NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Crimson Longinus]

@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.

Yeah, so what? Certainly every GM brings their own voice, their own artistic flair. Just like every player does. This is a feature, not a bug.

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

That's the job of the GM, my friend. Furthermore, I don't think the conflict you imply is particularly severe. It is the GM who chose the personality, goals and the motivations of the NPC in the first place. It is quite possible that when that was done, it was considered what sort of a NPC would be good for making things interesting for the players, and this of course involves considering their characters.

Also, you seem to be very occupied about the internal life of NPCs. I have said many times that I do not treat those the same than I do PCs. PCs have players who are immersed into the characters, who are "experts" on this one character, and whose main avenue of agency this one character is. It just is not the same situation with the NPCs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

No. I just do not craft games that can get "stuck" if one path gets blocked. I think you are envisioning the sort of linear games where certain things must occur for the "plot" to proceed, and there is no other direction for the things to go. I try to avoid situations like that.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Yeah, so what? Certainly every GM brings their own voice, their own artistic flair. Just like every player does. This is a feature, not a bug.

I totally agree with you, that in itself isn't problematic at all.

Also, you seem to be very occupied about the internal life of NPCs. I have said many times that I do not treat those the same than I do PCs. PCs have players who are immersed into the characters, who are "experts" on this one character, and whose main avenue of agency this one character is. It just is not the same situation with the NPCs.

Yeah, it's true that you, specifically, have not overly focused on this, but others who share similar views to you have brought and my response is towards that. Sorry for bundling it up!

 

[thefutilist]

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.

This is because you're still conceiving of this whole thing in terms of 'winning' story control. It isn't. It's about mutually finding out.

Here's an experience from a Monsterhearts game.

I really really wanted my character to have some kind of salvation. I was really invested in it. At some point though, I just had to narrate her collapsing down, knowing that she doesn't. Reconciled to the fact that she's going to become a monster.

No mechanics involved

So how does that happen if we have to stop bias? Might there be a stronger countermanding artistic impulse?

 

[Maxperson]

@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

I don't agree with that. We don't need perfection in order to get it right. We just need to play our characters to the best of our ability, and our internal logic with regard to the character and his decisions is sufficient.

 

[Maxperson]

I totally agree with you, that in itself isn't problematic at all.

Yeah, it's true that you, specifically, have not overly focused on this, but others who share similar views to you have brought and my response is towards that. Sorry for bundling it up!

Earlier in the thread I said the same thing he did. I control thousands of NPCs, the loss of agency by allowing deception and persuasion to work on NPCs is miniscule at best. If I allow social skills to work on PCs, the loss of agency to the player of a PC is complete. He has lost 100%.

 

[pemerton]

@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.

No worries at all!

In the actual play, both the knight and the squire were PCs. Because this all happened about 6 years ago my memory for details is hazy, but I don't think either player was inclined to have their PC withdraw from romancing Violette. I don't know who suggested discussing it over a few ales - that could have been me as GM, or one of the players. Obviously some sort of consensus was reached, given that that is what then happened.

As far as the move to the resolution mechanics, Prince Valiant has a canonical fashion for resolving disputes of precedence and the like, set out in the rules precis + example of play on p 4 of the rulebook:

The number on your card under “Fame” indicates who is the most famous, experienced, and important knight. Players, compare Fame numbers, and figure out who has the most Fame. That knight takes precedence over the others, and is the traditional choice for leader of the group. As warriors, you all know that a group should have a leader.

The Adventure Continues: The most famous knight should bow to the others and thank them for recognizing his superiority. If anyone laughs at him or is rude, he may challenge them. The challenge may be either boasting or wrestling. Only a coward knight would refuse a challenge by God’s teeth!​

To wrestle, the two combatants each take a number of coins equal to their knight’s Brawn. If your Brawn is 4, take four coins. When the Storyteller says “begin,” each player shakes his coins together and drops them on a flat surface. Whoever has the most heads showing is the winner. If there is a tie, that round of wrestling is a stalemate; try again.

To boast, use Presence the same way. If your Fame is 1000 points or more greater than your opponent’s Fame, add one coin to your total, to reflect the fact that you have more to boast about.

If you lose, you are intimidated. If you can defeat all the other knights in either boasting or wrestling, you have proven your right to be the leader, even if your Fame is the lowest.

If no one can beat all the others at either task, the knight with the most Fame is the leader.​

In the example of play from my game, the roll was made using Fellowship + Presence. As per the skill description on p 16, Fellowship indicates

how sociable and friendly a character is; how well he or she turns acquaintances into friends. Implies equality with those practiced upon: This skill must be exercised only upon peers . . . Fellowship is an honorable skill, based more upon deeds rather than words, and may not be used for direct gain, unlike the Courtesie skill, which depends on ritual and manners. Prince Valiant often uses Fellowship in his adventures. Fellowship is added to Presence.​

So the use of Fellowship + Presence to resolve the dispute followed from the fact that the two characters were meeting as peers to try and resolve the matter amicably. This is already a choice - a choice to not jeopardise their fellowship over a romantic rivalry.

I don't remember the details of the roleplay, and whether any bonus dice were gained by either character. As per p 23,

Psychological factors such as love, hatred, faith, loyalty, hope, and even sheer desperation are important in real life. Such factors are reflected by morale modifiers in Prince Valiant, the Storytelling Game. The modifiers may be both positive and negative.

Morale can affect both Brawn and Presence. Apply a modifier of 1 when the emotion or passion is strong in intensity. Apply a modifier of 2 for extremely powerful psychological factors.​

But anyway, as per your post:

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?

<snip>

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.

Handily, the game we were playing has such a mechanic!

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

I don't agree with that. We don't need perfection in order to get it right. We just need to play our characters to the best of our ability, and our internal logic with regard to the character and his decisions is sufficient.

My point is that not only you can never achieve a perfect interpretation of a character—because who could even determine what that is? But more importantly, even when playing a character to the best of your ability, you can’t simultaneously be invested in both getting it right and advocating for their outcomes. This becomes especially problematic when the desired outcome for the other player depends on figuring out the very thing you’re supposed to get right in order to achieve what they want. It’s circular.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This is an issue of game design, isn't it?

I mean, we could approach combat the same way - the story ends with A and B forever locked in combat, neither able to best the other. But no RPG that I can think of, off the top of my head, takes this approach - all of them treat combat as a site of some sort of finality in resolution.

Prince Valiant is a game of relatively light-hearted Arthurian romance. It is not designed to have all dispute of precedence lingering forever unresolved. It is certainly not designed to encourage them to escalate to mortal combat. So it has a resolution framework to support some sort of finality in resolution of these disputes.

perhaps the discussion is goes into a less amicable direction and they become enemies.

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."

I'm curious as to how often, in 5e D&D play, rivalries lead to PCs genuinely becoming enemies, or lead to one PC leaving the company.

My sense is that, rather, and as per @Gimby's post a little bit upthread, players subordinate their conception of their character in order to preserve intra-party harmony - or, alternatively, they choose to conceive of their character as valuing the party over whatever other interest has generated the conflict between the two PCs.

 

[pemerton]

Also, you seem to be very occupied about the internal life of NPCs. I have said many times that I do not treat those the same than I do PCs. PCs have players who are immersed into the characters, who are "experts" on this one character, and whose main avenue of agency this one character is. It just is not the same situation with the NPCs.

Unless I've completely misunderstood what @thefutilist is saying over the past few pages, @thefutilist doesn't agree with you in relation to NPCs.

@thefutilist, if I'm wrong and you do agree with @Crimson Longinus that NPCs are not to be played (by the GM, typically) with the same sort of authenticity/advocacy as PCs, then it turns out - in retrospect - that I've not followed your posts at all. (I'm reading your posts in light of other posts you've made in other threads about In A Wicked Age, Apocalypse World and Sorcerer.)