NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[deleuzian_kernel]

I'll make it even simpler in that case:

Let's say that we are playing Curse of Strahd, second session.

On our first session we found the truth about Ireena Kolyana (the reincarnation of Tatyana, the girl whom Stradh fell in love with) and we kidnapped her. The session ends the moment Strahd arrives. Let's say @Maxperson was GMing that one.

For our second session, @Maxperson leaves the game due to other commitments and you @Crimson Longinus step in as a GM.

As the second session begins, Stradh arrives and, me as the Barbarian yell out: "We have your beloved Tatyana. Leave this land or we'll give her to the werewolves."

Given that everything else is equal in terms of the narrative: The events of the first session were recounted to you or maybe you were present as spectator, the write-up for Stradh was available to you as part of the adventure perhaps even with @Maxperson's personal notes and ideas for him. You and Max both share a common sense.

What is the likelihood that you will come up with the same decision about how Stradh will react as @Maxperson would have if he were still GMing?

 

[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?

I play a variety of games and many of them do resolve conflicts with dice rolls. So I see a purpose in playing different systems but this is a bit different to your question, do we need to have certain types of instrumentation to prevent play from stalling?

Well in the case of IC conversation with fiat being the mechanism, I'm not totally with crimson in saying there's no issues. There's probably a set of rules or expectations that I find make things smoother. The two that come to mind are:

Don't lie or be very wary if you do

Even if your character is a total fanatic create them with the expectation that 'something might' create a change in their worldview.

There are also sets of axillary mechanics that can do a lot of work. The way I play Apocalypse World, most of the really important stuff is decided by IC fiat. The read a person move means we don't have to bother (as much) about the lying thing though because even on a miss you can get at the truth.

But in essence if there's a situation where no one budges and there's no way for it to be resolved. Then that just is the situation. The story ends with The Squire and Sir James forever jostling over Violet's affection.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

No, we will not always arrive at the same conclusion, but what has been said earlier in the thread, before you arrived is the following.

During an internal conflict like that, we are struggling with the decision just like someone in the real world would. Until the decision is made, we don't know which way it will go. And it's not always 50/50 on the direction, it could be 20/80 or 90/10. When it's lopsided like that, the player roleplaying the character will ultimately decide which direction the PC will take, and he and I could go in different directions. Perhaps I ultimately landing into the 20% of the 20/80. The unlikely option won out for whatever reason. @Crimson Longinus might feel that the far more likely 80% is where the PC will fall.

We are all human and even if every circumstance is the same in the game, we have had different real life experiences which will color how we view the game circumstances. It can't be helped. However, whichever way it goes, the result will be a reasonable conclusion based on the circumstances.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

But in essence if there's a situation where no one budges and there's no way for it to be resolved. Then that just is the situation. The story ends with The Squire and Sir James forever jostling over Violet's affection.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that, as participants, if none of us budges the game forever stalls? Really?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'll make it even simpler in that case:

Let's say that we are playing Curse of Strahd, second session.

On our first session we found the truth about Ireena Kolyana (the reincarnation of Tatyana, the girl whom Stradh fell in love with) and we kidnapped her. The session ends the moment Strahd arrives. Let's say @Maxperson was GMing that one.

For our second session, @Maxperson leaves the game due to other commitments and you @Crimson Longinus step in as a GM.

As the second session begins, Stradh arrives and, me as the Barbarian yell out: "We have your beloved Tatyana. Leave this land or we'll give her to the werewolves."

Given that everything else is equal in terms of the narrative: The events of the first session were recounted to you or maybe you were present as spectator, the write-up for Stradh was available to you as part of the adventure perhaps even with @Maxperson's personal notes and ideas for him. You and Max both share a common sense.

What is the likelihood that you will come up with the same decision about how Stradh will react as @Maxperson would have if he were still GMing?

I can't answer that. Obviously all the shared information significantly increases the likelihood that the direction will be similar, but there is no guarantees. Also, given that we cannot split timelines in reality we also do not know what decisions Max would have done had he ran it.

I am not quite sure where this is going?

Like different people will produce different interpretations of a same character, that is hardly surprising.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that, as participants, if none of us budges the game forever stalls? Really?

What is this stalling you're imagining? How does it actually manifest in the game table?

 

[thefutilist]

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that, as participants, if none of us budges the game forever stalls? Really?

In hindsight I should have used a different word than stalling because of it's implications here. Two people locked in conflict where neither budge isn't stalling, it's just the situation. If there's no give anywhere else then the situation is stable and that's the story.

 

[Maxperson]

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that, as participants, if none of us budges the game forever stalls? Really?

That's what it looks like he is saying, but I don't agree with that. The fact that you are playing an RPG means that you have a DM, resolution mechanics, or both to rely on. I don't see a situation where the game stalls like that.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

We are all human and even if every circumstance is the same in the game, we have had different real life experiences which will color how we view the game circumstances. It can't be helped. However, whichever way it goes, the result will be a reasonable conclusion based on the circumstances.

@Crimson Longinus:
"Like different people will produce different interpretations of a same character, that is hardly surprising."

Exactly! This is my point. Each person introduces bias into their process of decision making.

Previous posts in this thread have led me to believe that you guys think that you are not tipping the balance one way or another when you are acting on behalf of an NPC, as if you were perfect extrapolators of fictional seeds, but you do! We all do.

So, even when you say that you are making reasonable conclusions based on circumstances and pre-established (often secret) details, these conclusions and actions carry YOUR own personal judgements and assessments of the situation. Some other reasonable person may arrive at a different judgements and assessments.

My main point is that it is impossible for you to make these decisions and carry this so called "internal logic" with the intent of "getting it right" towards the NPC's personality (aka "Be Authentic), and at same time advocate and play towards the outcomes that the character wants. It's a conflict of interest. One must give.

Vincent Baker talks about it here: anyway: A Moment of Judgment

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Furthermore, I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that if indeed this is the way you guys play, then what is happening is that you are selectively choosing when to give X and when to give Y.

When the PC works hard for it, or you are bored and you don't see a way out, you give up on what the NPC wants and justify in its internal logic, retroactively, why they gave up.

When you are not ready to budge and the outcome matters to you as much as to your NPCs, you are willing to compromise on "fairness" and be a bit more liberal in your interpretation of what's internally logical for that character.

Sorry if this is a bit brash, but I do really think it's what's happening, if indeed that's how you play.