D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[pemerton]

This is pretty blatantly a false equivalence. Control due to magic/supernatural abilities is not at all the same as someone talking to you or the DM telling you how your PC feels about something mundane.

You are talking here about the content of the fiction. But the poster I replied to was talking about which game participant has authority over which elements of the fiction:

My character’s mind, on the other hand, is mine and mine alone. I’ll no more let the GM tell me that I find an NPC persuasive than I will allow them to tell me I find the orc’s max damage crit roll intimidating.

If someone insists that the content of their PC's mind is something that they are the sole author of, it follows that they must not use Charm and Fear effects in their RPGing - because in standard D&D rules these permit someone other than the player to determine the content of the PC's mind.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you have a conception of character before play that is inviolate and play is expected to facilitate (rather than dispute or test) your portrayal/conception, then the sort of social conflict mechanics invoked by the thread aren’t something you’re going to be interested in (from prior conversation, that is roughly where you land).

Those kinds of social conflict mechanics will entail a level of “system’s say” and “other participants say” that will influence your player prerogatives and character conception (which is the point!).

Yes. And I don’t like that.

Thought the character can still be tested and they can evolve, it just happens via my mental model of them interacting with the fictional reality rather than via mechanics. I want to avoid situation where my mental model says one thing and the mechanics another. That is very jarring to me and takes me out of the game.

 

[pemerton]

Outside of some sort of magical/chemical control of the PCs, players in RPGs have agency over what their PCs think, say and do(or at least attempt to do).

This is obviously false of many RPGs.

 

[Maxperson]

Not always true. My Spire campaign saw our Knight PC go through quite the transformation over the course of play.

He started off as a hardened killer, willing to do harsh things that others would balk at. He had an altruistic squire who was eager to please him.

As a result of play, the squire was killed in the first battle the Knight let him be involved in. This left the Knight with an ongoing mental consequence called “Permanently Weird”. We decided that he continued to see and speak to his dead Squire in social situations. He could suppress this if he wanted, but it required that he take some Mind Stress.

Before long, he suffered another Fallout as a result of play. This was the “Dying” Fallout. It gives the player the option to either take one final action with an advantage and then die, or else claw their way back to life, but to come back changed in some way. We decided that the Knight’s mind basically shattered at this point, and he actually believed that he was the Squire. The Squire “ghost” took over and the player played him as an altruistic young man rather than the hardened killer the Knight was.

So a total shift from the character’s starting disposition and traits. It had a huge impact on play, and was central to the events that followed.

It would never have happened in a game like D&D where the character concept is inviolate and is never at risk in play.

Two things. First, from the bolded portion it seems that you were in on the decision for this to happen. That means that your agency was preserved. Second, I disagree with the last assertion. I have roleplay out such changes myself to circumstances like those, and have seen players do the same many times. It just isn't forced by the DM or placed at risk via system rules in D&D.

Are there such games? Is anyone advocating for such an extreme take? From what I’ve read most folks seem to be speaking more about PCs being susceptible to outside influence in some way, or for a system that at least approaches that in some way.

Below are a few quotes from @Reynard that imply that it could have that effect.

"In general I wouldn't use it for coerced behavior as often as I would for giving up info and winning or losing arguments."

"It would preserve exactly as much agency as physical combat -- which is to say, whatever the group agreed upon when choosing to play the game."

Not as often implies that it would be used that way sometimes, and as physical combat can force unconsciousness and death, the implication is that the social combat could force action and belief.

 

[Maxperson]

You are talking here about the content of the fiction. But the poster I replied to was talking about which game participant has authority over which elements of the fiction:
If someone insists that the content of their PC's mind is something that they are the sole author of, it follows that they must not use Charm and Fear effects in their RPGing - because in standard D&D rules these permit someone other than the player to determine the content of the PC's mind.

I don't know the context that whoever you were speaking with was using, but typically when people are arguing about sole control over what their PCs believe and say, it's in the context of mundane interaction. Magic/supernatural abilities such as charm and fear are usually perceived as exceptions to the rule.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are there such games? Is anyone advocating for such an extreme take? From what I’ve read most folks seem to be speaking more about PCs being susceptible to outside influence in some way, or for a system that at least approaches that in some way.

Yes, there are such games. In Exalted 2e you can eventually convince people to do basically anything.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Does that mean that when you play D&D you don't use Charm, Fear and similar effects?

Scroll (well, page) up.

 

[Reynard]

Below are a few quotes from @Reynard that imply that it could have that effect.

"In general I wouldn't use it for coerced behavior as often as I would for giving up info and winning or losing arguments."

"It would preserve exactly as much agency as physical combat -- which is to say, whatever the group agreed upon when choosing to play the game."

Not as often implies that it would be used that way sometimes, and as physical combat can force unconsciousness and death, the implication is that the social combat could force action and belief.

If folks involved set the stakes, then nothing can be a violation. if a player says, "Fine, if I lose then my character is going to grudgingly accept the terms presented by the king, but if I win the Guild Master has to do the same," then no one is losing agency even if the mechanics result in changing the character's mind.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes. And I don’t like that.

Thought the character can still be tested and they can evolve, it just happens via my mental model of them interacting with the fictional reality rather than via mechanics. I want to avoid situation where my mental model says one thing and the mechanics another. That is very jarring to me and takes me out of the game.

Yup!

This is pretty much what I was saying. There is no getting around it. Folks of the cognitive orientation toward gaming broadly and resolution mechanics specifically aren’t the audience for this kind of stuff.

They do a different thing than what you want and (a) one of the primary points of play is that PCs are not inviolate by sheer player prerogative. And (b) it’s not only not adversarial GMing to provoke and prod PCs (and their players through that prodding/provocation) along the lines of the things they care about (ethos and relationships etc), it’s fundamental to your job as a GM!

(A) and (b) above are not what certain gamers are looking for. We definitely know that (we seem to always get testimonials in this kind of conversation where folks volunteer that…often repeatedly).

But if you’re looking for the sort of “social conflict mechanics” that the lead post is talking about then you’re assuming (a) and (b) as a function of design (because social conflict engages with who you are, who you think you are, who you aspire to be, what you care about, who you care about).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Two things. First, from the bolded portion it seems that you were in on the decision for this to happen. That means that your agency was preserved.

I was the GM. The rules dictated that these things happen as a result of play (when you take Stress in Spire, you risk Fallout; the more Stress you take, the greater the chance and the more severe the Fallout). I included the player in the decision on how the Fallout manifested specifically for his character.

You are right that his agency was preserved in that these are the rules of the game and this is what’s at risk. But his ability to always determine his character’s mental state was not preserved. That’s a different thing than agency.

Second, I disagree with the last assertion. I have roleplay out such changes myself to circumstances like those, and have seen players do the same many times. It just isn't forced by the DM or placed at risk via system rules in D&D.

So one time I decided a PC I played had a heart attack and died.

Would you say this is as meaningful as when a PC dies in combat or otherwise through play that isn’t entirely up to the player?

I’d say there’s a meaningful enough difference to view them as similar, but distinct.

Below are a few quotes from @Reynard that imply that it could have that effect.

"In general I wouldn't use it for coerced behavior as often as I would for giving up info and winning or losing arguments."

"It would preserve exactly as much agency as physical combat -- which is to say, whatever the group agreed upon when choosing to play the game."

Not as often implies that it would be used that way sometimes, and as physical combat can force unconsciousness and death, the implication is that the social combat could force action and belief.

The way those read to me, I see more inference on your part than implication on @Reynard ’s.

Yes, there are such games. In Exalted 2e you can eventually convince people to do basically anything.

I’m only familiar with the game by discussion. How does it do that? And is that intentional? You say “eventually” so is it at some late stage of the game?