D&D 5E Persuasion - How powerful do you allow it to be?

[Celebrim]

We've (ENWorld at large, you and I and others) had this conversation a lot before, it seems.

Maybe? I don't remember, but that could explain why I'm reluctant to debate this.

As best I can tell, its a byproduct of looking at a game's component pieces individually rather than the game holistically as an integrated system, while simultaneously assuming a causality chain litmus test for "nonsensical" is bound to be violated.

As best as I can tell, that's a long bit of jargon and I'm not sure what you are trying to say and not feeling up to the effort to decipher it.

I think, overwhelmingly, much of the conversation around 4e suffered this (and is the same reason why some people are inexplicably puzzled by the truism that 5e cannot recognizably reproduce a 4e game, despite being possessed of more than a few recognizable, component parts of the game).

You know, I think part of the problem here is that you've had a ton of long conversations about this and when I say some thing you're referencing this huge reservoir of emotions, thoughts, terms of art, and debates that I'm really not a part of so that it feels like you are not only starting a conversation with me, but continuing a conversation with a half-dozen other people.

In context of each particular game (no matter what game it is that uses Story Now techniques for the game's propulsion), the idea of "prioritizing the mechanics that create the fiction over the fiction itself" just doesn't make sense.

You know, I can't speak for every game out there but that's what I've observed from examples of play and even from the books themselves. Obviously, there are any number of games out there I'm not familiar with, and you are vastly more prepared to talk about 'Blades in the Dark' than I am, but then your whole 'Blades in the Dark' example seems like such an incredibly tangential thing that I hardly know why you bring it up or why think it would demonstrate something. Ok, so I'm not really familiar with this whole 'Flashbacks' thing, but I do have this feat in my D&D game the last 10 years:

MASTERMIND [GENERAL, EXPERT, PARAGON]
You have a contingency plan for everything.
Prerequisites: Int 15
Benefit: Once per round as an immediate action, you may spend a destiny point to describe a contingency plan for this exact situation. You are allowed to declare that at some point in the past in which you were not otherwise engaged and not observed or otherwise would not have aroused suspicion, that your character performed any one action which they could have performed at that time. You must immediately pay whatever costs if any that action incurred and mark them off at this time, but you immediately gain the benefits of that action either directly or in terms have having altered the environment. This action declaration cannot retroactively alter any prior event, and must have had no other observable consequences until this very moment, and the action in question must either have had no chance of failure or been the sort of action the character could have taken 10 or taken 20 to achieve. For example, a player may declare that at some point when he wasn’t observed within the last 10 minutes he cast Mage Armor on himself using one of his available spells slots. This action would not stop the character from receiving any prior hits that might have missed his now higher AC, including those that occurred earlier even in the same round, but would immediately take effect with respect to all future actions. Example of actions include having cast a spell at some point in the past, having purchased any small item from a shop, having dropped, picked up, or hid an item, having locked or unlocked a door, having memorized a different but known spell rather than one of the ones he normally prepares, having activated a magical item or quaffed a potion, having written a short note, having whispered something to another character, or having readied an item for use. The DM has the final say as to whether the action is appropriate. If the DM overrules an action, he is not required to explain why, but the destiny point is not spent and a different action may be declared at the player’s option.

So, I could imagine a game where I tweak the rules such that effectively every PC gets that as a starting bonus feat. And yeah, I don't see that as particularly revolutionary or impactful. Now my D&D game can do the 'Flashback' thing you are talking about for 'Blades in the Dark'. So what? If I did that... ?!?!? You spend a whole lot of time telling me how this mechanic works, but why?

I don't see how the above would inherently make a 5e game or a 5e game's fiction suddenly go wobbly

Or a 3e game, obviously. Your point?

I just don't even see what your post has to do with anything. Nothing you've said here rings a bell. What are you trying to say?

 

[ClaytonCross]

Dex is not the god state, Charisma is!! With enough Charisama and Expirtise in persuation I can defeat any foe!! Deflect any attack!! and win any battle!!

I will simply tell them they should give up and they shall lay down their arms!! I will tell magic missiles to attach their own caster and command armies to walk off cliffs or surrender!!

.... Yep I know those players but its not usually a big deal, they usually spend all their time trying to pich up bar maids in the towns we visit and to get discounts on magic items but then any time it would actuallly be useful they are sleeping waiting for the rest of the party to finish combat so they can find another bar maid. Or they want to go to browthal two combine the two. There is never a browthal and I have not intention of roll playing a barmade suduction. "you role, you have a great night, what are the other players doing? Something interesting I hope or can we skip to the leaving town part?"

 

[Campbell]

I do not think it is helpful to address any roleplaying game mechanic or rule (including directives on how to play) in terms of need. No one needs any rules whatsoever to role play, We can resolve anything in the fiction simply through consensus.

There are plenty of reasons why going to mechanics may be desirable. Think about the combat mechanics in any mainstream role playing game. What are their purpose? We have established that we could just talk it out, but we don't? Why is that? First off because sometimes consensus is boring. We want to feel the drama of the moment. The player characters are in mortal danger and things might not go well for them. The mechanics help us experience the story as an audience. Another reason we have mechanics is they might help us as players experience what our characters are going through on some level. This is why hit points are a good mechanic despite being horrible simulation because they help us feel like we're losing fight when they go low and we feel restored when that cleric casts a healing spell. Another crucial element and what I consider most important is that they bring in the possibility of the unwanted, an outcome that no one at the table would choose, but is still compelling when it happens. Like no one at the table wants Veras to die, but we accept it because given the decisions he made and the risks he took that was the price he had to pay.

The same largely goes for social interaction mechanics in games. We might desire for there to be meaningful tension and risk that we all can feel so we can step out and view the situation like we're watching a good drama. Often these mechanics can help us feel what our characters are going through emotionally like the Strings in Monsterhearts that represent others having social power over us or Intimacies in Exalted that represent the weight of intense passions that we put at risk in fraught exchanges. The unwelcome also has its part to play here. Maybe Veras is convinced to abandon a comrades so he can go back and help defend his hometown.

Here's the thing. These mechanics are not designed for story creation primarily. They are designed so that we all get to experience the story in motion. Our shared experience is what's most important. I find these games can help us create some pretty compelling stories, but the purpose of play and where I believe roleplaying games really excel is helping us experience the drama of the moment on a much more primal level. We get to feel what these characters our feeling and experience the drama knowing no one is in control or curating the experience.

What we choose to use mechanics for is pretty important and so is which mechanics we choose to use. Obviously if we don't find the results compelling we should not use that particular set of mechanics. I can only share my experiences here. When I play a game about teenage superheroes using a game like Mutants and Masterminds I feel more disconnected from the emotions of my character and team comradery than I do when playing Masks. However the tension of the super heroics feels more meaningful in Mutants and Masterminds. It's all about finding where the tension should be. I'm going to be taking a break from my story games shortly to run a game of Pathfinder 2e which lacks social interaction mechanics to influence the PCs and I think that's the right call for that game. It's primarily a game of heroic fantasy. In most heroic fantasy the heroes motivations inform the story, but they are not a point of meaningful tension like they are in Exalted which is a combination of greek tragedy and shonen anime with characters consumed by great passions.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]

My post was trying to have a discussion about the premise of mechanics of the type I quoted creating nonsensical fiction. It looked to me like you were kind of harkening to the “dissociated mechanics” theory of yore...or at least something related to it.

I felt like Flashbacks had a lot to lend to that conversation, seeing as how advocates of that theory felt that “dissociated mechanics” tend toward downstream nonsense because of causal/continuity chain issues they perceived would/should arise during play. Given that Flashbacks are actually out of causal/continuity relationships (established in the moment and effectively backdated), I figured they had work to do here.

But if my post was completely impenetrable then just don’t sweat it.

 

[Celebrim]

My post was trying to have a discussion about the premise of mechanics of the type I quoted creating nonsensical fiction. It looked to me like you were kind of harkening to the “dissociated mechanics” theory of yore...or at least something related to it.

Certainly not intentionally or consciously. I don't particularly like dissociated mechanics either, but that wasn't the main thrust of my thinking. To get the main thrust of my thinking, rather than harkening back to some other discussion, consider the statement that I was responding to in the context of this discussion about the play processes around attempts to persuade. Note that I advanced the theory that much of the problems could be solved by close consideration to the factors involved that made persuasion difficult, things such as the character of the NPC. The statement that I'm responding to said in effect, "No, we learn the character of the NPC from the result of the mechanics without respect to preexisting fiction. Fiction isn't the input to the process but the output."

Consider then exactly what you are defending or trying to refute, particularly with respect to the real game examples the OP provided.

I felt like Flashbacks had a lot to lend to that conversation, seeing as how advocates of that theory felt that “dissociated mechanics” tend toward downstream nonsense because of causal/continuity chain issues they perceived would/should arise during play. Given that Flashbacks are actually out of causal/continuity relationships (established in the moment and effectively backdated), I figured they had work to do here.

Well, that's a real tangent to the conversation, and I can't really speak to the argument you're having with whomever you are having with it, but for my part I would say that the Flashback mechanic and the "Mastermind" feat that I have in my own game are not dissociated mechanics at all and so your whole line of argument misses the point. Despite the fact that both allow the person to make statements about the past in the middle of play, both have a number of restrictions on the them that are designed to tightly associate them to the fiction by allowing actions that could only be plausibly explained by actions that could have occurred in the fiction.

Moreover, the issue of dissociated mechanics is not strongly related in my opinion to the problem of a player making statements about the past or making statements about anything other than the actions of his character. We could neatly define player statements into four groups - dissociated/not dissociated, choice of character ("propositions")/force over the fiction ("calls") - and things would fall into all four categories. I don't know what conversations you had in the past, but in terms of the sort of statements I refer to as "calls" my biggest problem with them is when they aren't mechanically regulated by the system, and that's solely because I think that fiat power in the hands of a player rather than a referee is antithetical to most of the aesthetics of a game which are generally defined by the limited resources available to the player. I don't think they are more or less likely to be dissociated than a proposition.

For that matter, I haven't really decided whether a "Flashback" is a call or a proposition. I'm leaning toward thinking that it is a proposition, and the only difference about it is that it is retroactive - the player makes a proposition about something that the player could have done in the past "off camera". So really it's just a sort of associated proposition. Why would I have a problem with them provided the game regulated and limited their usage? As you said, they could fit happily into game of D&D, and for that matter they date as far back in D&D in some forms to the 1980's. Kenders had a "Flashback" ability related to their kleptomaniac acquisition of items, that allowed them to assert that they had off camera acquired something in the past useful to the present situation.

It's not that your post its impenetrable so much as I still have no idea what the motivations were for it, except that I disagree that "Flashbacks" actually are outside of continuity relationships. You aren't allowed to make a Flashback that breaks continuity, despite the fact that it is "backdated" action.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll be honest, I had the plot confused with some other Jet Li films. The Emperor as PC does make a good deal of sense, as he drives a lot of the confrontation, though I still see Nameless as a good candidate. Sword less so, but possibly.

It does reinforce that it would be extremely unlikely for that story to occur in D&D without force -- there's no suitable conflict resolution available outside GM decides.

I've seen many similar situations over the years in D&D. Most of the time, all the Emperor has to do is start talking to the PC and the PC will stop and talk back. Sometimes the PC will not go through with the assassination. It depends on how persuasive the Emperor(DM) is with the counter offers and explanations about why it would be bad to kill him. No force is needed to create a situation where the PC might not kill the Emperor.

 

[Celebrim]

I do not think it is helpful to address any roleplaying game mechanic or rule (including directives on how to play) in terms of need. No one needs any rules whatsoever to role play, We can resolve anything in the fiction simply through consensus.

I disagree. I have always believed or been taught that the reason we need rules in an RPG is precisely to resolve situations where we don't have consensus. Since it is impossible to always have consensus about the direction a story is going in, we need agreed upon rules. The iconic example is two kids playing cops and robbers, who reach the impasse, "*Bang* I shot you!", "No you didn't, you missed.", and in doing so find that they need some sort of rule.

Ironically, I feel you go on to describe several other good reasons we need rules.

 

[Celebrim]

I've seen many similar situations over the years in D&D. Most of the time, all the Emperor has to do is start talking to the PC and the PC will stop and talk back. Sometimes the PC will not go through with the assassination. It depends on how persuasive the Emperor(DM) is with the counter offers and explanations about why it would be bad to kill him. No force is needed to create a situation where the PC might not kill the Emperor.

Even less force is required if the Emperor is the PC, since the GM could have already decided that the assassin confesses to the PC he's been thinking hard about his life and his mission and is not the man who started out the journey. It's been a few years since I watched the movie, but as I recall the scene there really wasn't a charisma test going on here. The assassin was absorbing the lessons of his journey and the deaths he'd caused on his way to this moment.

Nothing prevents a PC from doing this, and the best way to arrange this is not through any sort of mechanical force, but simply good storytelling. Is the bad guy sympathetic? Pull a twist here. Do a reveal. Alter the player's perspective on the fiction. There are plenty of stories where the PC hates the bad guy, only to discover the bad guy isn't a bad guy. There are plenty of heel face turns in fiction. But it's only good story telling when it is earned, and it's very unlikely to be earned if primarily game mechanics were involved.

This tension between the mission of the good guys and the mission of the bad guys has been a central theme of my current campaign. The bad guy in his encounters with the PC's repeatedly tells them that they are pawns, dupes, slaves, and villains - not even the villains, just the minions of villains - and that he not they is the hero to the story. This would just be insane ranting except the longer the story goes, the more collateral damage the PC's are piling up in their pursuit of the villain, the more obviously they are just as bad as the bad guy, and the more they understand the villains real motives and intentions the less cut and dried they see him. Am I actually going to get the PC's to switch sides? Probably not, in part because their is a cleric in the party with strong motives not to side with someone that thinks the gods are all evil villains, but they are certainly now chewing what the villain has said more thoughtfully. And just at the moment, they are on a mission to rescue the villain rather than kill him, turning the relationship on its head a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

Even less force is required if the Emperor is the PC, since the GM could have already decided that the assassin confesses to the PC he's been thinking hard about his life and his mission and is not the man who started out the journey. It's been a few years since I watched the movie, but as I recall the scene there really wasn't a charisma test going on here. The assassin was absorbing the lessons of his journey and the deaths he'd caused on his way to this moment.

Nothing prevents a PC from doing this, and the best way to arrange this is not through any sort of mechanical force, but simply good storytelling. Is the bad guy sympathetic? Pull a twist here. Do a reveal. Alter the player's perspective on the fiction. There are plenty of stories where the PC hates the bad guy, only to discover the bad guy isn't a bad guy. There are plenty of heel face turns in fiction. But it's only good story telling when it is earned, and it's very unlikely to be earned if primarily game mechanics were involved.

This tension between the mission of the good guys and the mission of the bad guys has been a central theme of my current campaign. The bad guy in his encounters with the PC's repeatedly tells them that they are pawns, dupes, slaves, and villains - not even the villains, just the minions of villains - and that he not they is the hero to the story. This would just be insane ranting except the longer the story goes, the more collateral damage the PC's are piling up in their pursuit of the villain, the more obviously they are just as bad as the bad guy, and the more they understand the villains real motives and intentions the less cut and dried they see him. Am I actually going to get the PC's to switch sides? Probably not, in part because their is a cleric in the party with strong motives not to side with someone that thinks the gods are all evil villains, but they are certainly now chewing what the villain has said more thoughtfully. And just at the moment, they are on a mission to rescue the villain rather than kill him, turning the relationship on its head a bit.

I agree. One of my favorite examples of this was a very long time ago. 1e I think. The party was hired by the King to kill the leader of a rebellion that threatened his rule. The PCs took the job and snuck into the rebel camp and eventually confronted the rebel leader. The rebel leader explained how the King had been doing some very bad things and that's why they were rebelling, not only talking the party out of killing him, but getting them to agree to take out the King as well. Once the party made its way back and confronted the King, he explained how he was doing his bad things in response to other bad things that the rebels had initiated, creating a situation where both sides had since reasons for doing some really messed up things to each other and confusing the hell out of the party which now had to figure out which side, if any, they wanted to support. The party eventually threw its hands up in the air and told the King he would have to figure it out himself and left the situation to resolve itself, assassinating neither leader.

 

[Sadras]

That grey area exists in B10 when the party learns the history between the Hutaakans and the Traldars.

I'm currently running such a scenario where the party has, for the moment, teamed up with the Traldars and Golthar (long story) while on the other side the Hutaakans have teamed up with someone (called Alexi) who betrayed Golthar previously and one of the PCs along time ago.
The PCs was a pirate who was betrayed by an underling, Alexi, to the authorities. He served his time and turned his life around, found religion and became a cleric. Does the Cleric now side with an ex-Iron Ring member Golthar or the one who betrayed him but ultimately led him on a path of faith. And then you have Traldars and the Hutaakans in the mix and there is more...

Neither side has been painted bad, both sides have their faults and the PCs are just as confused which way to go.