniques is....who is rendering these moral and ethical judgements. Are we doing it together? Or is it really just the GM who pronounces moral judgement through overt declaration or illusionism?

It is what is revealed by the unfolding narrative. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, there need not to be overt declarations and probably no illusionism either.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

That's great stuff. So in response I could have the Squire lie about his intentions and stay with the company, maybe because being removed means he won't be able to see the Princess. Or he wants to try and have both and so on. We enter dubious ground though, not saying it can never be done but it's something to watch out for.

...and at that point we'll need resolution, with whatever instrumentation is appropriate. Right? If you lie about your intentions I would like to know if you are lying. Do I get that?

Like, my point in these series of exchanges was to demonstrate that authentic play, by itself, will NOT always provide resolution. We need participants to come to an agreement on how to move forward, given that they are both playing authentically to their characters drive.

I think you and @Crimson Longinus sustain that by playing authentically we will reconcile our drive to get what our characters want with how we decide to move forward. No need for a dice roll or anything. We simply see an agreement on how to move forward the fiction because we found compatible alignment in our differing positions through role-play.

This is fine, sure, but is it ALWAYS the answer to this problem in your play? You don't see an equally productive answer in resolving through instrumentation?

For instance, when I said "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." There's no way to convince the kid, at least to back off for now, if that wasn't what you had in your original conception of the character? How do you even know that he wouldn't?

 

[thefutilist]

Dude, I love this. It pains me to see how we disagree so much on technique if this is indeed your play priority, because this is my play priority.

I think you don't think that what we do with technique gets us the above. Reliably. Your response to my posts makes me think that you really don't.

The question that me and other posters have about your techniques is....who is rendering these moral and ethical judgements. Are we doing it together? Or is it really just the GM who pronounces moral judgement through overt declaration or illusionism?


This goes for you too! Like, it seems like we totally agree on play priority. All those up and downs and complexities you are describing, I want and get them too. The problem I have with the above is that you say that the conflict is between the characters, not the participants. The conflict does exist in some level at the participant level because we are advocating for their in-fiction conflicts of interest. If you don't advocate for what the squire wants, who will? Certainly not me, I want the opposite.

Well on a purely technical level it's the GM or the Player through fiat. Although more properly it would be fiat through a mix of the following four things.

The constraints of the character as a nailed down entity.

The stuff the other player has provided through reincorporation.

The stuff the other player has provided through mutual appreciation of the unfolding shared fiction.

Pure inspiration through the prism of expression.



Although it still mostly just feels like 'it's what my character would do.'

I'll write more on advocacy and player v participant resolution a bit later.

 

[thefutilist]

...and at that point we'll need resolution, with whatever instrumentation is appropriate. Right? If you lie about your intentions I would like to know if you are lying. Do I get that?

Like, my point in these series of exchanges was to demonstrate that authentic play, by itself, will NOT always provide resolution. We need participants to come to an agreement on how to move forward, given that they are both playing authentically to their characters drive.

I think you and @Crimson Longinus sustain that by playing authentically we will reconcile our drive to get what our characters want with how we decide to move forward. No need for a dice roll or anything. We simply see an agreement on how to move forward the fiction because we found compatible alignment in our differing positions through role-play.

This is fine, sure, but is it ALWAYS the answer to this problem in your play? You don't see an equally productive answer in resolving through instrumentation?

For instance, when I said "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." There's no way to convince the kid, at least to back off for now, if that wasn't what you had in your original conception of the character? How do you even know that he wouldn't?

That's actually really good fodder for debate. The Tl;dr is that I'm slight agreement with you but I'll lay out my case a bit later, I have to go and do stuff now.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

...and at that point we'll need resolution, with whatever instrumentation is appropriate. Right? If you lie about your intentions I would like to know if you are lying. Do I get that?

Depends on the system, but yeah, in most I'd allow insight roll or similar. But it just tells you whether you can notice signs of deception. If you don't, it doesn't bind you in believing, you can still make your own mind about that.

Like, my point in these series of exchanges was to demonstrate that authentic play, by itself, will NOT always provide resolution. We need participants to come to an agreement on how to move forward, given that they are both playing authentically to their characters drive.

But certainly this must mean that in such a situation any resolution that would be generated by mechanics would be inauthentic? Like if we indeed have a situation where neither participant would authentically back down, then I feel forcing an artificial resolution via mechanics would feel false and hollow.

I think you and @Crimson Longinus sustain that by playing authentically we will reconcile our drive to get what our characters want with how we decide to move forward. No need for a dice roll or anything. We simply see an agreement on how to move forward the fiction because we found compatible alignment in our differing positions through role-play.

I just don't see endless IC arguments occurring. There will be some resolution and if there isn't the participants will just move on to other matters. It just is not a problem I need a solution for.

This is fine, sure, but is it ALWAYS the answer to this problem in your play? You don't see an equally productive answer in resolving through instrumentation?

For instance, when I said "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." There's no way to convince the kid, at least to back off for now, if that wasn't what you had in your original conception of the character? How do you even know that he wouldn't?

The player of the squire would know at the moment it happens. Like a real person would know.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Sorry to quote you twice on the same post, but my flu addled brain missed this the first go around.

I don't understand what you mean by retroactively justify it on the roleplaying that happened. The way I run the game, the roleplaying just continues on with Violet's decision which of course takes the roleplaying done in to account. How could it not?

And the one thing there that I take some exception to, is the idea that it's the DM's preferred outcome. Whether Violet decides on Sir James, the squire, or Sir Thurston, I have no preference. I base it on the roleplaying that happened and any mechanics that influence things. Violet's personality and history with the suitors is also considered. The DM making the decision doesn't automatically translate into him preferring the outcome.

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."

This isn't a problem. If Sir James never gives up a pursuit of a woman that he likes, he can refuse to give up. Depending on how he roleplays that tenacity, it might be creepy enough to drive Violet into the arms of someone else, or it might be not be creepy at all and she might admire his confidence and drive.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

I don't understand what you mean by retroactively justify it on the roleplaying that happened. The way I run the game, the roleplaying just continues on with Violet's decision which of course takes the roleplaying done in to account. How could it not?

And the one thing there that I take some exception to, is the idea that it's the DM's preferred outcome. Whether Violet decides on Sir James, the squire, or Sir Thurston, I have no preference. I base it on the roleplaying that happened and any mechanics that influence things. Violet's personality and history with the suitors is also considered. The DM making the decision doesn't automatically translate into him preferring the outcome.

This isn't a problem. If Sir James never gives up a pursuit of a woman that he likes, he can refuse to give up. Depending on how he roleplays that tenacity, it might be creepy enough to drive Violet into the arms of someone else, or it might be not be creepy at all and she might admire his confidence and drive.

This is in response to you and @Crimson Longinus's statement: "The player of the squire would know at the moment it happens. Like a real person would know." (For some reason, I can't quote two separate messages in this thread.)

I have a question for you both.

Given that you both seem to agree that when making a character decision—such as determining whether the squire truly falls for Sir James' lie that Violette despises him, or whether Violette makes her choice of suitor known—the process involves a combination of:

1. Role-playing from the character’s perspective,
2. Taking into account their predetermined personality and history, and
3. Applying common sense about how people behave,

My question is:

Would you say that, given the exact same set of circumstances, including the exact same sequence of things being said in conversation, both of you, and in fact any GM, will always arrive at the same conclusion and the same decision for the character?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Would you say that, given the exact same set of circumstances, including the exact same sequence of things being said in conversation, both of you, and in fact any GM, will always arrive at the same conclusion and the same decision for the character?

Probably not. Then again, I don't think what you suggest is even possible. Different participants or even the same ones at different time would not have word to word the exact same conversation.