What counts as a detailed enough, permissible action declaration?

[Dessert Nomad]

There've been a series of posts in this thread - of which yours is the most recent - suggesting that changing the hunter's mind about hunting and eating meat is a big deal. I've been struck by this: it seems that most posters in this thread would require much more elaborate action declarations, and play, to bring it about that a PC converts the hunter to vegetarianism than to bring it about that a PC kills the hunter.

Yes, fundamentally changing someone's mind in a way that forces them to give up their current occupation, lifestyle, and diet is generally hard. Meanwhile killing someone is not an overly difficult task, especially with the mismatch in power between PCs and a typical NPC. Think about it IRL - it would take a lot more effort to convince someone to abandon their career, diet, and lifestyle than to just take the gun you're already carrying (PCs typically go around armed) and shoot them. Obviously you'd have significantly more consequences after the fact from shooting someone than from convincing someone to adopt a radically different lifestyle (one is highly illegal, one isn't), but this isn't about consequences down the line.

 

[pemerton]

Arguably, it may be easier to end a life than to change a core belief. (A person’s foodways are often quite deeply rooted.) Ending a life merely requires poking enough holes in the meat sack. Changing a core belief may take quite a bit longer.

Maybe - although it might also take more on the agent's side to bring themselves to kill than to bring themselves to persuade (depending on the details of the individual's psychology).

But changes of mind - changing sides, changing beliefs, unexpected demonstrations of new loyalties - are pretty common tropes in action-adventure stories.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, fundamentally changing someone's mind in a way that forces them to give up their current occupation, lifestyle, and diet is generally hard. Meanwhile killing someone is not an overly difficult task, especially with the mismatch in power between PCs and a typical NPC. Think about it IRL - it would take a lot more effort to convince someone to abandon their career, diet, and lifestyle than to just take the gun you're already carrying (PCs typically go around armed) and shoot them.

Last night I watched Fast & Furious 6. It was hard for Leti to confront Dom. But not hard for Dom to bring her back from Shaw's team to his.

Changes of loyalty are pretty common in a range of adventure genres.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Last night I watched Fast & Furious 6. It was hard for Leti to confront Dom. But not hard for Dom to bring her back from Shaw's team to his.

Changes of loyalty are pretty common in a range of adventure genres.

What you wrote looks like a complete non-sequitor to me - changes in loyalty (especially changing to and then back to a particular group) are much smaller than a fundamental restructuring of someone's life. Switching between one of two similar car-stealing teams and back (which is my guess at what you're talking about after looking at the wiki, since I haven't seen the movie) is very different from convincing someone to change their basic moral system, diet, and career overnight by claiming that what the person currently does is immoral.

Just look at the terminology- if you switch teams of car thieves, you're still a car thief. If you are described as "A hunter" but decide that killing and eating animals is immoral, you've ceased to be a hunter altogether.

 

[pemerton]

What you wrote looks like a complete non-sequitor to me - changes in loyalty (especially changing to and then back to a particular group) are much smaller than a fundamental restructuring of someone's life. Switching between one of two similar car-stealing teams and back (which is my guess at what you're talking about after looking at the wiki, since I haven't seen the movie) is very different from convincing someone to change their basic moral system, diet, and career overnight by claiming that what the person currently does is immoral.

Just look at the terminology- if you switch teams of car thieves, you're still a car thief. If you are described as "A hunter" but decide that killing and eating animals is immoral, you've ceased to be a hunter altogether.

That's not an accurate account of the film, but I won't spell out the details.

Instead I'll offer another example: in RotJ Darth Vader betrays his Emperor to help his son, who - up until that point - he's been trying to hand over to the Emperor.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Instead I'll offer another example: in RotJ Darth Vader betrays his Emperor to help his son, who - up until that point - he's been trying to hand over to the Emperor.

This is factually wrong; in ESB Vader says "Luke, you can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny! Join me, and together, we can rule the galaxy as father and son!" He was ready to betray the Emperor with his son before RotJ was even written. Convincing a Sith to betray a Sith is about as difficult convincing a Catholic to take Communion, their religion/philosophy is based around the idea of 'might makes right' and each of the two is always planning to betray or to be betrayed by the other one.

And AGAIN I don't see what this or the previous example has to do with the difficulty in convincing a hunter to give up his entire career, diet, and moral system on the basis of a conversation.

 

[pemerton]

This is factually wrong; in ESB Vader says "Luke, you can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny! Join me, and together, we can rule the galaxy as father and son!" He was ready to betray the Emperor with his son before RotJ was even written.

But not to betray him as happened in RotJ. It's not a power-play; it's a redemption.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

But not to betray him as happened in RotJ. It's not a power-play; it's a redemption.

Overthrowing the Emperor is betraying him, and Vader was shown planning to do so in the second movie. Since I don't even see what your examples are supposed to show, I'm dropping this line of conversation unless you explain how it's even related to the disucssion.

 

[uzirath]

I probably wouldn’t model an incident like Vader’s redemption with a single action declaration in a ttrpg. I would expect some sort of skill challenge requiring a build-up over time.

 

[pemerton]

I probably wouldn’t model an incident like Vader’s redemption with a single action declaration in a ttrpg. I would expect some sort of skill challenge requiring a build-up over time.

Do you mean time in the fiction, or at the table?

And is it relevant if we step down the centrality of the character? In The Empire Strikes Back, Lando's move from betrayer to ally happens pretty quickly.

In my Classic Traveller game a good chunk of the "secondary" PCs - characters who are part of the players' positions and who, in classic D&D, might be counted as "henchmen" - were once opponents but changed sides for various reasons (being defeated; tagging along with a boss who changed sides; having a crush on one of the PCs; etc). I don't think anyone in the group would have wanted to give each of those it's own extended treatment as a focus of play.